Diss Dassanayake

Experimental and Numerical Modelling of
the Hydraulic Stability of Geotextile Sand Containers

for Coastal Protection
Von der
Fakultät Architektur, Bauingenieurwesen und Umweltwissenschaften
der Technischen Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina
zu Braunschweig
zur Erlangung des Grades einer

Doktoringenieur (Dr.-Ing.)
eingereichte
Dissertation
von
Darshana T. B. D. Dassanayake Mudiyanselage
geboren am 29.12.1977
aus Kurunegala, Sri Lanka
Eingereicht am: 12. April 2013

Disputation am: 02. Juli 2013
Berichterstatter: Prof. Hocine Oumeraci

Prof. Adam Bezuijen
2013
Prreface i
Prreface
Several series of experimental and numeerical modelling on thee hydraulic stability off geotex-
tile sandd containers were carrried out at L
Leichtweisss Institute, Technische
T Universität Braun-
schweigg, Germanyy (LWI). LW WI and NA AUE GmbH H & Co. KG G are grateffully acknowledged
for theirr financial support
s to conduct
c the laboratory investigatio
i ons. Financiial support provided
p
for mysself to pursuue my PhD in Germanny by Germ man Academ mic Exchangge Service (DAAD)
(
is greatlly acknowleedged.
I wouldd like to exppress my deeep gratitudee to my PhD

D supervisorr, Prof. Dr.--Ing. Hocinee Oume-
raci, whho gave me this opporttunity to connduct my PhD
P at LWII and alloweed me to usse the la-
boratoryy facilities to perform various exxperimental studies. Also his valuuable guidaance and
spendinng his precioous time on
n discussionns and on coorrecting thee thesis etc. are highly appreci-
ated.
I am verry much thaankful to all LWI stafff for their asssistance an

nd friendshipp during my
y stay in
Germanny. Also, valuable
v adv
vices from Dr.-Ing. Andreas
A Koortenhaus an
and kind caare from
Ms. Gabbriele Fournnier are high
hly appreciaated.
Finally I like to exppress my grratitude deeeply from th

he heart to my
m parents w who have been con-
tinuouslly supportinng and encoouraging mee during my y studies, an
nd speciallyy to my wife
fe Dilani,
for her ppatience, enncouragemeent and suppport during my
m study peeriod.
July 20113 / Braunschweig, Geermany Darshan

na T. B. D. Dassanayakke Mudiyan
nselage
Kuurzfassung ii
Ku
urzfassu
ung
Vielseitiige und innoovative Lösungen für ddie Bemessu ung effektiver Küstenscchutzbauwerk ke sowie
Verstärkkung existieerender, bed drohter Küsstenbarrierenn werden benötigt.
b D
Dies beinhaltet auch
Dünenveerstärkungenn und Kolksschutzmaßnah ahmen. Sand dcontainer auus Geotextililien (GSC) sind
s eine
günstigee, flexible und reversible Lösung, die schon mehr als 50 Jahre im marinen und wasserb baulichen
Bereich Anwendungg findet. Vielle erfolgreichhe Küstenschutzprojektee mit GSCs w wurden welttweit, vor
allem inn Australien und Deutsch hland, ausgeeführt. Trotzddem befindeen sich GSCCs immer nocch in der
Entwickklung und es sind bisher keine
k Richtliinien zur Bem
messung von n GSC-Bauw werken auf Grundlage
G
wissenscchaftlicher Erkenntnisse
E vorhanden. AAufgrund deer Beweglichhkeit und derr geringen Dichte von
GSCs im m Vergleich zu Steinsch hüttungen odder Betonform msteinen verrhalten sich GSCs anderrs. Daher
sind auchh die bewährrten Bemessu ungsansätze für Gesteinssschüttungen
n nicht anwenndbar.
Die vorlliegende Arbbeit ist fokussiert auf die Evaluierungg der Einflüssse der wichttigsten Eigen
nschaften
auf die hhydraulische Stabilität vo
on GSC-Bauuwerken sow wie der Entwiicklung einees neuen Anssatzes zur
Vorhersaage der hyddraulischen Stabilität
S voon Kronen-GGSCs von Unterwasser-
U bzw. sehr niedrigen
n
GSC- Baauwerken. DieD wichtigsteen Eigenschaaften von GS SCs sind die mechanischhen Eigensch haften des
Geotextiils, der Fülllstand, die Art des Füüllmaterials und die Oberflächenra
O auigkeit. Taatsächlich
beeinflusssen die meeisten dieser Eigenschafften die Defformation deer GSCs undd die Beweg gung des
Sandes innerhalb deer Containerr. Vor allem m interagiereen die Effekkte der einzzelnen Eigen nschaften
miteinannder. Die Bedeutung
B dieser
d Aspekkte wurde in vielen Studien
S undd Projekten weltweit
hervorgeehoben. Trottzdem sind die
d Kenntnissse über den Einfluss
E des Füllstands, dder Eigenschhaften des
Füllmateerials und die
d Oberfläcchenrauigkeitt der GSCs auf die hy ydraulische Stabilität voon GSC-
Bauwerkken sehr geriing.
Zunächsst wurde der Wissensstan nd zu den beetreffenden Eigenschafte

E en von GSC Cs und ihremm Einfluss
auf die Stabilität von
v GSC-Bauwerken uund bestehen nde hydraullische Stabiilitätsansätzee kritisch
bewertett. Anschließeend wurden vier spezielll entwickeltee Experimennte durchgefüührt, welche Einblick
in den Einfluss der d oben genannten
g E
Eigenschaften n auf GSC C-Bauwerke gewährte und die
Randbeddingung für die numeriscche Modellieerung der Sttabilität festlegte. Untersschiedliche Arten
A von
Experimmenten wurrden durch hgeführt: zzwei Laborexperimentee (Fall- und Zugv versuche),
kleinmaßßstäbliche Wellenkanalv
W versuche (hyydraulische Stabilität)
S un
nd Versuchee im Strömu ungskanal
(Durchläässigkeit). Weiterhin
W wuurden numerrische Simullationen der GSC-Bauw werke mit Hiilfe eines
schwachh gekoppeltenn RANS-VO OF und FEM M-DEM Mod dells durchgeeführt. Dies w
war die bestmögliche
Variantee die hydrauulische Stabilität von GS SC-Bauwerk ken innerhalbb der Doktororarbeit numeerisch zu
modellieeren. Zuletztt wurden diee Ergebnissee der experim mentellen unnd numeriscchen Untersu uchungen
zusamm mengeführt unnd neue Stab bilitätskurvenn und einfacche Berechnungsansätze für die hyd draulische
Stabilitäät von Kronenn-GSCs entw
wickelt.
Auch wwenn die meisten frühereen Studien und Richtlin nien einen Füllstand
F voon 80% für GSC im
Küstenbereich empffehlen, ist eiine höhere S Stabilität fürr einen Füllstand von 1100% zu beo obachten.
Desweiteeren erhöhenn geneigt plaatzierte GSCss und Geotex xtilien mit ein
ner höheren Oberflächen nrauigkeit
die hyddraulische Stabilität und d verlangsam
amen auch den Schadeensverlauf. G Generell zeeigen die
numeriscchen Ergebnnisse eine gu ute Übereinsstimmung miit den experrimentellen D Daten. Daher hat das
CFD-CS SD Modell auch
a ein vieelversprecheendes Potenttial zur Anw wendung in der Praxis. Es wird
erwartet,, dass die neu entwiickelten Staabilitätsberecchnungsansätze und Sttabilitätskurv ven eine
Verwenddung von GS SCs im Küsteenbereich beegünstigen.
Abbstract iii
Ab
bstract
More veersatile mateerials and inn novative sollutions are reequired for the
t design oof new, cost effective
shore prrotection struuctures as well
w as for thhe reinforcem ment of exissting threateened coastal barriers,
includinng dune reinnforcement and a scour prrotection. Geotextile
G Saand Containners (GSC) is i a rela-
tively loow cost, softt and reversiible solutionn for the aboove problemm with a histtory of moree than 50
years inn hydraulic and marine applicationns. A range of successfful coastal pprotection structures
using GGSCs has beeen constructted in many parts of thee world, especially in A Australia andd Germa-
ny. Nevvertheless, GSC
G is still an
a emergingg technology y and no pro oper guidelinnes are avaiilable for
the desiggn of GSC-structures on a sound sccientific basse. Due to th he flexibilityy and the lo
ower spe-
cific graavity of GSC
Cs as compaared to rock or concrete armour units, GSCs beehave differeently and
therefore, the establlished design n formulae ffor rock or concrete
c unitts are not appplicable.
This PhhD study atttempts to ev valuate the eeffect of thee most impo ortant enginneering prop perties of
GSCs onn the hydrauulic stabilityy of GSC-strructures and d to develop new formuulae for the hydraulic
h
stabilityy of crest GSSCs of submmerged/low--crested GSC C-structuress. The most important engineer-
e
ing propperties of GS SCs are the mechanical properties of o the geotex xtile materiaal, the sand fill ratio,
the typee of the fill material
m and
d the interfaace friction. In fact, mosst of these pproperties will
w affect
the defoormation of GSCs and the t movemeent of sand inside the container. M More importaantly, the
he stability of GSCs aree interrelateed. The signnificance of these as-
effects oof these propperties on th
pects haas been highlighted in many studiies and projjects worldw wide. Howeever, the kn nowledge
about thhe influence of the sand fill ratio, thhe propertiess of fill mateerial and thee interface frriction of
GSCs onn the hydrauulic stability of GSC-struucture is stilll very poor..
First, thee present knnowledge rellated to the engineeringg properties of

o GSCs andd their effeccts on the
stabilityy of GSC-strructures and
d the existingg hydraulic stability forrmulae for G GSC-structu ures were
criticallyy reviewed. Second, fou ur series off especially designed
d lab
boratory expperiments, which
w al-
lowed uus to have ann insight into
o the influennce of the ab
bove mention ned propertiies on the staability of
GSC-strructures andd also to obttain the reqquired param meters for th he numericaal modelling g of their
stabilityy were performed. Experimental invvestigations consisted of two types of laboratorry exper-
iments ((drop tests and
a pullout tests), smalll scale wav ve flume testts (hydraulicc stability teests) and
hydrauliic flume testts (permeabiility tests). T
Third, numeerical modellling of GSCC-structures wasw con-
ducted uusing the weeakly coupled RANS-V VOF model and FEM-D DEM modells. This was the best
feasible option to numerically
n model the hhydraulic staability of GSC-structurees within th he frame-
work off this PhD. Overall
O the numerical
n reesults show a relatively good agreem ment with thhe exper-
imental data. Hencce, this Co omputationall Fluid Dy ynamic-Com mputational Structural Dynamic
D
(CFD-C CSD) model system has an encouragging potentiaal for practiccal applicatioons.
Though most of thee previous studies

s and ddesign guidelines on thhe use of GSSCs in coasttal struc-
tures reccommend a sand fill rattio of 80%, 100% filled d GSC show w higher hyddraulic stabillity com-
pared too 80% filledd GSC. Morreover, incliined placem ment of GSC Cs and geoteextile materrials with
high fricction properrties also ennhance the hhydraulic staability. Moreover, they also slow down
d the
damage progress. Finally,
F com
mbining bothh the experim mental and numerical rresults, new stability
curves aand simple formulae
f weere developeed for the hy
ydraulic stab
bility of cresst GSCs. Th
his newly
developed stability curves and stability forrmulae are expected to foster the aapplicationss of GSC
n.
structurees for coastaal protection
Taable of Con
ntents ii
Taable of Contents
C
Preface ............................................................................................................................................. i
Kurzfasssung .................................................................................................................................... ii
Abstracct ......................................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... ii
List of F
Figures ............................................................................................................................... vi
List of T
Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of N
Notations annd Symbolss ..................................................................................................... xii
Abbreviiations .............................................................................................................................. xiv
1 Intrroduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Motivatiion...................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objectivves ...................................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Methodoology .................................................................................................................. 4
2 Currrent State of
o Knowled
dge and Moddelling .......................................................................... 5
2.1 Engineerring Propertties of Wovven and Non nwoven Geo otextile .................................... 5
2.2 Engineerring Propertties of GSC Cs ................................................................................... 6
2.2.1 Sand
S Fill Raatio ................................................................................................... 7
2.2.2 Innterface Friiction Betweeen GSCs ..................................................................... 9
2.2.3 Properties
P off Fill Materrial ............................................................................... 10
2.2.4 Retention
R Prroperties of Geotextile ...................
. .............................................. 11
2.2.5 Deformabilit
D ty of Geotexxtile Sand Containers C ................................................ 11
2.2.6 Discussion
D and
a Implicat ations for thee Present Sttudy....................................... 12
2.3 Processees Affecting
g the Hydrauulic Stabilitty of GSCs ................... . ........................... 14
2.3.1 Wave
W Uprussh and Dow wnrush and Forces F Actin ng on GSCss ......................... 15
2.3.2 Permeability
P y of GSC-Sttructures ..................................................................... 15
2.3.3 Cyclic
C Deforrmations off GSC .......................................................................... 17
2.3.4 Discussion
D and
2.4 Failure Mechanisms
M s of GSC-Sttructures ..................................................................... 18
2.4.1 Failure
F due tot Progressiive Deformation ........................................................ 19
2.4.2 Failure
F due tot Pulling O Out ............................................................................... 20
2.4.3 Failure
F due tot Cyclic D eformationss and Slidin ng of GSCs ............................ 21
2.4.4 Failure
F due tot Overturnning of GSC Cs .............................................................. 21
2.4.5 Discussion
D and
2.5 Numericcal Modellin ng of GSC-S Structures ................................................................... 23
2.5.1 Computation
C nal Fluid Dyynamic (CF FD) Model ................................................ 23
Taable of Con
ntents iii
2.5.2 Structural
S Dynamic Moodels (CSD)) ................................................................ 24
2.5.3 Partially
P Cou
upled COBR RAS/UDEC C Model Sy ystem (Recioo 2007) .............. 24
2.5.4 Discussion
D and
2.6 Physical Modelling of GSC-Strructures ...................................................................... 26
2.6.1 Scale
S Modellling of GSC C ................................................................................. 26
2.6.2 Discussion
D and
a Implicat ations to the Present Stu udy ........................................ 27
2.7 Existing Hydraulic Stability Foormulae and d Nomogram ms.......................................... 34
2.8 Specificaation of Objjectives andd Methodolo ogy .......................................................... 39
2.8.1 Specification
S n of Objectiives ............................................................................. 40
2.8.2 Specification
S n of Methoddologies ...................................................................... 41
3 Efffect of Enginneering Pro operties of G GSCs on thee Hydraulic Stability – Experimen ntal
Studies and Resultss....................................................................................................................... 43
3.1 Definitioon of the Saand Fill Ratiio and Finall Geometry of GSCs ............................... 43
3.1.1 Proposed
P Deefinition forr the Sand Fill F Ratio off GSCs ................................... 43
3.1.2 Final
F Geomeetry of GSC Cs................................................................................. 45
3.1.3 Final
F Sand Fill
F Ratio ........................................................................................ 46
3.1.4 Summary
S off Sand Fill R Ratio Study and Conclu uding Remaarks .................... 48
3.2 Dumpingg GSCs in DeeperD Watters – Drop Test Resultts ........................................... 49
3.2.1 Theoretical
T Background
B d .................................................................................. 50
3.2.2 Specific
S Objjectives of tthe Drop Teest Study ................................................... 55
3.2.3 Experimenta
E al Setup .......................................................................................... 55
3.2.4 Sinking
S Beh haviour and Impact Vellocity ........................................................ 57
3.2.5 Changes
C in the
t Sand Filll Ratio........................................................................ 62
3.2.6 Tentative
T Method to Preedict the Fin nal Sand Fill Ratio ................................. 64
3.2.7 Summary
S off Drop Test Results and d Concludin ng Remarkss .......................... 67
3.3 Interfacee Friction Prroperties off GSCs – Pu ullout Test ResultsR .................................. 68
3.3.1 Main
M Objecttives of GSC C Pullout Test T ........................................................... 69
3.3.2 Experimenta
E al Setup andd Test Progrramme...................................................... 69
3.3.3 Innfluence off the Sand F ill Ratio on n Pullout Forrces ....................................... 71
3.3.4 Comparison
C of Slope annd Crest GS SCs ........................................................... 73
3.3.5 Effect
E of Geotextile Maaterial Propeerties on Pu ullout Forcess ......................... 73
3.3.6 Innfluence off the Seawarrd Slope An ngle on Pullout Forces ............................ 75
3.3.7 Pullout
P Testss in Water ...................................................................................... 76
3.3.8 Summary
S off Pullout Teest Results and a Conclud ding Remarkks ....................... 77
3.4 Effect off Engineerin ng Propertiees of GSCs on the Hydraulic Stabiility – Hydrraulic
Stability Test Results ................................................................................................... 79
3.4.1 Specific
S Objjectives of H Hydraulic Stability
S Tessts .......................................... 79
3.4.2 Experimenta
E al Setup .......................................................................................... 80
3.4.3 Typical
T Failuure Modes oof Low-Creested / Subm merged GSC C-Structuress ....... 83
3.4.4 New
N Approaach for Dam mage Classiffication for GSCs and G GSC-
S
Structures ......................................................................................................... 84
Taable of Con
ntents iv
3.4.5 EEffect of Surrf Similarityy Parameterr on the Hyd draulic Stabbility of GSC-
S
Structures ......................................................................................................... 85
3.4.6 Effect
E of Creest Freeboarrd on the Hydraulic Staability of G GSC-
S
Structures ......................................................................................................... 88
3.4.7 Effect
E of San nd Fill Ratioo on the Hy ydraulic Stab bility of GSSC-Structures ..... 89
3.4.8 Effect
E of thee Type of Geeotextile on n the Hydrau ulic Stabilitty of GSC-
S
Structures ......................................................................................................... 89
3.4.9 Effect
E of Incclination Anngle of GSC Cs on the Hy ydraulic Staability ................. 92
3.4.10 Settlement
S of
o GSCs duee to Internall Movementt of Sand U Under Wave
A
Action ............................................................................................................... 94
3.4.11 Summary
S off Hydraulic Stability Teests and Con ncluding Reemarks ............... 95
3.5 Hydrauliic Permeabiility of GSC C-Structuress - Permeability Test R Results ................. 96
3.5.1 Results
R of Prrevious Perm meability Tests T .......................................................... 96
3.5.2 Experimenta
E al Setup .......................................................................................... 99
3.5.3 Summary
S off Permeabiliity Test Ressults and Co oncluding R Remarks .............. 99
3.6 Summary and Conccluding Rem marks ......................................................................... 102
4 Efffect of Enginneering Pro operties of G GSCs on Hy ydraulic Stab bility – Num merical Studies and
Results ........................................................................................................................................ 104
4.1 Descripttion of the Weakly
W Couupled CFD-C CSD Modellling System m ...................... 106
4.1.1 Description
D of the CFD Model CO OBRAS-UC Model ................................ 106
4.1.2 Im mprovemen nt of the Preevious Version Used by y Recio ( 20007) .................. 106
4.1.3 Description
D of CSD Moodel UDEC .............................................................. 107
4.1.4 Weakly
W Cou upled CFD-C CSD Modell Used by Recio R (2007)) ....................... 108
4.1.5 New
N Modifications to thhe Previouss COBRAS//UDEC andd Adaptation n
o Models to
of o Represent Engineerin ng Properties of GSCs ........................... 110
4.2 Simulation of GSC Pullout Tessts Using UD DEC ...................................................... 114
4.2.1 Computation
C nal Domainn and Discreetization.................................................. 114
4.2.2 Innput Parameters for thee Numericaal Pullout Teests ...................................... 115
4.2.3 Numerical
N Pullout
P Testss Results an nd Validatio on ........................................ 116
4.2.4 Summary
S annd Concludiing Remark ks ............................................................ 118
4.3 CFD-CS SD Simulation of GSC Hydraulic stability s testts ......................................... 118
4.3.1 Forces
F actingg on GSCs ................................................................................... 119
4.3.2 Computation
C nal Domainn and Discreetization in the t CSD Moodel (UDEC C) ... 123
4.3.3 Innput Parameters for thee Weakly Coupled C CFD D-CSD Num merical
S
Simulations .................................................................................................... 124
4.3.4 Validation
V of
o the CFD M Model (COB BRAS-UC)) ........................................... 125
4.3.5 Validation
V of
o CFD-CSD D Modelling g System (C COBRAS-U UC–UDEC)....... 127
4.4 Detailedd Numerical Simulationns and Analy ysis of Hyd draulic Stabiility .................. 130
4.4.1 Pressure
P Actting on Crittical GSCs ................................................................. 130
4.4.2 Extended
E Hy ydraulic Staability Testss with COBRAS-UC/U UDEC
M
Modelling ....................................................................................................... 131
Taable of Con
ntents v
5 Hyddraulic Stabbility Formu

ulae and Staability Nom
mograms .................................................. 135
5.1 Simplificcations of Recio’s
R Form mulae ........................................................................ 135
5.2 Effect off the Engineeering Propeerties of GS SCs on Hydraulic Stabiility .................. 142
5.3 New Hyddraulic Stab bility Nomoograms for Submerged S and Low-C Crested GSC C-
Structurees ................................................................................................................... 143
5.4 Simple Stability
S Forrmulae ......................................................................................... 147
5.5 Validity of Proposed d Stability N Nomograms and Formu ulae..................................... 151
6 Sum
mmary, Connclusions, Recommend
R dations and Outlook ................................................. 157
6.1 Summary of Main Results
R and Conclusion ns ............................................................ 158
6.1.1 Sand
S Fill Raatio: New D Definition ................................................................... 158
6.1.2 Drop
D Tests: New Insighhts in the Sin nking and Deformation
D n Behaviourr
o GSCs .......................................................................................................... 159
of
6.1.3 Pullout
P Testss: New Insiights on the Effects of Sand S Fill Raatio and
F
Friction ........................................................................................................... 160
6.1.4 Hydraulic
H Sttability Testts: New Insights on thee Effect of SSand Fill
R
Ratio, Frictio on and GSC C Placement ............................................................. 160
6.1.5 Permeability
P y Tests: New w Insights on o the Effecct of Sand F Fill Ratio,
T
Type of Geo otextile and GSC Placement ...................................................... 161
6.1.6 Numerical
N Simulation
S oof Pullout Tests:T Identiffication of PProper
C
Constitutive Models forr Friction Between GSC Cs ....................................... 162
6.1.7 Numerical
N Simulations
S of Hydraulic Stability of GSC-Strructures:
Im
mprovemen nt and Validdation of a Partially P Coupled CFD--CSD Modeel .... 162
6.1.8 New
N stability y formulae:: Applicabillity and Lim mitations .............................. 163
6.1.9 Applicability
A y and Limittations of th he Proposed Stability Foormula ............. 164
6.2 Recommmendations for f the Engiineering Praactice and Future F Reseaarch .................. 165
Referennces .................................................................................................................................. 167

Liist of Figurees vi
List of Figgures
Figure 11-1: Coastall structures made of geeotextile san nd containerrs (GSCs) ................................ 1
Figure 11-2: Tentatiive methodo ology of thee research ...................................................................... 4
Figure 2-1: Largee-scale direect shear aapparatus an nd test ressult of sannd bag-sand d bag
interfacee direct sheaar tests (Kraahn et al. 20 007) .......................................................... 10
Figure 22-2: Resultss of biaxial compressio
c on test of soiil containers (Matsuokaa et al. 2001) ..... 12
Figure 22-3: Interrellationship of o propertiess of GSCs (D Dassanayak ke and Oum meraci 2009b b) ..... 13
Figure 2-4: Wave induced lo oad on instrrumented sand s contain ner during wave downrush
(Recio 2007) ................................................................................................................ 15
Figure 22-5: Compaarison betweeen availablle stability formulae f wiith and withhout deform mation
effects (mmodified fro om Recio 22007) ........................................................................... 17
Figure 2-6: Potenntial failure modes off a GSC-revetment (Jackson 20006, Recio 2007,
Deltares 2008, Law wson 2008 , Oumeraci and Reciio 2010, D Dassanayakee and
Oumeracci 2009) ........................................................................................................... 19
Figure 22-7: A crosss-sectional drawing off a GSC-rev vetment in South Africca, which shows s
both the as-built stru ucture and tthe progressive deform mation and tthe motion in i the
seaward direction affter a cyclonne (Corbella and Stretcch, 2012) ............................... 20
Figure 22-8: Pulloutt of GSCs due d to wave attack ......................................................................... 20
Figure 22-9: Factorss influencing g pullout off GSCs (mo odified from m Jackson ett al. 2006) ........... 21
Figure 22-10: Cyclicc deformatio on (flappingg) and overtturning of slope s and crrest GSCs ........... 22
Figure 22-11: Compparison bettween Recioo’s overturn ning formu ula for the ccrest GSCs with
and withhout deformation effectt (Recio 200 07) ............................................................ 22
Figure 22-12: Numeerical modellling conceppt followed by Recio (2 2007) .................................... 25
Figure 2-13: Com mparative cross c sectioon of prev vious modeel tests off GSC-strucctures
(modifieed from Oum meraci et al.. 2002b). ..................................................................... 32
Figure 22-14: Definnitions skettches of thee parameterrs used in previous p hyydraulic staability
formulaee ....................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 22-15: Revised methodo ology of thee research .................................................................... 42
Figure 33-1: Empty flat bag and d 80% filledd GSC ......................................................................... 43
Figure 33-2: Theoreetical maxim mum fill vollume of flat rectangularr bag ..................................... 44
Figure 33-3: Predicttion of the final
f dimenssions of filleed GSCs baased on the empty initiaal flat
bag dimeensions ............................................................................................................ 46
Figure 33-4: Processses influenccing the finaal sand fill ratio r of GSC Cs .......................................... 47
Figure 33-5: Forces acting on a sinking geootextile san nd container (GSC) – deefinition sketch .. 50
Figure 33-6: Saturattion of sand inside a GS SC as it fallls underwateer .......................................... 54
Figure 33-7: Model setup in thee LWI Undeerwater Dro op Testing FacilityF (UD DTF) ................... 56
Figure 33-8: Sinkinng behaviou urs of droppped GSCs: effect e of innitial orientaation at SW WL on
sinking patterns
p ............................................................................................................ 57
Figure 33-9: Terminnal velocity of droppedd GSCs with h different in nitial orienttations at SW WL ... 58
Figure 33-10: Compparison of terminal veelocities of sinking GS SCs with diifferent san nd fill
ratios (reesult are sh hown in proototype scalle assuming g the mass oof a 100% filled
and fullyy saturated GSC G is 10000 kg) ........................................................................... 59
Liist of Figurees vii
Figure 33-11: Drag coefficient

c CD of freelyy sinking GSCs G versus Reynolds nnumber, Re......... 61
Figure 3-12: Deviaation of thee GSCs froom the initiial dropping g axis (exem mplary for GSC
type A4)) ....................................................................................................................... 61
Figure 33-13: Mean relative dev viation of ddropped GSC Cs from thee initial releaasing axis .......... 62
Figure 33-14: Increaase of fully inflated voolume of GS SCs due to the elongattion of geotextile
material (see Table 3-2 for defiinition of ty ype A4 and A5) A ....................................... 63
Figure 33-15: Propoosed method dology to foor the determ mination of the final san and fill ratio ........ 66
Figure 33-16: Experrimental setu up for pulloout tests (no ote: all dimeension in meeter) ................... 70
Figure 33-17: Front and rear viiews of the model with h four modeel configuraations for pu ullout
tests .............................................................................................................................. 70
Figure 33-18: Effecct of sand fiill ratio on relative pullout forcess on crest G GSC (underwater
pullout test results) ....................................................................................................... 72
Figure 33-19: Effectt of sand filll ratio on rrelative pulllout forces on slope GSSC for a veertical
seaward front (undeerwater pull out test resu ults) ......................................................... 73
Figure 33-20: Compparison of pullout p forcees for crest and slope GSCs G for a vertical seaaward
front (unnderwater pu ullout test rresults)......................................................................... 73
Figure 33-21: Calcuulation of intterface fricttion coefficiient of crestt and slope G GSCs ................. 74
Figure 3-22: com mparison of o pullout forces for woven and nonw woven geotextile
(exemplaarily for slo ope GSCs) ...................................................................................... 75
Figure 33-23: Influeence of seaw ward slope aangle of the GSC-structture on the ppullout forcces .... 76
Figure 3-24: Com mparison off pullout foorces of crrest GSCs under dry and submerged
conditionns ..................................................................................................................... 77
Figure 33-25: Modeel setup – hy ydraulic stabbility tests in i the 2m wave flume oof LWI ............... 80
Figure 3-26: Diffeerent modell configurattions and teest series: (a) ( nonwovven, 80 % filled, f
horizontaal GSCs; (b b) nonwoveen, 100 % filled, f horizontal GSCss, (c) woven n and
nonwoveen, 80 % filled f horizoontal GSCss; and (d) nonwoven, n 80 % filleed 15̊
inclined GSCs .............................................................................................................. 82
Figure 33-27: Typiccal failure modes m observved during the wave teests: (a) slidding, (b) upllifting
and driftting, (c) oveerturning ........................................................................................ 84
Figure 33-28: Hydraaulic stabiliity curve foor low-crestted GSC-strructures (Rcc =0 m) maade of
nonwoveen, 80% fillled GSCs (sseries NW80 0H, regular wave tests)) ......................... 87
Figure 33-29: Hydraaulic stabilitty curve forr submerged d GSC-strucctures (Rc = -0.2m) maade of
nonwoveen, 80% fillled GSCs (N NW80H, reg gular wave tests) .................................... 87
Figure 33-30: Smalll scale hydrraulic stabiility test ressults from Oumeraci O et al. (2002b b) for
crest freeeboard Rc = 0.0 m and +0.75 m (in n model scaale) ........................................ 88
Figure 3-31: Hydrraulic stabiility curvess for regulaar wave tests showing ng the “inciipient
motion” cases for th he tested creest freeboarrds Rc = -0.25 m ~ +0.0046 m (in model m
scale) ............................................................................................................................ 88
Figure 3-32: Effecct of sand fill ratio on the hyd draulic stab bility of low w-crested GSC- G
structurees: compariison of 80 % and 100 0% filled GSCs madde of nonw woven
geotextille (NW80H H; Rc = 0 m aand NW100 0H; Rc = 0 m/ regular w wave tests)......... 89
Figure 33-33: Effectt of the typee of geotexttile on the hydraulic h stability of loow-crested GSC- G
structurees: comparisson of the regular wav ve test resu ults of nonw woven geotextile
Liist of Figurees viii
(interface friction anglea 22.644⁰) and wov ven geotexttile (interfacce friction angle
13.33⁰) ......................................................................................................................... 90
Figure 33-34: Effectt of the type of geotexxtile on the hydraulic h sttability of ssubmerged GSC- G
structurees: comparisson of the regular wav ve test resu ults of nonw woven geotextile
(interface friction angle;
a 22.644⁰) and wov ven geotextiile (interfacce friction angle; a
13.33⁰) ......................................................................................................................... 90
Figure 33-35: Damaage progresssion as a ffunction of the numbeer of regulaar waves for two
selected tests from NW80H aand W80H test seriess with com mparable inccident
wave connditions (Rcc = -0.20 m) .................................................................................. 91
Figure 33-36: Forces acting on the GSCs uunder wave action ...................................................... 92
Figure 3-37: Effecct of the in nclination anngle of GS SCs on the hydraulic sstability off low-
crested GSC-structu
G ures: a com mparison of horizontal and 15⁰ innclined GSC Cs for
Rc = 0 m (regular wave w tests) ...................................................................................... 93
Figure 3-38: Effeect of the inclinationn angle of GSCs on the hydrauulic stability of
submergged GSC-strructures: a comparison n of horizon ntal and 15 ⁰ inclined GSCs G
for Rc = -0.20 m (reegular wavee tests) ......................................................................... 93
Figure 33-39: Damaage progression as a fuunction of number n of waves
w for tw wo selected d tests
from NW W80H and NW80I N testt series with h comparable incident wave conditions
(Rc = -0..20 m) .............................................................................................................. 94
Figure 33-40: Reducction of the height of a GSC-struccture due to o internal mo movement off sand
after 10000 irregular waves (Rc= =-0.046, Hss=0.1 m, Tp=1.0 s) .................................. 95
Figure 3-41: Key parameters relevant too the permeability of a GSC-struucture (mod dified
from Ouumeraci 1999c) ................................................................................................. 97
Figure 33-42: Experrimental setu up for basicc permeability tests (Reecio 2007) ............................. 98
Figure 33-43: Experrimental setu up and meaasuring tech hniques of new permeabbility tests .......... 99
Figure 44-1: Methoddology for the t numericcal modellin ng of submerged GSC-sstructures ......... 105
Figure 4-2: Simpliifications for f the convversion of 3D problem m into a 2D D problem with
tandem arrangemen
a nt................................................................................................... 109
Figure 44-3: Simpliffied shape of o 80% filleed GSCs useed in COBR RAS-UC/UD DEC model ...... 111
Figure 44-4: Overlaapping lengtth of GSCss for differeent sand filll ratios (80% % & 100% %) and
type of geotextile
g Nonwoven aand woven)) .............................................................. 112
(N
Figure 44-5: Simulaation of forces acting onn a single GSC G in the CFD-CSD C m
model system m ... 113
Figure 44-6: Numeriical model setup s and reesults for pu ullout tests of o slope GSSCs ................... 115
Figure 4-7: Com mparison of o measureed (pulloutt tests) an nd computted (UDEC C 5)
displacem ments, when n GSCs aree subject to pullout p forcces ....................................... 117
Figure 44-8: Mesh size
s used in COBRAS-U UC model................................................................. 119
Figure 4-9: Meassured and computed (using CO OBRAS mo odel resultss) wave-ind duced
pressuress, velocitiess and free suurface elevaation (Recio o, 2007) ............................... 120
Figure 4-10: Resuultant forcess acting onn GSCs. ho orizontal an nd vertical componentts are
applied separately
s on
o each GSC C in the model (modified from Reccio 2007) ......... 121
Figure 44-11: Calcuulation of fo orces compoonents aroun nd GSCs ussing pressurre measurem ments
from CO OBRAS and d applicatioon of those computed pressure reesults on a slope
GSC in the
t UDEC model m ........................................................................................... 122
Liist of Figurees ix
Figure 4-12: Perceentages of displaced G GSCs durin ng 366 mod del tests inn four test series
(Dassanaayake et al. 2011c) ........................................................................................ 123
Figure 44-13: Numeerical set up p in the UD EC model for f simulatiion of 80% filled nonw woven
GSCs .......................................................................................................................... 124
Figure 4-14: Meeasured (h hydraulic sstability teests) and computed (COBRAS-UC
simulatioons) wave in nduced presssured, velo ocities and fee f surface eelevation .......... 126
Figure 4-15: Com mparison of input annd output wave w param meter from m COBRAS-UC
model.(eexemplary results r from m Rc = -0.10 m) ......................................................... 127
Figure 44-16: Total vertical and d horizontall forces on crest c GSCs ...................
. ......................... 128
Figure 44-17: pressuure acting on n the seawaard edge of crest GSCs ........................................... 131
Figure 44-18: COBRAS-UC/U UDEC resullts of the hy ydraulic staability of loow-crested GSC- G
structurees: comparisson of 80% filled GSCs made of nonwoven n ggeotextile (R Rc = -
0.05 m) with
w the hydraulic stabbility curvess for (NW80 0H; Rc = 0 m ..................... 132
Figure 4-19: Hydrraulic stabiility curve for low-crrested and submergedd GSC-strucctures
made off nonwoven, 80% filledd GSCs (seeries NW80H/Rc = -0.225 m ~ +0..096 /
regular wave
w tests with
w Hm) inccluding COB BRAS-UC//UDEC resuults.................... 132
made of nonwoven, 100% filleed GSCs (seeries NW100H/Rc = -0 .25 m ~ +0.096 /
regular wave
w tests with
w Hm) inccluding COB BRAS-UC//UDEC resuults.................... 133
made off woven, 80 0% filled G GSCs (seriees W80H / Rc = -0.255 m ~ +0.096 m /
regular wave
w tests with
w Hm) inccluding COB BRAS-UC/UDEC resuults .................... 133
Figure 55-1: Compaarison between Recio’ss stability formulae fo with and withhout deform mation
effects inncluding furrther availabble formulaae (Recio 20 007) ..................................... 135
Figure 55-2: Process based hyd draulic stabiility formullae for crestt GSCs of a submerged d reef
(Recio 2007) .............................................................................................................. 136
Figure 5-3: Flow w chart for the appli cation of the Recio (2007) staability form mulae
(developped for the new n MATLA AB routine) ............................................................. 137
Figure 55-4: Exampple calculatiions of forcce coefficieents using Recio’s R (20007) formulaae for
two GSC C applications ................................................................................................ 138
Figure 55-5: Calculaated length of GSCs foor different wave param meters usingg Recio’s slliding
formulaee (calculatio ons were perrformed with model sccale dimensiions) ................ 139
Figure 5-6: Appliccation of Recio’s R form mulae for submerged GSC-strucctures (prototype
scale dim
mensions) ....................................................................................................... 140
Figure 5-7: Simpliified Recio o’s formulaee for the hydraulic h sttability of ccrest GSCs of a
submergged GSC-strructure .......................................................................................... 141
Figure 55-8: Effect of the sand d fill ratio, thhe geotextille material, and the incclined placeement
of GSC on hydrauliic stability oof GSC-stru uctures for crest freebooards Rc = 0.2 0 m
(a) and Rc
R = 0.0 m (b). ( ............................................................................................... 142
Figure 55-9: Influennce of the reelative crestt freeboard Rc* on the hydraulic sstability of GSC- G
structurees. ................................................................................................................... 144
made of o nonwov ven, 80% filled GSCs (seriees NW80H H with Rc R =-
0.25 m ~ +0.096 m / regular waave tests wiith Hm) ................................................... 145
Liist of Tabless x
made off nonwoven n, 100% fillled GSCs (series NW1 100H with Rc = -0.25 5m~
+0.096 / regular wav ve tests with th Hm) ........................................................................ 146
made off woven, 80 0% filled G GSCs (seriees W80H / Rc = -0.2 5 m ~ +0.096 /
regular wave
w w Hm) ....................................................................................... 147
tests with
Figure 5-13: Appllicability off previous and curren nt formulae in terms of relative crest
freeboardd .................................................................................................................... 148
Figure 55-14: Incipiient motion curves deriived from reegular wavee tests .................................. 150
Figure 55-15: Smalll (LWI) and d large (GW WK) scale model m tests on o the hydrraulic stabillity of
crest GSCs by Oum meraci et al. (2002a and d 2002b) .................................................. 151
Figure 55-16: Hydraaulic stabiliity test dataa for low-crested/submerged GSC--structures made
of nonwwoven, 80% filled GSC Cs (series NW80H N with Rc = -0.225 m ~ +0.096 /
Irregularr wave tests with Hs) ..................................................................................... 152
made off nonwoven n, 80% filleed GSCs (series NW8 80H with R Rc = -0.25 m ~
+0.096 / Irregular wave w tests w with significaant wave heeight, Hs) ............................. 153
made off nonwoven, 80% filledd GSCs (seeries NW80H/Rc = -0.225 m ~ +0..096 /
Irregularr wave tests with H2%) ................................................................................... 154
Figure 5-19: Com mparison bettween new w hydraulic stability fo ormula andd other available
formulaee for the design d of crrest GSCs of a low-ccrested GSC C structure with
Rc = 0 m ..................................................................................................................... 155
Figure 6-1: New hydraulic stability s forrmula for crest c GSCs of low-creested/submerged
GSC-struuctures ........................................................................................................... 164
Figure 66-2: Incipiennt motion curves derivved from reg gular wave tests t .................................... 164
Liist of Tabless xi
Liist of Tab
bles
Table 1-1: Strengthhs and weak knesses of G GSC-structu ures (modifiied from Reecio 2007)............. 2
Table 22-1: Engineeering propeerties of geeotextile materials relaated to coaastal engineeering
applicatiions .................................................................................................................... 6
Table 22-2: Types of geotexttile containnments used d in coastaal engineerring applicaations
(modifieed from Oum meraci and R Recio 2010)................................................................. 7
Table 22-3: Effect of
o the sand fill ratio onn hydraulicc stability of GSC-struc uctures subjeect to
severe wave
w attack k (Grüne ett al. 2006, Recio and Oumeraci 2008b, Deeltares
2008, Wilms
W et al. 2011)
2 ................................................................................................ 8
Table 2-4: Conclussions drawn n from the rreview of sttate of the art a knowleddge on prop perties
of GSCs (modified from Dassaanayake and d Oumeraci 2009b) ................................. 13
Table 2-5: Comparrison of perrmeability ccoefficients with different GSC sizzes and diffferent
mode off placement (Recio and Oumeraci 2008a) 2 ..................................................... 16
Table 22-6: Relationnship betweeen engineeering properrties of GSC Cs and the properties of o fill
material of GSCs.......................................................................................................... 27
Table 22-7: Previoous model tests relateed to the hydraulic h stability
s off GSC-strucctures
(modifieed from Reccio 2007) ........................................................................................ 29
Table 22-8: Availabble hydrauliic stability fformulae an nd nomograams for the design of GSC- G
structurees ...................................................................................................................... 37
Table 3-1: Comparrison of beh haviours of rigid and fllexible bodiies, when dr dropping fro om air
and sinking in waterr ..................................................................................................... 52
Table 3-2: Combinnation of parrameters forr conducted d drop tests ...................
. ........................... 56
Table 33-3: changee in sand fill f ratio (F FR) of typee A5 GSCss due to thhe elongatio on of
geotextille material ....................................................................................................... 64
Table 33-4: Testingg programm me for pullouut tests (seee Figure 3-17 for moddel configurration
I~IV) ............................................................................................................................ 71
Table 3-5: Test proogramme in the 2 m waave flume of LWI ...................................................... 83
Table 33-6: New daamage classification fo for individu ual GSCs an nd for entirre GSC-stru ucture
(modifieed from Dasssanayake ett al. 2011c) ................................................................ 85
Table 3-7: Results of permeab bility tests (m modified fro om Ozegow wski 2012) ........................... 100
Table 33-8: Comparrison of Reecio’s (20077) and current permeability test rresults (mod dified
from Ozegowski 20 012) .............................................................................................. 101
Table 4-1: Comparrison betweeen model paarameters used u in the CSDC (UDEC C) model .......... 116
Table 4-2: Comparrison of the main inputt parameter and assump ptions used in the numerical
simulatioons ................................................................................................................. 125
Table 44-3: Upwardd and down nward rotattion of GSC Cs within a wave cyclle, H = 0.13 34 m,
T = 1.76 s, Rc = 0.1 m-nonwovven, 80% fillled GSCs (N NW80H serries) ................. 129
Table 44-4: Test programme
p for the nuumerical siimulations with COBR RAS-UC/U UDEC
modellinng system ....................................................................................................... 130
Table 5-1: Validityy range of th he new hydrraulic stabillity formulaae ......................................... 149
Table 5-2: Empiriccal parameteers for the nnew hydraullic stability formula .............................. 149
Liist of Notatiions and Syymbols xii
List of Nottations and

a Sym
mbols
Liist of Notatiions and Syymbols xiii
Abbbreviation
ns xiv
Ab
bbreviattions
AOSS : Apparent Opening Sizze
CFD
D : Computattional Fluid Dynamic
D
COBBRAS : Cornnel Breaking Wave and S Structures
COBBRAS-UC : Cornell
C Breaaking Wave aand Structurees-University
y of Cantabrria
CSD
D : Computattional Structu ural Dynamicc
CoV
V : Coefficiennt of Variatioon
GSCC : Geotextilee Sand Contaainer
GWK K: large wavve flume at Hannover
H
FR : Fill Ratio
LVDDT : Linear Variable
V Diffferential Trannsformer
LWII : Leichtweiiss Institute
NWx : Nonwoveen geotextile
PET
T: polyethylenne terephthalate
PP: P
Polypropylenne
RANNS : Reynoldds Averaged Navier Stokkes
SWLL: Still Wateer Level
UDEEC : Universsal Distinct Element
E Codee
VOFF : Volume ofo Fluid
WG : Wave Gauuge
Wx : Woven geootextile
Inntroduction 1
1 Introductiion
1.1 M
Motivation
n
Settlemments in coaastal lowlan nds are espeecially vulnnerable to seea level risse and storm
m surges
associatted with cliimate chang ge. Howeveer, these lo owlands are often denssely settled and the
populatiion living there
t is growwing rapidlly. When co onsidering the
t area aloong the coasst that is
less thann 10 metress above the mean sea leevel, this zo one covers 2%
2 of the w world’s land area but
containss 10% of thhe world’s populationn. This perccentage is higherh in deeveloping countries
c
than devveloped couuntries (MccGranahan eet al. 2007). Further, th he value off the coastall ecosys-
tems reppresents alm most 40% of o the valuee of all marrine and terrrestrial ecoosystems (OOumeraci
2000). O On the otheer hand, thee still increaasing socioo-economic pressure onn the use off coastal
zones wwith the subssequent increase of thee needs for more
m infrastructures haas led to an increas-
ing convversion of these
t vital zones to a buuilt environ
nment. Thereefore, sustaainable deveelopment
a sensitivee coastal zoones is essential (Oumeeraci 2004)). Hence, there is an
of thesee valuable and
urgent nneed for cosst effective, environmeentally frien ndly solution
ns to mitigaate the risk of disas-
ters relaated to climaate change in
i coastal seettlements.
More veersatile matterials and innovative

i ssolutions arre required for the desiign of new,, cost ef-
fective shore proteection strucctures as w well as for the reinforccement of existing th hreatened
coastal barriers andd structuress, including dune reinfo forcement an nd scour prrotection (O
Oumeraci
and Reccio 2010). Geotextile
G Sand
S Contaiiners (GSC)) represent a low cost ((Oberhagem mann and
Hossainn 2011, Weeerakoon et al.a 2003, Jacckson et al. 2012), softt and reversiible solution for the
above pproblem andd the use of o GSCs in hydraulic and marinee application ons has a hiistory of
more thhan 50 yearss. Coastal structures
s buuilt with GSCs are obttained by suubstituting rocks or
concretee units withh containerrs made of geotextile and filled with w locallyy available sand. A
range of successfuul coastal prrotection strructures usiing GSCs haveh been cconstructed in many
parts off the world,, especially in Australiia, Germany y, and Soutth Africa (HHeerten et al.
a 2000,
Restall and Saathoff 2002, Resstall et al. 20004, Saatho of et al. 2007
7, Bleck and
nd Werth 20 012, Cor-
bella annd Stretch 20012) (Figurre 1-1).
Figure 1--1: Coastal struuctures made of geotextile sand containeers (GSCs)
Apart frrom GSCs, geotextiles are widely used in coaastal structu ures and harrbour constrructions.
(e.g. Geeotextiles arre placed beelow the riprrap along th
he coastline or harbourr caissons to
o prevent
Inntroduction 2
soil eroosion). Howwever, geoteextiles usedd for GSC-sstructures in n coastal annd marine environ-
ments aare subject to significaantly differeent forces and exposu ure conditioons than geotextiles
used in other conveentional app plications suuch as roadd constructio on, geotechnnics, etc. In
n the ear-
lier appplications, coastal
c GSCC-structuress were conssidered as temporary
t oor short terrm solu-
tions. M
Mainly, the use of exposed geotexxtile for GS SCs and Geeotextile Tuubes is pushing the
boundarries of geottextile withh regards too the durabiility (Hornssey 2011). T The main concerns
c
were UV V-resistance, biologicaal effects, aabrasion and d damage reesistance, eetc. Howeveer, GSC-
structurres made off geotextiless that were m manufacturred more than two decaades ago arre still in
service and provedd that they canc last lonnger than what
w initially
y estimated.. Also the advance-
a
ments inn the field of geotextille manufactturing techn nology allow w the fabriccs to be eng gineered
to have a wide varriety of prop perties, enaabling a taillored designn of the maaterial for a specific
applicattion (ASR 2005a). Fu urthermore, research sttudies carriied out durring the reccent past
provide a good insight of the durability oof geotextilee in marine environmeent (e.g. Heiieh et al.
2006, TTenCate 20007, Hornsey y 2011). Tabble 1-1 sum mmarises thee strengths aand the weaaknesses
of GSC C-structures in coastal environmen
e nt. Howeverr, the extenssive researcch works co onducted
during tthe last twoo decades annd their finndings remaarkably redu uced the weeaknesses of coastal
structurres made of GSCs.
Table 1-11: Strengths annd weaknesses of GSC-struuctures (modiffied from Reciio 2007)
Conventiional hard
S
Strength / weeakness GSC-strucctures
strucctures
Appliccability as a cooastal structure to solve connventional
high high
coastall engineering problems
p
Resistaance against wave
w action an
nd coastal relaated natural
high high
hazardds, if properly designed.
Adaptaability to channging site cond ditions and moorphological
low* high
foundaation changes.
Total cconstruction annd life cycle cost
c savings (ccompared
not applicaable generally hig
gh
with coonventional sttructures)
Responnd to cyclic hyydrodynamic loads moderate high
Wave rrunup and waave reflection low high

Removvability, if enggineering meaasures did not prove suc-
low high
cessfull
deep un
understanding of the hydraulic processes aaffecting the
high moderate
stabilitty of GSC-struuctures
reliablee design toolss which can co
ompromise thee safety underr
high low
differeent conditions
Requirrement of conssideration of site
s specific coonditions for
moderate high
design and constructtion
Undersstanding of lonng term effectt on structurall durability in
high low
marinee environmentt
*
howevver, riprap revettments show hiigh adaptabilityy to site conditiions and morphological foundaation changes
** geneerally, GSC struucture are less permeable
p and cconsequently thhen will have laarge wave runupp and wave refllection
Neverthheless, theree are still seeveral criticcal issues th

hat require further
f reseaarch in ordeer to en-
hance appplications and perform mances of thhe GSC-stru uctures. The hydraulic processes affecting
a
the stabbility of GSSC-structurres were exxtensively investigated
i d by Oumeeraci et al. (2002a,
2002b, 2003, 20077a), Oumerraci and Reecio (2010), Recio (20 007) and ReRecio and Oumeraci
O
(2008a, 2008b, 20009). Moreov ver, few forrmulae werre developed for the prrediction off the hy-
Inntroduction 3
draulic stability off GSC-structures (see T Table 2-8) and

a among those, the fformulae deeveloped
by Reciio (2007) arre the only process-bassed hydraullic stability formulae fo for GSCs. However,
H
these foormulae stilll need to bee simplifiedd and refined
d in order to
o make themm more useer friend-
ly for prracticing enngineers.
The sannd fill ratio of geotextiile containeers has beenn identified as an impoortant param meter for
the stabbility of GS
SC-structurees (Venis 19968, Oumeeraci et al. 2007a,2 Reciio 2007, Reecio and
Oumeraaci 2009, Oumeraci
O an
nd Recio 20010, Coghlaan et al. 200 09, Horney 2011, Wilm ms et al.
2011 ettc.). Neverttheless, non ne of the exxiting formmulae for th he hydraulicc stability of o GSC-
structurres accountss for the sannd fill ratio.. Moreover,, a clear deffinition for tthe sand filll ratio is
still lackking (Bezuiijen et al. 2004). Thereefore, a pro
oper definition for the ssand fill rattio based
on a sysstematic invvestigation of the relatiionships bettween the sand fill ratiio and the hydraulic
h
stabilityy of GSC-sttructures is crucial, to aachieve a better undersstanding off the hydraulic func-
tioning of GSC-struuctures und der wave atttack.
Furthermmore, Recioo (2007) id dentified thaat the interfface friction n between GSCs conssiderably
affects tthe hydraullic stability of GSC-Sttructures. A friction faactor betweeen containeers () is
already included inn Recio’s fo ormulae. Deespite of thee interface friction
f alreeady incorpoorated in
the form
mulae, the effect
e of intterface fricttion properrties is still not fully eexplained orr experi-
mentallyy verified. Furthermo ore, the forrmulae werre derived using u the ffriction coeefficient,
which wwere obtained from thee direct sheaar stress tessts conducteed with the convention nal shear
box appparatus (NA AUE 2004a and Recio 2007). Som me recent research studdies showed d that the
conventtional directt shear stresss test resullts (perform
med under dry conditionns) do not perfectly
p
represennt the interfface friction
n of GSCs (K Krahn et al. 2007, Matssushima et aal. 2008).
Moreovver, Recio (2007)

( has adopted
a andd improved d a numerical modellinng system for fo GSC-
structurre, consistinng of a com
mputational fluid dynam mic model (CFD) and two compu utational
structurral dynamic models (CSD). The m modelling sy ystem was partially
p vallidated to th
he extent
of the pperformed experimenta
e al model tessts. This weakly coupled modelliing system helps to
gain an improved understandiing of the pprocesses th hat affect th
he stability of GSC-strructures.
Further advancemeent of this modelling
m toool will leaad to a deveelopment off an operatiional de-
sign toool based on CFD and CSD models .
mproved by incorporating some

Lastly, ddespite of thhe formulaee from Reciio (2007) neeed to be im
more immportant parrameters, th he formulaee are alreadyy complicatted. Hence, apart from refining
and simmplifying thhe formulae, it will be very usefu ul for the en ngineering ppractice to develop
simple hydraulic stability
s formulae andd/or a com mputational tool for thhe design of o GSC-
structurres. There are
a computaational toolss available for the design of geossynthetic tu ubes. For
examplee GeoCoPS S by ADAM MA Engineerring, USA is i an interacctive prograam for the design
d of
geosyntthetic tubes. This prog gramme is ccapable of determining
d g the geomeetry of the tube
t and
the circuumferentiall and longittudinal requuired strengtth of the en
ncapsulatingg geosyntheetic for a
given problem. Thhe computattions accounnt for the reduction factors relateed to seam strength,
s
durabiliity, creep, and
a installattion damagee. Developm ment of a similar
s tool will help to spread
the geottextile sand container technology.
Inntroduction 4
1.2 O
Objectivess
The tenttative objecctives of thee current ressearch are to
o;
(i) Innvestigate thhe effect of the sand filll ratio on th

he hydraulicc stability off GSC-strucctures
(ii) Sttudy the fricction between GSCs annd its effect on hydraullic stability of GSC-stru uctures
(iii) Refine, simpllify and make the stabiility formulaae of Recio (2007) morre user frien ndly
(iv) DDevelop a sim mplified staability formuulae for the hydraulic stability
s of G
GSC-Structtures
1.3 M
Methodoloogy
The tenntative methhodology, which
w will bee specified in more dettails as a ressult of Chap
pter 2, is
briefly iillustrated inn Figure 1-2
2.
First, thhe present knowledge

k related
r to thhe engineeriing propertiies of GSCss and their effect
e on
the hydrraulic stabillity of GSCC-structures will be rev viewed. Partticular emphhasis will be
b put on
the sandd fill ratio and
a the fricttion betweeen containerrs, which maym affect thhe stability of GSC-
structurres. Second,, a range off different tyypes of laboratory exp periments wwill be desig gned and
conductted, which will allowss us to havve an insigh ht into the influence oof above mentioned
propertiies on the stability of structures
s m
made of GSCs subject to wave atttack and alsso to ob-
tain the required parameters for f numericcal modellin ng of GSC-structures. T Third, the most
m ap-
propriatte numericaal model sy ystem will bbe selected d to simulatte hydraulicc stability of
o GSC-
structurres. Initiallyy numerical modelling w will start with
w the weak kly coupledd RANS-VO OF mod-
el and F FEM-DEM models as used by R Recio (2007)). The perfo ormance off this model system
and cappabilities of other available modelss will then be critically y evaluated in order to identify
the bestt modellingg system. Th he hydraulicc stability ofo GSC-stru uctures willl be modelled using
the seleected modellling system m incorporatting the ressults obtaineed from phyysical modeels tests.
These m models will be verified d through thhe proposed d and past laboratory
l eexperiments. Based
on this kknowledge,, finally morre simplifieed hydraulicc stability foormulae willl be develop ped.
Figure 1--2: Tentative methodology

m of
o the researchh
Cuurrent Statee of Knowleedge and Mo
odelling 5
2 Cu
urrent State of Knowled
K dge and Modellin
M ng
An exteensive literaature study ono the impoortant engin neering propperties of GGSCs, which h are rel-
evant foor the hydraaulic stabilitty, has beenn carried ou
ut in the framework off the PhD (ssee state-
of-the aart report - Dassanayak
D ke and Oum meraci 2009aa). The mosst importannt engineerin ng prop-
erties off GSCs are identified as the prop erties of geeotextile maaterial itselff, the sand fill
f ratio,
the typee of fill matterial, the in
nterface fricction of GS
SCs and the deformabillity of GSC Cs. More
importaantly these properties
p are
a interrelaated and theeir influencce on the hyydraulic staability of
GSC-strructure is not
n yet fully y understoood. This chaapter aims at a underliniing the neceessity of
the know t aforemeentioned enggineering prroperties off GSCs for aan improved under-
wledge of the
standingg of the hyydraulic stab bility of GSSC-structurees and at proposing
p ann experimeental and
numericcal investigaation prograamme. Thiss investigatiion program mme will bri ridge the kn
nowledge
gaps onn engineerinng propertiess and their eeffect on thee hydraulic stability off GSC-structures.
One of the most im mportant fin

ndings of thee literature study is thaat a systemaatic investig
gation of
the relattionships beetween thesse engineeriing propertiies of GSCss and the hyydraulic staability of
GSC-strructures is crucial
c to acchieve a bettter understtanding of th
he hydraulicc functioninng GSC-
structurres under wave
w attack. Therefore,, the ultimaate objectiv ve is to intrroduce the sand fill
ratio, thhe friction between
b GSSCs, the incllination ang gle of GSCss, etc. as im
mportant parrameters
in the ddesign guidance of GS SC-structurees subject to severe wave attack. As a resullt of this
chapter which reprresents an updated
u sum
mmary of th he aforementioned statate-of-the arrt report,
the tenttative objectives and methodologi
m ies briefly introduced
i in Chapter 1 will be specified
s
more prrecisely andd modified where
w necesssary.
2.1 E
Engineerin
ng Properrties of W
Woven and
d Nonwov
ven Geoteextile
The moost widely used raw maaterials for m manufacturiing geotextiiles are polyypropylene and pol-
yester. P
Physical prooperties of these materrials can bee improved by the use of additives and by
changinng the proceessing meth hods used too form the material
m intto fibres, whhich is the building
block off geotextiles. Geotextilles are dividded into twoo main grouups based onn the manuffacturing
process, namely woven
w geoteextile and nnonwoven geotextile.
g Woven
W geottextiles havve higher
tensile sstrength annd low elongations at rrupture. No onwoven geeotextiles arre generally y thicker
and formmed by proocesses otheer than wavving or knittting. They have randoomly orienteed fibres
within tthe plane off geotextiless. Hence deepending on n each speciific applicattion, the moost suita-
ble typee should bee carefully selected.
s Thhere are nu umerous succcessful proojects carrieed out in
coastal environmennt with both h woven (F Fowler and Trainer 199 98, Lawsonn 2008) and d nonwo-
ven (Heeerten et al.. 2000, 2008, Jackson et al. 2006, Restall et al. 2004, Ja Jackson and d Corbett
2007, Saathof et all. 2007, Horrnsey et at. 2011) geottextiles. Som me of the prroperties an nd issues
to be coonsidered when
w selectin
ng the mostt suitable material
m are summarised
s d in Table 2-1. Gen-
erally sttandard testt methods are
a used to evaluate th he engineeriing propertiies of geoteextiles in
the labooratory. How wever, the measured
m (aallowable) values
v deterrmined musst be adjusted when
designinng GSC-struuctures, to account
a for installation
n damages, long-term
l cr
creep, chemiical deg-
radationn, UV deggradation, environment
e ntal degradaation, etc. (Dassanayaake and Oumeraci
O
2009a, DDassanayakke et al. 2013).
odelling 6
As the eengineeringg properties of both wovven and non nwoven geo otextiles maay be appropriate or
inappropriate for thet GSC-strructures, it is necessarry to investtigate both types of geotextile
materiall in order too identify th
he most suittable materiial for GSC-structures. Therefore, the pre-
sent research studyy did not fav o geotextilee, instead, itt equally considered
vour a particcular type of
both wooven and noonwoven geotextiles.
Table 2-11: Engineeringg properties off geotextile m

materials relateed to coastal en
ngineering appplications
Propeerty Woven Geotextile Nonwoven
N Geeotextile
Materiaal Produced with high tensile yarnss in orderly Produced as sheets of rrandomly orientated
pattern fibres
Tensilee High: Low:
strengthh  can be
b order of 200 0 kN/m (ASR R 2005a)  can be ordeer of 35 ~ 65 kkN/m (ASR 2005a)
2
 can accommodate
a large stressess during
installlation & whille in service w
without
failurre
Elongaation Low: High
 cannoot accommod date large straiins without  can be in thhe order of 800%
failurre and reshapiing is difficultt  high robustness during tthe installation n (Len-
 sand fill ratio off GSC will nnot change ze et al. 2002)
significantly due tot elongation of the geo-  allows the GSCs to mouuld itself in withw the
textille material duuring filling annd installa- existing feaatures (Saathooff et al. 2007))
tion operations
o or due to long teerm creep  fill materiaal will be disttributed and induced
 Maxiimum elongaations woven geotextile local stresss will be dissippated without failure
are inn the order of 12% (PET) ~ 20% (PP).  volume inccrease of the ccontainer will lead to
low sand fiill ratio
 will creep over time an and will thus fail to
retain desiggnated shape
Retentiion Moderaate High
of fine  retenntion of fine material
m will bbe reduced  however, thet tensile strrain has moree effect
materiaal with the uniaxial teensile strain on relativeely thinner m materials, which in-
 geoteextile opening g size (appareent opening creases geeotextile openning size (ap pparent
size, AOS), which h governs the size of the opening sizze, AOS), annd decreases the t fine
soil particles
p that can
c pass thouggh the geo- retention caapacity (Wu eet al. 2008)
textille, will not sig
gnificantly chaange
Frictionn Low: High:
 Relattively low an ngle of frictionn and may  Relatively high angle off friction due to
t ir-
easilyy slide off regular stru
ucture
 Interfface friction n angle = ca.13.33⁰  Interface frriction angle = ca.22.64⁰
(see Section
S 3.3.2)) (see Sectioon 3.3.2)
2.2 E
Engineerin
ng Properrties of GS
SCs
The closure of the estuary “Plluimpot”, T The Netherlaands in 1957 using sannd filled Nylon bags
is one oof the first applications
a s of GSCs iin coastal en
ngineering (Verhagen 22004, Bezu uijen and
Vastenbburg 2008).. Since theen, various types and sizes of saand containners were used u for
coastal structures. Table
T 2-2 provides
p an overview of
o types of geotextile
g coontainmentss used in
coastal engineeringg applicatio ons. Current
nt research study
s focusses on geoteextile contaainments
those filled off-sitee and the teerm; “Geoteextile Sand Containerss” (GSCs) iis used as a general
term to describe them.
t The following ssections describe the key engineeering properties of
odelling 7
GSCs, w which are related

r to hydraulic staability of GSC-structur
G res, in detaail. However, “Geo-
textile T
Tubes”, whhich are hy ydraulicallyy filled on--site and “L
Large Geottextile Con ntainers”,
which aare construccted and dum
mped using split bottom w not be diiscussed in detail.
m barges, will
Table 2-22: Types of geeotextile contaainments usedd in coastal eng

gineering appllications (moddified from Ou
umeraci
and Recioo 2010)
Tyype V
Volume [m3] Sand Fill Shape Appllication
Geotexttile Tubes Geenerally on site cylindrical Geotextilee Tubes are w widely used in groins,
>7700 m3 (D=1~55 m)) containmeent dikes, dunne reinforcemeents,
etc. and as temporary sstructures
Large G
Geotextile Geenerally split bot- cylindrical/ Large Geotextile Contaainers are used d in reef
Containners 100~700 m3 tom barges pillow structuress (surf zone), ddefence structture
(D<5 m) against tsuunami, etc.
GSCs orr Geo- 0.005~5.0 m3 off site pillow, box, as GSC units to build aany type of coastal
Bags mattress structuress. also for scouur protection and
a
dune reinforcement.
2.2.1 S
Sand Fill Ratio
R
The sannd fill ratioo of geotextile containners has been identifieed for the ffirst time by b Venis
(1968) as an impoortant param meter for thee hydraulicc stability. Thereafter,
T many autho ors have
highlighhted the releevance of th
he sand fill ratio. Neveertheless, the optimum fill ratios for f GSCs
were mmore or less arbitrarily suggested (Delft Hyd draulics 19775, Ray 19777, Oumeraaci et al.
2002a, 22002b, 20033, Oumeracci et al. 20077a, Oumeraaci and Reciio 2010, Pillarczyk 200 05, Recio
2007, RRecio and Oumeraci
O 2008a, Recioo and Oum meraci 2008b, Recio annd Oumeraaci 2009,
Wilms eet al. 2011,, PIANC 20 011, Hornseey et al. 2011, Corbella and Stretcch 2012). AlthoughA
the impportance of the sand filll ratio wass often high hlighted, theere are onlyy very few publica-
tions avvailable on the
t recomm mended sandd fill ratio anda most of them are liimited to Geotextile
Tubes oor Large Geeotextile Co ontainers (ee.g. Bezuijeen et al. 200 00). Moreovver, most of o the re-
cent invvestigations were carrieed out with the sand filll ratio of 80 0% or “fill tto capacity”” (Cogh-
lan et all. 2009, Hoornsey et al. 2011). Hoowever, a sy ystematic in
nvestigationn of the influ uence of
o GSCs on the hydrauulic stability
the sandd fill ratio of y of GSC-strructures is sstill lackingg. There-
fore, Ouumeraci andd Recio (2010) recomm mend to systtematically investigate the influence of the
sand filll ratio on the
t mechanisms responnsible for th he hydrauliic failure off GSCs. Th he future
researchh and design guidance//standards sshould be essentially
e directed
d tow
wards an un nambigu-
ous andd practical definition
d off the sand fiill ratio as we
w all as towwards the dedefinition off an opti-
mal sannd fill ratio by accountting for the deformatio on properties of the geootextile and d by bal-
ancing tthe advantaages and draawbacks of hhigh and moderate
m san
nd fill ratioss (e.g. interfface fric-
tion betwween GSCss).
a) Avaailable definnitions of thee sand fill ra

ratio
The sannd fill ratio is

i defined asa the ratio oof the total available sp
pace withinn the geotexxtile con-
tainer annd the voluume of the fill
f materiall. That is, an
a 80% fill ratio indicaates that 80% % of the
geotextiile containeer is filled with
w sand annd 20% rem mains empty at its fillingg (vertical) position
(Recio aand Oumeraaci 2008a). Even thouggh this definition is apparently sim mple, calculation of
the totaal available space withiin the geoteextile is verry complicaated. Furtheermore, the fill ratio
odelling 8
does noot provide a clear desccription of the density y of the sannd. For exam mple, whenn a GSC
filled w
with dry sannd is immerrsed in wateer, sand will be furtheer compacteed, and the new fill
ratio wiill be less leeaving morre freedom for the inteernal movem ment of the sand. On thet other
hand, iff the geotexxtile materiaal undergoees elongatio on or relaxaation over tiime, which then re-
sult in a smaller filll ratio too. Hence, the sand fill raatios of GSC
Cs reported in the literaature are
often coonfusing (Bezuijen et al.a 2004).
b) Facttors influenccing the san

nd fill ratio
The inittial sand filll ratio of a GSC

G depennds on: the properties
p of fill materiial (e.g. grain distri-
bution, density, deggree of satu uration etc.)), the metho
od of filling
g / method oof constructtion (e.g.
hydraulic filling orr dry filling) and the prroperties off geotextile material (e..g. elongatio on prop-
erties of geotextilee). Even tho ough, GSCss made of nonwoven
n geotextiles
g shows high h robust-
ness durring installaation (Lenze et al. 20002), it was found
f that th
he elongatioon of the geotextile
adversely affects thet sand fill ratio and hence, lead ds to other problems aassociated with the
hydraulic stability. Meanwhilee, there are no publicattions availab ble to quanttify the defo ormation
of GSCs during thee filling and d handling pprocess.
Furtherm more, if a GSC

G is drop
pped from a certain heeight, the geeotextile “skkin” will bee further
elongateed due to thhe impact ofo the GSC hitting the sea bottom. To date, nno proper in nvestiga-
tions haave been carrried out onn the quantiification of the deformations of G GSCs duringg the dif-
ferent pphases of coonstruction. Sometimess, they are “filled
“ to cap
pacity” to ccompensate possible
reductioon in sand fill nd the installation proceesses.
fi ratio duriing the consstruction an
c) Effeect of the sannd fill ratio on the hydrraulic stabillity
Many auuthors (e.g. Venis 1968 8, Grüne et al. 2006, Recio

R and Oumeraci 20008b, Deltarres 2008,
Wilms eet al. 2011, Hornsey ett al. 2011) hhave mentio oned the efffect of the ssand fill ratiio on the
stabilityy of GSC-sttructures (Table 2-3). T The results of
o these stu
udies have pproven that the sand
fill ratioo representss an importtant factor for the stabbility of GSSC-structurres. Howeveer, these
results aare not suffficient to un
nderstand thhe influence of the sandd fill ratio oon the hydraaulic sta-
bility off GSC-strucctures. Therrefore, optim mum fill rattios were more
m or less arbitrarily suggest-
ed in thee previous studies
s as afforementionned.
Table 2-33: Effect of thee sand fill ratiio on hydrauliic stability of GSC-structure
G es subject to ssevere wave atttack
(Grüne ett al. 2006, Reccio and Oumeeraci 2008b, D Deltares 2008, Wilms et al. 2011)
2
IInfluence of thhe propriety on Effect of the sand fill
f ratio
GSC property relaated to the hy
ydraulic
sstability [“+” = favourablee]
stability of GSC-structur
G res low filll ratio high fill ratio
[“-“ = unfavourabble]
flexibilitty: energy abssorption + higgh low
contact aarea: interfacee friction + higgh low
stability of GSC (a group
g of GSC
Cs) on sea
+ low
w high
h
bottom
internal stress in geottextile materiaal: vulnera-
- low
w high
h
bility to damage of GSCs
internal movement off sand: deform mation - higgh low
relative movement off geotextile orr caterpillar
- higgh low
mechaniism (Deltares 2008)
odelling 9
In summmary, despiite of the saand fill ratioo was identtified as an important factor affeccting the
hydraulic stability of GSC-strructures, noot only systematic inv vestigations of the relaationship
betweenn the sand fill
f ratio and y of GSC-sttructures aree lacking, but also a
d the hydrauulic stability
proper ddefinition of
o the sand fill
f ratio is nnot yet reallised. In moost of the prrojects, the sand fill
ratio waas determinned rather on
o the basiss of the con nstruction methods
m thaan accordin ng to the
hydraulic stability and the long
g-term duraability.
2.2.2 IInterface Friction

F Bettween GSC
Cs
One of the most important

i parameters,
p which alsoo contributees to the hyydraulic staability of
GSC-strructures, is the interfacce friction. Not only du uring laboraatory tests, but also in real life
projectss, “pullout” of GSCs (F Figure 2-8)) has been observed
o (O
Oumeraci ett al. 2002b, Jackson
et al. 20006). Recio (2007) attemmpted to exxperimentallly and num merically invvestigate thee process
of pullinng out of coontainers from a GSC--revetment due d to wavee attack andd concluded d that the
interface friction between GSCs G conssiderably affects the hydraulic stability of o GSC-
structurres. Furtherm
more, the foormulae sugggested by Recio
R (2007
7) already acccount for thet inter-
face fricction betweeen GSCs. Moreover,
M Recio (20007) showed that even a small variation in
the fricttion angle may
m inducee completelyy different displacemeents of the GSCs by using u the
weakly coupled COBRAS/U
C DEC modeelling systeem. When the t interfacce friction angle is
higher tthan a certaain thresholdd limit, thenn a more orr less gradu
ual, but rathher small movement
towardss the seawarrd direction n was obserrved. Howev ver, the GS
SCs with sm maller interfface fric-
tion anggles showedd relatively large oscilllatory movements with h a clear reesultant tow wards the
seawardd direction. Overall, th he effect of interface frriction properties is stilll not fully clarified
or/and eexperimentaally verifiedd. Interface friction maainly depend ds on: the fr
friction prop perties of
geotextiile material (both shortt term and llong term), the contactt area betw ween two containers,
the overrlapping lenngth (seawaard slope), thhe sand fill ratio (shape of the GSSCs), the typ pe of fill
materiall, etc.
Until reecently the only availaable data to assess the friction bettween GSC Cs were obtaained by
means oof laboratorry tests. Coonventionallly, geotextiile samples are tested in direct sh hear box
apparatuus (0.3 m × 0.3 m) to find their iinterface frriction prop perties. How wever, Krahhn et al.
(2007) aand Matsusshima et al. (2008) shoowed that th he estimation of interfaace friction between
sand bags using thee direct sheaar test resullts of geotex
xtile materiaals are not aaccurate eno
ough.
Krahn eet al. (20077) tested intterface sheaar strength of sand baags manufacctured from m woven
geotextiile and polyyethylene sh heets. In orrder to avoiid the local distortionss near the specimen
edges, llarge scale direct
d shearr test apparaatus with a sheer box ofo 1 m × 1 m was used d (Figure
2-1). Thhis apparatuus allowed tests to be carried ou ut using largge sand bagg specimen ns and to
minimizze scale efffects. The shear
s tests were carrieed out withh different cconfining pressures
p
(e.g. 255, 75 and 1225 kPa) and typical reesults are shown in Fiigure 2-1. T The most im mportant
finding of the reseearch study by Krahn et al. (2007 7) is that th
he interfacee shear stren
ngth be-
tween ffilled sand bags
b is greaater than thaat of the geeotextile maaterial alonee. For exam
mple, the
sand bags made of woven geotextile havee been show wn about 33% higher frriction stiffn ness than
that of tthe geotextile material.
odelling 10
Figure 2--1: Large-scalle direct shear apparatus annd test result of sand bag-sand bag inteerface direct shear
s tests
(Krahn et al. 2007)
Matsusshima et al. (2008) carrried out latteral shear tests on larrge scale sooil bags staccked not
only horrizontally but
b also incllined. The oobjective of this study is i to understtand the aniisotropic
strengthh characterisstics of staccked soil baags and to unnderstand th
he differencces in streng
gth char-
acteristiics when stacked horizzontally andd inclined. A pile of th hree large sscale soil baags were
tested uunder differrent confinin ng pressurees (v = 30k kPa, 150kPPa and 300kkPa). When n the soil
o
bags were stackedd inclined at a an anglee of 18 to o the loadinng directionn, the laterral shear
strengthh is approxiimately 2 times
t largerr than that of horizonttally placedd soil bags. Results
obtainedd by Matsuushima et all. (2008) duuring their experimenttal investigaation are prromising
and GSC Cs stacked inclined co ould be usedd for GSC-sstructures as well. Wheen GSCs arre placed
inclinedd, they will have more friction forrce due to high resistan nce force annd also due to larger
overlappping lengthh compared with the GS SCs stacked d horizontallly. Furtherrmore, the container
c
shape also contribuutes to the interface
i friiction of GS
SCs. Jacksoon et al. (20006) mentio oned that
the highher fill ratioos might leaad to a smaaller contact areas betwween GSCss thus resultt in rela-
tively smmaller resisting forces against the pullout.
2.2.3 P
Properties of Fill Matterial
One of the main cooncerns durring the seleection of thee fill materiial for GSC Cs is the tend dency of
the finee grained paarticles to migrate
m (wasshout) durin ng wave atttack. Apart from the migration
m
of fine pparticles, thhe properties of the filll material su
uch as mean n grain diammeter, cohession, de-
gree of compactionn, etc. will also affectt the movem ment of maaterial insidee the contaainer and
hence tthe deformaation of GS SCs. Furtheermore, thee degree off compactioon also dep pends on
propertiies of fill material
m such
h as the moiisture conten nt, the grain
n size, and tthe grain sizze distri-
bution. Granular material,
m succh as sand wwill compacct more or less immediiately as thee GSC is
immerseed in waterr, depending g on the innitial density
y, whereas a fill mateerial with more
m fine
particless and cohessive propertties will takke longer tiime to be fu ully compaccted (or con nsolidat-
ed). In addition, thhe propertiees of the filll material influence
i th
he deformabbility of containers,
when thhey are subbject to con nfined loadss. For exam mple, Matsu uoka et al. ((2001) deveeloped a
stress sttrain relatioonship for woven
w sand bags includ ding the prooperties of tthe fill mateerial and
the bag material.
odelling 11
2.2.4 R
Retention Properties
P of Geotexttile
Most off the existinng retention n criteria coonsider onlyy a unidirecctional flow
w and valid only for
elementts not expoosed to wav ves or not iin the tidall range. However, a ggeotextile co ontainer,
which is exposed to t wave action and dynnamic flow conditions,, undergoess cyclic wettting and
drying tthat creates oscillatoryy flow throuugh geotextile and a stable soil strructure (filtter cake)
may nott develop under
u condittions of osccillatory flow (Giroud 1982). Hennce, the poree size of
the geottextile mustt be even sm maller than that for uniidirectional flow condittions. Ogink k (1975)
performmed comparaative experiiments usinng several ty ypes of geootextile mateerials and with
w uni-
directional (static) and bidirectional (dyn ynamic) flow w conditionns. Based oon the expeerimental
results oof nonwoveen geotextille, Ogink ((1975) recommends, (ii) O90/D90 ≥ 1 for stattic flows
and (ii) O98/Dmin < 1 for dynaamic flows ((where, O900 or O98 = ch haracterise opening sizze which
correspoonds with the
t average sand diam meter of the sand fractiion of whicch 10% or 2% falls
throughh the geotexxtile respectiively and D 90 or Dmin = sand partiicle size corrrespond to, respec-
tively 990% or 0% passing through the siieve). Moreeover, some retention ccriteria undeer cyclic
flow coonditions are listed in Chen et al. (2008), bu ut their applicability iss yet to be verified.
Furtherm more, the cyyclic deformmation of coontainers (fl
flapping) duuring the waave action will
w leads
to differrent behaviiours of fill material. T Therefore, most
m of the recent studdies, recom mmend to
performm new expeerimental in nvestigationns instead of
o relying on o existing retention criterion.
c
Hence, a verified turbulence testt should bbe used to assess
a the fines
f retentioon capabilitty of the
geotextiile (Saathofff et al. 2007
7).
2.2.5 D
Deformabiility of Geotextile San
nd Containeers
Althouggh the effect of the defformations oof GSCs on n the hydrauulic stabilityy is significaant, until
Recio ((2007), no one has attempted
a tto explain the hydrau ulic stabilityy of coastaal GSC-
structurres, taking into
i accoun
nt the effectt of the defformations and associaated processes. The
deformaation of GSCs could bee either as a result of thhe stresses from
f the neiighbouring contain-
ers or as a result off the wave action
a or duue to a com
mbination of the both. B Based on thee experi-
mental and numeriical studies, Recio (20007) develo oped analytiical stabilityy formulae that ac-
count foor the deformmation of th
he individuaal GSCs.
The defformation of GSCs can n be describbed as cyclicc deformatiions (flappinng during wave
w up-
rush and downrushh) and prog gressive defformations (gradual en nlargement of the seaw ward end
due to tthe internal movement of sand). D Due to soft, flexible naature of the GSC, cycliic defor-
mation may occur during each h wave cyccle. This phenomenon has h both poositive and negative
effects. Due to thiis cyclic deeformation, GSC can dissipate more m wave energy than a stiff
block. O
On the otherr hand, this deformatioon adversely y affects thee force coeff
fficients andd reduces
the resissting forcess, thus increeasing the m
mobilising forces.
f In ad
ddition, the cyclic defoormation
of GSC Cs will incrrease the washout
w of smaller parrticles durinng wave ruunup and ru undown.
Therefoore, lower fill
f ratios in ntensify thee migration of fine paarticles. In ccontrast, th
he defor-
mation due to the internal mo ovement off sand has only a negaative effectt on the staability of
GSC-strructure thatt increases thet force cooefficients of
o GSCs. TheT Internall movementt of sand
heavily depends onn the fill rattio of the coontainer (RRecio and Oumeraci 20008b, Oumeeraci and
Recio 2010).
odelling 12
One of the factors governing the final geeometry of the GSC is the propert rties of fill material.
m
Matsuokka et al. (22001) perforrmed unconnfined and confined co ompressionn tests on saand con-
tainers. According to Matsuok ka et al. (20001), sand bags have an a “apparennt cohesion n” due to
the effect of the geotextile matterial on thee fill partialls inside thee container ((Figure 2-2)). There-
fore, thee stress-straain relationsship of GSC Cs depends on the prop perties of booth fill mateerial and
geotextiile. Therefoore, GSCs can c be desccribed as ho omogeneous blocks whhich have “average “
propertiies” (i.e. composite beh haviour of tthe sand filll and the geeotextile) oof GSCs (e.g g. “aver-
age” dennsity, “averrage” bulk modulus
m andd shear moddulus, “appaarent cohesiion”).
Figure 2--2: Results of biaxial

b comprression test off soil containerrs (Matsuoka et al. 2001)
2.2.6 D
Discussion and Impliccations for the Presen
nt Study
Section 2.2 reviewws the availaable knowleedge on the properties of GSCs w which may affect
a the
hydraulic stability and pointss out the knnowledge gaps g and th
he implicatioons for thee present
study. TThe most important engineering
e properties of GSCs affecting
a thhe stability,, are the
propertiies of geotextile materiial itself, thee sand fill ratio,
r the typ
pe of fill maaterial, the interface
i
friction of GSCs, and
a the defo ormability oof GSCs caaused by thee movemennt of sand in nside the
containeer. More immportantly these
t properrties are intterrelated (F Figure 2-3) and their in nfluence
on the hhydraulic staability of GSC-structurres is not yeet fully undeerstood.
Meanwhhile, a moree appropriatte definitionn for the sand fill ratio o of GSC shhould also be b devel-
oped, ass the applicaability of thhe existing ddefinitions for f relativelly smaller ccontainers (G GSCs) is
questionnable. The initial
i sand fill ratio, juust after fillling and thee fill ratio juust after insstallation
of GSCs is differennt due to manym factorss such as the elongation n of geotexxtile during the han-
dling annd the insttallation processes, thhe deformattion of con ntainers undder the loaads from
neighboouring contaainers, the compaction
c n of sand etc. Hence, th he developm ment of a clear
c and
proper ddefinition forfo the sand fill ratio iss very challeenging, but extremely important. Further-
more, R Recio (20077) found ou ut that the innterface friction betweeen GSCs cconsiderably y affects
the hydr draulic stability of GSC C-Structuress. A friction n factor between contaainers () iss already
includedd in the forrmulae of Recio
R (2007)). However, the effect of interfacee friction prroperties
is still nnot fully expplained or experimentaally verified.
Regardiing the effecct of deformmation of G

GSCs on the stability off GSC-strucctures (Reciio 2007),
the factors responssible for thee deformatioon are not yet
y adequateely explaineed. A propeer under-
odelling 13
standingg of the efffects of the above menntioned prop perties of GSCs

G on G SC deformations is
essentiaal for the fuurther deveelopment off GSC tech hnology. When studyinng the influ uence of
these prroperties onn stability of
o GSC-struructures, atttention shouuld be paidd to disting
guish be-
tween thhe effects of
o each GSC C property sseparately. On
O the otheer hand, a prroperly plan nned ex-
perimennt can be ussed to studyy the effects of several properties on
o the hydraaulic stabiliity at the
same timme.
Properties off
Geotextile
Sand Fill Properties off

Ratio Fill Material
Interface
Deformability
y Friction
Movement of
Sand Inside
er
the Containe
Figure 2--3: Interrelatioonship of prop

perties of GSC
Cs (Dassanayaake and Oumerraci 2009b)
Table 2-4 summariises the con nclusions draawn from th he state of the
t art revieew on the prroperties
of GSCs and identiified the unsolved areaas to be inveestigated. Th hese unsolvved issues sh
hould be
systemaatically studdied using both laboratoory testing and
a numericcal modellinng.
Table 2-44: Conclusionss drawn from the review off state of the art knowledge on properties of GSCs (mo
odified
from Dasssanayake andd Oumeraci 20 009b)
Propertties Conclussions Drawn Areas
A to be innvestigated
Properties of Elongaation propertiees of geotextille influence  Influence of
o elongation pproperties of geotextile
g
Geotextille the deeformability of o GSCs cauusing lower on deformaation of GSC
sand fiill ratio and high
h AOS. Hoowever, due  Fine retentiion criteria off GSCs and itss relation
to 3D structure of thick t nonwovven geotex- to propertiees of geotextille
tiles, thhis effect is reelatively low. Also, fric-  Contributio on of friction pproperties of geotextile
g
tion prroperties of geotextile
g inffluence the to interfacee friction of G
GSCs
interfacce friction of GSCs.
G
Properties of Propertties of fill material
m are ddeterminant  Influence of
o properties oof fill material on de-
Fill Mateerial for the migration off sand, the sannd fill ratio, formabilityy and internal mmovement off sand of
the deeformability of o container, the move- GSC
ment ofo sand insidee the containeer, and the  Influence of
o properties oof fill material on mi-
interfacce friction of GSCs
G gration of fine
f particles oof a GSC subjject to
wave attack k
 Influence of
o fill materiall on stability of
o GSC-
structures
odelling 14
Sand Fill Identiffied as an immportant factoor contrib-  Proper defiinition of the ssand fill ratio
Ratio uting tot hydraulic stability. Th e sand fill  Influence of
o the sand filll ratio on stabiility of
ratio affects the defformability off container, GSC-structtures
the internal movement of sand, aand the in-  Optimum fill
f ratio for diifferent GSC applica-
a
terfacee friction. tions
 Methodology to incorporrate the sand fill f ratio
in numericaal modelling oof GSCs
Deformabbility Deform mability of GSCsG dependds on the  Influence ofo these properrties on the deefor-
of GSCs elongattion characterristics of geootextile ma- mation of GSCs
G and ultim
mately on thee hydrau-
terial, the
t sand fill raatio, the propeerties of the lic stability
y of GSC-strucctures
fill maaterial, the internal movemeent of sand
and thee stresses actinng on GSCs
Interface Interface friction strrongly affect tthe stability  Influence of
o interface friiction of GSCs on the
Friction of GSC Cs. Interface friction depeends on the hydraulic stability of GSSC-structures
type of geotextile material,
m the ttype of the  Relationshiip between dirrect shear testt results of
fill maaterial, the oveerlapping lenggth and the geotextile material
m and fr
friction properrties of
sand fill ratio (shapee of the GSCs)). GSCs
Movemennt of Movem ment of the saand influencess the defor-  Influence of
o properties oof the fill mateerial and
Sand insiide mationn. It depends on the properrties of the the sand filll ratio on the movement off particle
the Contaainer fill maaterial, the san
nd fill ratio aand the de- inside the container
c and on the hydrauulic stabil-
formabbility of contaiiners ity of GSC-structures
2.3 P
Processes Affecting
A the Hydrraulic Sta
ability of GSCs
G
The anaalysis of thee current kno owledge abbout the hyd draulic proceesses relevaant for the hydraulic
h
stabilityy of GSC-sttructures is essential too achieve th he objectivees addresseed under thee section
1.2. Thee most impoortant proceesses affectiing the hydrraulic stabillity of GSC Cs were iden ntified as
the wavve reflectionn, the wavee overtoppinng, the wav ve runup, thhe wave uprrush and do ownrush,
the perm meability of the GSC--structure annd the defo ormation off the constittutive GSCs. These
engineeering properrties of GSC Cs, as addreessed in secction 2.2, innfluence moost of the processes
p
at differrent scales. The key finndings relateed to the processes affeecting the hy
hydraulic staability of
GSC-strructures aree given in Dassanayake
D e and Oumeeraci (2009aa). Unlike paarametric in nvestiga-
tions, thhere is limited informaation regardding the hydraulic processes assoociated with h the hy-
draulic stability off GSC-strucctures. Therrefore, Reccio (2007), reviewed ppresent stag ge of the
knowleddge related to stone rev vetments sinnce some off the processses are sim milar. Afterwwards, an
extensivve series off experimenttal and num merical studiies were carrried out coovering mosst of the-
se proceesses and mechanisms
m s. The resuults are repoorted in Ou umeraci andd Recio (20 010) and
Recio (22007). Apaart from thaat, only Oum meraci et al. (2002a, 2002b,
2 20033, 2007) peerformed
process oriented innvestigation ns on the sttability of GSC-structu
G ures. Howevver, most of the re-
search sstudies werre limited to o horizontaally placed, and 80% filled
f nonwooven GSCss. There-
fore, a ddetailed invvestigation is
i required tto broaden the
t knowled dge on the hhydraulic processes
p
of GSC C-structures while vary ying the keey engineerring propertties. This ssection prov vides an
overview w of only three
t cruciaal processess. Further deetails on thee other proccesses affeccting the
hydraulic stability of GSCs caan be found in Dassanayake and Oumeraci (20009a).
odelling 15
2.3.1 W
Wave Upru
ush and Do
ownrush an
nd Forces Acting
A on GSCs
G
During his series ofo experimeental investtigations, Recio

R (2007
7) measuredd the wave induced
pressuree around GS SCs during wave uprussh and dow wnrush using g an instrum
mented GSC C (Figure
2-4 andd Figure 4-9). By inteegrating thee pressure measuremen
m nts around the GSC, thet total
wave-innduced forcces and mom ments weree derived (F Figure 4-10)). The detaailed analysis of the
wave-innduced loadds on GSC-structures ccan be foun nd in Recio and Oumerraci (2006b b). After-
wards, COBRAS model m was calibrated and validatted using th he date fromm the instruumented
GSCs. L Later, usingg the validaated model, the wave-in nduced forcces on eachh container were in-
vestigatted to provide a furtherr insight intto the interaaction betweeen the wavve loading of
o neigh-
bouringg containerss. A detaileed descriptiion of this approach and a the shoortcomings are dis-
cussed iin section 4.4.
Figure 2--4: Wave induuced load on in

nstrumented ssand containerr during wave downrush (Re
Recio 2007)
2.3.2 P
Permeabiliity of GSC--Structuress
meability of the structurre influencees the hydraaulic stability (Hen-

In generral, the hyddraulic perm
dar 19660, Hudson 1956 and 1961, 1 Pilarcczyk 1998, Van der Meer 1998, eetc.). The more
m per-
meable the structurre, the more water cann penetrate into the strructure durinng wave ru unup and
the smaaller the forcces on armoour units wi ll be, both during
d the wave
w runup and rundow wn phas-
es. Highher permeabbility reducces the seeppage forces and pressu ure “build-uup” in the structure.
s
Permeabbility also strongly
s afffects the waave transmission and other
o processses associaated with
wave-sttructure inteeraction (Chhao-Lung ett al. 2004, Muttray
M andd Oumeraci 2002). Hen nce, larg-
er perm
meability willl provide a more stablee structure.
The floww through a GSC-stru ucture is nott homogeneeous. A lam

minar flow iis expected through
the sandd fill of GS
SCs while th
he flow thrrough the gaps
g between containerrs is expectted to be
turbulennt. Despite the in-hom
mogeneity oof the flow and its unssteadiness, tthe permeaability of
odelling 16
GSC-strructures will preferablly be descriibed by thee Darcy perrmeability ccoefficient k (Recio

2007).
The firsst permeabiility analysiis was condducted by Oumeraci

O et
e al. (20022b). The larrge scale
model rresults by Oumeraci
O et al. (2002b)) showed a permeability around k = 2 × 10−22 m/s for
the coveer layer maade of 0.1500 m3 sand ccontainers while
w the saand used in the tests innside the
GSC haad a permeaability coeffficient of k = 1.6 x 10 1 −4 m/s. Th hen, it was concluded that the
permeabbility of a GSC-structu
G ure is eventtually governed by thee gaps betw ween the GS SCs. Re-
cio’s (22007) small scale experrimental invvestigationss confirmedd this findinng. Apart frrom con-
firming that the sizze of the gaps governns the overaall permeability of the GSC-structure, the
other m
main conclussions, from that
t experim mental study y were;
(i) tthe smaller the containner, the smaaller the perrmeability coefficient
c oof the struccture and
mmay vary frrom 8 × 10-33 m/s (mediuum containers) to 1.5 × 10-2 m/s (llarge contaiiners)
(ii) llongitudinal or transversal GSC arrrangement will result in similar ppermeability y.
Howeveer, as shownn in Table 2-5, 2 there iss a significaant variation

n in the perrmeability measure-
m
ments (e.g. Permeaability of a single coluumn of largee GSCs (vo ol. 13.8 l) iss lower than n a com-
plete strructure withh small GSCs (vol. 1.77 l). Thereffore, a different approaach is necesssary for
the perm
meability tests, if it is necessary
n too find out th
he influence of the sandd fill ratio or type of
geotextiile material on the hydrraulic permmeability.
Table 2-55: Comparisonn of permeabillity coefficiennts with differeent GSC sizess and differentt mode of placcement
(Recio annd Oumeraci 2008a)
2
odelling 17
2.3.3 C
Cyclic Defoormations of GSC
The defformation of o sand conttainers reprresents is th he most imp portant mecchanism thaat makes
the GSC C-structuress unique as compared tto other (haard) coastal structures. The deform mation of
GSCs can be dividded as cyclicc deformatiion (flappin ng during waave uprush and downru ush) and
progresssive deform mation (grad dual enlargeement of seeaward end d due to intternal moveement of
sand). RRecio (20077) followed two steps dduring the developmen
d nt of his hyddraulic stability for-
mulae. D During the first step, no account iss made for the t effect of the cyclic deformatio on on the
stabilityy of GSCs. Then, drag (CD), inertiia (CM) and d lift (CL) coefficient wwere determmined for
the rigidd GSCs bassed on expeerimental innvestigation ns. During th he second sstep, corrective fac-
tors werre introduceed to accoun nt for the cyyclic deformmation effeccts. Figure 22-5 shows an a exam-
ple calcculation withh all the available form mulae for stability of GSC-structur
G res (see Fig
gure 5-1)
includinng equationns developed d by Recioo (2007). Ass shown in Figure 2-55, the formu ulae that
accountt for cyclic deformation n give the llowest stabiility and hence need thhe largest saand con-
tainer fo
for a given wave condition. Furthhermore, thee effect of cyclic defoormation on n the hy-
draulic stability of GSC-structture is moree relevant fo or crest GSC Cs. Later, thhe formulaee extend-
ed to fivve differentt application
ns of GSCs.. However, only two faailure mechhanisms, slid ding and
overturnning were considered.
c Also, the efffect of cycclic deformaation of GSC Cs on the hydraulic
h
stabilityy for each off these appllications waas considereed equally, but
b not suffi ficiently verrified.
Figure 2--5: Comparisoon between available

a stabiility formulaee with and wiithout deform
mation effects (modified
from Recio 2007)
2.3.4 D
nt Study
Only veery few off process-orriented inveestigations have

h been performed on the staability of
GSC-strructures. Most
M of the research sttudies weree limited to revetmentss with 1:1 seaward
slope, hhorizontal placement,
p and
a 80% fiill ratio. Th herefore, moore detailedd investigattions are
requiredd to broadeen the know
wledge on hhydraulic prrocesses of GSC-structtures while varying
the engineering prroperties off GSCs, thee geometry of the GSC Cs, the geoometry of th he entire
GSC-strructure and the submerrgence depthh.
odelling 18
The oveerall permeeability of th he GSC-strructure is governed

g by
y the size oof the gaps between
containeers (Recio 2007,
2 Wertth et al. 20008). The diffferent fill ratios
r mighht result in different
gap sizees and conssequently will have diff fferent permmeabilities. A smaller fi fill ratio mo
ore likely
to resultt in smallerr gaps. Aparrt from thatt, the differeent fill mateerials and thhe different types of
geotextiiles might also
a influencce the perm meability of GSCs.
G
The defformation of o GSCs dep pends on m many param meters, partiaally, the sannd fill ratio
o and the
propertiies of geotextile materiial. Therefoore, a new seeries of exp periments neeed to be peerformed
to identtify the defoormation off GSC durinng each of th he applications and thee significancce of the
influenccing factorss on the defformation foor each application. Hy ydraulic stabability Formmulae de-
velopedd by Recio (2007)
( conssidered onlyy the stabilitty of the GS SCs againstt two failuree modes,
sliding and overturrning. Five different appplications of GSC were identifiedd. The effect of de-
formatioon of GSC Cs on the hy ydraulic staability for each
e of theese applicattions was however,
h
treated equally andd yet to be verified.
v Thherefore, forrmulae that are not lim mited to speecific ge-
ometrical conditionns and a san nd fill ratio aare still to be
b developed
In summmary, mostt of the imp portant enggineering prroperties off GSCs inflluence the different
processees affectingg the hydrau
ulic stabilitty of GSC-sstructures. Therefore,
T ffuture expeerimental
and num
merical inveestigations should
s be c arried out only
o with a sound undeerstanding ofo all the
processees and the failure
f modees involved .
2.4 F
Failure Meechanism
ms of GSC -Structurres
Due to the flexibillity and low w specific ggravity of GSCs
G as com
mpared to rrock or concrete ar-
mour unnits, they behave differently and tthe establisshed design formulae ffor rock or concrete
units arre not appllicable. Furrthermore, the stabilitty of GSC is more ccomplex an nd GSC-
structurres show a number
n of particular
p faailure modees (Jackson et al. 2006)). Figure 2--6 shows
many off the differeent potentiaal failure moodes (After,, Jackson ett al. 2006, D
Deltares 200 08, Law-
son 20008, Oumeracci and Recio o 2010). Moost of thesee failure modes are influuenced by thet engi-
neering properties of GSCs su uch as the saand fill ratio, the type of geotextille, etc. and some of
them arre already mentioned
m in section 22.3. A soun nd understaanding of th
the potentiaal failure
modes oof GSC-struuctures are required foor the devellopment off computatioonal modelss for the
stabilityy of GSC-sttructures. This
T section describes the t failure mechanisms
m s of GSC-sttructures
related tto the hydraaulic stabilitty.
odelling 19
overturning o
overtopping
Pullout / Sliding orr

Incide
ent wave
Caterpillar Mechan nism S
Sliding
SWL
L
Hi
Deforrmation Scour due to
overtopping
Migratio
on of sand, Rupture, ge
eotextile san
nd
Excessivve Relaxatiion co
ontainers
To
oe
Scour α α sllope angle
sea bed
b
Figure 2--6: Potential failure modess of a GSC-reevetment (Jacckson 2006, Recio

R 2007, D
Deltares 2008
8, Lawson
2008, Oumeeraci and Reciio 2010, Dassaanayake and Oumeraci
O 2009)
2.4.1 F
Failure duee to Progreessive Deforrmation
The proogressive deeformation (gradual ennlargement of seaward end) of thee GSC is caaused by
the inteernal movem ment of san nd (Recio and Oumerraci 2008a, 2008b, Ouumeraci an nd Recio
2010). R Recio (20007) conducted an expeerimental in nvestigation
n of the inte
ternal moveement of
sand usiing a transpparent permeable contaainer filled with
w coloureed sand (Figgure 2-7). Based
B on
the videeo record annalysis of thhe permeablle transparent containerr with colouured sand su ubject to
wave atttack, the foollowing observations w were made. When a GSC structurres subject to t severe
wave atttack, wavee uprush induced a rottational san nd movemeent directedd upward an nd wave
downruush induced seaward movement off sand. After few cycles, the contaainer deform ms as the
sand acccumulates at a the seawaard end of thhe containeer. This behaaviour reduuces the con ntact area
with thee neighbouuring contaiiners. Accoording to Recio (2007)), unless thhe containerr further
horizonntally movees triggering g the intern
rnal movem ment of san nd, conditioon should prevails.
p
Howeveer, forward movement will ease ass a result off smaller con ntact areas w
with the neiighbour-
ing conttainers. Theen the whole process oof sand mov vement will repeat and GSCs will progres-
sively ddeform. Furrthermore, whenw comppared with a normal co ontainer, a ddeformed container
c
has lesss resisting foorces and laarger mobiliizing forcess induced by
y wave attacck. If these process-
es contiinue, then thhe GSC willl graduallyy move in th he seaward direction annd finally, iti will be
pulled oout from thee structure. Corbella annd Stretch (2012)
( prov
vided field eevidence to validate
these prrocesses, whhich were originally
o exxplained byy Recio (20007). In addittion, the larrge scale
experimments by Deltares (2008 8) also conffirmed the movement
m of
o sand insidde GSCs.
odelling 20
Figure 2--7: A cross-sectional drawin

ng of a GSC-rrevetment in South
S Africa, which showss both the as-b built struc-
ture and the progressive deformation
d annd the motion
n in the seawarrd direction affter a cyclonee (Corbella
and Stretch, 2012)
2.4.2 F
Failure duee to Pulling
g Out
Jacksonn et al. (20006) describees the pullouut of GSCss from revettment and tthe followinng influ-
ence facctors were identified (see
( Figuree 2-9). Even
n though Jaackson et aal. (2006) discussed
d
about thhe failure modes
m of GS SC-structurees, they add
dress neitheer the deform
mation of container
c
nor the internal moovement of sand (Figur ure 2-8). As mentioned in section 2.4.1, Recio o (2007)
explainss the processs behind th
he pullout off GSC and heh termed this failure mmechanism as “pro-
gressivee sliding” toowards the seaward
s dirrection.
Figure 2--8: Pullout of GSCs

G due to wave
w attack
odelling 21
PULL OUT Important fa

actor for
Geotextile material
m
Negligib
ble
Dissip
pation through Container Friction
Interlocking
g Contact Area
C Surface
Po
orosity Weiight
Ability o Container
of Roughnesss
Stiffness of
o Growth on Weigh
ht of
Weight of Fill
F
Material Container Container
Pore Size of
P Thickness of
o Type
e of Fill Grain Size of
Type of Filll
Container Containerr Mate
erial Compaction
C Filll
Figure 2--9: Factors inffluencing pullo

out of GSCs ((modified from
m Jackson et al.
a 2006)
2.4.3 F
Failure duee to Cyclic Deformatiions and Sliding of GS
SCs
One of tthe most coommon hydrraulic failurre modes off GSC is sliding. GSCss could prog gressive-
ly slide either towaards the seaw ward directtion (GSCs at the slopee or at the ccrest) or tow
wards the
landwarrd directionn (only GSC Cs at the creest). Duringg the wave runup, upruushing wateer uplifts
the fronnt part of thhe containerr and local vvortices occcur between
n the contaiiners. As a result of
the upliift, the effeective contaact areas beetween GSC Cs and thuss the stabiliizing forcess are re-
duced. D During the downrush, the upliftedd part of thee container moves
m agaiin downwarrd. How-
ever, thhe effective contact area further rreduces due to the up plift deform
mations and internal
movemeent of sandd (Recio 200 07). He sugggested corrrective factors for his sliding formmulae to
take thee effect of deformation n into accoount. Figuree 2-5 provid
des an imprression of effect
e of
cyclic ddeformationn on sliding failure mecchanism for slope and crest
c containners (see Fiigure 5-1
and Figuure 5-9).
The defformation ofo GSCs changes the llocation of centre of gravity and hence, incrrease the
momentt due to draag force andd inertia forrce. As projected area reduces,
r mooment due lift
l force
will alsoo be reduceed. Meanwhhile, there w
will be an addditional veertical forcee componennt, due to
the presssure exerted on the defformed secttion of the GSC.
G Howeever, it is noot clear wheether this
vertical force compponent wass consideredd during the derivation n of Recio’’s formulae (Dassa-
nayake and Oumerraci 2009a)
2.4.4 F
Failure duee to Overtu
urning of G
GSCs
Generallly, GSCs at a the crest of the GSC C-structure are more vulnerable
v ffor both slid
ding and
overturnning failurees (Figure 2-10).
2 Thereefore, the crrest contain
ners are connsidered as the
t criti-
cal elem
ments of loww-crested GSC-structurres (Oumeraaci et al. 200 02b and Ouumeraci et al.
a 2003).
Given thhe same inccident wavee conditionss, the requireed weight of
o a crest coontainer migght be up
odelling 22
to 8 tim
mes larger thhan the requuired weighht of a slopee container. Not only tthe crest containers,
but alsoo the slope containers
c can
c overturnn during exttremely high h wave condditions, whiich exert
much hiigher destabbilising forcces on a GS C than the resisting
r forrces (Recio 2007).
Overturningg of
overtoppiing
crest container
Overturning
g of
slope container
Inccident wave
SW
L Hi
ge
eotextile sand
d
co
ontainers
α α sllope angle
sea be
ed
Figure 2--10: Cyclic deformation (flaapping) and ovverturning of slope and cresst GSCs
Accordiing to Recioo (2007), thhe cyclic deeformation (flapping) of o GSC affeects more adversely
a
in the ssliding thann the overtu
urning failurre mechanism. The resisting mom ments againnst over-
turning will be 8% lower for a deformed container whereas
w the resisting foorces againsst sliding
will be 30% lower,, when com mpared with a non-deformed container. This m might also be
b due to
the undeerestimationn of additional momennts due to fo orces acting on the defoormed sectio on of the
GSC. HHowever, thhe final resu ults still shoow a consid erms of the required
derable diffeerence in ter
length oof GSCs agaainst overtuurning (Figuure 2-11).
Figure 2--11: Comparisson between Recio’s

R overtuurning formulaa for the crest GSCs with annd without deeformation
effect (Recioo 2007)
odelling 23
2.4.5 D
nt Study
The knoowledge of potential faailure modees of GSC-sstructures iss required ffor the deveelopment
of new hydraulic sttability formmulae for thhe stability of GSC-stru uctures. Reccio (2007) provides
p
a comprrehensive description
d about
a the deeformation of
o GSCs and resulting failure mod des: slid-
ing andd overturninng. Jackson n et al. (20006) and Co orbella and Stretch (20012) mentio oned the
pullout of GSCs, which
w is moore likely too occur as explained by b Recio (22007). Furth hermore,
Oumeraaci et al. (20003) also ideentified slidding and oveerturning ass two main mmodes of faailure.
In addittion to the failure mecchanisms diiscussed ab bove, Lawso on (2008) aand Deltares (2008)
highlighhted the prooblem of miigration of ffine particlees (washout) from GSC Cs exposed to direct
wave atttack, but sttill there is no proper investigatio on on this issue.
i Also,, scour at th
he toe is
also im
mportant andd more stud dies shouldd be carried
d out to und derstand waave reflectiion from
GSC-strructures.
Most off the failure modes iden ntified so faar are influeenced by thee sand fill rratio, the typ
pe of fill
materiall and the interface fricttion. Thereffore, systemmatic investiigations aree required to o proper-
ly undeerstand the influence of o the aforeementioned factors on the hydrauulic stability y and to
quantifyy the influennce of each of these facctors. Oncee this knowledge is gainned, it is po ossible to
developp simplified formulae and/or
a a com
mputational tool for the hydraulic sstability of GSCs.G
2.5 N
Numericall Modellin
ng of GSC
C-Structu
ures
Empiriccal formulaee developed d based on scaled phy ysical modeels showed several resstrictions
(e.g. rellatively narrrow range of applicabbility, difficculty to reproduce som me of the im mportant
factors relative to hydraulic stability,
s succh as frictio
on betweenn elements, flow in thee porous
structurres, etc.). Heence, the simulation off wave-struccture interactions usingg numericall models
has beeen rapidly developing
d during last few decades. In orderr to simulat ate all the processes
p
related tto the hydraaulic stabiliity of GSC--structures, a fully coupled Compputational Fluid Dy-
namic m model (CFD D) and a Computation
C nal Structurral Dynamiic Model (C CSD) are required.
r
Even thhough somee research sttudies on c ombined CFD-CSD modelling m haave been co onducted
recentlyy (Latham et e al. 2008,, Greben et al. 2008, Mindel
M 2008
8, Latham eet al. 2009, Xiang
X et
dies are still limited to stiff ele-
al. 20122) on the waave-structurre interactioons, most off these stud
ments ssuch as rockks or concreete armour units. How wever, due to the flexibble nature of o GSCs,
these mmodels cannoot be directly applied tto GSC-stru uctures. Reccio (2007) illlustrated th
he possi-
bilities to numericcally simulaate the hyddraulic stability of GSC-structurees consideriing their
flexibiliity. He usedd a weakly coupled CF FD and CSD D model, wh hich resulteed in reasonnably ac-
curate results. Secttion 4.4 disccusses the liimitations of
o this modeelling systemm in detail.
2.5.1 C
Computatiional Fluid Dynamic ((CFD) Mod
del
Several approachees have beeen followedd to study the

t wave hydrodynam
h mics around d coastal
structurres. Among existing ap
pproaches, m
models baseed on Navier-Stokes eequations haave been
incorporated in thee last two decade to study the wave-structu
w ure interacttion problems. The
numberr of simplifyying assump
ptions assum
med in thesse model, is lower thann in other ap
pproach-
odelling 24
es. Therrefore, the ability of th

hese modells to deal with
w flows around
a compplicated geometries
and to pprovide dettailed informmation on tthe velocity
y and pressu
ure field arre higher th
han other
models (Lara et al. 2010b).
Recio (22007) show wed that CO OBRAS (Coornel Break king Wave and Structuures); a two o dimen-
sional RRANS-VOF F (Reynoldss Average N Navier Stock ks equation and the Voolume of Flluid con-
cept) m
model is capaable of sim mulating the wave-inducced forces on o GSCs. T This numeriical code
has beenn developedd by the ressearch team of Professo or Dr. Philip
p L.F. Liu iin Cornell Universi-
U
ty, USAA (Lin and LiuL 1998, Liu L 2004, L iu and Lin 1997, Liu and a Lin 20002, Liu et al. 1999).
Recently, the reseaarch group of Prof. Iniigo Losada (Losada et al. 2005, L Losada et all. 2008),
modifieed the COBR RAS code from
f Corne l University y and introd
duced a new w version with
w more
simplifiied input opptions, whicch is called CCOBRAS-U UC. The new version pprovides a complete
c
descripttion of the flux around d rubble-moound breakw waters, bein
ng its only limitation isi its 2D
characteer (Sierra ett. al. 2010). Both, COBBRAS and COBRAS-U
C UC have beeen used and d validat-
ed by mmany researcchers and th heir findingss are reportted in severaal publicatioons, which describe
differennt applicatioons of these models. Gaarcia et al. (2004a, 200 04b), Recioo (2007) and d Lara et
al. (20006) successfully used COBRAS and COBR RAS-UC codes to perfform 2D nu umerical
analysiss of wave-sstructure intteraction wiith low-cressted and su ubmerged peermeable sttructures
under reegular wavves. Hence, these code s can be su uccessfully used to moodel wave-sstructure
interactiion of GSC-structures.
2.5.2 S
Structural Dynamic Models
M (CS
SD)
A GSC C-structure isi made off several fleexible disco ontinuous elements.
e A
According to t Itasca
(2011), a numericaal model mu ust represennt two mecchanical beh haviours: beehaviour off the dis-
continuiities (i.e. discontinuit
d ties betweeen GSCs) and a behaviour of soliids (i.e. inndividual
GSCs). Different approaches
a are availabble to model a discontinuous systeem. Howev ver, most
of thesee approachees are capabble of modeelling deforrmable bodiies (or elem ments), onlyy few are
capable of modellinng deformaable contact s. As deform mable contaacts are onee of the key features
in modeelling of GS SC-structurees, it is easyy to identify
y the most suitable
s metthod to nummerically
simulatee GSCs.
The Universal Disttinct Element Code (U UDEC) is a two-dimens

t ional numeerical code, which is
based oon of the diistinct elem
ment methodd. This com mmercially available ccode combin nes both
finite annd discrete element meethods for ddeformation
ns and disco
ontinum moodelling. Thhe stabil-
ity of G
GSC-structurre has been studied witth the UDEC software (Recio 20007). UDEC can sim-
ulate thhe response of discontinuous meddia subject to either sttatic or dynnamic loadiing. The
discontiinuous meddium is reprresented as an assembllage of disccrete blockss or elemen
nts (FEM
in UDE EC).
2.5.3 P
Partially Coupled
C CO
OBRAS/UD
DEC Modell System (R
Recio 2007))
Basicallly there aree two metho ods to coupple the CFDD and CSD: (i) One waay coupling g; where,
the fluidd flow exerrts forces on
n the discreete elementss and interactions of diiscrete elem
ments are
modelleed by DEM and (ii) Tw wo way couppling: where, in additio on to the onne way coup pling, the
odelling 25
solid paarticle interaactions are modelled

m byy DEM thaat are in turnn coupled too the fluid forces
f as
they moove and affeect the fluid d flow (Lathham et al. 2008).
2 The extent
e of thhe coupling also dif-
fers from one to another.
a In most of thhe cases, tw
wo independ dent codes are coupled d with a
“Connecting file”. Two codess are runninng independ dently whilee sharing thhe informatiion. This
method is referredd to as “weaakly coupliing”, “partial coupling g” (Recio 20007, Oumeeraci and
Recio 2010) or “looosely-couplling” (Wangg and Lin 20 008).
Flow
w Diagram
m
Start
A
“Cob
bras” provides
s the D
wave-induced force
es on “Cobras” is
s run with the
elements updated geo ometry from a
previous waave cycle until
B the time of the last
“UDEC C” (FEM) calculates displacement
the deformations
d and
stress
ses of the elem
ments
C
“UDEC C” (DEM) calc culates
Structure geometry
g is
the res
sulting displac
cement
updated in “Cobras”
o the elements
of s
t  t  t
Next time
t step
Is the displacement of any of the Time at which the
N
NO YES
elemeents larger tha
an the displacemennt occurred is
predeetermined threshold? reco
orded
Figure 2--12: Numericaal modelling concept follow

wed by Recio (2007)
(
COBRA AS/UDEC model m systeem used byy Recio (200 07) is a weakly coupleed system to t model
the hydrraulic stabillity of GSCC-structures.. The modelling concep pt followedd by Recio (2007)
( is
shown iin Figure 2-12.
2 In thiss modellingg system, thhe COBRA AS and the UDEC are running
indepenndently whille sharing the t output innformation (see Figuree 2-12). A ssimilar metthod was
used to solve manny other fluiid-deformabble structurre interactio on problemss in different disci-
plines ((e.g. Wand and Lin 20 008). This w
weakly coup pled model system conntains somee crucial
limitatioons in moddelling follo owing casess, (i) detachhed elemen nt is “floatinng” away from
f the
structurre (ii) displaacement off several eleements occcur simultan neously andd (iii) deforrmations
during a time step are large en nough to afffect consideerably and immediatelyy the bound dary con-
ditions oof neighbouuring elemeents. Based on the know wledge obtaained from various mo odel tests
and anaalysis of GS SC-structures, the COB BRAS code and UDE EC were addapted to acccurately
represennt the hydrraulic proceess responssible for thee instability y of GSC-rrevetments. Similar
Techniqque has been used by GrebenG et all. (2008) an
nd Grobler et
e al. (20100). Detailed descrip-
tion of RRecio’s moddel and valiidation is giiven in sectiion 4.4 and in Dassanaayake and Oumeraci
O
(2012f).
odelling 26
2.5.4 D
nt Study
Since thhe experimental investtigations allways invollve, not onlly various eexpensive technical
t
resourcees but also a lot of exp
pensive conssumables, thhe numericaal modelling
ng is consideered as a
cost efffective techhnique. Furtthermore, oonce a calibbrated num merical moddel is establlished, a
range off scenarios may be investigated wwith relativelly little effo
ort.
In spitee of the lim

mitations, COBRAS/U
C UDEC is thee most reasonable moodelling sysstem for
GSC-strructures up to date. Caapabilities aand limitatio
ons of this CFD-CSD
C ccodes for modelling
m
of GSC C-structuress were doccumented bby Recio (2007) ( and Dassanayaake and Oumeraci
O
(2012f). COBRAS S/UDEC modelling
m syystem was initially deeveloped too model th he GSC-
revetmeents and lateer applied for
f selectedd low-cresteed structuress. Thereforee, COBRAS S/UDEC
modelling system can
c be succeessfully useed for the modelling
m off submergedd GSC-strucctures.
Recio (22007) simuulated the hy ydraulic staability of GSSCs with diifferent inteerface frictio
on prop-
erties annd found thhe significannce of interfface friction
n. However, the resultss are not yet experi-
mentallyy verified. By simulatting pulloutt tests and comparing with experrimental ressults, the
interface friction prroperties off the numeriical models can be validated up to a certain ex xtent.
Workinng with a 2D D model is much simppler and req quired less computation
c nal power. Further-
more, R Recio (20077) reasonablly simplifiedd the 3D prroblem of th he hydrauliic stability of
o GSCs
into a 22D problemm. The results from thee weakly co oupled modelling systeem were reaasonably
accuratee, when com mpared with h the experiimental resuults from Oumeraci
O et al. (2002a)). There-
fore, thee current reesearch will focus on adopting th he COBRAS/UDEC m modelling sy ystem of
Recio, tto model thhe hydraulicc stability off submergedd GSC-Stru uctures. Thiis modelling g system
will be further veriified and co
orrected baseed on the reesults of thee proposed eexperimental inves-
tigationns.
2.6 P
Physical Modelling
M of GSC-S
Structurees
Startingg from the works
w of Veenis (1968),, several mo odel tests reelated to thee hydraulic stability
of GSC C-structures were condducted worlddwide. Thee results of a comparattive analysiis of the
previouus hydraulic model testss are outlineed in this seection.
2.6.1 S
Scale Modeelling of GS
SC
Detailedd informatioon of the laaboratory teests on the hydraulic

h sttability of G
GSC-structu ures per-
formed by Hudsoon (1956), Venis V (19688), Porraz et
e al. (1979), Ray (19777), Küblerr (2002),
Tekmarrine (1982), Jacobs and d Kobayashii (1983 and d 1985), Bouuyze and Scchram (1990 0), Pilar-
czyk (22000), Oum meraci et al. (2002b, 22002c, 2007 7), US-CEM M (2004), R Recio (20077), Recio
and Oum meraci (20007d, 2008a, 2008b,20009), Mori et e al. (2008)), Mori (20009), Coghllan et al.
(2009), Oumeraci and a Recio (2010), Delttares 2010 anda Wilms et e al. (2011)) are summarised in
Figure 22-13. The cross section ns of the moodel structu
ures investig
gated are coomparatively shown
in the fiigure. Tablee 2-7 provid
des more deetailed inforrmation andd the contribibutions of them
t for
the advaancement of the knowlledge on thee hydraulic stability of GSC-structtures.
odelling 27
One of the main challenges

c in
i modellinng GSC is to t accuratelly reproducce the properties of
geotextiile in small scale. The similitude cconditions dod not allow w the use off identical geotextile
materiall in prototyype and smaall scale moodel. Howev mpossible to satisfy all the scal-
ver, it is im
ing rulees simultaneeously. Therefore, depeending on the t purposee of the expperiment, a practical
p
strategyy to scale doown the properties of ggeotextile shhould be deffined. Tablee 2-6 showss interre-
lationshhip of propeerties of geotextile mateerial and oth
her engineering propert rties of GSCCs.
Table 22-6: Relationsship between engineering

e prroperties of GSCs
G and the properties
p of ffill material off GSCs.
Properties of GSCs
s
Movemen nt of
erface
Inte
Sand Fill Ratio Deformability
y Sand Insid
de the
Friiction
Containner
erties of Geotex
(a) Prope xtile Material
• Mass pe
er Area - - - -
• Thicknesss - X - -
• Tensile Strength
S X X X -
• Elongation X X X X
• Puncture
e Force - - - -
• Deforma
ation by Penetra
ation Test - X X -
• Permeab
bility X X X -
• Transmitivity - - - ?
• Characte
eristic Opening Size X ? X -
• Surface Friction - - - X
X=relevaant, ?=unknow
wn, - =not releevant
Due to practical limitations, Pilarczyk

P (22000) recom mmends to use differeent scaling rulesr for
differennt propertiess of geotexttile. Therefo
fore, the thinnest suitabble materiall has been selected,
s
which iss one order of magnitu ude strongerr in tensile strength.
s Sim
milarly, it hhad been imp practical
to satisffy other moodel parameeters such aas the interfaface friction, the hydrauulic conducctivity of
geotextiile and the properties fill materiaal. Deltares (2010), du uring the laarge scale hydraulic
h
stabilityy tests of geotextile tub
bes, studied the scaling problems ofo geotextilees and fill materials,
m
but did not reach a proper con nclusion. Thhough the seelected scale was 1:4, D Deltares (20
010) fol-
lowed a similar appproach as described
d ab
above and selected a th hin geotextiile with a sufficient
sand rettention capaability and a sufficient strength forr hydraulic filling.
2.6.2 D
Discussion and Impliccations to tthe Presentt Study
After ann extensive review and d analysis oof the literatture on the sand fill rat
atio of GSCs and its
effect oon the hydraaulic stabiliity of GSC--structures, it is foundd that the laaboratory in
nvestiga-
tions are the most feasible and d appropriaate option to
o study the effect of diifferent enggineering
propertiies of GSCss on the hyddraulic stabiility of GSC
C-structures.
Most off the previouus experimeental studiees were carrried out to in

nvestigate tthe hydrauliic stabil-
ity of G
GSC-revetmments. Howeever, Mori aat al. (2009 9) conducted d a series oof experimeents with
submergged GSC-sttructures. Other
O than thhat, only Deelft Hydraullics (1994) aand Oumeraci et al.
(2002b)) conductedd experimentts with subm merged and d low-crested GSC-struuctures while chang-
ing few parameterss. Thereforee, up to now
w a process oriented
o inv
vestigation oof submergeed GSC-
odelling 28
structurres has not yet

y been peerformed. H Hence, furth her systemattic investiggations are required,
r
which ccover the efffect of the sand fill raatio, the inteerface friction betweenn GSCs, andd the in-
clinationn angles of GSCs, etc.
Scaling of geotexttile materiall representss the one of the main concern wh when plannin ng small
scale exxperiments and
a it is imp possible to aachieve a peerfect similitude. Thereefore, the seelections
of the m
material for the experimmental invesstigations shhould be baased on a thhorough und derstand-
ing of tthe physicaal processess and propeerties of available matterials. Therrefore, it iss recom-
mendedd to conductt further stu udies to ideentify scalin
ng problemss related to geotextile material
and fill material in the small sccale GSC-sttructure mo odels.
29
9
Table 2-7: Previous model tests related to the hydraulic stability of GSC-structures (modified
( from Reccio 2007)
A
Author and Typee of Scale W
Wave-flume Wave Container Container
C Filling Fill Over- Stability
Year Struc
cture di mensions Type Material Dim
mensions Mateerial ratio lapping Criteria Con
ntribution
((length)m
(leng
gth)mx(width)m
x (width)m
x
x(height)m
x (depth)m
Dry sand
s
VENIS Submeerged w ith
hout filling (1:5)
U/3.0/U &
U Jute and Nylon, ρs= 1600 kg/m 3 50%- Recommendation of a sand fill ratio of 80% %.
(1968) breakw
water 1:5; 1:20 Unknown 0.4xx0.4 m & (1:20) -- --
U/0.6/U plastic bag wet sand
s 90% lower filling ratio reduces the stability
: (1:n=1
1:1.5) 0.1x0.1
ρs=1900 kg/m 3
No consideration of wave period, tubes more
DELFT stable than containe ers. Stability proportional to
Revetme ent, sand be diam. 0.9m
Tub 90%- Movement starts H/(∆D
Dn)
H
Hydraulics 01:25 U
Unknown Spectra Jute and linen Sand -- tube diameter. Larg ger mattresses give high er
tubes, (1
1:n=1=3) and 1.5m 100% = 2.0 Damage =4.5
(1975) stability. Sand fill ra
atio does not influence thhe
stability of mattresses
RAY Breakwa
ater and With
hout filling 2.44
Regular Wet sand,
s Steep waves indu uce reduction in stability
(1977) submeerged 1:1 U
Unknown Nylon x 1.52m full 75% -- From H/(∆Dn) = 3.0 to = 5
waves ρs= 2000 kg/m3 (specially on sub
bmerged breakwaters).
: break
kwater 2.15x1.2x0.33
Steepness of sloope, higher overlapping

For 1:n=1:1 and Hcrit =6cm
PORRAZ et
P induces higher sta ability, higher loads are on
er (1:n:1:1
Breakwate Regular Mortar ρs=2140 Un H/(∆Dn)=2.0 for 1:n=1.2
al. (1979) 1:60 7
70/0.6/1.2 Polyethylene Full 5.6x2.3x0.5cm
5 -- the top of the slopee. Recommendations for a
and 1:n=1:2) waves kg//m3 known and Hcrit =9cm
: larger crest elem ent. Higher stability with
H/(∆Dn)=2.0
containers perpend dicular to the structure axxis
50% overlapping Overlapping length h increases the K factor to

t
TEKMARINE
T Regular Without filling
Revetmeent slope Gravel ρ=1923
ρ Un H/(∆Dn)=2.1 withoutt 1.5, Elements near the SWL are critical for th
he
(1982) 1:6 107/3.7/4.6 waves and Unknown 0,61
1 x 0.33m; full 50%
(1:n=
=1:3) kg/m3 (c
cement) known overlapping 1.8 stability, Recommmendations for maximum m
: Spectra 0.54 x 0.26 x0.14m
combination2.1 possiblle overlapping
Increase in the ov verlapping increases thee

JACOBS & dry sand ρs=
Without filling
W stability, Introductio
on of a empirical constan
nt,
K
KOBAYASHI Revetmeent slope Regular Woven 1699 kg/m3
k Un 50% overlapping
4.4/0.61/1.4
Unknown 24 12..7x8.9cm; full 50% Formulation of th he relation between the
(
(1983/1985) (1:n=
=1:3) waves Geotextile nd 1955 known
wet san H/(∆Dn)=2.4
12..4x6.2x3.3cm stability number Ns N and the surf similarity
y
: kg//m3
parameter ξ
BOUYZE & ucr

SCHRAM
Submeerged
Unknown 8/1/0.35/ Current Geotextile 1m
m x 0.36 m full Sand
Un
50%  0.5  to 1.00 Critical velocity before
b movement of the
breakwa
ater (1:1) known g t D elements. No particular
p contribution.
(1990)
ers of
3 Laye
DELFT Movement starts
containe
ers in a Pierson Description of the dependency
d of the stabiliity
H
Hydraulics Un H/(∆Dn)=1.83.
subme erged 1:20 5
55/1.0/1.2 Moscowitz Geotextile Full 1.0x0.42x0.09 Sand -- with the experimentt parameters. No particullar
(1994) known Displacement
breakwwater Spectra contribution
: H/(∆Dn)=2.33
(1:n=
=1:1)
30
0
Table 2.7 con

nt: Previous model tests related to the hhydraulic stability of
o GSC-structures cont.
c (modified from
m Recio 2007)
A
Wave-flume Wave Container C
Container Filling Fill Over- Stability
Year Struc
ntribution
((length)m
(leng
gth)mx(width)m
x (width)m
x
x(height)m
x (depth)m
een regular waves and

Difference betwe
VAN DER Pierson spectra but no relation with the type of spectra.
Rubble mound Damage grade S=AE/DD^2
MEER unknown 5
50/1.0/2.0 Moscowitz Rock -- -
-- -- -- The damage gra ade increases with the
break
kwater AE= eroded area
(1987) : Spectra Iribarren number, Higher
H stability with highe
er
permeability, Higheer stability with long wavees
Develop of a function for describing the

WOUTERS Develop stability formul a from the experimental data of Porraz (1978), Tekmarine
T (1982) and
--- H/(∆Dn) =2.5/√(ξo) stability numberr with the surf similarity
(1998) : Jacobs &Kobayas shi (1983, 1985)
pa
arameter
otection,
Dune pro
OUMERACI slope revetment and
O Without filling
W
JONSWAP Geotextile and High influence
e in the stability by the
e al. (2002a)
et submeerged 1:8 100/2.0/1.2 0..31x0.15 full Sand 80% <=50%
% H/(∆Dn) =2.0/√(ξo)
Spectra linen ove
erlapping,
small scale) breakwater (1:n=1:1;
(s 0.2
25x0.1x0.06m
1.5 ; 3)
Some scale effe
ects observed. Stability
OUMERACI
O increased by the
e use of adhesive strips
JONSWAP Nonwoven
e al. (2002b)
et ent (1:1)
Revetme 1:6 300/5.0/7.0 15
50 lt and 25 lt Sand 80% <=50%
% H/(∆Dn) =2.7/√(ξo) among elements s. New stability formulae
Spectra Geotextile
(l
(large scale) based on the Woutters formula. Formulas foor
crest and slope elements
g and the direction of wav
percentage of filling ve
Grüne et al 56% , approach contribu ute to stability of a single
e
Scour prottection for JONSWAP Nonwoven 0.28
82x.144x.033 -
(2006) 1:10 300/5.0/7.0 sand 80% & -- GSC on the seabed (these are smaller for a
offshore monopile
m Spectra Geotextile 0.487x0.252x0.118
(l
(large scale) 100% group of GSC), sta bility increases with fillinng
ratio
full 0.45x0.28x0.11
0
RECIO 5.0/2.0/1.5
5 Nonwoven (13.8 lt) & Permeability of GSC
C-structures governs by the
Varies 1:8 N/A Sand 1800kg/m 3 80% varies N/A
(2007) -1 tank Geotextile 0.335x0.24x0.09 gaps between GSCs
(7.5 lt)
Permeability Coefficient of GSC-structures is

k=10^-2, Placemment pattern affect the
Regular
RECIO Nonwoven full 0.26x0.13x0.06
0 permeability, Ran dom placement has the
vetment
GSC rev 1:8 100/2.0/1.2 waves and Sand 1800kg/m 3 80% varies N/A
(2007)-2 Geotextile (1.7 lt) highest permeabilitty. Longitudinal placement
Spectra
has almost same permeability as random m
and highes t hydraulic stability
31
1
Table 2.7 con

nt: Previous model ttests related to the hhydraulic stability of
o GSC-Structures cont.
c (modified from
m Recio 2007)
A
Wave-flume Wave Container C
Container Filling Fill Over- Stability
Year Struc
ntribution
((length)m
(leng
gth)mx(width)m
x (width)m
x
x(height)m
x (depth)m
Regular Permeability Coefficient of GSC-structures is
RECIO vetment
GSC rev Nonwoven see Table 2.8 (Processs
1:8 100/2.0/1.2 waves and full 0.48x0.24x0.11
0 Sand 1800kg/m 3 80% k=1.4 x 10-2, wave induced loads on GSCs
s
(2007)-3 1:n==1:1 Geotextile based stability formula
ae)
Spectra side the GSCs
and ins
internal movemen t of sand and its effect on

on of contact area among
the stability, variatio g
Regular neighbouring GSC Cs, types of displacemennt
RECIO vetment
GSC rev Nonwoven see Table 2.8 (Processs
1:8 100/2.0/1.2 waves and full 0.25x0.10x0.06
0 Sand 1800kg/m 3 80% and effect of deform mation on the stability were
(2007)-4 1:n==1:1 Geotextile based stability formula
ae)
Spectra studied. Using PIV V technique, wave induced
flow on the seaw ward slope of the GSC-
revetme ent were found
Stiff Wood
Regular
RECIO mented
Instrum Container see Table 2.8 (Processs Drag, Inertia & Lift coefficients
c for GSC were
e
1:8 100/2.0/1.2 waves and 30x0.15x0.06
0.3 N//A N/A
(2007) Contaainer covered with based stability formula
ae) obtained by testin ng varies configurations
Spectra
geotextile
caterpillar mechan
nism which caused by the e
Deltares movement of sand inside the container was
JONSWAP Woven Un
(2008) GSC burm 1:4 240/5/7 0x2.75x0.55
5.0 sand - - found, migration off sand during wave attac
ck
Spectra Geotextile known
: up tp 8% and low
wer than theoretical value
based onn sieve analysis
type of geotextile
e materials used for the
construction of GS SCs might not affect the
M
Mori (2008) GSC subbmerged Nonwoven 0.11/0.08/0.036 Un stability of GSC-struucture, higher wave setuup
1:25 5
50/0.8/0.8 Spectra sand 50% unknown
: breakwate
er 1:n=1:2 Geotextile 83/0.08/0.035
0.08 known and lower wave trransmission due to low
permeability and sttability is lower than that of
o
rocks
design nomograms to t
Coughlan et
C Regular ched bond" revetment witth
Double layer "stretc
GSC-revetment 1:n= Nonwoven find same wave heighht
al. (2009) 1:10 32/3/1.3 waves and 65/0.140/0.043
0.16 sand 100% varies 1:1.5 slope are more stable and less
5, 1:2
1:1.5 Geotextile based on initial damag
ge
: spectra vulnerable for total failure
level
odelling 32
Figure 2--13: Comparattive cross secttion of previouus model testss of GSC-strucctures

(modified frrom Oumeracii et al. 2002b)).
odelling 33
Figure 2.13 cont.: Com

mparative cross section of prrevious model tests of GSC
C-structures
(modified frrom Oumeracii et al. 2002b))
odelling 34
2.7 E
Existing Hydraulic
H Stability Formulae and Nom
mogramss
Several authors suuggested seeveral form mulae for th he hydraulic stability of GSC-strructures.
Among those workks, contribu utions from
m Wouters (1998),
( Pilaarczyk (20000), Oumeraaci et al.
(2002a, 2002b, 20002c, 2003, 2007),
2 Reciio (2007), Mori
M (2008)), Recio andd Oumeracii (2010),
Coghlann et al. (20009), Recio et
e al. (2010) and Hornseey et al. (20 011) are notteworthy. Th
he exist-
ing hydrraulic stabillity formulaae can be caategorised in
nto the follo
owing threee groups:
Group 11: Early GS SC-structurees were dessigned usingg the hydraaulic stabilitty formula for rock
armour layers suchh as Hudson n’s formula (1956) or Van
V der Meeer formulaa (1988). Ass a result
the requuired weighht of GSC iss determineed as a funcction of the design wavve height siimilar to
any otheer conventioonal rubble mound struucture. (Figu
ure 2-14a).
Group 22: The Huddson formulla does not include thee wave periiod and conntains the empirical
e
coefficients kD, whhich is not appropriate
a for GSC-strructures as the responsse of GSCs to wave
loads baasically difffers from th
hat of rigid armour uniits. Thereforre, Wouterss (1998) pro
oposed a
new staability formuula (Eq. 2.22) for GSCss based on the Hudson n formula annd previouss experi-
mental data (e.g. Bouyze
B and Schram 19990). This newn formula was deveeloped expliicitly for
GSC-strructures (Fiigure 2-14b b) by introdducing a modified
m staability numb
mber (Ns) which
w ac-
counts ffor the wavee period thrrough surf ssimilarity paarameter ξ0, together w
with a new empirical
e
coefficient Cw as an appropriaate substitutte for kd:
Hs CW
Ns   with  0  taan /  Hs / L 0  (2.2)
(  GSC / W  1)  D 0
where D  lc sin  annd lc  length of a GSC
Where,
Ns = staability numbber [-],

Hs = inccident signifficant wavee height [m] ,
W = dennsity of watter [kg/m3],
GSC = ddensity of GSCs [kg/m3],
Cw = em mpirical paraameter derived from thhe stability number
n Ns [-],
[
D = thicckness of arrmour layer [m],
 = sloppe angle of the structurre [°],
L0=g T2/(2) = deeep water waave length caalculated ussing the meaan wave perriod [m]
odelling 35
Figure 2--14: Definitionns sketches off the parameteers used in preevious hydraullic stability for
ormulae
Based oon extensivee small and d large scalee model tessts, Oumeraaci et al. (20002a, 2002b b, 2003)
confirmmed the apprroach by Wouters (19998) using a modified
m staability num
mber as a fun
nction of
the surff similarity parameter for the GS SCs on a slo ope of a suufficiently hhigh revetm
ment (i.e.
withoutt excessive overtopping g). Moreoveer, another value was proposed
p foor the empirical pa-
rameterr (Cw = 2.755). As GSCs placed onn the slope and a on the crest of a ccoastal struccture un-
dergoinng different wave loadss under diffe ferent bound dary conditiions, the sloope GSCs of
o a high
revetmeent and the crest GSCss of a compparatively lo ower structuure with exxcessive waave over-
topping expectedlyy showed different
d staability behaaviours. Hence, a new w formula was
w pro-
posed foor the stabillity of crestt GSCs in w
which the relative freeboard Rc/Hs represents the gov-
erning iinfluencing parameter. This formuula is valid only for Rcc > 0 and neeeds therefo ore to be
verifiedd for Rc = 0 and Rc < 0. 0 Nevertheeless, the second main developmennt was the recogni-
tion of ddifferent behaviours off crest and sslope GSCs..
Group 33: The simpple stabilityy formulae oof Group 2 were deveeloped withoout consideering ex-
plicitly the effect of the defoormation off GSCs. Though this effecte mplicitly included to
is imp
some exxtent in the empirical parameter
p nderstand thhe governing under-
C w, it is neceessary to un
lying faailure mechhanisms of GSCs,
G whicch basicallyy differ from
m those of rigid armour units,
and to ttake them into
i accoun
nt in the staability form
mulae. Acco ording to O
Oumeraci an nd Recio
(2010), previous experimenta
e al studies hhave shown that the diislodgment and pullou ut of the
slope coontainers byy wave actioon (includinng the slidin
ng and the overturning
o of crest con
ntainers)
are stroongly affectted by the deformatioon of the saand contain ners. Moreoover, it wass clearly
shown bby Oumeracci and Reciio (2010) thhat the negleection this deformation
d n might result in an
unsafe ddesign, esppecially for very high design wav ves. Simplee stability fo
formulae meentioned
above ccannot expliicitly accouunt for the ddeformation n and other mechanism ms affecting g the hy-
draulic stability. Since
S GSCss are differrent from conventiona
c al rubble mmound strucctures in
many w ways, a diffeerent approaach was requ
quired. One of the remaarkable stepss in this dirrection is
the deveelopment off the first process-baseed hydraulicc stability fo
ormulae forr GSC-strucctures by
Recio (22007).
Recio (22007) condducted an ex

xtensive stuudy on the processes
p affecting thee hydraulic stability
of GSC
Cs and foundd that any formula
f deaals with GSSC-structurees should acccount at least most
odelling 36
importaant processees (e.g. the cyclic defoformation) anda key parameters (ee.g. the fricction be-
tween ccontainers). In order to o account thhe effects of
o deformattion, in the new process based
formulaae, the resistting forces (weight
( andd friction fo
orce) and thee mobilizingg forces (drrag, iner-
tia and uplift forcces) were explicitly
e inntroduced. Furthermorre, two moost common n failure
modes: sliding andd overturning were deallt separately y (Figure 5--2). Initiallyy, the formu
ulae have
been deerived withoout considering the deeformation and a as the second
s stepp; effects off the de-
formatioons were inntroduced ass correctionn factors. Foormulae to calculate
c for
orce coefficiients CD,
CM and CL, deform mation factors KCD, KCM M, KCL and KR, the defi
finition of pparameters anda typi-
cal valuues to be used in the stability form
mulae are prresented in Recio (20077). As thesee formu-
lae are too compllex for eng gineering appplications, tentative nomograms
n s based on Recio’s
(2007) fformulae were
w y proposed by Recio et
recently e al. (2010
0) for the hyydraulic staability of
GSC-strructures to beb used in feasibility
f sttudies (Tablle 2-8).
Apart frrom that Hoornsey et al. (2011) alsso proposed d design nom mograms foor the hydraaulic sta-
bility off GSC-strucctures (Tablle 2-8), whicch are limitted to two sp
pecific GSCC geometriees. How-
ever, GSC is still a developin ng technologgy and com mprehensivee design gui uidelines aree not yet
availablle. Certainlyy, the hydraaulic stabiliity of GSC is more co omplex as GGSC-structu ures may
experiennce a numbber of speciffic failure mmodes. Tablee 2-8 provid des a summ
mary of the available
a
hydraulic stability formulae an nd nomograams for GSC C-structuress.
odelling 37
Taable 2-8: Avaiilable hydrauliic stability forrmulae and no

omograms for the design off GSC- structu
ures
odelling 38
Table 2 8: Available hydraulic sttability formuulae and nom

mograms for GSC- structu
tures (cont.)
odelling 39
Discusssion and Im
mplications for the Preesent Study
y
The reqquirement ofo new hydrraulic stabillity formulaae for GSCss has been discussed by b many
authors over the laast few decaades and W Wouters (199 98), Oumeraaci at al. (20002b, 20022c, 2003)
and Reccio (2007) are
a the key contributorrs. Among them, t the contributionn from Recio o (2007)
for the advancemeent of the knowledge
k on the hyddraulic stability of GSSC-structurees is un-
doubteddly significaant. Most ofo his valuaable contrib butions are the identificcation of processes
p
related tto the hydraaulic stabiliity of GSC--structures and
a also, th he developm ment of neww process
based sttability form
mulae consiidering the cyclic defo ormations ofo GSCs. Thhe deformattion fac-
tors of tthe formulae of Recio (2007)
( weree analytically derived, but not yet fully verified using
experimmental data. Therefore, it is importtant to veriffy these defo ormation faactors experrimental-
ly.
Furtherm more, proceess based foormulae aree largely inffluenced by the square of horizonttal parti-
cle veloocity, u. Thherefore, an accurate esstimation of the horizo ontal particlle velocity near the
critical GSC is neccessary. Any y constructiion will alteer the flow pattern
p andd the particlee veloci-
ties. Thherefore, thee estimation
n of horizonntal particlee velocity, after
a the coonstruction ofo GSC-
structurre based on the linear wave
w theoryy is questioonable. Therefore, a diifferent app proach to
calculatte the horizzontal veloccity and thee acceleratio on might be necessaryy for more accurate
designs (e.g. obtainn the flow velocities
v annd acceleratiions using a CFD mode del).
Moreovver, the appllication metthod of the formulae is complicatted due to itits iteration process.
The forrmula propoosed by Hud dson (19566) more than n half a cen
ntury ago iss still the most
m pre-
ferred fformula am mong the prracticing enngineers due its simpliicity. Howeever, there are few
drawbaccks in this formula. Fo or examplee, Hudson’s formula do oes not connsider expliicitly the
influencce of wave period on the
t hydrauliic stability. Therefore, any new sstability form mula for
the desiign of GSC C-structure should focuus on eitheer to simpliify the proccess based stability
formulaa by Recio (2007) or to t develop nnew formullae based on o Hudson’ss formula and a also,
includinng the influence of wavve period (ee.g. by inclu uding surf similarity
s pparameter). As
A men-
tioned eearlier, Woouters (19988) and Oum meraci et all. (2002b, 2002c
2 and 22003) attemmpted to
come upp with Hudsson (1958) like empiriccal formulaae for GSCs. However, due to lack k of data,
a detailed analysis was not peerformed. T Therefore, it i is necessaary to reanaalyse the sm
mall and
large sccale data froom Oumeraci et al. (20002a, 2002b b and 2003) to understaand the relaationship
betweenn the surf similarly paraameter, the relative freeeboards andd the stabiliity number.
In addittion, the deevelopment of a simplle computattion tool (in

ncluding prrocess based and/or
empirical formulaee) or designn monogram ms will be very
v much helpful
h to m
make GSC teechnolo-
gy moree attractive for the engiineering praactice.
2.8 Specificatiion of Objjectives a nd Metho

odology
Section 1.2 definees the tentattive objectiives and methodology for the cuurrent PhD research
study. T
This sectionn provides th
he specific oobjectives and
a the speccific methoddology to be
b adopt-
ed for thhis PhD study.
odelling 40
2.8.1 S
Specificatioon of Objecctives
The objectives of thhe PhD thessis may be sspecified ass follows,
(i) Syystematic sttudy of the sand fill raatio and its effect on hydraulic
h staability of sttructures
m
made of GSC Cs
 Identiification of the factors influencing g the sand fill ratio of G
GSCs
 Devellopment of a physicallyy-based and d practically
y feasible deefinition of the sand
fill rattio of GSC
 Devellopment of a methodollogy to inco orporate the sand fill rat
atio in the nuumerical
modelling of GSC-structure s
 Deterrmination off the optimuum sand filll ratio for different
d appplications ofo GSCs
in thee coastal env
vironment
(ii) Syystematic sttudy of the friction beetween GSC Cs and its effect on thee hydraulic stability
off structures made of GS SCs
 Identiification of the factors influencing g the friction
n between G
GSCs
 System matic study y of the inffluence of the
t propertiies of geoteextile materrials and
the saand fill ratio
o on the fricction betweeen GSCs and ultimateely on the hydraulic
h
stabiliity of GSCss
 Devellopment of a methodollogy to pro operly represent frictionn between GSCs in
the nuumerical mo odelling of GGSC-structu ures
(iii) Im
mprovementt/Developm ment of an opperational CFD-CSD
C modelling
m syystem
 Investtigation of the capabiilities and limitations of existingg COBRAS S/UDEC
modelling systemm to model tthe submerg ged GSC-sttructures
 Furtheer improvem ment of thee COBRAS S/UDEC mo odelling sysstem and vaalidate it
basedd on the experimental reesults
 Carryy out a systeematic parammeter study
y using valid
dated COBR RAS/UDEC C model-
ling syystem
(iv) Refining andd simplificattion of Reciio’s formulaae to make them
t more uuser friendlly.
 Evaluuation of th he feasibilitty of simplifying the Recio’s foormulae, mainly
m to
avoidd or shorten its iterationn process
 Refinning the Recio’s formuulae, mainly y considering the stabbility of sub
bmerged
GSC--structures
(v) D
Developmentt of new nomogram ms/formulaee for the hydraulic stability of sub-
m
merged/low-ccrested GSCC-structuress
 Devvelopment of o nomogram ms for the hydraulic
h sttability of G
GSCs based
d on fur-
ther experimenttal and num merical invesstigations
 Devvelopment of o empiricaal relationships for th he hydrauliic stability of sub-
mergged/low-creested GSC--structures byb combining both exxperimental and nu-
meriical modelliing results
odelling 41
2.8.2 S
Specificatioon of Meth
hodologies
Figure 22-15 brieflyy illustrates the overall methodology, which will

w be adoppted in this research
study.
The resuults of this chapter hav ve shown thhat the effecct of the san
nd fill ratio and the fricction be-
tween ccontainers, are
a the mostt important factors affeecting the sttability of G GSC-structuures. Due
to the coomplexity ofo the behav viour of GS
SC-structurees, physical modelling iis the best available
a
tool to study thesee effects. Therefore,
T fo
four series ofo especiallly designedd laboratory y experi-
ments, wwhich allow w us to havee an insightt into the in
nfluence of above
a menttioned propeerties on
the stabbility of struuctures mad de of GSCss and also to t obtain thhe required parameterss for the
numericcal modellinng of GSC-structures, have to bee performed d. Experimeental investtigations
consist of two labooratory expeeriments (drrop tests an nd pullout teests), a smalall scale wav
ve flume
test (hyddraulic stabbility tests) and
a hydraullic flume tessts (permeab bility tests) .
The firsst type of laaboratory ex

xperiments should be focused on the variatioon of sand fill ratio
during tthe manufaccturing of GSCs
G and ddue to droppping in deepper waters. In order to find the
expected deformatiion and elo ongation of geotextile materials
m duue to impacct with seab
bed, sink
velocityy and the sinnking behavviour shoulld be studied in detail. Therefore, drop tests will
w also
focus oon sinking behaviour
b and
a placingg accuracy,, in addition to the deeformation and the
changess in sand filll ratio.
One of the most coommon faillure modes of GSC-strructures hass been identtified as pulling out
of GSC Cs during thhe wave runn-down. Theerefore the second type of tests w were focused on the
effect of the sand fill
f ratio, thee type of geeotextile maaterial and the inclinatiion angle on
n pullout
forces. A
Apart from that, pullou
ut tests will provide ann idea about failures duue to slidingg of crest
GSCs.
After thhe drop testts and pulloout tests, it is expected d to have a good insighht into the sand fill
ratio annd the type of geotextiile materialls of GSCs and their importance
i in stability
y against
sliding (or pulling out). The drop
d test ressults will prrovide inforrmation on m
more practiical final
sand filll ratios and placing acccuracy.
Then, a series of wave

w flumee tests (hydr
draulic stabiility tests) will
w be condducted to study the
effect of the sand fill
f ratio, thee type of geeotextile maaterial, the inclination
i angle of GSSCs, etc.
on the overall hyddraulic stabbility of low w-crested an nd submerg ged GSC-sttructures su ubject to
wave atttack. Durinng the flumee tests, effeccts of the saand fill ratio
os on cycliccal deformaation and
movemeent of GSC Cs due to waave attack w will also bee studied, which
w are annother impoortant in-
puts whhen developing new staability formuulae.
Finally, in order too quantify th

he effect off engineerin
ng propertiees of GSCs on the oveerall per-
meabilitty of GSC-structures, new perm meability tests should be performmed in a hydraulic
h
flume. TThese testss should bee performedd using the small scale GSCs coonstructed for f wave
flume teest and withh the same ty
ypes of struuctures.
n be conduccted using tthe weakly coupled

Numerical modelliing of GSC-structures should then
RANS-VVOF model and FEM--DEM moddels as used by Recio (2 2007). Thiss is the best feasible
odelling 42
option tto model thhe hydraulicc stability oof GSC-struuctures. Howwever, there re are several short-
comingss of the existing modeelling systeem. Therefo ore, as the first
f step, ppullout testss will be
simulateed to obtainn the required parameteers for propper represenntation of GGSCs in two o dimen-
sional U
UDEC model. Then, th he existing CCOBRAS/U UDEC modelling systeem will be critically
c
evaluateed and the feasible modifications
m s will be suggested. These
T modeels will be verified
throughh the propossed and pastt laboratoryy experimen nts where neecessary. Fiinally, the validated
v
modelling system should
s be used
u for the performancce of new simulations to obtain ad dditional
hydraulic stability data and alsso to performm a systematic parameeter study.
Afterwaards, using the

t results of
o experimeental investiigations and
d numerical models, thee formu-
lae of R
Recio (20077) will be simplified aand furtherrmore, moree simplifiedd formulae//stability
nomogrrams for dessign of GSC
C-structures will be dev
veloped as the main out
utcome of th
his PhD.
Figure 2--15: Revised methodology

m of
o the researchh
Efffect of Eng
gineering Prroperties of GSCs on th
he Hydrauliic Stability –
Exxperimentall Studies annd Results 43
3 Efffect of Engineeering Prropertiess of GSC

Cs on tthe Hyd
draulic
Staability – Experim
mental S
Studies and
a Resu ults
As disccussed in Chapter
C 2, th
he behaviouur of GSC--structures is very com mplex and physical
modelling is the beest availablle tool to stutudy the GS SC-structurees. Thereforre, four types of la-
boratoryy experimennts were perrformed at LWI and keey results are summariised in this Chapter.
First, seeveral modeel GSCs weere construccted with varying
v geom metries andd sand fill ratios;
r in
order too determine practical saand fill ratioos and to deevelop a meethod to preedict the finnal exter-
nal dimmensions of a GSC, once the sandd fill ratio and a the dim mensions off empty flatt bag are
known (Section 3.1). Four serries of expeerimental in nvestigationns were thenn performed d, which
consisteed of underw water drop tests (sectioon 3.2), pulllout tests (ssection 3.3)), hydraulic stability
tests (seection 3.4) and
a permeaability tests (section 3.5 5). These ex xperiments allowed to have an
insight into the inffluence of th
he engineerring propertties of GSC Cs on the hyydraulic staability of
GSC-strructures, annd also to obbtain the paarameters, which
w are reequired for tthe numericcal mod-
elling of GSC-strucctures.
3.1 D
Definition of the Sand Fill Raatio and Final
F Geo
ometry off GSCs
3.1.1 P
Proposed Definition
D for
f the San d Fill Ratio
o of GSCs
Even thhough the saand fill ratioo is found too be a key factor governing the hyydraulic staability of
GSCs, nnone of the exiting stab bility formuulae for the design of GSC-structur
G ures accountts for the
sand filll ratio. Mooreover, existing definiitions for th he sand filll ratio are vvery vague and not
sufficienntly approppriate to be implementeed in the en ngineering practice.
p Inn order to ov
vercome
the drawwbacks of existing
e defiinitions of tthe sand filll ratio, undeer the currennt study, a new
n def-
inition wwas developped. This new
n definitioon for the sand s fill ratiio is based on the volu ume of a
fully infflated geoteextile bag an
nd the dry bbulk density y of sand.
The shaape of the geotextile

g bag is initiallly flat and two-dimen nsional. Oncce it is filleed, it be-
comes a three dimeensional pillow. The fiinal shape of o the filled GSC has a complicateed geom-
etry, whhich is difficcult to ideallize by a sim
mple shape (Figure 3-1).
Figure 3--1: Empty flat bag and 80% filled GSC

Efffect of Eng
The calculation of the maximum volumee of a GSC is challenging due to iits straight edges at
the top and the boottom and th he ellipticaal shape at the
t middle of the cont ntainer (Figu
ure 3-2).
Accordiing to Robiin (2004), when
w the dim mensions of a flat recttangular bagg which can
n neither
stretch nnor shear, with
w dimenssions a,b, bbounds for the t maximu um volume of closed sack ob-
tained bby inflating the bag are approximatately given by;
b
b

V  a 3   0.142 1  10 b / a  , where V= maximum theoretical volume (3.1)
 a 
Figure 3--2: Theoreticall maximum fill volume of fflat rectangulaar bag
Howeveer, due to thhe elongatio on propertiees of geotextiles, the application

a of equation n 3.1 for
the calcculation of maximum
m th
heoretical vvolume of geotextile
g saand containeer is still qu
uestiona-
ble. Theerefore, the initial sandd fill ratio ccan be used
d as the reprresentative ssand fill rattio value
for GSC Cs. The initiial sand fill ratio is callculated witth equation 3.2, which is based on n the the-
oretical maximum inflated vollume that esstimated usiing equation n 3.1 of Robbin (2004).
 Totaal volume of dry sand insiide a GSC, 

 
 wheen the GSCs is i filled undeer gravily, Vdrdry sand 
Initial saand fill ratio of a GSC, FR
R0 = % (3.2)
 Calcuulated maxim mum inflated volume baseed on 
 
 the innitial empty flat
f bag dimeensions, assum uming 
 no eloongation (eqquation 3.1), Vmax 
 
The inittial sand filll ratio also varies withh the sand density,
d wh
hich dependds on the method
m of
filling aand the deggree of com mpaction. Diifferent com mpaction deensities willl result in different
GSC weeights. Furtthermore, th SCs is expected to be cchanged du
he sand fill ratio of GS uring dif-
ferent pphases of a GSC-structture (Figuree 3-3 and Figure
F 3-4).. Therefore,, it was req
quired to
find a ppractical dennsity value of GSCs foor the curreent study. The density oof the sand d fill was
checkedd by fillingg several model
m geotexxtile containers in acccordance wi
with the gen neral site
practicees such as filling
f dry sand
s under gravity (w without com
mpaction). A After testingg several
Efffect of Eng
model G GSCs with different saand fill ratiios (GSC masses:

m 11.18 kg ~ 16.880 kg), the average
3
dry bulkk density off the sand fiill was founnd as 1480 kg/m
k . This density vallue was used for the
calculattion of the required
r maass of the saand to achieeve desired sand fill rattios during the con-
structionn of the othher small sccale GSCs. Apart from m the lab tessts, several publication ns on the
field deensity measuurements were
w fi supporttive evidencces for the selected
also reeferred to find
density figure and found out thatt most off the field densities,
d which
w have bbeen reporteed in lit-
erature, are in the same
s range. For an exaample, Oum meraci et al. (2012) repported a fielld in-situ
3
density of 1550 kg/mk wherre the averrage moistture conten nt of fill m material waas 4.8%
(range: 4.6% ~ 4.9% %) by masss, then the ddry bulk deensity of san nd was repoorted as 147 75 kg/m3
3
and the fully saturaated density y as 1860 kgg/m . Moreover, Black ka et al. (20007) found the
t aver-
3
age dry bulk densitty of the sand fill as 13327 kg/m and a fully saaturated dennsity as 1729 kg/m3.
Furtherm more, Recioo (2007) has used the vvalue 1800 kg/m3 as saturated dennsity of the sand s fill.
Therefoore, even thoough the fin nal density of sand dep pends on thhe specific ssite practicee, the se-
y bulk densiity of the saand fill = 1480 kg/m3) for the cu
lected ddensity valuues (i.e. dry urrent re-
search sstudy adequuately repressent the appproximate densities,
d whhich could bbe achieved d in prac-
tice.
3.1.2 F
Final Geom
metry of GS
SCs
Accordiing to the literature (e.gg. Pilarczykk 2000, Recio 2007, Ou umeraci et aal. 2002a, Oumeraci
O
et al. 2000b, 2003, PIANC 2011), typicall GSCs useed in the fieeld are often en 80% filleed GSCs
(except in Australiia). The len ngth lc of an 80% filleed GSC is generally tw wice as largge as its
width (llc/bc = 2) annd five timess as large ass its height (lc/hc = 5)(F
Figure 3-1b)). After manny trials,
the dimmensions of the required d empty flaat bag, whicch result in the same geeometrical relation-
ship oncce they are 80% filled,, were deterrmined as: a = 0.50 m and b = 28 m to achieve a tar-
get size of 0.50 m long modell GSC with the aforem mentioned geeometrical rratios. Two types of
2
geotextiiles; a woveen (mass peer area = 1110 g/m ) and d a nonwov ven (mass pper area = 2000 g/m2)
were ussed for the construction
c n of model G GSCs (Dasssanayake an nd Oumeracci 2012c).
During the small scale model experimentts, it was fo ound that th

he 0.5 m lonng model GSCs
G can
be filledd up to 120%
% of the iniitial theoretiical maximu
um volume as a result oof the elonggation of
geotextiile material, even if thee GSCs are filled carefu
ully to avoid
d excessivee elongation
ns.
Once thhe sand fill ratio was defined,

d it iis necessary
y to find ouut the relatioonship betw ween the
sand fill ratio and the
t final dim mensions oof GSCs. Seeveral modeel GSCs weere construccted with
differennt fill ratios to develop a relationsship betweeen the sand fill ratio annd the final external
dimensiions of GSC Cs. Model GSCs
G were cconstructed d with differrent sand filll ratios; 80% (mass
of sand = 11.18 kgg), 90% (maass of sand = 12.58 kg)), 100% (mass of sandd = 13.98 kg g), 110%
(mass oof sand = 15.39
1 kg), 120%
1 (masss of sand = 16.80 kg). Due to itss higher elo ongation
propertiies, a contaainer made of nonwoveen geotextile can be filled fi up to 120% of th he initial
volume,, whereas a container madem of wooven geotex xtile can only be filled uup to 110% % (Figure
3-3).
Efffect of Eng
Figure 3--3: Prediction of the final diimensions of ffilled GSCs baased on the em
mpty initial flaat bag dimensions
Differennt relationshhips were fo

ound for diffferent typees of geotextile materiaal and for th he differ-
ent lenggth-width ratios
r of em
mpty flat baags (Dassan nayake and d Oumeracii 2010d). BasedB on
model GGSCs of lenngth : width h = 1.8 : 1.00 (i.e. for a typical GSSC used in the field), a nomo-
gram too predict thee external dimensions
d of filled GSSCs with diifferent sandd fill ratio is
i devel-
oped (F
Figure 3-3). If an empty bag with another len ngth / width
h ratio is ussed, new no omogram
should bbe developeed according gly.
3.1.3 F
Final Sand
d Fill Ratio
Figure 33-4 illustrattes differentt phases off a GSC-stru ucture, during which thhe sand filll ratio of
GSCs iss expected to change. Constructioon of a GSC C starts with h a rectangu
gular flat baag. Then,
the conttainer will be
b filled with sand or aany other fiill material. During thee filling process, the
GSC wiill deform as a a result off the elongaation of the geotextile material.
m Affter the fillin
ng, GSC
will be transportedd from the filling
f site tto the locattion of the GSC-structu
G ure in construction.
During transport, sand
s will bee further com mpacted an nd also, the geotextile mmaterial willl under-
go addiitional elonggations dep pending on the method d of handlin ng. Once thhe containerr is sub-
merged,, the sand fiill will be fuurther comppacted (instaantaneous compaction)
c ). Dependin ng on the
installattion methodd, GSC willl be further deformed (e.g. ( if the GSC
G is droppped from a certain
height, the geotexttile skin will be elong ated due to o the impact, when thee GSC hits the bot-
tom). Evven after thhe placemen nt of the conntainer, duee to weight of the GSC Cs above, it will de-
form moore and the sand fill wiill be furtheer compacteed. Finally, the t containeer will comee into an
equilibrrium stage depending
d on
o the impoosed stressees, the stren ngth of the geotextile material,
m
the propperties of filll material, etc.
When a GSC-struccture is expo osed to wavve attack, th
he next com
mpaction phaase of the fill
f mate-
rial can be expecteed. However, while GS SCs are in service,
s due to cyclic ddeformationn and cy-
clic wettting and drrying, finer particles w
will be washhed out thus leading too a reductio
on of the
volume of the sandd fill. Furtheermore, as a result of continuous
c stresses
s on tthe geotextiile mate-
Efffect of Eng
rial, it w
will be subjeect to creep over time. Both, the wash
w out of the fine parrticles and the
t creep
of the ggeotextile material
m will lead to low
wer sand fill ratios. Howwever, it is difficult to quantify
the relaative contribbution of eaach of thesse processess since therre are severral factors involved
i
(e.g. typpe of geotexxtile material, type of ffill materiall, hydrodynamic condittions aroun nd GSCs,
submerggence depthh, exposure time, etc.).
As show wn in Figurre 3-4, the final
f sand fiill ratio (FR
R) is always lower thann the initial sand fill
ratio (F
FR0). The quuantification of the finnal sand filll ratio is diifficult sincce it involves many
factors. In order too experimenntally simulaate the GSC C-structuress, the new ddefinition off the ini-
tial sandd fill ratio was used (eq.
( 3.2), w
which is on ne of the main
m outcom mes of this research
study.
Figure 3--4: Processes influencing

i th
he final sand fiill ratio of GSCs
Despite the difficuulties associated with thhe deformation of the final sand ffill ratio, a method-
nd fill ratio iis proposed. This methodology coonsiders the sand fill
ology too estimate thhe final san
ratio off GSCs duriing differen nt phases off constructio on and whille in servicee (Figure 3-15). As
mentionned above, GSCs will undergo ssome deform mations durring filling,, handling, and the
Efffect of Eng
installattion processses. These deformation

d ns will result in a lowerr sand fill raatio compareed to the
initial vvalue. If GS
SCs are dro opped from a certain height
h durin
ng the instaallation proccess, the
geotextiile will be further
f elon
ngated due tto the impaact of the GSC
G hitting the sea botttom. To
date, theere are no investigation
i ns on the quuantification of the defformations of GSCs du uring the
differennt phases off constructio
on. Sometim mes, sand containers arre filled “ass much as possible”
p
to comppensate posssible reducttions in the sand fill raatio during the
t construcction and th he instal-
lation pprocesses. On
O the otherr hand, largger sand fill ratios will lead to laarger sink velocities
v
and migght cause buursting of GSCs,
G whenn hitting thee seabed. Thherefore, a good know wledge of
the sinkk velocities and the ressulting deforrmations off GSCs duee to the imppact with thee seabed
are neceessarily requuired (see Section
S 3.2) .
3.1.4 S
Summary of
o Sand Filll Ratio Stu
udy and Co
oncluding Remarks
R
After ann extensivee literature study (Dasssanayake and

a Oumeraaci 2009a aand 2009b),, several
model GGSCs were constructed d with varyiing geometrries, geotexttile materiaals and sandd fill rati-
os. The main objecctives were tot determinne practical sand fill rattios and to ddevelop a method
m to
estimatee the final external
e dim
mensions of a GSC, oncce the sand fill ratio andnd the dimennsions of
empty fflat bag is knnown. The main
m outcom mes of this exercise caan be summaarised as fo ollows;
 A nnew definitiion for the sand fill raatio of GSC Cs was proposed, follow wing a careeful con-
sideeration of several
s paraameters andd processes that affect the sand ffill ratio. Th he novel
deffinition can be termed as a the initiaal sand fill ratio,
r which can be useed as the rep presenta-
tivee parameterr to describee GSCs. Thhe initial san nd fill ratio of a GSC ((FR0) is deffined us-
ing the fully innflated volu ume of the empty flat bags (Vmax=V = 0) descriibed by the formula
(eqquation 3.1)) of Robin (2004) andd the dry bulk b densityy of the san and fill (ρs0 = 1480
3
kg//m ). Then, by construccting severaal model GS SCs with vaarying geom metries and sand fill
ratiios, a rangee of practical sand filll ratios wass found. Un nder laborattory conditiions, the
sannd fill ratio of GSC can n be betweeen 80%~120 0%. Under field condittions, it is expected
e
thatt sand fill raatios of 90%
%~100% aree feasible (ee.g. Oumeraaci et al. 20112).
 Twwo types of nomogramss (for nonw woven and wovenw geoteextile) weree developed d to esti-
matte the final external dim mensions off GSCs, oncce the sand fill ratio and nd the dimen nsions of
unffilled flat baag is known n (see Figuree 3-3). How wever, thesee nomogram ms are valid only for
the most commonly used d length/wiidth ratio of o empty baag (length : width = 1.8 : 1.0).
Thiis nomogram m will assisst in the dessign of futurre GSC-stru uctures, partticularly to estimate
the required am mount of geotextile foor the constrruction of GSCs G and aalso for the calcula-
tionn of the requuired number of GSCs to build a GSC-structu
G ure.
 Duee to both shhort and lon ng term proccesses, the sands fill rattio is expectted to changge. Most
signnificant proocesses thatt contribute to the chan nge of sand d fill ratio wwere identiified and
the evolution of o the sand fill
f ratio is ppresented ass a flow chaart (Figure 33-4).
 Am methodologgy was deveeloped to deetermine thee final sand d fill ratio oof GSCs under field
connditions (seee Figure 3-1 15)
Among the different processees that affecct the sand fill ratio, it is expectedd that dump
ping and
sinking processes of
o GSCs in water will significantlly alter the final sand ffill ratio. Th
herefore,
Efffect of Eng
it was nnecessary too conduct a series of sm mall scale underwater

u drop tests w
with GSCs.. Section
3.2 focuuses on the underwaterr sinking beehaviour an nd the deforrmation of GSCs based on the
y to develop a methodollogy to perfform dry
results oof the drop tests. Furthermore, thee possibility
drop tessts and to prredict probaable deform
mation causeed during thhe underwatter sinking of GSCs
are alsoo addressed (see Section n 3.2.6).
3.2 D
Dumping GSCs
G in Deeper
D W
Waters – Drop
D Test Results
At preseent, there iss a significaant increasee in near shhore and offfshore consttruction wo orks (e.g.
artificiaal reefs, subbmerged breeakwaters). Moreover, there is a high potenttial for GSC Cs to be
used as scour proteection systems for offshhore wind power p plantts (Grüne ett al. 2006, Wilms
W et
al. 20111, Oumeracii et al. 2012 2, etc.). Howwever, therre are still several criticcal issues which
w re-
quire fuurther researrch in orderr to further eenhance thee application n of GSCs ffor fully sub bmerged
marine structures. The lack off understannding of the behaviour of GSCs w when sinking under-
water, thhe ability too survive frrom instantaaneous load ds when GSCs hit the sseabed and the final
fill ratioo after hittinng the seabeed are the m
main concerrns, when building
b fullly submergeed GSC-
structurres. Howeveer, only a veery limited amount of research
r stu
udies are avvailable on the
t drop-
ping of GSCs in waater. Most of o the previoous studies covered on nly very largge GSCs (≈ 250 m3)
droppedd from split bottom barrges (e.g. B ezuijen et al. a 2000, 2001, 2002a, 2002b, 200 04, 2008,
De Groot et al. 2003, 2004, Klein K Breteller 2001, ettc.). Thereffore, the preesent knowlledge on
the droopping of smaller
s GSCs in wateer is relativ vely poor and a subsstantially im mproved
knowleddge is requiired for the design of suubmerged GSC-structu
G ures. The maain objectiv ve of this
researchh study is too fill this knnowledge ggap. Even rigid objects such as cyllinders show w highly
complexx motions, when sinkiing underw water. Howeever, there is an urgennt practical need to
improvee the predicctability of the t trajectorry, the sink
k velocity, th he final orieentation, thee impact
velocityy, and the deeformation due to the iimpact of sin nking GSCs in water.
Therefoore, investiggations weree conductedd on the vaariation of the

t sand filll ratio due to drop-
ping in deeper watters, in addiition to thatt occurring during the manufacturi
m ring of GSCCs. In or-
der to qqualitativelyy determine the expecteed deformattion and eloongation of ggeotextile materials
m
due to thhe impact with
w the seaabed, the sinnk velocity and the sink king behaviiour should be stud-
ied expeerimentally (drop testss). These tessts also focused on thee sinking prrocess and the
t plac-
ing accuuracy, in adddition to thee deformatiion and the changes in the sand filll ratio.
As this PhD studyy focuses on n developinng reliable design

d tools / simplifieed formulaee for the
hydraulic stability of GSC-strructures by taking into o account thhe effect off the sand fill
f ratio,
variation of the sannd fill ratio during the manufacturring process of GSCs aand during the con-
structionn of submerrged GSC-sstructures w were studied d in detail. Furthermore
F e, it was alsso neces-
sary to determine the sand fill fi ratios, wwhich were to be testeed in hydraaulic stabiliity tests.
Therefoore, the resuults from thee drop testss were direcctly used forr the planniing of the hydraulic
h
stabilityy tests (wavve flume tests) and the numerical modelling.
m Apart fromm that, this study
s an-
swered some criticcal issues, which
w havee yet limited the application of G GSCs for fu ully sub-
merged coastal andd marine strructures. Thhese issues,, which play y a major roole when designing
d
fully subbmerged strructures, are the lack oof understannding of the behaviour of GSCs when w fall-
Efffect of Eng
ing undderwater, the ability to survive froom instantaaneous loadss when a G

GSC hits thee seabed
and the final fill rattio after hittting the seabbed.
3.2.1 T
Theoreticaal Backgrou
und
A body acceleratinng in a visco ous fluid suuch as waterr undergoes several forrces that can n be cat-
egorisedd in differennt groups namely; buooyancy, drag g force, inerrtia force annd lift forcee (Figure
3-5). Thhere are twoo possible approaches
a tto study thee fluid–bodyy interactionn. The first is to fix
the bodyy and let thhe fluid to flow
f and thee second is to let the body
b to be mmoved with h six de-
gree of freedom inn a fluid. Ho owever, acccording to the t literaturre, even thee behaviour of sym-
metricall bodies succh as spherees shows a cconsiderablle differencee when movving freely in a still
fluid annd when fixxed in a mov ving fluid. Therefore, the only way to studyy the sinking g behav-
iour of GSCs is to let them siink in waterr with six degree
d of freeedom. Furrthermore, available
a
literaturre emphasizze the impoortance of innitial condittions to the sinking beehaviour. Th herefore,
initial conditions shhould be deealt carefullyy.
Figure 3--5: Forces actiing on a sinkin

ng geotextile ssand container (GSC) – deffinition sketchh
The flow
w around a body that is moving through waterw can bee described with the Reynolds
R
numberr (dimensionnless relatio
onship betw
ween the ineertial force and the visscous force). Reyn-
olds num
mber for thee GSCs wass defined byy Recio (2007) as;
Efffect of Eng
uD
Re  3.3

Where, u = relativee velocity (ssink velocityy of the bod

dy) [m/s], D = length sscale of GSC
C in the
2
flow dirrection (in Figure
F 3-5, D = hc) [m]], ν = kinem matic viscossity of waterr [m /s]
The Reyynolds num mber is used as a criterioon to disting

guish betweeen laminar and turbuleent flow.
If the R
Reynolds num mber is very small (Ree <<1) this isi an indicaation that thee viscous fo
orces are
dominannt in the prooblem, and it may be ppossible to neglect
n the inertial effeects; hence the den-
sity of tthe fluid might not be an
a importannt variable. On the otheer hand, forr the large Reynolds
R
numberr flows, visccous effectss are small relative to inertial effeects and forr these casees it may
be possiible to negleect the effecct of viscosiity.
Bukreevv and Guseev (1996) ex xperimentaally studied the motion n of a spherre in a fluid
d due to
gravity. Among theeir findings, the large ddifference thhat they obsserved betwween the mo otion of a
free sphhere and floow passing a fixed spheere at fairlyy large Reynnolds numbbers are remmarkable.
Particullarly, it has been found
d that a freelly sinking sphere
s can deviate
d from
m a straight trajecto-
ry, and its drag coefficient caan exceed coonsiderably y that of a fixed
f spheree (by more than ca.
100%~2200% ). Fuurthermore, at Reynoldds numbers of the order of 2 × 1005, the drag g coeffi-
cients wwere greatlyy reduced. Moreover, the spheres moved reectilinearly, while acceelerating
n of length. After the initial section, vortex separated from
along a certain iniitial section f the
sphere, and a sudden deflectio on of the iniitial droppinng axis wass observed. They were not able
to draw concrete coonclusions ono the trajecctory shapes and ratherr called themm “random””
The mootion of a laarge cylindeer sinking frreely at larg ge (~106) Reynolds

R num mbers weree studied
in USA A through a series of ex xperimentall investigations and thee results aree reported in n Chu et
al. (20002), Abelevv et al. (200 03), Hollannd et al. (20 004), etc. Throughout
T these expeeriments,
numberr of parameeters such as length, w weight, centrre of mass and nose sshape combine with
initial oorientation (initial
( incliination anglle), releasin
ng height, ettc. were vararied to estimmate the
net dragg force on siix cylinder bodies undeer different conditions. These bodi dies were relleased in
air and the underw water motio on was studdied with video
v record
ds. During these expeerimental
investiggations, abruupt changess in positionn, orientatio on and sink velocity w were observeed, when
cylinderrs, which arre released above the w water surfacce separated d from a traapped cloud d of bub-
bles. Thhese cloud of bubbles resulted inn a less preedictable beehaviours. T These expeerimental
results sshow nonlinnear characcteristics off the trajecto ory patternss and overaall, six diffeerent tra-
jectory patterns (sttraight, spiraal, flip, flat , seesaw, co
ombination)) were deteected. The trransition
betweenn patterns depends
d on the
t initial coonditions (tthe drop ang gle and the iinitial veloccity) and
the interrnal structuure of the cy
ylinder. Thee dynamics of trajectory pattern foormation an nd transi-
tion aree very compplicated. It involves sttability, non nlinear dynnamics and fluid-body interac-
tions (CChu et al. 20002). This is one of thee first attem mpts to perfoorm a detailled investiggation on
freely siinking irreggular bodiess (i.e. cylindders with ecccentric mass and diffeerent shapess of nos-
es). Thiis research study
s provid des a valuab
able foundattion for the planning off new drop tests (of
GSCs) aand also waarns the posssible randoomness of the t sinking patterns. M Moreover, ChuC et al.
(2004) pproposed a set of empiirical formuulae to calcu ulate the draag coefficieent of sinkin
ng cylin-
ders. Thhese formullae are baseed on the Reeynolds num mber, Re annd the aspecct ratio of cy ylinders.
Efffect of Eng
They ennable a direect comparisson of the ddrag coefficcients of a cylinder

c thaat sinks with
h six de-
gree of freedom inn a fluid and d drag coeffficients of fixed
f cylinders in fluid flow. Acco ording to
the resuults, freely sinking cylinders resuulted in app proximately y one magnnitude smalller drag
coefficients compaared to a fix xed cylindeer in a fluidd flow (Chu u et al. 20055, Dassanay yake and
Oumeraaci 2010a). Even thoug gh there are several chaaracteristic differencess between th hese cyl-
inders aand GSCs, these
t publiccations are hhelpful to seelect the moost appropriiate parameeters that
affect thhe sink veloocities of GSCs.
G Furthher details and
a implicattions of theese experim mental in-
vestigattions are proovided in Dassanayakee and Oumerraci (2010a).
Table 3-1 comparees the behav viours of riggid and flexxible bodiess, when droopping from
m air and
sinking in water. Details
D on the
t present knowledge on dumpin ng GSCs inn water are given in
this repoort as well as
a in the staate of the artt of Dassan
nayake and Oumeraci
O (22010a). A summary
s
of the m
most relevannt finding off this reportt is providedd in this section.
Table 3-11: Comparisonn of behaviourrs of rigid andd flexible bodiies, when drop
pping from airr and sinking in water
Process Behaaviour of a rig

gid body Behaviour
B of a flexible boddy
Releasinng Bodyy will remain ini the releasinng mecha- Body
B will startts to deform onnce the releassing
nism,, until the full body can movve. mechanism
m started to open. W
When the flex xible
body leaving out
o from the reeleasing mech hanism,
sh
hape will diffeer from the ini
nitial shape
Sinking in air No chhange of the body
b shape Body
B shape wiill remain the same, becausee , air
pressures too small to changge the body sh
hape
Hitting thhe Bodyy will hit the water
w surface ccausing Considerable
C amount
a of kineetic energy wiill be
water surrface some damping of its kinetic enerrgy lo
ost due to dam
mping and defo
formation of thhe body
Sinking in Sincee the shape is predictable,

p siink veloci- Shape
S of the boody will changge significanttly caus-
water ty cann be estimated
d more preciseely in
ng changes in drag, inertia aand lift coefficcients.
Furthermore,
F th
he body can aabsorb water and
a will
reelease air, so the
t average deensity of the body
b will
allso be increased.
Trajectorry in No assymmetry, butt still difficultt to predict Due
D to the asym mmetry of thee flexible bodiies, it is
water the trrajectory due to
t vortex sheddding more
m difficult to
t predict the trajectory andd they
will
w deviate fro om the startingg vertical axiss
Effect duue to No chhange of the shape Water
W pressuree is large enouugh to change the
water preessure sh
hape of the bo
ody
Hitting thhe No chhange of the shape and depeending on Body
B will defo
orm due to thee impact
seabed the haardness of thee seabed, bodyy could
bouncce or penetrate into the seabbed
The neccessity of im
mproved fo
ormulae to eestimate thee sink veloccity of GSC
Cs was disccussed in
Dassanaayake and Oumeraci
O (2
2010a). Bezzuijen et al. (2000, 2004) developped formulaae to es-
timate tthe underwater sink veelocity of llarge woven
n geotextilee containerss with the sand fill
ratios (F
FR) of 50% ~ 70%. Thhese large GGSCs containn hundreds of cubic meeters of fill material
Efffect of Eng
(generallly 100 m3 ~ 700 m3) and a sometim mes referred d as “Geoteextile tubes””. The formmulae de-
velopedd by Bezuijeen et al. (20 000, 2004) are the onlly availablee formulae tto estimate the sink
velocityy and the deeviation of GSCs.
G Thesse formulae were develloped basedd on small scale s and
large sccale experimmental invesstigations. F Furthermoree, these larg ge GSCs aree filled and dropped
using spplit bottom barges and d cross sectiion of thesee containerss can be appproximated to a cy-
lindricaal cross sectiion. In conttrast, small GSCs are mechanicall
m y filled som
mewhere ou utside the
construcction site annd then, mo oved to connstruction site and drop pped from (oor above) th he water
surface (e.g. by using stone dumping
d vesssel). Thereefore, the ap pplicability of the form
mulae by
Bezuijen et al. (20000, 2004) for f the calcculation of the t underwater sink veelocity of relatively
small GGSC with filll ratios of 80%
8 or morre is still queestionable. Moreover, tthey used tw wo main
assumpttions for thhe derivation n of the forrmulae: GSC keeps itss shape throoughout thee sinking
process and GSC is not rotatin ng while faalling underw water. How wever, thesee assumption ns might
not be vvalid for sinking GSC Cs. Because,, GSCs witth relatively y low fill raatios might reshape
during tthe sinkingg process an nd there is a high possibility thatt GSCs migght show ro otational
motionss while sinkking with six x degree off freedom. AsA a result, the
t sink vellocities and the drag
coefficients will vaary during the t sinking process. Th herefore, wh hen planninng new drop p tests, it
is imporrtant to provvide a sufficcient water depth and space
s for sin
nking GSCss to sink freeely (e.g.
the requuired waterr depth and d space forr a particullar GSC to complete its rotation n and to
achieve a more staable orientaation while sinking). Iff the aforem mentioned aassumptions, which
are relevvant for largge geotextille tubes, aree not valid for
f GSCs, th hen the onlyy method to o find the
sink vellocities of GSCs
G is thro
ough drop teests (small scale
s or prototype).
Based oon the expeerimental an nd field invvestigations,, Bezuijen et

e al. (20000) argue thaat due to
the smaall duration that a GSC takes to falll down und derwater (feew seconds)), it will nott be pos-
sible to fully saturate the GSC C. In additiion, entrappped air in th
he sand fill will resist the sand
fully saturatted. Furtherrmore, Bezuuijen et al. (2000) assumed that the flow in
being fu nside the
GSC m may be described by Darcy’s
D law,, even thouugh it mightt not be dirrectly appliicable to
flow insside a fallinng GSC sincce Darcy’s l aw is valid only for a steady
s flow..
Figure 33-6 show thhe most prob bable saturaation processs inside thee GSC. Sincce the GSC
C is mov-
ing dow wnward, preessure distribution on the surfacee of the GS SC become more comp plex and
might bbe influenced by the shaape of the ccontainer, th he sink velocity, etc. M
Moreover, the satura-
tion proocess will inncrease the weight of G GSC by occcupying the voids. As a result, a wetw GSC
will moove faster than a drry GSC. T The weightt of a fullly dry GSSC (density y of the
3
fill = 14480kg/m , degree
d of saaturation = 00%) will bee increased approximate
a tely by 18%
%, once it
is fully saturated.
Efffect of Eng
Figure 3--6: Saturation of sand insidee a GSC as it ffalls underwatter
Hollandd et al. (20004) used an analytical approach to o derive forrmulae for tthe sink velocity of
rigid cyylindrical boodies. Howeever, the mmost crucial step is to find
f the forcce coefficieents. Be-
zuijen eet al. (2000, 2004) sugggested a sinngle drag coefficient forr “Geocontaainers”. Wh hile, Chu
et al. (2004) proposed an empirical formuula to calcu ulate the drag coefficiennt for sinkin
ng cylin-
ders. Thhis formulaa is based ono the Reynnolds number and the aspect ratioo of cylindeers. Fur-
nk velocity as a GSC aapproaches the bot-
thermorre, it is expeected to obsserve a reduuction in sin
tom. Hoowever, a detailed
d stud G is necessary to deescribe the physical
dy on flow aaround the GSC
processees associateed in the flu
uid-body int eraction.
The GS SC drop testts conducteed by Oberhhagemann et e al. (2006)) and Zellw
weger (2007 7) on the
predictaability of thhe final locaation of droppped GSCss and on thee coverage, when dropp ped sev-
eral GSSCs as groupp, are the onlyo referennces availab
ble directly related to tthe present research
study. T
The quantitaative analyssis of the exxperimental data are ho owever, nott systematicc and de-
tailed ennough to coome up witth conclusivve results. Moreover,
M the
t target ap application of
o GSCs
was thee constructioon of river bank
b protecction structu
ures, which are normallly construccted on a
steep sloope than thee coastal/maarine structuures.
Efffect of Eng
3.2.2 S
Specific Ob
bjectives off the Drop T
Test Study
y
In orderr to evaluate the behavviour of GSC Cs, when siinking undeerwater andd to quantify y the de-
formatioons of GSC Cs due to th
he impact att the seabed d, laboratoryy investigattions were conduct-
c
ed. The specific obbjectives off the experim mental inveestigations were
w as folllows: (i) Sy ystematic
study off the underw water behavviour of sinnking GSCs and quantiification of the impact velocity
when hitting thee seabed, (ii) Quanttification of o the su ubsequent GSC-deforrmations
(iii) Evaaluation of the
t possibillity to conduuct drop tessts under drry conditionns and to preedict the
deformaation patternn of GSCs due
d to undeerwater drop pping basedd on the resuults of the drop
d tests
under drry conditionns (sinking GSCs in airr).
3.2.3 E
Experimen
ntal Setup
Small scale experiments weree selected aas the most feasible method to stuudy the und derwater
sinking behaviour of o GSCs in water. How wever, it is not
n possiblee to design a small scalled mod-
el to acccurately sim mulate all the importaant engineeering properrties of GSSCs simultaaneously.
Therefoore, a relativvely thin noonwoven m material (masss = 200 g/m m2) was sellected for thhe small
scale model tests. Model
M GSCCs were filleed with washed sand (D D50 = 0.25 mmm and no fine ma-
terials bbelow 0.10 mm).
m Threee different ssizes A3, A4, A5 (Tablee 3-2) of em mpty flat baags were
used forr the drop tests. The sizes
s of GSSCs were deefined baseed on the leength/width ratio of
empty ((flat) bags. The sand fillfi ratios weere defined according to the definnition given n in Sec-
tion 3.1 and using equation 3..2. Every ddifferent (size) type has been filleed with the four dif-
ferent fi
fill ratios (FR
FR: 80%, 90 0%, 100%, 1110%) that resulted in twelve diffferent sizes of small
scale GSCs (Tablee 3-2). The sand fill waas either fully saturated (saturatioon = 100%) or com-
pletely dry (saturaation = 0%). For each sand fill ratio, fully saturated G GSCs and fully
f dry
GSCs w were prepareed. Fully dry GSCs weere constructed by intro oducing a wwater tight th
hin poly-
thene laayer in betw ween geotex xtile and thee fill materiial. That leaads to an ovverall amouunt of 48
differennt GSCs. However, thee aspect rattio (a/b) off all empty bags was kkept constan nt to ca.
1:1.8. TThe model GSCs weree released w with three different in nitial orienttations. Preliminary
small sccale tests were
w conducted in a 5 m high cylin nder with 0.65
0 m diam meter at Leicchtweiß-
Institutee (LWI) annd a still waater tank att Delft Univ versity of Technology
T y (Dassanay yake and
Oumeraaci 2010e). Then a new n Underrwater Drop Testing Facility (U UDTF) wass devel-
oped/coonstructed at a LWI (Fig gure 3-7) too systematiccally investigate the siinking behaaviour of
GSCs. D Detailed tessts were con nducted at LWI using this newly built UDT TF. Underwater mo-
tions were captureed using two o high speeed (60 fps) video cameeras (Figuree 3-7b). In order to
provide a precise timet referen
nce for the iinstant of hitting
h (or inn some casees, releasing in wa-
ter), infr
frared sensors were also o used.
Since thhe ultimate objective of any scale model testiing of a stru
ucture is to sstudy the beehaviour
of the pprototype sttructure, a sound know wledge on the possibiilities and llimitations of small
scale m
modelling is important. The scalingg laws relev vant to GSC C-structuress and the innterpreta-
tion of small scalee model tesst results arre discussed
d in Dassan nayake and Oumeraci (2009a),
O (2
2010e) and Dassanayak ke and Oum meraci (201 1a) in detail. In this
section, the drop teest results are
a presenteed in protottype scale, assuming
a thhe mass of a proto-
Efffect of Eng
type GS SC is 1000 kg and thee Froude sim militude. Thhis assumpttion resulteed in three different
scales aas 1 : 6.77, 1 : 5.56 and
d 1 : 4.21 foor the three sizes of sm
mall scale G
GSCs A3, A4 and A5
respectiively. Aparrt from thaat, whenevver possiblee, the resu ults are prresented wiith non-
dimensiional param meters (e.g. Figure
F 3-11 and Figuree 3-13).
Figure 3--7: Model setuup in the LWI Underwater D

Drop Testing Facility
F (UDT
TF)
Table 3-22: Combinatioon of parameteers for conduccted drop testss
During the drop teests, high speed camerras were ussed to captu ure images during thee sinking
process with an aveerage of 50 frames perr second. Affterwards veelocity plotss were geneerated by
trackingg the movem ment of GSC Cs on each frame. The MATLAB code: SPAN AN 1.3 develloped by
Dael (20009) was addopted to manually
m tracck the moveement of GSSCs and to ggenerate thee veloci-
ty plot oout of the diistance the GSC
G is movving betweeen two succcessive fram mes in order to make
sure thaat the GSCs had the posssibility to ddevelop termminal veloccity that unaaffected by the rota-
Efffect of Eng
tional effects. The depth requ

uired to achhieve terminnal velocity was compaared with results of
similar tests. Whenn GSCs werre sinking iin a stable orientation,
o no abrupt changes in velocity
diagramms could be seen, but a smooth inc rease in vellocity.
3.2.4 S
Sinking Beehaviour an
nd Impact V
Velocity
Since G GSCs sink freely

f with six degreees of freedo om, the trajectories aree influenced d by the
differennt motion paatterns and these
t patternrns could beecome rather random, sso that the underwa-
u
ter sinkk trajectoriess vary acco
ording to thee initial orientations. As A shown inn Figure 3-8, GSCs
can rotaate around vertical (yaawing), trannsverse (pittching) and longitudinaal (rolling) axis. In
general,, the sinkingg GSCs sho ow a combiination of several motiion patternss. Neverthelless, one
motion pattern alw ways dominaates the sinkking processs and could d be identiffied as the principal
p
motion. Moreover,, even after GSCs hit thhe bottom, further mov vements weere observed. These
near horrizontal moovements aree due to twoo reasons. First,F the horizontal vellocity comp ponent of
GSCs, w which results from rotation and oscillation processes, leads to fuurther moveement of
GSCs nnear the botttom. Second d, GSCs moove due to the t momenttum balancee. When a GSC G ap-
proachees the bottom m with an inclination
i tto the horizzontal planee, it tends too push wateer, which
is trapped betweenn the GSC and a the bedd, away durring the pro ocess of settttling down. Conse-
quently, the GSC moves
m in thee opposite ddirection.
Figure 3--8: Sinking behaviours of drropped GSCs:: effect of initial orientation

n at SWL on ssinking pattern
ns
Efffect of Eng
Each drrop test wass repeated five

f times too reduce thee risk of thee results beiing biased by b slight
imperfeections assocciated with the initial oorientation. Figure 3-8 and Figure 3-9 show exempla-
e
ry resullts for the sink
s ories and thhe sink velocities obtaained from the drop teests of a
trajecto
small sccale GSCs. The drop teest results sshow that th he asymmettry of modeel GSCs willl have a
significaant influencce on the beehaviour off sinking GS SCs. Moreo over, it is exxtremely diffficult to
drop thee GSC withh an exact vertical
v orieentation. Paarticularly in
n the case oof drop tests, where
the direection of moovement is perpendicuular to the smallest
s cro
oss section,, the GSC willw turn
about 90 degrees within
w the first
fi meter oof sink. Theereafter, the GSC will ssink in its flat f posi-
tion. Duuring the rotation, GSC C will be deeviated a sig gnificant disstance horizzontally. Th he analy-
sis has shown thatt, irrespectiive of the iinitial orien ntation, GSC Cs sink undderwater withw their
largest cross sectioonal area perpendiculaar to the direction of travelling
t iff a sufficient water
depth iss available. Also, a signnificant deccrease (20 ~ 50 %) in siink velocityy was observ ved near
the botttom and justt before hittting the seab
abed. In the case of the largest moddel GSCs (d dry GSC
mass = 10.57 kg), final veloccities were less than 0.8 m/s, which w is eqquivalent to t about
1.64 m//s in prototyype scale when
w a 10000 kg proto otype GSC is considerred (scale 1 : 4.21).
Hence tthe final vellocity is sign
nificantly smmaller than what was initially assuumed (Figure 3-9).
Figure 3--9: Terminal velocity

v of dro
opped GSCs w
with different initial
i orientattions at SWL
Four diffferent veloocity phasess during thee sinking prrocess could d be identiffied. First, the
t GSC
acceleraates until thhe terminal velocity, thhen it sinks with the teerminal veloocity while keeping
Efffect of Eng
its posittion stabile. However, after some distance, prrobably beccause of asyymmetry of GSC, in
several tests, the GSC
G changess its orientaation (Figuree 3-8b and c)
c and in soome cases, shows
s an
oscillatoory motion while sinkking (Figuree 3-8a). As a result, siink velocityy will also changes
during tthis phase. Finally, wh
hen the GSC C approachees the bottoom, it slowss down as shown
s in
Figure 33-9.
Then byy analysing the video records

r of tthe sinking GSCs, the depths untill which GS SCs were
sinking while keepping their initial
i orienntation were identified d and their terminal velocities
v
were tenntatively deetermined using velocitty plots. In order to maake sure thaat each GSC C had the
possibillity to reachh its terminal velocity during thiss period, velocity plotss were careffully ex-
amined and the deppths requireed to achievve terminal velocities were w compaared with th he results
of simillar tests andd then, termminal veloccities were finalised. Here
H the terrminal velocity was
defined as the maxximum velo ocity at whi ch a GSC sinkss without showingg any rotatio onal mo-
tion. Duuring the annalysis, it was
w observeed that the GSCs drop pped in “innitial orientaation II”
rotate very quicklyy into “orienntation I” (seee Figure 3-8). These changes
c in oorientation lead to a
significaant decreasse in sink velocity, beccause of thee increase of o cross secctional area perpen-
dicular to the direcction of mo ovement. Heence, these GSCs did not n have suufficient durration to
reach thheir terminaal velocitiess. Thereforee, the analy yses of termminal velociity were peerformed
only forr “initial orrientation I”” and “initiial orientatiion III”, wh
hich are rellatively morre stable
(More ddetails can be
b found in Dassanayakke et al. 201 11b).
Figure 33-10 compaares the term minal velociity results from

fr the mo
odel tests. H
Here, only th
he termi-
nal veloocities for “iinitial orien
ntation I” is shown and for two satu
uration leveels; 0% and 100%.
Figure 3--10: Comparisson of terminaal velocities oof sinking GSCCs with differrent sand fill rratios (result are shown
in prototypee scale assumin
ng the mass oof a 100% filleed and fully saaturated GSC is 1000 kg)
Efffect of Eng
From thhe four diffferent testedd sand fill rratios (80%%, 90%, 100 0%, and 1100%) in 24 different
d
testing sscenarios, itt was observ
ved that thee terminal velocities
v inccrease with increasing sand fill
ratios (ii.e. with decreasing crooss sectionaal area perppendicular tot the directtion of sink
king, see
Figure 33-9). Furtheermore, as shown
s in thhe figure, fu
ull saturation
n results in ca. 25% higgher ter-
minal velocities thaan fully dryy GSCs. Figgure 3-10 co onfirms the accuracy off the velocitty meas-
urementts. These veelocity measurements w were later used
u for the calculationn of drag co
oefficient
of sinkinng GSCs.
The geoometry of GSCs

G influeences the unnderwater sinking behaaviour and tthe develop pment of
a shown in Figure 3-9 . When a GSC
terminaal velocity as G is moviing at its terrminal velo ocity in a
steady vvertical pathh, both inerrtia force annd lift forcee (Figure 3-5) become zero and fo orce bal-
ance redduced to eqquation 3.5, where onlyy unknown is the drag coefficient (CD).Thereefore, for
the calcculation of drag
d coefficcient, the foorces acting
g on the GS SCs in the sstate of term minal ve-
locity inn vertical diirection werre used. Lifft force and inertia forcce were not taken into account,
and no rotations of o GSCs weere assumedd, when GS SCs have reached term minal veloccity. Alt-
hough iin reality innertia and lifft forces canannot be fully omitted from
f the foorce balancee. There-
fore, thee calculatedd drag coeffificient might
ht still contain the effect of inertia aand lift forcces.
 drag foorce; FD    weight of GSC; FG    buoyancyy; FA  3.4

1
C D  w AS 1uT2  GSSCVGSC g   wVGSC g
2
2   GSCVGSC g   wVGSC g 
CD  3.5
 
 w AS uT2
As = areea perpendiccular to the direction off travelling [m2], CD = drag coefficcient [-], g = accel-
eration due to grravity, VGSCC = volume of GSCs [kg/m3], W = densityy of water [kg/m3],
GSC = ddensity of GSCs
G [kg/mm3], uT = term
minal velociity [m/s],
Finally, drag coeffficients of GSCs

G were ccalculated from
f the mo
odel test ressults and vaalues are
shown iin Figure 3--11.
 “iinitial orienntation I” (w
when GSC ddropped wiith its largest cross secction parallel to the
w
water surfacee): drag coeefficients arre comparab ble to that of
o fixed smmooth cylind ders in a
steady flow (CD = 1.0 ~ 1.2) for thhe tested Reeynolds num mbers (Re = 2.0×104 ~ 1.5×105
w
with Re; defined using th he sink veloocity, u and
d the length scale of GSSC in the sin
nking di-
reection, D).
 “iinitial orienttation III” (when
( a GSSC dropped with its sm mallest crosss section paarallel to
thhe water surrface): drag g coefficiennts were bettween 0.6 and
a 1.2, whhich are hig gher than
thhat of a fixeed smooth cylinder
c in a steady fllow for the associated Reynolds numbers
n
Ree = 4.0×105 ~ 1.5×106.
Efffect of Eng
Figure 3--11: Drag coeffficient CD of freely sinkingg GSCs versuss Reynolds nu

umber, Re
Apart fr
from the sinnk velocitiees, the dispplacements of GSCs fromf the ini
nitial droppiing axis,
when thhey droppedd in deeper water
w were also studiedd. As shownn in Figure 3-12, placinng accu-
racy of GSCs is higgher, when GSCs are ddropped witth their largeest cross secctional areaa parallel
to the w
water surfacce. For exaample, 0.36 m long GS SCs showedd an averagge deviation n of less
than 500 % the conntainer lengtth from thee initial dropping axis, when sunkk about 8 tiimes the
containeer length. Other
O initiaal orientatioons resulted
d in much larger deviiations (seee Dassa-
nayake et al. 2011aa, 2011b forr further dettails).
Figure 3--12: Deviationn of the GSCs from the initiial dropping ax

xis (exemplarry for GSC typpe A4)
Efffect of Eng
Since 3 types of GSCs

G were used
u in the experimentts, all the reesults were plotted tog
gether by
introduccing two noon-dimensio onal parameeters: relativ
ve sink deptth and relatiive deviatioon. Here,
the verttical sink deepth was diivided by G GSC lengthss (lc) to findd the non-ddimensionall relative
depth aand also, thhe deviation ns were diivided by thet GSC leengths (lc) to obtain the t non-
dimensiional deviation. Figuree 3-13 shoows a relatiive deviatio on of GSCss from their initial
droppinng axis for 3 relative depths. Evenn though, th he sink trajeectories aree random, siimilar to
Figure 33-12, general trend of spreading iss clearly visible. From m the three ddifferent tessted rela-
tive deppths (i.e. 5.9, 7.9 and 9.4) in 48 different teesting scenaarios, it waas observed that the
mean reelative deviiations (meaan values oof five repettitions with the same G GSC) increase with
increasiing relative depths. Wh hen a GSC rreleased witth initial orientation I, even it sinkks ca. 10
times itts length, alll deviation values are within onee container length.
l Howwever, if a GSC re-
leased wwith initial orientation
o III, it can m
move horizo
ontally up to o a maximuum distancee of ca. 5
times thhe containeer length fro om the initiial dropping axis with h a sink deppth of 10 container
c
lengths..
Figure 3--13: Mean relaative deviation

n of dropped G
GSCs from the initial releassing axis
3.2.5 C
Changes in
n the Sand Fill Ratio
One of the main obbjectives off the drop teests was the quantificaation of the GSC-deforrmations
during tthe filling process
p and
d due to thee impact when
w GSCs hitting the seabed. Fro om each
GSC, tw wo sets of elongation measuremeents were taken. The first f set of measuremeents was
taken right after thee filling (elo
ongation off geotextile due to consstruction, fillling, and handling)
h
and cloosing the GSCs
G and th
he second sset of meassurements was w taken aafter the drrop tests
(elongattion of geotextile due to dumpingg and hittin ng the seabeed). Then, uusing all th he defor-
mation measuremeents, the new ulated using the Robin’s (2004)
w fully inflaated volumee was calcu
Efffect of Eng
formulaa (see Figurre 3-2 and equation

e 3. 1). Among the differen nt sand fill ratios testeed, 90 %
filled G
GSCs showeed the lowesst deformatiion during fillingf proceess as well as after perrforming
several drop tests (Figure
( 3-14). Howeveer, the defo ormations du ue to fillingg and handlling pro-
cesses wwere observved to be much
m larger compared to t the deforrmation duee to the imp pact with
the steeel bottom off the drop testing
t facillity (UDTF)), after a drrop test. Thhe elongatio on meas-
urementt after the first
f drop teests with eaach small scale GSC (type( A3, A A4 and A5) showed
almost nno difference compareed to the iniitial measurrements. Th herefore, thhe final defo ormation
measureements (Tabble 3-3) weere taken affter 15 drop h three diffeerent initial orienta-
p tests with
tions (seee Table 3-2). Therefo ore, the defoormations sh hown in Fig gure 3-14b cannot be quantita-
q
tively exxtrapolated to the protootype scale,, rather onlyy qualitativeely concludde that the 90%
9 (ini-
tial FR)) filled GSC
Cs show lesss deformatioon. Moreov ver, A4 (scalle 5.56/meddium) and A5 A (scale
4.26/larrge) shows considerabl
c ly different deformatio ons. Type A5A (large) G GSCs showeed in av-
erage 8.5% larger deformatio on compareed to type A4 A GSCs (m medium). SSince both types of
GSCs w were manuffactured usiing the sam me type of geotextile
g material,
m thhis differencce might
provide an indicatiion on the im mportance of the tensiile strength of geotextille material to avoid
excessivve deformattion. For ex xample, the ratio betweeen the weig ght of GSCss and the maximum
m
tensile sstrength of the bag maaterial mighht be a relev vant parameeter to addreess the defo ormation
of GSCs. Howeverr, the data fromfr the moodel tests are not sufficient to com me up with a conclu-
sion. Neevertheless,, the final deformation
d n measuremeents provide valuable iinformation n regard-
ing the changes in the sand fill ratio duriing the testss. Finally, these elongaation measu urements
and the expansionss of fully infflated volum me of GSCss will enable the estimaation of the average
error (T
Table 3-3) concerning
c the sand filll ratio (onlly due to th
he elongatioon of the geotextile
materiall).
Figure 3--14: Increase of fully inflatted volume off GSCs due to

o the elongatiion of geotext
xtile material (see
( Table
3-2 for definnition of type A4 and A5)
Efffect of Eng
Table 3-33: change in saand fill ratio (FR) of type A 5 GSCs due to the elongation of geotextiile material
Initial FR based
b on fullyy
FR after filling and haandling Finaal FR after smaall scale
GSC Mass [kg] inflated volumme (before eloon-
in the lab dropp tests (after 15
5 drops)
gation) and actual
a GSC maass
10.57 80%
8 73% 65%
11.89 90%
9 87% 76%
13.22 100% 95% 80%
14.54 110% 97% 82%
Based oon the smalll scale exp perimental rresult, (secttion 3.1 andd 3.2), finaal sand fill ratios
r of
80% annd 100% weere selected d for the hyydraulic staability tests. If a GSC filled initiaally with
90% (innitial FR = 90%),
9 then,, after the ddeformation
ns due to filling, handliing and insttallation,
final filll ratio might be ca. 80%. Also, 80% is thee most commonly usedd sand fill ratio for
GSCs (P Pilarczyk 20000, Oumerraci and Reccio 2010, PIANC
P 20111). Moreoveer, if a GSCC is filled
more thhan 110%, then t the fin
nal sand filll ratio will be ca. 100%. Therefoore, 80% an nd 100%
sand filll ratio weree selected ass they are mmore realistiic values. Apart
A from tthat, it was required
to have a significannt difference between tthe two seleected sand fillf ratios duue to the scaale of the
model tests (hydrauulic stabilityy tests, Secttion 3.4).
3.2.6 T
Tentative Method
M to Predict
P thee Final San
nd Fill Ratio
o
o predict thee final sand fill ratio

Based oon small scaale experimeental resultss, a tentativee method to
of GSCs is proposeed. The maiin processess that influence the finaal sand fill rratio are cattegorised
as shortt term and long term prrocesses annd the curren nt research focuses onlly on the sh hort term
processees. Figure 3-4
3 outliness the key prrocesses and d the tentatiive methodoology to preedict the
sand filll ratio and each of theese processees are explaained in Fig gure 3-15. BBefore starrting any
project, it is necessarily requiired to deterrmine the actual
a mass, the expectted dimensiions and
the targget sand filll ratio of th
he prototyppe GSCs to be used fo or the plann
nned GSC-structure.
Once thhe required mass of thee prototype GSC is deffined based on hydraullic stability require-
ments, tthe dimensiions of the empty bag,, which will result in the desired GSC (with the cor-
rect sannd fill ratio and the exxternal dimeensions), caan be calcu ulated as exxplained in sections
3.1.1 annd 3.1.2. Appart from thhat, the onlyy other metthod to find the final ddimensions of o GSCs
is to connstruct prottotype contaainers and tto perform measuremen
m nts. The neccessary guidance to
performm these fieldd investigations are alsoo summarized in Figuree 3-15.
Since, GGSCs will undergo

u som
me deformattions startin ng from the filling proccess till the installa-
tion, it is necessarry to carryo
out field invvestigation with samplle prototypee GSCs in order to
quantifyy the deformmations durring the diffferent phasees of constru
uction. Thee constructio on meth-
od of thhese protottype GSCs should be representaative for thee actual coonstruction method,
which w will be adoppted. Both geotextile
g mmaterial andd fill materiaal should bee similar to the ma-
terial w
which will be
b used in thet project. The final dimensionss of the GSSC will be taken t by
placing the prototyype GSC on n a hard flatt surface. In
n order to determine
d thhe final dim
mensions,
Efffect of Eng
at least five longituudinal and cross

c sectionnal profiless should be taken. The deformation can be
measureed using a GSC G with a grid system m drawn on n the surfacce of a GSC C before fillling and
measuriing the defformations of o GSC byy referring to the initial grid systtem withou ut defor-
mation. It is necesssary to consstruct at leaast five GSC Cs to obtainn different mmeasuremen nts since
there is always an uncertainty y associatedd with the geometry
g off GSCs. In case of deeep water
installattion, it is im
mportant to predict the final deform mation due to the impaact with thee seabed.
This cann be achieved by perfo orming dry ddrop tests and
a few und derwater droop tests disccussed in
Figure 33-15. Finallly by addin ng all the deeformation anda compacction of thee fill material, those
result inn during diffferent phasses of the cconstruction n, the sand fill ratios oof GSCs in a newly
construccted coastall/marine strructure can be found. However,
H thhe final sannd fill ratio also de-
pends oon the long term
t effectss such as waashout of finne particles,, creep of geeotextile, ettc.
Efffect of Eng
Figure 3--15: Proposed methodology

y to for the dettermination off the final sand
d fill ratio
Efffect of Eng
3.2.7 S
Summary of
o Drop Teest Results and Conclu
uding Rem
marks
Within the framew work of thiss study, a nnew Underw water Drop Testing Faacility (UDTF) was
developped and constructed at LWI
L to metthodically innvestigate the sinking bbehaviour of
o GSCs.
The maain design concerns,
c when planninng fully sub bmerged GS SC-structure
res in deepeer waters
such ass sink veloccities, spreaading of GGSCs when released frrom the waater surfacee, defor-
mationss caused froom filling, handling
h andd due to insstantaneous loads whenn hitting thee seabed
were stuudied and thhe most sign
nificant resuults can be summarised
s d as followss.
 The sink trajectoories and thhe deviationns from the initial dropping axis inn still waterr, mainly
depeend on the innitial orienttation of thee GSCs. When
W a GSC dropped w with its largeest cross
sectioon parallel to the waterr surface, itt deviates onnly 0.2 ~ 1.22 GSC lenggths after it sinks 10
timess its lengthh, while oth her initial oorientations result in much
m largerr deviationss, which
couldd even reachh 5 GSC len ngths.
 Fullyy wet GSCs (100% saaturation) shhowed abou ut 25% hig gher sink veelocities than those
with fully dry GSC
G (0% satturation).
 Nearr the bottom m (when thee distance bbetween thee GSC and the bottom is less than n ca. 0.5
GSC C length), a significantt decrease ((20~50%) in n sink veloocity was obbserved jusst before
hittinng the seabeed
 Baseed on the terrminal velocity results of two diffferent initiall orientationns, the behaaviour of
drag force againnst the Reyn nolds numbber was stud died. Drag coefficients
c for “initial orienta-
tion I” (when GSCG droppedd with its laargest crosss section paarallel to thee water surfface) are
compparable to the drag coefficientt of a fix xed smooth h cylinder in a stead dy flow
4 5
(CD = 1.0 ~ 1.2) for the tested Reynol ds numberss Re = 2.0×10 ~ 1.5×110 with Ree defined
usingg the sink velocity, v an nd the lengtth scale of GSC
G in the sinking direection, D. However,
H
whenn a GSC drropped with h its smalleest cross secction parallel to the w water surfacee (initial
orienntation III), it shows drrag coefficieents between 0.6 and 1.2, which arre higher th han those
5 6
of a ffixed smootth cylinder for Reynoldds numbers Re = 4.0×10 ~ 1.5×100 .
 The deformatioon measurem ments weree carried ou ut for all thhe GSCs w with sand fiill ratios
80%~ ~110%. Thhe results sh how that 900% filled co ontainers arre insensitivve to deform m due to
fillinng process and
a due to thet impact oon the botto om of the drrop test tanknk, when dro opped in
deeper water. Thhe small scaale model teest results show
s that GSCs
G can ennlarge by 3% % ~ 12%
durinng the fillinng process (due
( to the elongation of the geotextile mateerial). Furth hermore,
droppping in deeep water cou uld further eelongate thee geotextilee (after 15 ddrop tests, the small
scalee GSCs show wed furtherr 3% ~ 18% expansionss).
 The rratio between the weig ght of GSCss and the maaximum ten nsile strengtths of the baag mate-
rial ((geotextile) could be a relevant paarameter to determine the t degree oof deformattion dur-
ing thhe construcction and thee installatioon process of
o GSCs. Ho owever, thiss could only y be con-
firmeed by protootype tests, because
b thee tensile streength of thee geotextilee material caannot be
properly scaled down to a small
s scale.
 Finallly, a compprehensive methodolog
m gy to determmine the fin nal sand filll ratio of a GSC is
deveeloped by coonsidering all relevantt processes associated with the coonstruction of GSC
strucctures, which can be applied in praactice (Figurre 3-15).
Efffect of Eng
Howeveer, due to thet limitatio ons of smaall scaled models

m to accurately siimulate all the im-
portant engineering propertiees of GSCss simultaneously and to simulatee field consstruction
methodss (filling, handling,
h du
umping, etc..) inside a laboratory,
l the
t perform mance of tessts under
prototyppe conditionns will be reequired to vvalidate the results of th
his study.
3.3 In
nterface Friction
F Properties
P s of GSCss – Pullou
ut Test Reesults
The inteerface frictiion between n GSCs has been identtified as onee of the mosst importan nt factors
contribuuting to the hydraulic stability
s of G
GSC-structu ures. Also, the
t interfacee friction prroperties
of GSC Cs are differrent from th he results oof direct sheear tests (sh
hear box) coonducted only with
sample geotextile materials
m (see Section 22.2.2). Therrefore, a prooper investiigation on th
his topic
is essenntial for a prroper undersstanding of the hydraullic stability of GSC-stru
ructures.
The resuults of num merical modeelling of Reecio (2007) using the weakly
w couppled modellling sys-
tem “C COBRAS/UD DEC” welll illustratedd the importance of the t interfacce friction between
GSCs. A Also, the foormulae suggested by R Recio (2007) already acccount for thhe interfacee friction
betweenn GSCs. Thhe derivatio on and the vvalidation ofo the formu ulae were pperformed based
b on
the resuults of the direct
d shearr tests, whicch were carrried out wiith the convventional sh hear box
apparatuus with dim mensions off 0.30 m x 00.30 m. How wever, the recent largee scale experiments
(Lohanii et al. 20066, Krahn et al.
a 2007, MMatsushima et e al. 2008) provide a bbetter underrstanding
of interfface frictionn propertiess of sand baags. Howev ver, those sttudies showwed that thee estima-
tions off interface friction bettween sand bags using g direct sheear test resuults with geotextile
sampless are not acccurate enou ugh to deteermine the interface
i friiction charaacteristics of
o GSCs.
Therefoore, more innvestigations should bee conducted d to understaand the fricction betweeen GSCs
and its effect on thhe hydraulicc stability oof structuress made of GSCs.
G Furthhermore, th he lateral
displaceement of GS SCs made of o geotextilee with diffeerent frictionn propertiess should alsso be ex-
amined.. With morre insight in nto the inteerface frictio
on of GSCss gained froom specificc experi-
mental investigatioons, the find dings can bbe used to improve thee existing nuumerical modelling
m
system (CFD-CSD D) and the prrocess-basedd hydraulic stability foormulae of R Recio (2007 7).
Moreovver, the work of Matsusshima et al.. (2008) sho ows the impportance of mmore investtigations
on the hhydraulic sttability of GSCs
G stackked with somme inclinatiion towardss the structu
ure core,
so that tthe effect off friction forr such a connfiguration also need to
o be examinned.
Accordiing to literaatures, pulloout tests weere conductted for diffe

ferent structtures such as
a rocks,
artificiaal armour unnits, etc. an
nd in most of the casees, pulling out
o forces pperpendiculaar to the
slope wwas measureed (e.g. Hald and Burrcharth 2000 0, Muttray et al. 20055, Wang an nd Peene
1990).
Furtherm more, Lathaam et al.(20

008) used a DEM codee to simulatte the pullouut tests of Hald
H and
Burcharrth (2000) anda observeed the simillar distributtion of pullout forces tto the expeerimental
results oof Muttray and Oumerraci (2005).. Therefore,, it might be possible tto use pullo out force
results tto validate numerical
n models
m up too some exteent. The lacck of data fo
for the displlacement
rate of aarmour unitts was the main
m obstaccle to valid
date the num
merical moddel of Lathaam et al.
Efffect of Eng
(2008). Therefore, it is imporrtant to meeasure both the pullou

ut forces annd the displlacement
rates off GSCs.
This secction summ

marises the key
k results oof pullout teests, which are
a describeed in more details
d in
O (2
2010d).
3.3.1 M
Main Objeectives of GSC
G Pulloutt Test
The maain objectivee of these teests is to stuudy the effeects of engineering prooperties of GSCs
G on
the pulllout forces of
o GSC-stru uctures, witth a special attention to
o the sand ffill ratio. In order to
achieve this goal, the effects of the folllowing facto ors on the pullout forc
rces were ex xamined
throughh a series off scale mod del tests: sannd fill ratio
o of GSC, friction
fr propperties of geotextile
materiall, seaward slope (overrlapping lenngth), and stacking method of GSSCs. Apart from f the
determination of thhe influence of engineeering properties of GS SCs on thee pullout forrces, the
specificcation of thhe required parameterss for the nu umerical modelling
m off submergeed GSC-
structurres represennts a further objective oof the pullouut tests.
3.3.2 E
Experimen
ntal Setup and
a Test Prrogramme
The pulllout tests were

w conduucted by connstructing different
d GSSC-structurres in the 1 m wide
LWI-waave flume (1 m wide an nd 1.25 m hheight). GSC models were
w construucted with five
f sand
fill ratioos; 80 % (m
mass = 11.18
8 kg), 90 % (mass = 12 2.58 kg), 1000 % (mass = 13.98 kg)), 110 %
(mass = 15.39 kg)), 120 % (m mass = 16.880 kg) and two types of geotextilles, a woveen and a
nonwovven, were used u duringg the manuufacturing of model GSCs. Thee woven geotextile
showedd a friction angle
a of 13.33⁰ (tan Φ=
=0.237), and d the nonwo oven materiial showed an angle
of 22.622⁰ (tan Φ=00.417) durinng underwatter direct shear tests with standard shear box.
The dim mensions off the empty flat bag weere as: a = 0.50 m (len ngth) and b = 28 m (w width) to
achieve a target sizze of 0.50 m long moodel GSCs. Then the GSC G length lc of an 800% filled
GSC, iis twice ass large as its width (lc/bc = 2) and five times as llarge as itss height
(lc/hc = 5)(Figure 3-1b).
3 Sincee nonwovenn geotextile has higher elongation properties, nonwo-
ven conntainers can be filled upp to 120 % of the initiaal volume, whereas
w conntainers with
h woven
geotextiile materials can only be filled upp to 110 % due to theirr limited eloongation caapability.
After eaach pullout test, deform mations of GSCs weree checked and a if GSCss were sign nificantly
deformeed (i.e. if thhe deformattion of any grid line iss more than 10% it’s ooriginal leng gth) they
were noot reused annd new GSC Cs were coonstructed. However,
H each
e test coonfiguration
n was re-
peated aat least five times and all
a the resullts were takeen into conssideration dduring the an
nalysis.
The heiight of GSC C-structures was variedd depending g on the mo odel configuuration. GS
SCs were
pulled uusing an eleectric motorr that has a capability to adjust th
he pulling sppeed (Figurre 3-16).
GSCs w were modifiied by attacching a horiizontal pipee made of thet same geeotextile maaterial at
the fronnt side of GSC,
G which
h can accom mmodate a steel rod (F Figure 3-177). This rod
d and the
electric motor weree connected d using lighht weight steeel cables. The
T pulloutt forces werre meas-
ured using a forcee transducerr (Figure 3--16) conneccted to the cables andd GSCs werre tested
Efffect of Eng
only forr steady pulllout forces. The movemment of GSCs under th he pullout foorces was measured
m
using a displacem ment transd ducer (Linerr Variable Differentiaal Transforrmer, LVD DT). The
LVDT w was conneccted with a light weighht sliding frame attacheed to the baack side of the con-
tainer. T
This attachm
ment provid ded more prrecise measu urements off the movem ment of the contain-
er and thhe measureements are assumed
a to bbe free from used by the deformation
m errors cau ns of the
GSC caaused by pulllout force.
Figure 3--16: Experimeental setup for pullout tests ((note: all dimension in meter)
As aforrementionedd, GSCs wiith five fill ratios werre tested in 96 differennt testing scenarios
s
(Table 33-4). Each test configuuration wass repeated ata least five times and all the resu ults were
taken innto considerration durin
ng the analyysis. In mostt cases, therre were variiations in th he meas-
ured puullout forcess. Howeverr, the generral trends were
w clearly
y visible. Seeveral expllanations
were foound for thee variations in the pulloout force measurement
m ts. First, thee pullout fo
orces de-
pend onn the geomeetry of the interface
i beetween GSC Cs (e.g. lonngitudinal annd lateral profile
p of
GSCs att the lower layers, curv vature of thhe GSCs, friiction effectts from two side by sid de neigh-
bouringg GSCs).
Figure 3--17: Front andd rear views off the model wiith four modeel configurations for pulloutt tests
The fricction properrties (frictio

on angel / friiction coeffficient between geotexttile-geotextile inter-
face) off geotextile materials are
a generallyy measured d using smaall shear boxx tests (direect shear
Efffect of Eng
box appparatus) andd the tests are generallly perform med under dryd conditioons. In ordeer to ex-
trapolatte the frictioon parameteers obtainedd through sm mall shear boxb tests too describe thhe inter-
face fiction properrties of GSC Cs, it is neccessary to find
f a relatiionship betwween those two pa-
rameterrs. Thereforee, the pullout tests werre initially conducted
c under
u dry coonditions (d
dry tests)
and theen, the calculated pullout forces based on frictionf ang
gles obtaineed during th he small
shear boox tests andd the actual pullout forc rce measured during the experimennts were co ompared.
Afterwaards, most of o the dry pullout tests were repeaated underw water (wet teests / see Taable 3-4)
and the results werre compared d again to sstudy the efffect of the presence
p off water on the inter-
face fricction properties of GSCs (wet tessts). Most of o the resultts presentedd in this chaapter are
from unnderwater (w wet tests) pu
ullout tests and furtherr informatio on/results caan be foundd in Das-
sanayakke and Oum meraci (2010 0d).
Table 3-44: Testing proggramme for pullout tests (seee Figure 3-17
7 for model co
onfiguration II~IV)
Results from crestt and slopee GSCs weere analysed d separately

y as in som
me occasio
ons, they
showedd different patterns.
p In most
m of thee cases, therre were variiations in thhe measured
d pullout
forces. H
However, thhe general trends
t are cllearly visiblle.
3.3.3 IInfluence of
o the Sand
d Fill Ratio on Pulloutt Forces
The maain focus off these test series was tto find the influence of
o the sand fill ratio on n pullout
forces oof both crestt and slope GSCs of a structure with
w a verticaal seaward front. For an a empty
geotextiile bag withh a given geeometry, thee weight of the GSC in
ncreases withth the sand fill
f ratio.
As a ressult, pullout forces were also incrreased with the sand fill ratio. Hoowever, the increase
rate waas decreasinng. The rattio betweenn the pullout force an nd the weigght (when a GSC-
structurre is submerrged, the weight of GS SCs under buoyancy
b iss consideredd) of the crrest GSC
was intrroduced as a relative pullout
p forcee for crest GSCs
G (see Figure
F 3-211). Accordin ng to the
Efffect of Eng
results, sand fill raatios of 90 %~100 % rrequired a higher relattive pulloutt force than n for the
other tested sand fiill ratios (Fiigure 3-18 aand Figure 3-19).
3 In general, the saand fill ratio
o clearly
affects the deform mation (shap pes) of GS SCs, and co onsequentlyy the interfa
face friction n forces.
Therefoore, there wiill be a signnificant diffe
ference in teerms of the hydraulic
h sttability for different
d
sand filll ratios.
Interestiingly, 120%
% filled cresst and slopee GSCs resu ulted in the lowest resiistance (in terms of
relative pullout forrce) against pulling outt. Contrary to the com mmon belieff that the 80 0% filled
GSCs pprovide betteer stability (e.g. PIANC C 2011), 90 0% ~ 100% % filled GSC Cs showed thet high-
est resisstance than the other sand
s wer sand fill ratios (800%~100%), pullout
fill rattios. For low
tests doo not show a significaant differencce between n pullout foorces of tanndem and sttaggered
arrangem ments. Surpprisingly, booth crest annd slope GSCs with tan ndem arranggement show w slight-
ly higheer pullout foorces than staggered arrrangement, when sand d fill ratios aare relativelly higher
(110% ~ 120%). Thhis might be due to “innterlocking”” between GSCs G as a reesult of upper GSCs
follow tthe convex shape of lo ower GSCs,, when com mpared to thhe staggeredd arrangem ment. The
convex curvature iss higher forr larger sandd fill ratios
Figure 3--18: Effect of sand fill ratio on relative puullout forces on

o crest GSC (underwater
( ppullout test ressults)
The effeect of the saand fill ratio

o and the staacking patteern (tandem
m or staggereed arrangemments) of
slope GGSCs was sttudied by peerforming ppullout testss on the GSCs from thee second laayer. The
seawardd front of thhe structuree was kept vertical to obtained maximum
m puullout forcees. Later,
some off the pullouut tests on the slope G GSCs were repeated with w 1:1 seaaward slopee (Figure
3-23). UUnlike the crest
c GSCs, the slope G GSCs have interfaces
i frrom both toop and bottoom sides.
By takinng these tw wo surfaces and the peerpendicular force actiing on thesee two surfaaces into
accountt, the relativve pullout foorce was reddefined as the
t ratio bettween the pu
pullout forcee and the
three tim
mes the weiight of a GS SC (Figure 3-21). The slope GSCs did not diisplay a larg ge varia-
tion in rrelative pulllout forces compared to the crestt GSCs. Ho owever, bothh trend-linees drawn
for sloppe GSCs wiith tandem and staggerred arrangeements show w the higheer resistancee against
pullout forces whenn the sand fillf ratio is 990% ~ 100% %.
Efffect of Eng
Figure 3--19: Effect of sand fill ratio

o on relative ppullout forces on slope GSC
C for a verticaal seaward fro
ont (under-
water pullouut test results)
3.3.4 C
Comparisoon of Slope and Crest GSCs
A compparison of thhe slope GSCs (from the second layer from the crest) aand the creest GSCs
shows tthat the sloppe containerrs have in aaverage at leeast 130% higher
h resisstance than the crest
GSC (F Figure 3-20)), when the seaward froont is vertical. Thereforre, the crestt GSCs are the
t criti-
cal elem
ments from submerged
s or low-cressted GSC-sttructures.
Figure 3--20: Comparisson of pullou

ut forces for ccrest and slop
pe GSCs for a vertical seaw
ward front (u
underwater
pullout test results)
r
3.3.5 E
Effect of Geotextile
G Material
M Prroperties on
n Pullout Forces
Two diffferent typees of geotex

xtile, a woveen and a noonwoven, were
w used foor the modeel GSCs.
During underwaterr direct sheaar tests withh standard shear
s box, the
t woven ggeotextile showed a
friction angle of 13.33⁰
1 (tan Φ=0.237) while the nonwoven material shhowed an angle a of
Efffect of Eng
22.62⁰ (tan Φ=0.417). These two materrials showeed a clear difference

d iin their pullout re-
sistancee, which is roughly
r pro
oportional too the frictio
on coefficieents obtaineed from direect shear
tests.
The relaative pullouut forces weere calculateed to find out

o the relattionship bettween frictio on prop-
erties off geotextilee materials and the inteerface frictiion propertiies of GSCss. Accordin ng to the
results, both types of GSCs showed
s moore than 30% % higher reelative fricttion forces than the
friction coefficients (Figure 3--22). Whenn consider both
b dry andd underwateer pullout teests with
nonwovven geotextiiles, the low west relativee pullout forrce was 0.54, which caan also be described
d
as interfface frictionn coefficien
nt of two noonwoven GSCs
G (Figurre 3-21). Siimilarly, whhen con-
sider the pullout teests with wo oven geotexxtiles, the loowest relatiive pullout force was 0.31
0 (in-
terface friction coefficient off two woveen GSCs). Both thesee values (taan Φ=0.540 0 for the
nonwovven GSCs annd tan Φ=0.310 for thee woven GS SCs) are app proximatelyy 30% of thee friction
coefficients obtaineed from the direct sheaar test (tan Φ=0.417
Φ forr the nonwooven geotex xtiles and
tan Φ=00.237 for thee woven geotextiles).
Figure 3--21: Calculatioon of interfacee friction coeffficient of cresst and slope GSCs
G
Therefoore, for duriing design purpose, it is much saafer to conssider the frriction properties of
geotextiile materials directly. Furthermore
F e, GSCs-strructures witth nonwoveen geotextile can be
further optimised as they sh howed nearrly 75% hiigher relativ ve friction forces thaan GSC-
structurres with wooven geotex xtile. Howeever, stackin
ng methodss did not shhow any im mportant
effect duuring both nonwoven
n and
a woven G GSCs.
Efffect of Eng
Figure 3--22: comparisoon of pullout forces

f for wovven and nonw
woven geotextiile (exemplariily for slope GSCs)
G
3.3.6 IInfluence of
o the Seaw
ward Slope A
Angle on Pullout
P Forces
Apart frrom vertical seawalls, the

t most coommon seaw ward slope from GSC--structures is 1:1 (or
o
45 ). Thherefore, GSSCs were arrranged as 1:1 slope annd pullout forces
f were measured. The dif-
ferent tyypes of nonnwoven GSCs were ussed (fill ratios: 80%, 110%, 120% %). The pullout tests
with 1:11 seaward slope
s were conducted with only thet tandem stacking m method, becaause, the
two GS SC arrangem ments showw almost simmilar pullouut resistancees. It is alsoo expected that the
effect of stacking method
m on pullout
p forcces (speciallly for the GSCs
G with hhigh sand fiill ratios;
FR=1100%~120%) might not be significcantly differrent from th he tests witth vertical seaward
front.
Accordiing to the results,

r cresst containerss showed only
o an averrage of ca. 10% higheer values
compareed with the vertical seaaward slopee cases and slope containers showeed an average of ca.
10% redduction in pullout
p forcces compareed to the veertical seawward slope ccases (Figurre 3-23).
Since thhe crest conntainer lyingg on an uneeven surfacee (due to thee gap betweeen first andd second
raw of GSCs from m the secon nd layer froom the cresst), “interlo
ocking” migght be high her. This
might cause the inccrease (ca. 10%
1 in averrage) in the pullout forcces for the ccrest GSCs.
At the sslope, theree is a reducttion in the ccontact areaa (overlapping area), wwhich migh ht lead to
less “innterlocking”” and conseequently low wer pulloutt forces than a verticall seaward slope.
s In
additionn, only ca. 80%
8 of the GSC lengthh of the crest GSC is resting on thhe slope GS SC (from
the secoond layer froom the top). Thereforee, the force acting
a perpeendicular too the contactt surface
betweenn the crest and
a the seco ond GSC froom the top is i also reducced by ca. 220%. Conseequently,
the fricttion force (F
Ff2, Figure 3-21)
3 is low
wer than thatt of the verttical seawarrd front. As a result,
total puullout forcess are lower than those from the tests with veertical seaw ward front (ca.
( 10%
lower inn average).
Efffect of Eng
Figure 3--23: Influence of seaward sllope angle of tthe GSC-struccture on the pu

ullout forces
3.3.7 P
Pullout Tessts in Wateer
The effe
fect of the presence
p off water on ppullout forces was another importtant issue reelated to
the oveerall hydrauulic stability y. Figure 33-24 shows experimen ntal results of nonwov ven crest
GSCs. P Pullout forcces under drry and subm merged conditions are different, hhowever, thiis differ-
ence is mainly duee to the diffferent normaal loads. When
W GSCs are submerrged, becausse of the
buoyanccy, normal loads are sm maller and aas a result, pullout forcces are alsoo smaller. However,
H
when reelative pullout forces are consideered, there is only slig ght differennt between dry and
submergged GSCs. For the callculation off relative pu ullout forcees, in case oof dry pulloout tests,
GSCs w weight in aiir and in case of subm merged pullo out forces, GSCs
G weighht underwaater were
considered. Other than in tand dem placedd GSCs with low sand fill ratios, all the otheer GSCs
showedd ca. 10~15% % higher pu ullout forcees, when GS SCs are sub bmerged andd there is no n appar-
ent reduuction in intterface fricttion propertties. This sllight differeence could bbe due to thhe settle-
ment off GSCs, oncce they are wet. Thereefore, it is not n required d to alter thee joint prop
perties in
numericcal models, because, GSCs G are w
wet at least once
o during g a test, andd all the GSSCs will
then shoow nearly the
t similar behaviour.
b S
Slope GSCs (Figure 3-21) also shhowed a sim milar be-
haviourr, when com mpare the reesults from dry pulloutt tests and from f the tessts with watter (Das-
sanayakke and Oum meraci 2010d d).
In addittion, two GSC

G stacking methodds: tandem arrangemen nt and stagggered arranngement
showedd almost thee same pulllout forces for crest GSCs
G duringg the underrwater pullo
out tests.
Howeveer, dry pulloout tests sh
howed ca. 220% high puullout forcees for crest GSCs withh tandem
arrangem
ment compared to cresst GSCs witth staggered d arrangemeent. Once thhe GSC-stru ucture is
submergged, GSCs of large saand fill ratioos (FR = 110%
1 ~ 120 0%) with taandem arran ngement
showedd ca. 5% ~ 10% higherr pullout foorces compaared to the GSCs withh staggered arrange-
ment. T
Therefore, thhere was no o apparent advantage in placing GSCs withh staggered arrange-
ment for the tested conditions..
Efffect of Eng
Figure 3--24: Comparisson of pullout forces of cresst GSCs underr dry and subm
merged condittions
3.3.8 S
Summary of
o Pullout Test
T Resultts and Con
ncluding Reemarks
The smaall scale puullout tests were

w carriedd out to quaantify the effffect of key engineeringg param-
eters suuch as the sand fill ratio, the tyype of geottextile mateerial, seawaard slope of o GSC-
structurres (overlappping lengthh), stacking pattern, test conditionns (dry or ssubmerged), etc. on
the pulllout forces. The influeence of thesse factors on
o pullout force
f of creest and slop
pe GSCs
were thhen analysedd in detail and concluuding remarks drawn from fr the stuudy can be summa-
rized in point form as follows..
 The results of thhe pullout tests

t that coover five diifferent tested sand filll ratios (80% %, 90%,
100% %, 110%, annd 120%), haveh shownn that the puullout forcess increase w with increasing sand
fill raatios. A nonn-dimensionnal parametter was intrroduced as relative
r pulllout force (ratio be-
tweeen the pullout force and the weighht of the GSCs). Optim mal sand filll ratios in terms of
the reesistance aggainst pullout of the GS SCs (or the sand fill ratios that ressulted in thee highest
relatiive pullout forces) werre found to be between n 90% ~ 100 0%. The sloope contain ners have
in avverage at leaast 130% hiigher resistaance than thhe crest con ntainers, whhen considerr respec-
tive rrelative pullout forces. In this commparative annalysis only y the amounnt of sand fiilled into
the GGSCs was varied
v and the
t size of tthe empty bag b was uncchanged (saame amountt of geo-
textille). Hence, the weight of each GSC C increasess as the sandd fill ratio inncreases.
 As eexpected, thhe slope GS SCs showedd higher pulllout resistaance than thhe containers at the
crestt. In averagee, slope GSC
Cs showed at least 130
0% higher reesistance thhan the crestt GSCs.
 Amoong the twoo types of geotextiless, the woveen geotextille showed a friction angle a of
13.333⁰ (tan Φ==0.237), an nd the nonnwoven maaterial had a frictionn angle off 22.62⁰
(tan Φ
Φ=0.417) during
d undeerwater direect shear teests with sttandard sheear box. Thhese two
geoteextile materrials display
yed a clearr differencee in their pu
ullout resisttance, whicch is ap-
proxiimately prooportional to
o the frictionn coefficien
nts.
Efffect of Eng he Hydrauliic Stability –
 The pullout ressistance is roughly

r prooportional to
t the friction coefficiients obtain
ned from
direcct shear testts. Interestin
ngly, all thee GSCs showwed 30% ~ 50% higheer pullout reesistance
than what was expected baased on thee interface friction pro operties of ggeotextile materials
m
withoout the sandd fill.
 As expected, sloope contain ners in GSCC-structures with a 1:1 seaward sllope showed d a lower
resisttance to pulllout forces than GSCss in a structu
ure with a vertical
v fronnt. This is mainly
m due
to the reductionn in overlapp ping length between GSCs.
G Howeever, in averrage, it is only
o about
10% lower thann that of the vertical seaaward frontt. In contrast, crest conttainers show w slightly
higheer (or someetimes equaal) values w with an aveerage of ap pproximatelly 10% hig gher. This
couldd be due too irregularitties in the ssurface, whhich might increase thhe “interlock king” be-
tweeen GSCs.
 Evenn though thhe required pullout forrce to movee a dry GSC is largerr than that of a sub-
mergged containeer, submerg ged GSCs shhowed ca. 10~15%1 hig
gher relativee pullout fo
orces than
dry GGSCs. Therre is no apparent decreaase in interface friction n propertiess due to thee presence
of water. Thereffore, the setttlement of GSCs, oncee they are wet,
w might bbe the reaso on for this
slighht differencee. Consequeently, it is nnot required to modify the
t joint prooperties in numerical
n
modeels depending on whetther GSCs aare emerged d or submerrged. Becauuse, GSCs are a wet at
least once during each test and all the G GSCs will then
t show nearly
n a simmilar behavio our.
In generral, sand fill ratio clearrly influencees the weighht and the shapes of GSSCs and con nsequent-
ly the innterface fricction forcess. Thereforee, there willl be a signifficant differrence in terms of the
hydraulic stability, for GSCs of differentt sand fill ratios. Simillarly, frictioon propertiees of geo-
textile mmaterials shhowed a sig n the interfaace friction properties and ulti-
gnificant innfluence on
mately on the pulllout forces. However, the underw water pullou ut tests of G GSCs structtures with
tandem and staggeered GSC arrangement
a nts did not show a con nsiderable ddifference ini pullout
forces, eeven thoughh the tandem arrangem ment showed slightly higher
h pulloout forces foor several
test connfigurations. Therefore, the hydrauulic stability y tests shouuld mainly cconsider thee parame-
ters succh as the saand fill ratio and frictiion propertties of geotextile, but only the taandem ar-
rangemeent. Since mostm of thee previous eexperimentss have been n performedd with 80% % sand fill
ratio, it will be neccessary to in
nclude that iin hydraulicc stability teests. Even thhough the 90%
9 filled
GSCs sshowed higghest resistaance againsst pullout, 100% 1 sand fill ratio m might appro opriate to
achieve a considerrable contraast in termss of sand fill f ratio as it resultedd in the nex xt highest
pullout forces.
Moreovver, one of the
t main lim mitations off COBRAS//UDEC modelling systtem by Reccio (2007)
is the innadequate reepresentatio
on of GSC--GSC contacts. With th he help of ppullout test data, it is
possiblee to find ouut proper jo
oint models to represen nt GSC-GS SC contacts with differrent engi-
neering properties and to valid date them. T Therefore, the
t results from
fr the pulllout tests were
w help-
ful for tthe planningg of hydrauulic stabilityy tests and also to obtaain requiredd GSC paraameter for
the nummerical models.
Efffect of Eng
3.4 E
Effect of Engineerin
E ng Propeerties of GSCs
G on the
t Hydraaulic Stab
bility –
H
Hydraulic Stability Test Results
The resuults of an extensive
e reeview and aanalysis of thet literaturre on the saand fill ratio o and on
hydraulic stability of GSC-strructures haave shown that t the labboratory invvestigationss are the
most feaasible and appropriate
a option to sstudy the eff
ffect of diffeerent sand ffill ratios on
n the hy-
draulic stability off GSC-strucctures. Therrefore, a series of hydraulic stabiility tests were w per-
formed and resultss are describ bed in this section. Th hese tests mainly
m focussed on fulfilling the
requirem
ment of a process orien nted systemmatic investiigation of th he effect off different fill
f ratios
on the hhydraulic stability
s of GSC-structtures. Furth hermore, thee hydraulicc stability teests also
focusedd on the efffects of otheer engineeriing propertties of GSC Cs on the hyydraulic staability of
GSC-strructures succh as the type of fill m material, the friction bettween contaainers and the t incli-
nation aangle of GSC.
G The results
r of thhe literaturre analysis clearly shoowed a gap p in the
knowleddge on hydrraulic stabillity of low-ccrested and submerged d GSC-strucctures (Figurre 2-13).
Therefoore, the currrent study fo ocuses mainnly on subm merged and low-crestedd GSC-struccture for
shore prrotection. More
M detaileed results aree given in Dassanayak
D e et al. (20111c).
Howeveer, as descriibed in Dasssanayake an and Oumeraaci (2009a, 2009b),

2 perrfect similitu
ude can-
not be achieved inn small scaale experimeents. Thereefore, hydraaulic stabiliity tests neeed to be
carefully planned with
w some insight
i of thhe physical processes involved
i inn the wave-sstructure
interactiion and thee associatedd scaling law ws. Dassanaayake and Oumeraci
O (22010a) desccribe the
possibillities and thhe limitation
ns of scalinng of the most
m relevannt materials for the sm mall scale
experimments on hyddraulic stab bility of GSC C-structuress. Due to the complexitty of the scaaling the
engineeering properrties of geottextile, finaal materials for the testts were seleected based on both
the anallysis of expert opinionss from the iindustry and d on a comp parative anaalysis of thee proper-
ties of ggeotextile materials
m avaailable in thhe market (D
Dassanayakee and Oumeeraci 2010a)).
Thoughh the small scale

s laboraatory modells are consid dered as thee most reliaable tool forr design-
ing and testing moost types of coastal struuctures (Hu ughes 2003), they still hhave certain n limita-
tions. D
Due to scalee effects, laaboratory efffects and measuremen
m nt errors, m
model and prototype
p
results m
might differr significanttly. Therefoore, test sho
ould be plan
nned and ressults should d be ana-
lysed caautiously.
3.4.1 S
Specific Ob
bjectives off Hydraulicc Stability Tests
T
The oveerall objectiives of the hydraulic sstability testts were to study

s the efffect of the sand fill
ratio and the interfa
face friction properties of GSCs on n the hydrauulic stabilityy of GSC-sttructures
with ann improved understanding of the hhydraulic sttability of crest
c GSCs of low-crested and
submergged GSC-sttructures an nd to obtain the requireed data for the
t validatioon of the nu umerical
models.. The speciffic objectivves are threeefold; (i) Id
dentification
n and underrstanding of the ef-
fects off engineerinng properties of GSC s on the hydraulic
h staability of GGSC-structu ures. (ii)
Quantiffication andd evaluationn of the senssitivity and
d relative im
mportance oof identified d and se-
lected pproperties of
o GSCs on the hydrauulic stability y of submerrged GSC-sstructures th hrough a
Efffect of Eng
set of aappropriate laboratory experimennts. (iii) Co

omparison of o currentlyy available stability
formulaae on GSCs with the annalysed dataa from the laaboratory ex
xperiments..
3.4.2 E
Experimen
ntal Setup
Hydraullic stabilityy tests (Figu

ure 3-25 andd Figure 3-26) were co onducted too investigate the ef-
fect of tthe most im mportant engineering pproperties on the proceesses that goovern the hydraulic
h
stabilityy. Approxim mately 350 model testts were perrformed wh hile varyingg wave parrameters,
geometrrical param meters (e.g. inclination angle of GSCs)
G and properties
p oof GSC succh as the
sand filll ratio, the type
t of geo
otextile mateerial, etc. During
D the model
m tests, incident an
nd trans-
mitted w wave param meters, the behaviour
b oof the structure (high speed
s videoo records), the flow
velocityy around thhe structure,, the pressuure variation ns at the crrest of the GSCs struccture are
systemaatically recoorded.
ARRAY1 WG12 WG14 WG16 ARRAY3

WAVE
WG1 WG3
W WG5 WG7 WG13 WG15
MAKER WG
G9 WG11 WG17
7 WG19
WG2 WG4 W
WG6 WG8
H=
=0.20m WG10 GSSC-structure W
WG18 WG20
H=
=0.16m ADV1
H=
=0.12m ADV2
0.861m
H=
=0.08m
1
0.811m
0.761m
0
0.45m 0.87m 0 .45m 0.87m
0.711m
1
0 761
H=0.08m
m~0.24m 0.196
6m
0.611m
0.75m 25 0.75m
1 0.415
5m
ARRAY2 ARRAY2
23.025 m 33.400
0m
10.00m 10
0.955m 2.070m 10
0.375m 0.60
0m 6.000 m 2.070m
Figure 3--25: Model settup – hydrauliic stability tessts in the 2m wave

w flume off LWI
Based oon several factors

f suchh as the capaacity and th he size of th
he wave fluume at LWII, availa-
bility off geotextile material, ex
xperiences gained duriing previouss model testts, existing stability
formulaae and few preliminary
p y tests resultts, etc., the most approopriate scalee of the mod
del GSC
was determined.
The deccision regarrding the forreshore sloppe should beb taken carrefully and oonly after consider-
c
ing all tthe relevantt processes affecting thhe hydraulicc stability of GSC-struccture. Theree are ad-
vantagees as well asa disadvan ntages of haaving a foreeshore slop pe. Thereforre, some nu umerical
simulatiions were performed
p using
u the CO OBRAS-UC C model to identify thee effect of the
t fore-
shore sllope for the hydraulic stability
s of ssubmerged GSC-structtures (Dassaanayake and d Oume-
raci 20110c). These simulations considere d a submerged/low-creested GSC-sstructure with simi-
lar dim
mensions, buut with and d without tthe foreshore slope. ModelM param meters werre; wave
heights H = 0.15 ~ 0.25 m, waave periods,, T = 2.0 s anda 3.5 s and d crest freebboard, Rc = 0.000 ~
0.313 mm. Dassanayyake and Oumeraci
O (22010c) repo orted the reesults, whicch indicate that the
foreshorre slope might result laarger horizoontal particlle velocitiess compared to the testss without
a foreshhore slope, which are ultimately
u rresponsible for the mo otion of cresst GSCs. Sp pecially,
when thhe crest freeeboard is zero, the diffference bettween the maximum
m hhorizontal velocities
v
(measurred at the seaward
s edgge of the ccrest) with the
t foreshore slope are re much larrger than
those off without foreshore
f slopes. Thereefore, it is clear that the
t foreshor ore slope wiill allow
Efffect of Eng he Hydrauliic Stability –
large vaariations of test conditions. Based on these nu

umerical mo odelling ressults and oth
her prac-
tical conncerns, it was
w decided to use a foreeshore sloppe with 1:25.
Apart frrom that, thhe foreshoree slope reduuces the num mber of smaall scale GSSCs required d to con-
struct thhe GSC-struuctures in thhe flume. H Hence, it alloows testing a wide specctrum of parrameters
within tthe limited time availaable for the experimen nts. Howeveer, the foresshore slope restricts
the perfformance of hydraulic stability teests with su urface pierccing structur
ure due to th he wave
breakingg on the forreshore slop pe. Therefoore, addition nal numerical simulatioons were peerformed
with suffficiently laarge water depths
d at thee toe of the structure (see Section 44.5). Three types of
small sccale GSCs were used during thee hydraulic stability teests: (i) nonnwoven 80% filled
GSCs ((see Figure 3-26a, serries NW80H H and Figu ure 3-26d, series NW880I) (ii) no onwoven
100% fi filled GSCs (see Figuree 3-26b, serries NW100 0H) and (iii)) woven 800% filled GS SCs (see
Figure 33-26c, seriees W80H). As A shown inn Figure 3-26c, the hy ydraulic stabbility tests with
w wo-
ven GSC Cs were connducted onlly by constrructing a wo oven GSC-sstructure to cover a 50% of the
width of the 2 m wide
w wave flume.
f w constructed with noonwoven 80
The nnext half was 0% filled
GSCs. T Therefore, each
e type off GSCs reprresents 1 m width acro oss the flumme, which alllows for
a direct comparisonn of the hyd draulic stabbility of 80%% filled wov ven and nonnwoven GS SCs. The
lengths and the heiights of eacch GSC are shown in Figure F 3-26 and the wiidth of all thet types
of GSC Cs were keppt as 0.70 m in order too use the same numbeer of GSCs in each tesst series.
Since thhe joint betw ween two structures w was not real (woven-non nwoven GSSC interfacee), GSCs
around the joint were
w not connsidered in the analysiis. Moreoveer, in order to obtain the t same
crest heeight with diifferent typees of small scale GSCss, the found dation of thee structure was
w con-
structedd with largeer GSCs off different hheights. Thee seaward slope s of thee structure was 1:1
throughhout the testt series. Wh hen GSCs aare placed with w 1:1 seaaward slopee, always th here will
be smalll gaps betw ween differrent GSC roows of the same levell. These gap aps were filled with
relativelly shorter GSCs
G and th
hey were noot considereed during th he damage aanalysis. Incclination
angles oof GSCs weere 0 (horizzontal) and 15⁰ inclined d from the horizontal lline (Figuree 3-26d).
After eaach test, thee model wass fully reconnstructed to obtain the same
s initiall conditions.
Efffect of Eng
Figure 3--26: Differentt model confiigurations andd test series: (a) nonwoven
n, 80 % filledd, horizontal GSCs;
G (b)
nonwoven, 100 % filled, horizontal G GSCs, (c) wov ven and nonw
woven, 80 % ffilled horizon ntal GSCs;
woven, 80 % filled
and (d) nonw f 15̊ inclinned GSCs
Efffect of Eng
Table 3-55: Test program

mme in the 2 m wave flumee of LWI
3.4.3 T
Typical Faailure Modees of Low-C
Crested / Su
ubmerged GSC-Strucctures
High-sppeed video extracts

e sho
own in Figuure 3-27 illu ustrate typiccal failure m
modes: slidiing, “up-
lifting aand drifting””, and overtturning. GSSCs show diifferent domminant failurre modes fo or differ-
ent subm merged deppths. For most
m of the llow-crested
d structures,, the crest GGSCs repreesent the
critical elements. In most of the tests a ddominant faailure mode was identiffied. This dominant
d
failure m mode apparrently depen nds on the engineering g propertiess of GSCs, the crest frreeboard
(or subm mergence depth) and th he inclinatioon angle off GSC. Furth hermore, thhe importancce of the
engineeering properrties of GSC Cs on the hyydraulic staability also varies
v depeending on th
he domi-
nant failure mechannism for a particular
p GGSC-structurre and for a particular ffreeboard.
The moost common failure mecchanism durring the testt series W80 0H (horizonntally placed woven
GSCs w with 80% fiill ratio) waas sliding (F
Figure 3-27
7a). This miight be duee to the loww friction
betweenn woven GS SCs. The sliiding could take place over severaal wave cyclles in steps.. Where-
as, nonw woven GSCCs (test seriees NW80H;; horizontallly placed woven
w GSCss with 80% fill ratio
and testt series NW
W100H; horrizontally pplaced nonw woven GSC Cs with 1000% fill ratioo ) were
displaceed mainly due
d to, eith her upliftingg and driftiing (Figure 3-27b) or due to oveerturning
(Figure 3-27c). Booth these failure mechaanisms cou uld occur wiithin one wwave cycle. The de-
tailed ddamage anallysis showeed that therre is a possibility that all three daamage mecchanisms
can be sseen in one model. However, in m most of the test
t cases, there
t was onne dominannt failure
mechannism.
Efffect of Eng
Figure 3--27: Typical failure modees observed dduring the waave tests: (a)) sliding, (b) uplifting and
d drifting,
(c) overturning
3.4.4 N
New Approoach for Da
amage Classsification for GSCs and
a GSC-SStructures
Since tthe existingg damage classificatio

c on for convventional coastal
c struuctures (e.g
g. rubble
mound breakwaters) is not app plicable to GSC-structtures, a new
w method off damage cllassifica-
tion is inntroduced for
f this stud
dy (Table 3- 6).
If a GSC C displacess less than 10% of its leength or sho

ows an angu
ular motionn less than 10⁰,
1 then
it is connsidered as “no
“ damagee” (or “stablle”).
If a GSCC shows a greater

g disp
placement thhan 10% off its length or
o greater anngular motions than
10⁰ it is considereed either ass an “incipiient motion
n” or a “dissplacement”” dependingg on the
Efffect of Eng
magnituude as show wn in Tablee 3-6. By tthen consid dering the critical

c GSCC-layers of a GSC-
structurre the level of damage was classiffied into five categoriess from “no damage” (DDC 0) to
“total faailure” (DC 4).
Table 3-66: New damagge classification for individdual GSCs an
nd for entire GSC-structure
G (modified fro
om Dassa-
nayake et al. 2011c)
3.4.5 E
Effect of Su
urf Similarrity Parameeter on thee Hydraulicc Stability oof GSC-Strructures
Early GGSC-structurres were deesigned usinng the hydrraulic stabillity formulaae for stonee armour
layers ssuch as Huddson’s form
mula (1956). Only the weight
w of GSCs
G was coonsidered siimilar to
other coonventional coastal stru oposed a neew stability formula
uctures. Latter, Wouterss (1998) pro
(Eq. 2.22) for GSCss based on the
t Hudsonn’s formula and the preevious expeerimental daata. This
formulaa contains a modified stability
s nummber (Ns), which was developedd explicitly for GSC
structurres. Then, Oumeraci
O ett al. (2002bb) and Oumeraci et al. (2003) propposed two different
hydraulic stability formulae foor crest GSC Cs and slop
pe GSCs of a revetmennt using the stability
numberr (Eq. 2.2) proposed
p by Wouters (11998).
Accordiing to Oum meraci et al. (2003), the hydraulic stability

s of crest
c GSCs for a structture with
a relativvely high crrest depend
ds primarily on the relaative freebo
oard whereaas the hydraaulic sta-
bility off slope GSCCs depends primarily oon the surf similarity
s parameter. H
However, th he results
of the teests show thhat even thee crest GSC
Cs of submeerged and loow crest struuctures are strongly
dependeent on both the freeboaard and the ssurf similarity parameter.
Efffect of Eng
The ressult of the hydraulic

h sttability testss are presen
nted with modified
m staability num
mber (Ns)
similar tto Wouters (1998).
H
Ns  with
w 0  tan /  H / L0  (3.6)
( GSC / W  1)  lc sin 
Where;
Ns = staability numbber [-]

H = wavve height att the beginn ning of the fforeshore slo
ope [m]
W = dennsity of watter [kg/m ]
3

G [kg/m3]
Cw = em mpirical paraameter derived from thhe stability number
n Ns [-]
lc = lenggth of a GSC
C [m]
 = sloppe angle of the structurre [°]
L0=g T2/(2) = deeep water waave length caalculated ussing the meaan wave perriod [m]
During the data annalysis, for the regularr wave testss, mean wav ve height H m and for the tests
ONSWAP sppectrum, sig
with JO gnificant w ave height, Hs were co onsidered aas the repressentative
wave paarameters. However,
H itt was foundd that the characteristic wave heighht H2%, which is the
mean off the highesst 2% of the waves in thhe time seriies (mean off the highesst 20 incidennt waves
from the wave refllection analysis) is a b etter repressentative waave height tto combine the data
from regular and irrregular waave tests. Iff only the siignificant wave
w height,, Hs is knowwn, then
assuminng a Rayleiggh distributiion, H2% = 1.4 Hs.
First, hyydraulic staability curvves for diffeerent crest freeboards were develloped based d on the
damagee category; “Incipient
“ motion”
m (DC C 1) as desccribed in Taable 3-6. Foor the quanttification
of the eeffect of thee sand fill raatio, the typpe of geotex
xtile materiaal, and the iinclination angle of
GSCs oon the hydraaulic stabilitty, the resullts of differeent test seriees were com
mpared by consider-
c
ing horiizontally plaaced 80% filled
f nonwooven GSCs series: NW W80H / Rc = 0; (Figure 3-28) as
the basiis. Figure 3-28
3 and Figure 3-29 ppresent exemplarily reesults from NW80H teest series
with reggular wavess for two crrest freeboaards Rc = 0 m and Rc = -0.2 m (inn model scaale). For
both freeeboards, thhe “incipien nt motion” ccurves weree plotted, sh howing a cclear depend dency of
the stabbility numbeer on the surrf similarityy parameter..
Efffect of Eng
Figure 3--28: Hydraulicc stability curv

ve for low-creested GSC-strructures (Rc =0
= m) made off nonwoven, 80%
8 filled
GSCs (seriees NW80H, reg gular wave tessts)
Figure 3--29: Hydrauliic stability cu

urve for subm
merged GSC-sstructures (Rcc = -0.2m) maade of nonwo
oven, 80%
filled GSCs (NW80H, reg gular wave tessts)
Moreovver, the ressults from Oumeraci eet al. (2002b) are plo otted for thhe crest freeeboards
Rc = 0.00 m as in Figure
F 3-30. Despite thhe limited amount
a of data
d points and the tests were
conductted with irreegular wavees, the effecct of the surrf similarity
y parameter on the dammage cat-
egory ““little displaacement” caan still be oobserved. Therefore,
T t hydraullic stability of crest
the
GSCs allso dependss on the surff similarity parameter.
Efffect of Eng
Figure 3--30: Small sccale hydraulic stability teest results fro

om Oumeraci et al. (20022b) for crest freeboard
Rc = 0.0 m and
a +0.75 m (in
( model scalle)
3.4.6 E
Effect of Crest
C Freeboard on thee Hydrauliic Stability of GSC-Str
tructures
Accordiing to Oum meraci et al. (2003), thee hydraulic stability of crest GSCss depends primarily
p
on the ccrest freebooard and th he results frrom these tests confirm
ms this findding. The hydraulic
h
stabilityy curves forr different crest
c freebo ards were developed
d based
b on thee damage category;
c
“Incipieent motion”” (DC 1) ass mentionedd in Table 3-6 and th he curves arre shown in n Figure
3-31. AAmong the teested crest freeboards (Rc = -0.25 5 m, -0.20 m,
m -0.10 m, 0.00 m, +0.046 m),
Rc = 0.00 m resultedd in lowest stability. S Since the daata betweenn Rc = -0.100 m and Rcc = 0.0 m
are misssing, it is diifficult to co
ome to a connclusion.

ves for regulaar wave tests showing
s the “iincipient motiion” cases for the tested
crest freeboaards Rc = -0.2
25 m ~ +0.0466 m (in model scale)
Efffect of Eng
3.4.7 E
Effect of Saand Fill Ra
atio on the H
Hydraulic Stability of GSC-Struuctures
In Figurre 3-32 the “incipient motion”

m currves for 80%% and 100%% filled GSC Cs are compparative-
ly showwn (test seriees NW80H and NW1000H). For th he tested connditions (seee Table 3-55), it can
clearly bbe seen thaat 100% fillled GSCs arre more staable than 80
0% filled G GSCs. For th he 100%
filled G
GSCs, the incipient mottion occurs only when the stabilityy number iss increased byb about
36% forr ξₒ in the order of 5 as compareed to the 80 0% filled GSCs.
G Thouugh the oveerlapping
length aand contact area betweeen GSCs w were less forr the 100% fill ratio, thhe 100% fillled con-
tainers wwere more stable. Thiss might be due to the higher weig ght and higgher permeaability of
the GSC C-structure associated with a 1000% sand filll ratio as compared
c too that with an 80%
sand filll ratio.
Figure 3--32: Effect of sand fill ratio on the hydrauulic stability of

o low-crested GSC-structurres: compariso
on of 80%
and 100% filled
f GSCs made
m of nonw
woven geotexttile (NW80H;; Rc = 0 m annd NW100H; Rc = 0 m/
regular wave tests)
3.4.8 E
Effect of th
he Type of Geotextile on the Hyd
draulic Stab
bility of GSSC-Structu
ures
The effeects of the type

t of geottextile materrial used fo GSCs on the hydrau-
or the constrruction of G
lic stabiility of the GSC-structture were sttudied by using
u a nonwwoven (seriies: NW80H H) and a
woven ((series: W880H) materiial (Figure 33-33). Both h types of GSCs
G were filled 80% and had
approximately the same weigh hts under buuoyancy. During the teests series, w when Rc = 0 m, sta-
bility nuumbers of woven
w GSC
Cs were ca. 40% less th han those of nonwovenn GSCs forr “incipi-
ent motiion” cases (damage
( cattegory: DC 1).
Efffect of Eng
Figure 3--33: Effect of the

t type of geeotextile on thhe hydraulic sttability of low-crested GSC
C-structures: co
omparison
of the regullar wave test results of nonnwoven geoteextile (interfacce friction anngle 22.64⁰) and
a woven
geotextile (iinterface frictiion angle 13.333⁰)
As the ssubmergencce depth inccreases, the differencess between woven

w and nnonwoven GSCs
G are
reducedd in terms of the hydrau ulic stabilityy (e.g. for Rc
R = -0.2 m, Figure 3-334), mainly because
of differrent dominaant failure mechanisms
m s.
Figure 3--34: Effect of the type of geeotextile on thhe hydraulic sttability of sub
bmerged GSC--structures: co omparison
of the regullar wave test results
r of nonnwoven geoteextile (interfacce friction anggle; 22.64⁰) and
a woven
geotextile (iinterface frictiion angle; 13.333⁰)
Efffect of Eng
When thhe submerggence depth is small, bboth woven and nonwo oven GSC-sstructures faailed due
SCs caused by overtoppping waves, (see Figurre 3-27a) whhereas for relatively
to slidinng of the GS
larger suubmergence depths, “u uplift and ddrift” (see Figure
F b) and overrturning (see Figure
3-27b
3-27c) w were comm monly observ ved. For ovverturning and
a “uplift and drift” ffailure mechhanisms,
the fricttion betweenn GSCs is expectedly
e iinsignifican
nt.
Thoughh the wave conditions that triggeer the incip pient motio
ons of submmerged woven and
nonwovven GSCs are a relatively y similar, thhe damage progressionn was muchh more rapid d in wo-
ven struuctures commpared to no onwoven strructures. Foor selected comparable
c tests, a pro
ogressive
damagee analysis was
w perform med considerring the num mber of reggular waves , the type of
o failure
mode, aand the num mber of deetached GS SCs. Due to o the high friction prooperties, noonwoven
GSCs aare detachedd mainly due to overturrning (Figurre 3-35a). In contrast, w woven GSC Cs failed
mainly due to slidding, which requires reelatively lesss effort. Consequently
C y, the damage pro-
gressionn of wovenn GSC-stru ucture was much mo ore rapid co ompared too nonwoveen GSC-
structurres (Figure 3-35b). Th herefore, noot only the conditions required too start damage to a
GSC-strructure, butt also the developmen
d nt of the daamage is im
mportant foor a compreehensive
quantifiication of thhe effect of the
t interfac e friction beetween GSCCs on the hyydraulic staability.
The dom minant failuure mechaniism of the nnonwoven GSCs G was overturning
o g whereas th
he domi-
nant faiilure mechaanism for woven
w GSC s was slidin ng. Figure 3-35 providded exempllarily re-
sults onn the significcance of interface frictiion on the dominant
d failure mechaanics.
Figure 3--35: Damage progression as a functionn of the numbber of regularr waves for tw
two selected tests
t from
NW80H andd W80H test series
s with commparable incident wave con
nditions (Rc = -0.20 m)
Efffect of Eng
3.4.9 E
Effect of In
nclination Angle
A of GS
SCs on the Hydraulicc Stability
The infl
fluence of thhe inclination angle off GSCs (beetween the longitudinal
l l axis of GSCs and
the horiizontal planne) on the hyydraulic staability was studied
s by comparing
c tthe stability
y of hori-
zontallyy placed andd inclined GSCs.
G Wheen GSCs are placed inclined (Figuure 3-36), there t are
several advantages. First, pulliing out of G GSCs from thet GSC-strructure is reelatively mo ore diffi-
cult commpared to thhe horizontaally placed GSCs, because, other than the friiction, a com mponent
of graviitational forrce is also acting as a resisting force.
f Secon nd, even if the inciden nt waves
caused iinternal moovement of sand in the GSCs, the inclination angle mighht prevent th hem get-
ting defformed (graadual enlarg gement of sseaward end d due to the internal mmovement of o sand).
Third, wwhen constrruct a GSC--structure w with 1:1 seaaward slope using the ssame type of o GSCs,
the incliined placemment resulteed in larger overlapping g lengths. Consequentl
C ly, the frictiion force
against the pulling out might beb larger com mpared to those
t of horrizontally pllaced GSCss.
(a) GSC sttacked horizontally (b) GSC

G stacked inclined
FL FR1 FL F
R
R1
Wave dirrection 10o
FD FD
FM FF
FM
FF
45o 45o
4
FR2 FR2
5 FGSC
x1 FGSC
o
x2
Resisting Contact Length; x1 < x2
FL: Lifting Forc
ce FF : Friction
n Force
FD : Drag Force FGSC : (Container Weight) – (Buoyancy Force)
FM : Inertia force
e FR : Reactio
on force
Figure 3--36: Forces acting on the GS

SCs under waave action
Figure 33-37 showss a compariison of the “incipient motion”

m (D
Damage cateegory; DC1) curves
for two test series NW80H
N (in
nclination aangle = 0 ̊) and
a NW80I (inclinationn angle = -1 15⁰). For
Rc = 0 mm, inclined GSC show wed more sttability to wave
w attack than horizoontal GSC. For ex-
ample, wwhen the suurf similaritty parameteer is 5, stabiility number is increas ed by 30% as com-
pared too the horizontally placeed GSCs.
Furtherm more, the innclined placement of G GSCs increeases the hy ydraulic stabability by reestricting
the inteernal movem ment of sannd inside GS SCs. Recio and Oumeraci (2009)) described the pro-
cess govverning thee internal movement
m oof sand. Thiis sand mov vement cauuses deform mation of
GSCs annd ultimateely a significcant reductiion in hydraaulic stabilitty against ssliding. Wheen GSCs
are placced with an inclination angle insteead of the co
onventional horizontal placement, gravita-
tion forrce will preevent the movement
m off sand towaards the seaaward edgee of GSCs and will
thereby increase thhe long-termm stability off GSC-strucctures.
Efffect of Eng
Figure 3--37: Effect of the inclinatio

on angle of GS
SCs on the hy
ydraulic stabillity of low-creested GSC-strructures: a
comparison of horizontal and 15⁰ inclinned GSCs for Rc = 0 m (reggular wave tessts)
Howeveer, when thhe submergeence depth was 0.20 m (Figure 3-38), 3 theree is no conssiderable
differennce betweenn the wave conditions
c rrequired for the initiatio
on of damagge to inclineed GSC-
structurre in compaarison to th
he horizontaally placed GSCs. Fig gure 3-39 shhows a pro ogressive
damagee analysis of
o horizontaally and incclined GSCss subject to o regular waaves and itt is clear
that incllined GSC have
h higherr resistance against waave attack ass the progreession of daamage in
the NWW80I test is considerably
c y slower thaan in the NW
W80H test.
Figure 3--38: Effect off the inclinatio

on angle of G
GSCs on the hy
ydraulic stabiility of submeerged GSC-strructures: a
comparison of horizontal and 15⁰ inclinned GSCs for Rc = -0.20 m (regular wavve tests)
Efffect of Eng
When ccompare thee results of two NW800H tests in Figure 3-35a and Figuure 3-39a, different d
dominannt failure mechanisms
m s can be obbserved. In Figure 3-35 5a, (Hm = 0..135, Tm = 1.90)
1 the
dominannt failure mechanism
m is
i overturniing while in n Figure 3-339a (Hm = 0 .144, Tm = 1.91)
1 the
dominannt failure mechanism
m is uplift annd drift. Duuring the seecond test (Figure 3-3 39a), the
wave heeight was inncreased only by 7% annd number of o detachedd GSCs weree more than n 3 times
higher. Therefore, the crest GS SCs of subm merged stru uctures are extremely
e seensitive to the
t wave
parametters. In adddition, in Fig
gure 3-35a,, only the GSCs
G from the
t front raaw at the crrest were
detached (mainly by b overturniing) and in Figure 3-39 9a, GSCs frrom both froont and rearr rows at
the cresst were detacched. Once the front roow is displaaced, the GSSCs at the reear row are exposed
to the inncident wavves and thosse GSCs aree mainly faiiled due to “uplift
“ and ddrift”. Furth
her anal-
ysis on the damagee developmeents can be found in Daassanayake and Oumerraci 2011c)
Figure 3--39: Damage progression asa a function of number off waves for tw wo selected ttests from NW
W80H and
NW80I test series with co
omparable inccident wave co
onditions (Rc = -0.20 m)
3.4.10 S
Settlementt of GSCs due
d to Interrnal Movem
ment of San
nd Under W
Wave Actio
on
Anotherr important observation made durring the mo odel testing process waas the settleement of
the GSCC-structure. Due to con ntinuous upw ward and downward movement
m off GSCs (e.gg. incipi-
ent mottion), fill material
m tend
ds to accum mulate at the front secttion of GSC C. This pro
ogressive
deformaation processs is similarr to that alreeady describ
bed by Reciio (2007). DDue to interrnal sand
movemeent, the shaape of the GSC
G was alttered as sho
own in Figuure 3-40a. H Hence, the height
h of
the GSCC at the bacck section iss decreasedd resulting in a noticeabble settlemeent of the structure.
Moreovver, the GSC C-structure settled as a result of the
t consolid dation of thhe fill materrial, spe-
cially w
when they underwent teests with irrregular wav ves where a single test comprises of mini-
Efffect of Eng
mum nuumber of 10001 wavess. Howeverr, the maxim mum obserrved settlem ment was only
o 5%,
which is lower thann what Reccio (2007) oobserved (i.e. the total reduction oof height waas 10%).
This diffference couuld be due to the diffeerence in th
he two mod dels used inn this study and Re-
cio’s waave flume teests (see Fig
gure 2-13 aand Figure 3-26).
3 In theese model teests only fiv
ve layers
of GSCs were usedd, whereas Recio
R (20077) had used up to elevenn GSC layeers.
Figure 3--40: Reductionn of the heigh

ht of a GSC-sstructure due to
t internal mo
ovement of saand after 1000
0 irregular
waves (Rc=--0.046, Hs=0.1 m, Tp=1.0 ss)
3.4.11 S
Summary of
o Hydraullic Stabilityy Tests and
d Concludin
ng Remarkks
The sannd fill ratio, the type of o geotextille material and the intterface fricttion betweeen GSCs
stronglyy affect diffferent proceesses governning the hydraulic stab bility of GSSC-structurees. These
tests, thherefore, reppresent the first
f attemppt to systematically quaantify the efffects of theese engi-
neering properties and the incllined placem ment of GSCs on the hydraulic
h staability. The hydrau-
lic stabbility tests were
w conduucted on loow-crested GSC-structtures with bboth positiv ve (sub-
merged)) and negative (emergeed) crest freeeboards. Th he most imp portant outccomes of th he exper-
imental studies andd their impllications forr the engineeering practtice can be summarised as fol-
lows:
 GGSCs of a low-crested/submergeed coastal structuress display

d diffe
ferent failurre mecha-
nnisms for different
d subbmergence depths. Fu urthermore, the comparrative impo ortance of
tthe engineeering propeerties of GS SCs also varies
v depennding on th the dominan nt failure
mmechanism m for a specific GSC-strructure and for a particular freeboaard. As exp pected, for
mmost of thee low-cresteed structurees, the crestt GSCs represent the ccritical con ntainers in
tterms of thee hydraulic stability. TTherefore, when
w design
ning low-creested and su ubmerged
GGSC structtures, it is essential
e too carefully consider
c the most releevant failurre mecha-
nnisms of creest GSCs, comprising
c tthe effects of
o the most relevant enngineering properties.
p
 RRelative creest freeboarrd Rc/Hm annd surf simillarity param meter ξ0 are the dominaant factors
tthat governn the hydrau ulic stabilityy of the cresst GSCs of a low-crestted/submerg ged GSC-
sstructure suubject to waave attack.
Efffect of Eng
 GGSCs madee of woven geotextile ((with an app proximately y 50% loweer friction coefficient
tthan nonwooven geotex xtile) resulteed in 40% lower stability numberss, when thee incipient
mmotions of crest GSCs are consideered for the tested cond ditions withh a zero freeeboard.
 CContrary too most of th he previouss studies an nd existing recommenndations forr the con-
sstruction off GSC-strucctures (e.g. PIANC 20 011) that prropose a sannd fill ratio o of 80%,
GGSCs with 100% filled d ratio show
w a 36% hig gher stabilitty number ffor surf simmilarly pa-
rrameters arround 5. Th herefore, futture researcch and desig gn guidancee should ad ddress the
ddefinition ofo an optimaal sand fill rratio by accounting for the elongattion propertties of the
ggeotextile and
a by balaancing the aadvantages and drawbaacks of highh and modeerate sand
ffill ratios.
 TThe hydrauulic stabilityy can be inccreased by changing
c th
he inclinatioon angle of GSC in a
GGSC-structuure. When the wave cconditions requiredr forr incipient mmotion of thet GSCs
aare consideered, GSCs inclined byy -15⁰ towarrds the shorre resulted iin nearly 30 0% higher
sstability num mber compared to horiizontally plaaced GSCs.
 Key engineeering param meters suchh as the inteerface friction angle, thhe sand fill ratio, the
iinclined plaacement of GSCs
G also ccontribute significantly
s y to slow doown the dam mage pro-
ggress of GS SC-structurres over thee entire storm duration n. Hence, ffor a comprehensive
qquantitativee assessmen nt of the effeect of the diifferent facttors consideered in this study,
s not
oonly the coonditions essential to trrigger damaage to a GS SC-structuree, but also the
t devel-
oopment of the t damagee over the w whole storm m duration and a the diffferent damaage levels
tthat might result,
r are equally impoortant .
3.5 H
Hydraulic Permeab
bility of G
GSC-Strucctures - Permeabiliity Test Results
R
One of the key parrameters th hat governs the hydraulic stability y of GSC-sttructures, which
w are
subject to wave atttack, is the hydraulic
h peermeability
y (Hudson 1956, 1961, Pilarczyk 2000). 2 In
general,, a more perrmeable strructure is al so more staable as it caan dissipate large portioon of in-
cident wwave energyy. Recio (2007) extenssively invesstigated the hydraulic ppermeability y of dif-
ferent G
GSC-structuure geometriies. Howeveer, none of those tested d structures were directly com-
parable to the moddel configuraations, whicch were testted in this study
s (Figurre 3-26). Th
herefore,
it was iindispensabble to conduuct new perrmeability tests
t on theese model cconfiguratio ons. This
section provides ann overview of the new permeability tests and d a summaryy of key ressults and
the detaails can be found
f in Ozeegowski (20012).
3.5.1 R
Results of Previous
P Permeabilityy Tests
The floww through a GSC-struccture is nott homogeneous. The flo ow throughh the sand fill
fi in the
containeers is expeccted to be laaminar, wheereas the flo
ow through the gaps beetween the GSCs is
turbulennt. Despite the in-homogeneity off the flow anda its unsteeadiness, thhe permeabiility of a
GSC-strructure is preferably deescribed byy the Darcy’’s permeabiility coefficiient kf (Reccio 2007,
Recio annd Oumeraci 2008a).
Efffect of Eng
h
Q  v f  Am  k f  I  Am  k f   Am (3.7
7)
L
where: QQ: dischargge [m3/s]

vf: velocity [m/s]
Am: mean crross section fl [m2]
nal area of thhe porous flow
kf: permeabbility coefficcient [m/s]
II: hydraulicc gradient [--]
ΔΔh: differennce of waterr height [m]]
ΔΔL: averagee length of seepage
s patth [m]
Figure 33-41 definees the relevaant parametters for the quantificatiion of perm
meability co
oefficient
(kf) of a GSC-structure.
Figure 3--41: Key param

meters relevan
nt to the perm
meability of a GSC-structure
G e (modified froom Oumeraci 1999c)
Recio (22007) condducted two test

t series oon the hydraaulic permeeability of G GSC-structuures. The
dimensiions of containers,
c which haave been used were; 0.45 m × 0.28 m × 0.11 m,
0.35 m × 0.24 m × 0.09 m an nd 0.26 m × 0.13 m × 0.052 0 m (length × widdth × heightt). Each
bag wass 80% filledd with sand d (though thhe definition n the sand fill
f ratio is vvague), whiich has a
median grain size of D50 = 0.2 2 mm, a satturated denssity of ρ = 1800 kg/m3 and a perm meability
coefficient of apprroximately kf = 1.1 × 100-4 m/s. San nd bag mateerial was noonwoven geotextile
nt of kf = 1.11 × 10-1 m/ss. Figure 3-4
with a ppermeabilityy coefficien 42 shows thhe experimeental set-
up of thhe permeabbility tests. During the first seriess, 11 differeent model cconfiguratioons have
been tessted in a tank at the Leichtweiß-I
L Institute (LW
WI), while varying thee size of th
he GSCs,
the size of the gapss between th
he GSCs annd different placement
p modes
m of G
GSCs.
Efffect of Eng
Ve
elocimeter Velo
ocimeter
ADV1 ADV0
GSC-struucture
((various geo
ometries)
h  h1  h2
Depth beehind the

structu
ure was
0.11 m 0.11 m
maintained
d constant
by using a hydraulic
0.45 x 0.25 x 0.11m pummp
h1 0.35 x 0.24 x
Depth inn front V=
=13.8 lt. 0.09m
of stru
ucture
In flow Q
(depend ded on V=7.5 lt.
specific test
0.80, 0.60 and 0..11 m 0.11 m
0m)
0.40
Out flow
Steady flow
conditions
Figure 3--42: Experimeental setup for basic permeaability tests (R

Recio 2007)
The perrmeability coefficients

c have been ddetermined using Darcy’s equation on. The key result of
the testss performedd by Recio regarding thhe hydrauliic performannce is that tthe size of the gaps
governss the permeeability of GSC-structu
G ures. The main
m conclussions, whichh were draw wn from
the expeerimental sttudies by Reecio and Ouumeraci (20
008a), can be summarizzed as follow ws.
 Thhe size of thhe gaps gov verns the ovverall permeeability of the
t GSC-strructure. Thee permea-
biility of the fill materiaal can be neearly negleccted, becausse it is nearrly ten timees smaller
thhan the permmeability off the GSC-sttructure.
 Thhe smaller the
t containeer, the smalller the perm meability co oefficient oof the structture. If no
otther data is available, Recio
R suggeested to supp pose kf = 100-2 m/s for G
GSC-structu ures.
 loongitudinal or transverssal GSC arrrangement will w providee similar floow though the struc-
tuure.
 Thhe permeabbility of a GSC-structurre is consideerably reduced, if theree is a second layer of
ovverlapped containers th hat obstructss the flow coming
c o the gaps of the first layer.
out of
 Th he permeabbility coefficient of GS SC-structurees with elem ments paralallel to the flow
f may
-3 -2
vaary from 8 x 10 m/s (m medium conntainers) to 1.5 x 10 m/s m (large ccontainers).
Furtherm more, a connceptual mo odel was devveloped to assess
a the permeabilityy of GSC-strructures.
This coonceptual modelm can be
b used to approximaately estimaate the perm rmeability of
o GSC-
structurres. Neverthheless, when n very accuurate permeeability coeefficients arre needed, it i is rec-
ommendded to perfoorm new peermeability tests (Recio o 2007). As shown in T Table 2-5, there
t is a
significaant variatioon in the peermeability measuremeents (e.g. Peermeability of a singlee column
of 13.8 l is lower thant a compplete structuure with 1.7
7 l GSCs). Therefore,
T a different approach
a
is necesssary for the new perm meability tessts, in orderr to accounnt for the innfluence of the sand
fill ratioo (sand fill ratio
r will in
ncrease the ggap sizes an
nd consequeently permeeability coeffficients)
on the hhydraulic peermeability (Dassanayaake and Oum meraci 2009 9a).
Efffect of Eng
3.5.2 E
Experimen
ntal Setup
In orderr to quantiffy the effectt of engineeering properties of GSCs and the inclined pllacement
of GSC Cs on the overall
o perm
meability off GSC-strucctures, new w permeabillity tests were
w per-
formed in a 0.6 m wide hydraaulic flumee at LWI. These T tests were
w perforrmed using existing
small sccale GSCs that
t were co
onstructed ffor hydrauliic stability test.
t The m
main objectiv ve of the
new perrmeability tests
t was too determinee the Darcy y permeabillity coefficiient for eacch GSC-
structurre tested durring the hyd
draulic stabiility tests (F
Figure 3-26)).
The moodel setup iss shown in Figure 3-433. The flow w velocity was
w measureed with an Acoustic
A
Dopplerr Velocimeeter (ADV).. The ADV V was instaalled 1.04 m upstream the GSC structure
s
(Figure 3-43). In order
o to get the compleete velocity profile, the velocities w
were measu
ured at 5
differennt water deppths. The data
d of the ADV wass processed and the innflow disch harges Q
throughh GSC-strucctures weree calculatedd. Then Darcy’s
D Laww (equationn 3.7) was applied
(Figure 3-43) to coompute the permeability
p y coefficien
nts.
Figure 3--43: Experimeental setup and

d measuring teechniques of new
n permeability tests
3.5.3 S
Summary of
o Permeab
bility Test R
Results and
d Concludiing Remarkks
This ressearch studdy representts the first aattempt to systematicaally quantify fy the effectts of the
sand fill ratio, the type of geootextile matterial and th
he inclined placement
p oof GSCs onn the hy-
draulic ppermeabilitty of GSC-sstructures. TThe permeab bility tests were
w conduucted on low w-crested
GSC-strructures witth a zero creest freeboarrds. Permeaability coeffficient was ddetermined for each
model cconfiguratioon and resu ults are giveen in Table 3-7. Since the permeeability of th he small
scale GGSC-structurres were rellatively low w, it was difficult to perform perm meability teests with
high creest freeboarrds (with reelatively lowwer head differences
d across
a the GGSC-structuure) that
will resuult in lowerr discharges Q than the zero crest freeboard
f sccenario.
Efffect of Eng
Table 3-77: Results of permeability

p teests (modifiedd from Ozegow
wski 2012)
Efffect of Eng
The Daarcy permeaability coeffficient shouuld not varry based on the shape of the struccture. In
order too verify the coefficientt determinedd for the different mod del configurrations testeed in the
hydraulic stability tests, it wass required tto have anotther data seet. Thereforee, the initial perme-
ability ttests were performed
p with
w verticall fronts and d tandem oriientation off GSCs (Tab ble 3-7a,
b, c, d)). Then thee permeability coefficiient determ mined from the trapezooidal cross sections
(Table 33-7e, f, g, h, which were
w tested during the hydraulic stability
s tessts) were co ompared
with thee values obbtained from m the initiaal tests. Thee corresponnding permeeability coeefficients
show a good agreeement and therefore, thhe methodology to obtain the over erall permeaability of
the GSC Cs structuree was also validated.
In Table 3-8, two selected peermeability test resultss of Recio (2007) are compared with the
results oof this studyy. Though thet model ccross sectionns are fairly
y similar, Re
Recio used sttaggered
GSC arrrangementss, whereas the currennt tests werre conducteed with tanndem arran ngement.
Therefoore, the shaapes of the gaps betweeen GSCs are a differen nt. As a ressult, Recio’s (2007)
permeabbility coeffi ficients are slightly low
wer than tho
ose of the current
c testts. Howeverr, all the
results aare still in thhe same ord
der of magnnitude.
Table 3-88: Comparisonn of Recio’s (2
2007) and currrent permeabiility test resultts (modified ffrom Ozegowsski 2012)
The maain outcomees of the peermeability tests are su

ummarised below.
b Detaailed results can be
found inn Ozegowskki (2012).
 BBoth the reectangular anda the trappezoidal GSC-structur

G res resultedd in nearly the same
ppermeabilitty coefficiennts. Therefoore, in spitee of the inho
omogeneitiees in GSC-sstructures
((sand fill, geotextile
g “sskin” and ggaps betweeen GSCs), itt is still posssible to desscribe the
ppermeabilitty with Darccy’s law duee to comparratively low w velocities of the porou us flow.
 TThe obtaineed Darcy peermeability coefficientss are slightlly higher thaan those ob btained by
RRecio (2007) for comp parable GSC C-structures. This is due
d to the ddifferent arraangement
Efffect of Eng
aadopted by Recio (stag ggered) andd in this studdy (tandem)). These arrrangements results in
ddifferent gaap sizes.
 TThe permeaability test results
r showwed that no onwoven 10 00% filled G GSCs have a ca. 3~4
ttimes higheer permeabiility than noonwoven 80 0% filled GSCs.
G This m might be mainly
m due
tto the largeer gaps betw
ween the 1000% filled GSCsG comppared to thoose of the 80% filled
GGSCs.
 TThe type off geotextile material is also a key influencing g factors of tthe overall hydraulic
ppermeabilitty of a GSC-structure . Nonwoveen GSCs arre relativelyy more flex xible and
ccompact whhen they arre in water. In contrastt, woven GSCs G are lesss flexible and
a leave
llarger gaps between GSCs.
G Moreoover, due th he different textures off the woven (smooth)
aand the nonnwoven (rou ugh) geotext
xtiles, the resistance of the
t flow thrrough the gaaps might
ddiffer, thus resulting in
i lower peermeability coefficientss for the noonwoven GSCs. G For
eexample, 80% filled woven
w GSCCs have ca. 2.5 times higher
h permmeability cooefficients
ccompared too 80% filled d nonwovenn GSCs.
 WWhen 80% % filled non nwoven GS Cs are placced with an n inclinatioon angle, th
he overall
ppermeabilitty of the stru
ucture reducces by 50% compared to horizontaally placed GSCs.
Recio aand Oumeraaci (2007d), Werth et aal. (2008) an nd Recio an nd Oumeracci (2008a) presented
p
a conceeptual modeel to describ be the permmeability off GSC-strucctures. In thhis model, gapsg be-
tween G GSCs are deefined as seeveral pipe flows acrosss the structure and thee conceptuaal model
was vallidated withh some expeerimental daata. Later, this
t concepttual model was adopteed in nu-
merical simulationn of GSC-structures usiing COBRA AS model. Unfortunateely, this conceptual
model ccannot be adopted
a in th
he numericcal simulatio on of this study (see SSection 4.4). This is
mainly due to the limitations associatedd with the numbern of cells
c (maximimum no off cells =
ca. 550,,000) in the COBRAS--UC model and also du ue to the mo odel scale oof the hydraaulic sta-
bility teests. In order to model the permeeability of GSCs as pipe flows, hheight of th he pipes
should bbe represented by at leaast three cellls. Since, th
he height off a small sccale GSC is 0.028 m
(80% filled nonwovven GSCs),, even with the maximu um possiblee number off cells in COOBRAS-
UC moddel, the GSC height is representedd by only 4 cells. Therrefore, is noot feasible to t repro-
duce thee hydraulic stability teests of this study with the conceptual model proposed by b Recio
(2007). As an alterrnative, GSC C-structure was consid dered as an uniform meedium and the t aver-
age propperties of thhat mediumm were definned to achieeve a correct representaation of the permea-
bility off each testedd model con
nfiguration.
3.6 Summary and Conccluding R

Remarks
Two im mportant enggineering properties off GSCs: thee sand fill ratio
r and thhe interfacee friction
betweenn GSCs, as well as the inclination angle of GSCs affect the t differennt processes govern-
ing the hydraulic stability
s of GSC-structu
G ures. One of
o the first challenges
c oof this study
y was to
developp a physicallly-based deefinition forr sand fill ratio.
r A neww definitionn was develloped by
considering the dryy bulk density of sand and the inittial fully inflated volum me of an em mpty flat
bag (Section 3.1.1)) and this deefinition waas successfuully implement in protootype GSCs (Oume-
raci et aal. 2012).
Efffect of Eng
Moreovver, this reseearch study represents tthe first atteempt to systtematically quantify th he effects
of the saand fill ratioo, the interfface frictionn between GSCs
G and the inclination
on angle of GSCs
G on
the hydrraulic stabillity of GSC C-structures.. In order too achieve th
his objectivee, four diffeerent ex-
perimenntal investiggations were performedd, which co onsisted of underwaterr drop tests, pullout
tests, hyydraulic staability tests, and permeeability testts. The impo ortant outcoomes of thee experi-
mental sstudies and their implications for the engineeering practicce were sum mmarised in n section
3.2.7, seection 3.3.8, section 3.4 4.11 and secction 3.5.1.
First, baased on thee results from the dropp tests and pullout
p testss, two sandd fill ratios were
w se-
lected fo
for the hydraaulic stabiliity tests. Appart from th
hat, pullout tests
t were hhelpful to deefine the
scope of the hydrauulic stability y tests moree precisely. Second, an n intensive ttest program mme was
performmed in the 2 m wide wavew flume aat LWI while varying the sand fiill ratio, thee type of
geotextiile material, the inclinaation angle, and other hydraulic
h paarameters suuch as wavee height,
wav perriod, crest freeboard,
f wave
w type, eetc. These tests
t generaated a wide--ranging datta set on
the hyddraulic stabiility of submmerged andd low-cresteed GSC-stru uctures, whiich can be used for
the devvelopment of o new hyd draulic stabiility formullae. Apart fromf that, aall these teest series
generateed required information to perform m a detailed
d numericall study on tthe hydrauliic stabil-
ity of G
GSC-structurres subject to t wave attaack.
Efffect of Eng
gineering Prroperties of GSCs on Hydraulic
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
Sttudies and Results
R 104
4 Efffect of Engineer
E ring Prooperties of
o GSCss on Hyd
draulic Stabil-
S
ityy – Numeerical Sttudies an
nd Resullts
Empiriccal formulaee developed d based on sscaled modeel testing sh howed seveeral restrictions (e.g.
relativelly narrow range
r of app
plicability, ddifficulty too reproducee some of thhe importan nt factors
relative to the hydrraulic stabillity, such ass friction beetween elemments, flow in the porou us struc-
tures, ettc.). Given the rapid developmen
d nt of numerrical models during thhe last few decades,
numericcal simulatiions of wav ve-structure interaction ns are now possible
p in order to exxtend the
range of conditionns tested in the laboratoory. In ordeer to simulaate all the pprocesses reelated to
the hydrraulic stabillity of GSC
C-structures,, ideally a fully
fu coupled Computattion Fluid Dynamic D
(CFD) and Compuutation Stru uctural Dynnamic (CSD D) model iss required. Even thoug gh some
researchh studies onn combined CFD-CSD modelling have been conducted rrecently (Laatham et
al. 20088, Greben et e al. 2008,, Mindel 20008, Latham m et al. 2009, Xiang et al. 2012) on the
wave-sttructure inteeractions, most
m of thesse research studies aree still limiteed to stiff elements
e
such as rock or cooncrete arm mour units ( e.g. Dolos, CORE-LO OC, etc.). HHowever, du ue to the
flexible nature of GSCs, thesse models ccannot be directly d app
plied to GSC C-structures. Recio
(2007) illustrated the possibilities to nuumerically simulate
s the hydraulicc stability ofo GSC-
structurres considerring their fllexibility. HHe used a weakly
w cou
upled CFD and CSD model m to
simulatee GSC-reveetments, wh hich provideed results within
w a reasonable acccuracy for thet engi-
neering practice.
Since thhe experim mental investigations allways invollve not only various eexpensive technical
t
resourcees, but also considerab ble expensivve consumab bles, the nu
umerical moodelling is also
a con-
sidered as a cost efffective tech
hnique. Furtthermore, once a calibrrated numerrical model is estab-
lished, a range of scenarios
s maay be investtigated with
h relatively less effort aand time thaan in the
laboratoory. As menntioned in chapter
c 5 oof “state of the art review” reportt (Dassanay yake and
Oumeraaci 2009a), COBRAS/U UDEC moddel, which was w initially y proposed bby Recio (2 2007), is
still thee most apprropriate modelling systtem for GS SC-structurees. Thereforre, the currrent PhD
researchh study willl focus on extending tthe weakly coupled CO OBRAS/UD DEC system m, where
COBRA AS (Liu andd Lin 2002) is a RANS S-VOF type flow modeel and UDEC C (Itasca 20
011) is a
coupledd FEM-DEM M structurall dynamic m model.
The original COBR RAS versio on from US SA was modified in Sp pain and thhe new verssion was
releasedd as COBR RAS-UC (Laara et al. 20008) in 200 08 (see secttion 4.2.2). Meanwhilee, a new
version of UDEC (UDEC
( verssion 5) wass also released in 2011 by Itasca. TTherefore thhis chap-
ter desccribes the capabilities
c and the lim mitations off using prevvious COBR RAS/UDEC C (Recio
2007) annd the new COBRAS-UC/UDEC models (seection 4.2.4 and sectionn 4.2.5 respeectively)
for the ssimulation of
o the hydraaulic stabiliity of GSC-structures inn detail. Mooreover, thee chapter
will cover the addaptations of o COBRA AS-UC/UDE EC models to simulatte submerg ge GSC-
structurres with diffferent sand fill ratios aand differen
nt types of geotextile
g m
materials and results
from thee numericall simulation ns, etc.
Efffect of Eng
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
R 105
The objectives of thhe current numerical

n m
modelling sttudy can be summarizeed as follows.
(i) Exammine of the capabilities and limitaations of prrevious COBRAS/UDE EC (UDEC C version
4) moddelling system to mod del the subbmerged GSC-structur
G res, (ii) Exttend previoous CO-
BRAS/U UDEC intoo new CO OBRAS-UC C/UDEC (UDEC( version 5) m modelling system,
(iii) Furrther develoop the “COB
BRAS-UC/U UDEC mod delling systeem and valiidate it baseed on the
experimmental resuults, (iv) Caarry out a parameterr study usiing the vaalidated CO OBRAS-
UC/UD DEC modelling system in order too extend thee range of the t conditioons tested in n the la-
boratoryy.
The weeakly couplled COBRA AS-UC/UDE EC model was adopted for the modelling of sub-
merged//low-crestedd GSC-stru uctures. Thee COBRAS S-UC code is capablee of modellling the
wave sttructure interaction off submergedd/low-cresteed structurees and resuults are provvided in
numerous publicatiions (Lara et e al. 2008)). Thereforee, COBRASS-UC/UDEC C modelling g system
could bee successfully used forr the modellling of subm
merged/low--crested GSSC-structurees.
This stuudy consistss of four ph hases (Figuure 4-1), wh hich are speecified beloow in chron nological
order. Initially, CO OBRAS-UC C model waas used to study
s the hyydrodynamiics around the sub-
merged GSC-strucctures and to t optimise the test prrogramme of o the hydrraulic stabillity tests
(Dassannayake and Oumeraci 2010c).2 Thee next step was to introduce the nnecessary modifica-
m
tions annd to validaate the COB BRAS-UC/U UDEC mod delling systeem to modeel the hydraaulic sta-
bility of submergeed GSC-stru uctures. Thhe results from
fr the hyydraulic stabability tests and the
pullout tests were used
u for thee validation.. Then the validated
v mo odelling sysstem was ussed for a
parametter study in order to ex xtend the rannge of the conditions
c tested
t in thee laboratory
y. This is
indispennsable to immprove the understandi
u ing of the physical
p processes invoolved in the hydrau-
lic stabiility of subbmerged GS SC-structuree. Based on n this impro oved underrstanding, itt is then
possiblee to develoop more physically-bassed and sim mpler formu ulae for hyydraulic staability of
GSC-strructures, whhich will taake into acc ount properrly the most relevant pparameters affecting
a
the stabbility (waterr depth, wave parametters, propertties of GSC Cs, geometrry of GSC-sstructure
and incllination anggle of GSCs).
The oveerall approaach, which is adopted foor this numeerical study

y, is illustratted in Figurre 4-1.
Figure 4--1: Methodoloogy for the num

merical modellling of submeerged GSC-strructures
Efffect of Eng
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
R 106
4.1 D
Description of the Weakly
W C oupled CFD-CSD
C Modellin
ng System
m
4.1.1 D
Description
n of the CF
FD Model C
COBRAS-U
UC Model
Among the differennt approach hes to numerrically moddel the wavee-structure iinteractions, numer-
ical models based on Navier-S Stokes equaations have clear advanntages. By iincorporatin ng a tur-
bulencee closure model and by y considerinng Reynold ds Average Navier-Stookes (RANS S) equa-
tions, thhey overcom
me the limiitations assoociated withh the use off a given w
wave theory y and the
inclusioon of wave breaking. Furthermore
F e, with the addition
a of Volume off Fluid (VO OF) tech-
nique too track the free surfacee, they are aable to mod
del large an
nd complexx free surfacce defor-
mationss (Losada ett al. 2009).
Liu et aal. (1999) deeveloped CO OBRAS (“C Cornell Breeaking Waves and Struc uctures”) to simulate
the evolution of brreaking waaves and theeir interactiion with co oastal structtures. The model
m is
based on a previouusly existing g model callled RIPPLE E, which waas originallyy developed d at “Los
Alamoss National Laboratory”
L , USA. Thee COBRAS model desccribes two ddimensional incom-
pressiblle fluid flow
ws with surface tensionn on free su urfaces of general
g topoology. Finitte differ-
ence soolutions to the incomp pressible R Reynolds Av veraged Naavier-Stokess equationss for the
mean fllow field annd the k-ε equations
e foor the turbuulent field are
a obtainedd on a non--uniform
mesh. F For trackingg the free su
urface, the V VOF method d is used. Different
D typpes of wavees can be
defined in the moddel: linear, Stokes
S II, soolitary, cnoiidal, Stokess V, and irreegular wavee. More-
over, thhe effect of a jet at any of the bounndaries and at any position can be simulated. The tur-
bulencee model cann consider liinear or nonnlinear eddy viscosity or Reynoldds stress terrms. The
structurres can be deefined as noon-porous oor porous.
Hsu et aal. (2002) exxtended thee original COOBRAS mo odel by intro oducing thee Volume-AAveraged
/ Reynoolds Averagged Navier-Stokes (VA ARANS). In n these VARANS equa uations, the volume-
averageed Reynoldss stress is modelled
m byy adopting the nonlineear eddy visscosity assu umption.
The vollume averagged turbuleent kinetic eenergy and its dissipattion rate aree derived by b taking
the voluume-averagee of the stanndard k-ε eqquations, th
herefore intrroducing thee turbulencee flow in
the poroous media. In this study, the valiidation maiinly focusess on the reggular wave field in
front off the structture. The main
m governning equations COBR RAS/COBRA AS-UC mo odels are
presenteed in Dassaanayake and d Oumeracii 2012f. Th he detail infformation oof COBRAS S can be
found inn Liu and Lin
L (1997) LinL and Liu (1998) and Liu and Lin (1997) annd Dassanay yake and
Oumeraaci (2012f)
4.1.2 IImprovement of the Previous

P Veersion Used
d by Recio ( 2007)
Althouggh other RA ANS models are availaable in the literature

l (ee.g. Troch aand de Roucck 1998,
Kawasaaki 1999, Li et al. 200 04), COBRA AS and CO OBRAS-UC are probabbly the mosst exten-
sively vvalidated moodel, especiially for waave interactiion with perrmeable low w-crested sttructures
(Garcia et al. 20044a, Garcia et al. 2004bb, Losada et e al. 2005,, Lara et all. 2006a) annd wave
breakingg on permeable slopes (Lara et al.. 2006b). Th he new verssion of the ccode, COBR RAS-UC
Efffect of Eng
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
R 107
allows tthe possibiliity to consider larger aand more co

omplex com
mputational ddomains an
nd longer
simulatiion times (L
Losada at all. 2008)
The mesh generatioon process anda definitiion of the ellements of the

t flume too be modelleed (solid
obstaclees, porous media,
m etc.)) were mainn limitation
ns of previo
ous COBRA AS versionss. There-
fore, COOBRAS-UC C comprisess a graphicaal user interrface to deffine the inittial parametters nec-
essary ffor the simuulation inclluding the generation of elementts with irreggular shapees to de-
scribe tthe structures. The interface is baased on a newn technique to gene nerate obstacles and
avoids ppreviously undetected
u sources
s of eerrors.
Moreovver, validatioon was condducted conssidering thee experimen

ntal data. Foor low-cresteed struc-
tures, coomparisons of spatial evolution
e off the wave spectrums
s (measured aand computeed) were
used foor validationn. Losada et
e al. (20088) showed a good com mparison off experimen ntal data
(from GGarcia et al. 2004a) and
d numerical results obtaained from COBRAS-U
C UC.
4.1.3 D
Description
n of CSD Model
M UDE
EC
Discretee (or distincct) element methods (D DEM) are numerical

n methods
m for computing the mo-
tion andd the interaction of larrge number of separatee objects in a system. The Univerrsal Dis-
tinct Element Code (UDEC) is a two-dim mensional DEM code, which is bbased on th he Finite
and Disscrete elemeent methodss for deform mations andd discontinuue modelling ng. UDEC simulates
the respponse of discontinuous media (e.g.. jointed rocck mass) subject to eithher static orr dynam-
ic loading. The disscontinuouss medium iss representeed as a grou up of discreete blocks. The dis-
continuiities are treeated as bo oundary connditions bettween block ks, where llarge displaacements
along ddiscontinuities and rotations of bloocks are allo owed (DEM M in UDEC C). The relattive mo-
tion of tthe discontiinuities is allso governeed by linearr or nonlineaar force-disp
splacement relations
r
for movvement in both
b the norrmal and shhear directio ons. Individ
dual blocks can be mod delled as
either riigid or defoormable maaterial. Defoormable blo ocks are subbdivided intto a mesh ofo finite-
differennce elements, and each h element reesponds acccording to a prescribedd linear or nonlinear
n
stress-sttrain law (F
FEM in UDE EC, Itasca 22011).
UDEC has severall advantagess in modellling the beh haviours of GSCs. Onee of the maain prob-
lems associated wiith modellin ng of GSCss was to geet the correcct representtation of GS SC-GSC
joints. TThe pullout test results have show wn that (Dasssanayake and Oumeraaci 2010d) there is a
significaant differennt between n static fricction (peak friction) strength
s andd dynamic friction
strengthh. Once GSC Cs start to move,
m the reequired forcce to move GSCs
G weree reduced coonsidera-
bly. Hoowever, thiss mechanism m was diffi ficult to moodel, becausse DEM coodes generaally need
only a single fricttion angle. Fortunatelyy, UDEC in ncludes diffferent repreesentations of joint
materiall behaviourr. The basic model too represent the joints is i the Coullomb slip criterion,
c
which aassigns elastic stiffnesss, frictional,, cohesive anda tensile strengths, aand dilationn charac-
teristicss to a joint. Furthermorre, UDEC aallows modifications to o this basic model and d also of-
fers more complexx models succh as the coontinuously yielding jo oint model ((Itasca 2011 1). Apart
from thhat, the otheer challengee was to prooperly mod del the stiffn
ness of GSC Cs, which isi one of
the uniqque characteeristics of GSCs
G that ddifferentiatee GSCs from m other connventional construc-
c
Efffect of Eng
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
R 108
tion maaterials. Thee low stiffn

ness of GS Cs is expected to gov vern the hyydraulic staability of
GSC-strructures. UD DEC also has
h the capaability of haandling disccrete elemen
ents with higgh flexi-
bility.
4.1.4 W
Weakly Cooupled CFD
D-CSD Mo del Used by
y Recio (20
007)
Within the framew work of his PhD,

P Recioo (2007) pro oposed a meethodology to simulatee the hy-
draulic stability off GSC-revetments usinng a weakly y coupled COBRAS
C aand UDEC models.
Both CF FD and CSD models were
w runninng almost in ndependentlly, only shaaring input and out-
put infoormation am
mong them (weak
( couplling). Ideallly, both CFD and CSD D models should run
simultanneously, sharing inform
mation conttinuously an nd instantanneously (fulll coupling)). There-
fore, weeak couplingg might rep
present serioous limitatio
ons (see Secction 2.5.3)..
The “weeak couplinng” of the models

m is perrformed as follows
f (mo
odified from
m Recio 200
07):
(i) The CFD modell COBRAS calculates tthe wave-in nduced pressures alongg the surfacee of each
elementt. The presssures are theen integrateed into forces at each nodal
n point of the perimeter of
the finitte element mesh
m of each GSC.
(ii) Usinng the resullts calculateed in step (ii) the structu

ural dynamiic model (FFEM in UDEC) cal-
culates the displaacements of o each noode of the GSC (defformations)). From th he GSC-
deformaations, the model
m (FEM
M) derives thhe stresses inside
i the GSCs.
G
(iii) Thee structural dynamic model

m (DEM M in UDEC) calculatess the resultaant forces annd inter-
actions among the GSCs in thee structure ffrom the dissplacementss of the noddes, which are
a in the
surface of each element that in nteract withh the neighb
bouring elem
ments and thhe interactio
ons. The
displaceement of eaach element is then caalculated by y considerin
ng the sheaar propertiees of the
joints annd the derivved resultan
nt forces.
FD-CSD model system

(iv) Finnally, the CF m proceeds to the next time step wwith an upd dated ge-
ometry (if requiredd) for the callculation off the wave-fforce by the CFD modeel as in step (i).
Since onnly a “partial coupling” is perform

med, the twoo main factoors that conntrol the acccuracy of
the sim
mulations aree the selectted time steep and seleected thresh
hold for upddating the structure
s
geometrry in the CFFD model.
Based oon the know wledge obtaiined from vvarious mod del tests and
d analyses oof coastal sttructures
made off sand conttainers, subsstantial effoorts have beeen made to o reduce thhe limitation ns of the
models in order too improve th he simulatioon of the hy ydraulic proocesses respponsible fo or the in-
stabilityy of GSC-reevetments. For instancce, the floww in/on the GSC-structu ture is threee dimen-
sional w while COBR RAS (or COBRAS-UC C) can simmulate only two dimenssional flow w. There-
fore, assumptions are
a made to o simplify tthe 3D floww problem in nto a 2D prroblem. Thee size of
the conttainers wass reduced too create gapps between them (baseed on the coonceptual model m to
obtain tthe correct permeability
p y of the GSSC-structuree, see Recio o 2007), whiile their froontal part
was preescribed as vertical
v to maintain
m thee wave refllection coeffficient of thhe structuree (Figure
4-2).
Efffect of Eng
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
R 109
Figure 4--2: Simplificattions for the conversion of 33D problem in

nto a 2D problem with tanddem arrangem
ment
Due to tthe complexxity of the stability

s prooblem, it is not
n practicaable to simuulate all the process-
es and iinteractionss that may affect
a the sttability of th
he GSCs. Moreover,
M a GSC is a complex
compossite elementt (3D pillow w shaped eleement madee from two materials; ggeotextile an nd sand)
and Reccio (2007) defined
d three componennts with diffferent properties (i.e. ((i) the surfacce of the
GSC m made of geottextile mateerial, (ii) thee interface between th he geotextilee and the saand and,
(iii) the sand fill) too be dealt with.
w Howevver, UDEC model can only handlle elements made of
a continnuous materrial (no disccontinuities inside elem ments). Therrefore, som
me assumptio ons have
been inttroduced too change thee compositee material of o GSC to a representaative homog geneous,
continuoous materiaal. Thus, forr the simulaations, the properties
p of the homoggeneous maaterial in
the blocck have “average propeerties” of G SCs (e.g. “aaverage” deensity, “averrage” bulk modulus
m
and “avverage” sheaar modulus)). Table 4-11 provides an a overvieww of the moddel parametters used
in COBRAS/UDEC C modelling g systems byy Recio (20 007) and alsso during thhis study.
Furtherm more, sincee the internaal movemennt of sand in

nside the GSSC is not simmulated, it had
h been
assumedd that the sand inside GSCs are aalready mov ved and thaat the “foldiing” area iss already
formed.. The “foldding” area is created bby altering the “averag ge propertiees” of GSC Cs of the
stiffnesss matrix that correspo ond to the eelements thhat are in thhis area. Thhis is usually being
done byy altering the bulk modulus and thee shear mod dulus in a seelected regioon within th
he GSC.
Howeveer, there aree serious lim

mitations onn this existin
ng modelling system, suuch as;
(i) G Gaps betweeen GSCs were w simulatted in COBR RAS by creeating smalller GSCs. However,
H
tthese gaps increase the porosity oof the GSC C-structure and
a thereforre, forces acting
a on
GGSCs mighht be overesttimated.
(ii) F Friction bettween GSC Cs was not accurately represented d in UDEC and therefo fore, was
nnot validateed. Therefo ore, a “coheesion value”” between GSCs
G has bbeen introdu
uced for
tthe calibratiion of the models
m by coonsidering whether
w thee GSCs are stable or noot for the
ttested condditions.
(iii) EEven thouggh the extern nal dimensiions of GSC Cs were corrrectly repre
resented, neither the
rreal contactt area betwween GSCs nor the acttual weight of the unitts are modeelled. In-
sstead, both of these keey parameteers are overrestimated. Then
T the m
magnitude off the de-
Efffect of Eng
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
R 110
sstabilizing force has been

b increaased (by inttroducing a calibrationn factor) du uring the
mmodel calibbration (see Dassanayakke and Oum meraci 2012f for the dettails).
(iv) OOnly a singgle vertical force and a single horrizontal force componeent were caalculated
bby integratiing the pressure measuurements around GSC Cs and thesee componen nts were
aapplied in UDEC.
U Therefore, it is not possiblle to simulaate the rotatiion (or overrturning)
oof crest GSCs.
(v) W When simuulating slopee GSCs, forrce compon nents are app plied only oon the limitted num-
bber of free nodes
n of GSCs in UDE EC, which limits
l the accuracy of simulationss. (this is
a limitationn of UDEC model)
m
(vi) OOnly the foorces due too pressure hhave been taken
t into consideratio
c on, while neeglecting
tthe forces due
d to shear stresses onn GSCs
In orderr to overcoome these liimitations, new modiffications to the existing

ng COBRAS
S/UDEC
modelling system were
w introdu uced duringg this study.
4.1.5 N
New Modiffications to
o the Previoous COBRAAS/UDEC and Adapttation of Models
M to
R
Represent Engineerinng Propertiies of GSCss
There aare few challlenges in modelling

m thhree dimenssional GSCss in UDEC,, which is a two di-
mensionnal distinct element model.
m Thesse related key
k issue an nd proposedd solutions are dis-
cussed bbelow.
a) Reprresentation of Importan
nt Geometriical Propertties of GSCs
Since GGSCs are sttacked unifo orm units w with finite dimensions,
d , representaation in two o dimen-
sions neeed additionnal factors. It
I is much ssimple to model
m GSCs as rectanguular elementts. How-
ever, addditional carre should bee taken to gget the weig
ght of the eleements corrrectly. Acco ording to
small sccale model tests
t (Dassaanayake et aal. 2011c), only about 0.75% of thhe length an nd width
touches (0.56 × lc × bc) the bo ottom GSC . Furthermo ore, an 80% % filled GSC C will occuupy only
72% off the representation bo ox volume ((i.e. 0.72 × lc × bc× hc). Thereforre, the GSC Cs in the
numericcal model area only 0.7 72 × lc longg and have thet same width
w bc=0.007 m to enssures the
same nuumber of GSCs
G per unnit width as it was in thhe hydraulic stability ttests. Moreo over, the
density of GSCs inn the numeerical modell is the sam me as the measured
m deensity (19000 kg/m3)
during tthe experimments. Thesee simplifiedd GSC mod dels correctlly representt the unit weight
w of
GSCs aand has apprroximately the same c ontact lengths in the lo ongitudinal direction (length =
0.72 × lc). Howeveer, the contact width iss larger thaan that was in the expeeriments, which w re-
sults in ca. 28% higher
h contaact areas (ppreviously 46%
4 higher) between G GSCs (Figu ure 4-3).
Then thhese simplifi
fied GSCs model
m were used for the simulation n of pulloutt tests and validated
v
by compparing bothh numerical and experim mental pulloout test resu
ults (see Secction 4.3.3)..
Efffect of Eng
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
R 111
Figure 4--3: Simplified shape of 80%

% filled GSCs used in COBR
RAS-UC/UDE
EC model
b) Sandd Fill Ratio
Three tyypes of smaall scale GS SCs were ussed during thet hydraulic stability tests: (i) noonwoven
80% fillled GSCs (F Figure 4-4aa, series NWW80H) (ii) nonwoven
n 100% filled G GSCs (Figuure 4-4b,
series N
NW100H) and a (iii) wo oven 80% ffilled GSCss (Figure 4--4c, series W W80H). Th he initial
dimensiions of the empty flat bags,
b whichh were used d for the construction oof these smmall scale
GSCs, w were similaar in all threee cases (lenngth a = 0.0
082 m and width
w b = 00.148 m). Thhen, dif-
ferent ssand fill rattios resulted
d in differennt GSC geo ometries (FFigure 4-4) and these different
d
geometrries should be properly y taken intoo account ass they migh ht influence the overall hydrau-
lic stabiility of GSCC-structuress. The GSC C lengths lcc of all three GSCs weere also sim milar, but
the overrlapping lenngths and th he height wwere varied as shown in i below (sseaward slop pe: 1:1).
For exaample, the GSC-GSC
G contact
c lenggths for 80%
% filled non nwoven GSSCs were caa. 0.75%
of the leength (0.75·lc) when th hey placed hhorizontallyy and at a seeaward sloppe of 1:1. Similarly,
the overrlapping lenngth for 100 0% filled nnonwoven GSCs
G was 70% of the G GSC lengthh (0.7·lc)
and thatt for wovenn 80% filled d GSCs wass ca. 72% (0 0.72·lc). Apart from thaat different sand fill
Efffect of Eng
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
R 112
ratios annd differentt types of geotextiles

g m
might resullt in differennt flexural pproperties and
a they
might rresult in diffferent “aveerage propeerties” (see Section 4.2 2.4) of GSC Cs. Howev ver, once
these smmall scale GSCs
G are suubmerged aand compaccted by the waves, it iss difficult to distin-
guish beetween the different fllexural propperties relatted to differrent sand filll ratios. Th
herefore,
the flexuural propertties of all th
he GSCs weere treated equally.
e
Figure 4--4: Overlappiing length of GSCs for diffferent sand fill

f ratios (80
0% & 100%) and type of geotextile
(Nonwoven and woven)
c) Type of Geotexxtile Materiaal and Interfface Frictio

on Between GSCs
In orderr to determ mine the inteerface frictiion propertiies of GSC Cs, first direect shear tests were
performmed using thhe small sheear box appparatus. Thee shear box tests were conducted with the
same tyypes of geootextile materials used for the hydraulic stab bility tests aand both sttatic and
kinetic friction anggles for geo otextile-geootextile conntact surfacees were fouund. The sh hear box
test resuults showedd considerab bly differentt static and kinetic friction angles for nonwov ven geo-
textile ((static frictiion angle = 22.62º/ µ = 0.41 and kinetic friction angle = 14.88º/ µ = 0.27),
whereass for woveen geotextille only a small diffeerence was observed (static friction an-
gle = 133.33º/ µ = 0.24 and kin netic frictionn angle = 12
2.23 / µ = 0.22). In botth cases, wooven and
non-woven geotexttile, the fricction angless calculated based on th he pullout teests are muuch high-
er than tthose of thee shear box tests (see S Section 3.3.55). Based on the pullouut tests, dry
y nonwo-
ven 80% % filled GS SCs resulted d in a frictiion angle of
o 38º/ µ = 0.8
0 and dryy woven 80 0% filled
GSCs reesulted in a friction ang gle of 19.2 ºº/ µ = 0.35.
Therefoore, the fricttion angles used

u duringg the numerrical simulattions were cca. 25% higgher than
those reesulted in thhe shear boox tests. Laater, the ressult from nu
umerical puullout tests (Section
4.3.3) w
were compaared with th he experimmental resultts and the agreement was good for both
nonwovven and wovven GSCs.
Recio aand Oumerraci (2007c) have intrroduced a cohesion value v for GGSCs (Coheesion of
GSCs = 1.4×104). However,
H the
t direct shhear test reesults do no
ot show anyy cohesion between
two geootextile surffaces. Therefore, zero ccohesion waas assumed for the jointts between GSCs.
Nonwovven and wooven geotex xtiles show

w different friction
f beh
haviours. Noonwoven geotextile
shows aabout 7⁰ diffference bettween staticc and kinetiic friction angles,
a wherreas woven
n geotex-
Efffect of Eng
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
R 113
tile showws less thaan 1⁰ differeence betweeen static an nd kinetic friction

f anggles. Thereffore, two
differennt joint models were used for thhe represen ntation of in nterface friiction propeerties of
nonwovven and wovven GSCs. In UDEC, tthe joints (d discontinuitties) betweeen nonwoveen GSCs
were m modelled witth Coulomb b slip modeel with resiidual streng gth, which simulates displace-
d
ment-weakening off the joint byb loss of frfrictional (Ittasca 2011) and the joiints between n woven
GSCs w were modellled with the standard M Mohr-Coulom mb slip mod del.
d) Forcces Acting on
o a Single GSC:
Figure 44-5 describees the repreesentation oof the forcess acting on GSCs in UD
DEC modell. As the
force appply on eacch element considered
c as force peer unit lengtth in UDEC
C model, fo
orce on a
single G
GSC need too be multiplly by numbeer of GSCs per unit len ngth.
Recio (22007) has performed

p small scale ppressure meeasurementss on an insttrumented container
c
to obtaiin wave-indduced loads on GSCs ((Figure 4-9)). This instrrumented coontainer waas placed
at differrent elevatioons in the structure
s to investigatee the influen
nce of the loocation of the
t GSC
with resspect of thee still water level, on thhe wave-indduced pressures (see Seection 4.4.11). Then,
by integgrating the pressures around
a the ccontainers, the total wave-induce
w ed forces haave been
derived for each tim me steps. A similar meethod was followed
fo in the current simulationss. Figure
4-5 desccribes the reepresentatioon of the forrces acting on
o GSCs in n UDEC moodel.
Figure 4--5: Simulationn of forces actiing on a singlee GSC in the CFD-CSD mo

odel system
Efffect of Eng
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
R 114
Since UUDEC is alsso a 2D mo odel, the foorces acting

g on each element
e shoould be prov vided as
forces pper unit lenggth. Therefo
ore, the forcce components on a sin
ngle GSC (w which are caalculated
based oon COBRAS S-UC resultts) need to be multiplied by numb ber of GSCCs per unit length
l to
obtain thhe force perr unit length
h and then aapplied on each
e elemen
nt in UDEC C model.
4.2 Simulation
n of GSC Pullout T
Tests Usin
ng UDEC
Many aauthors (Lohhani et al. 2006,
2 Krahnn et al. 20007, Matsush hima et al. 22008) havee already
reportedd that the properties
p of GSCs do not alwayss depend directly on thhe propertiees of the
geotextiile material. This was confirmed
c bby the resullts of the pu
ullout tests w
with GSCs showing
that 30%
% ~ 50% hiigher pullou ut resistancce forces weere obtained d than thosee estimated only on
the basiis of the innterface friiction propeerties of geeotextile materials
m witthout the sand
s fill.
Therefoore, it is neccessary to define
d propeer interface properties for GSCs, iin order to simulate
hydraulic stability of GSCs more
m accurattely. Thereffore, an atteempt was m made to simuulate the
pullout tests using UDEC mo odel (numerrical pullou ut tests) andd to validatte the selectted joint
models in UDEC.
4.2.1 C
Computatiional Doma
ain and Disscretization
n
During the numerical pullout tests, the m measured pu

ullout forcess were appllied as an innput and
the mottion of the GSC, whicch was pullled out, waas later com mpared with th the displlacement
measureements fromm the experriments forr the modell validation. Figure 4-66d is a typical plot
where thhe numericaal pullout reesults are coompared wiith the meassured displaacement.
Figure 44-6e showss a typical geometry

g off a tested GSC-structu
G ure of three GSCs (GSCs were
placed iin tandem placement).
p An additioon fixed blo ocks was in
ntroduced aat the bottom m of the
structurre to make thhe computaational dom main more stable. The GSC-structu
G ure was thenn divided
into finiite triangulaar meshes and
a the mateerial and the joint prop perties weree defined (seee Table
4-1). Thhen the pulllout force iss applied onn an externaal node at th
he right bounndary of thee middle
GSC duuring the sim mulation off slope GSC Cs. Figure 4-6a, Figurre 4-6b, andd Figure 4-6c show
differennt computattional steps, where dissplacement vectors are shown w with red arrows. As
shown iin these figuures, the num merical mo del correctlly reproducees the beginnning of thee motion.
Howeveer, the numerical modeel predicts a rapid disp placement th
han what w was measured during
the pullout tests. Although
A theere is a diffeerent between the magn nitude of thhe measuredd and the
calculatted displaceements for a given timee, UDEC model m can still be succeessfully used
d for the
determination of whether
w thee GSC-struucture is staable or not for a giveen load. Moreover,
M
UDEC m model oftenn overestimmates the mootion. Thereefore, the reesults from tthe numericcal mod-
elling w
will be slighttly conservaative.
Efffect of Eng
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
R 115
Figure 4--6: Numerical model setup and

a results forr pullout tests of slope GSC
Cs
4.2.2 IInput Paraameters forr the Numeerical Pullou

ut Tests
In addittion to the new

n modificcations in C COBRAS-U UC/UDEC modelling
m syystem (com
mpared to
the prevvious versioon by Recioo 2007), whhich are men ntioned in Section
S 4.2..5, new valu
ues were
3
introducced to somee of the imp portant paraameters; thee density off GSCs ρGSC SC = 1900 kg
g/m and
the fricttion angle between
b GSCs (Nonwooven: 28⁰ an nd woven: 16⁰).
1 Other than those,, most of
the paraameters thatt describe th
he deformabbility of GSSCs and the behaviour of GSC-GS SC joints
were addopted from m the previoous modelliing system.. A comparrison of thee model parrameters
used byy Recio (20007) and model parametters used du uring currennt pullout siimulations (UDEC)
are summmarised in Table 4-1
Efffect of Eng
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
R 116
Table 4-11: Comparisonn between model parameterrs used in the CSD

C (UDEC)) model
Descriptions of UDE
EC UDEC 4.0 Input U UDEC 5.0 inputi Refereences / Remarrks
model paarameters values by Recio vvalues for the
(2007) ccurrent study
Time stepp 0.02 s 00.02 s Time step
s of input ffiles containin
ng
forces acting on GSSCs
Density oof all non- 1800 kg//m3 11900 kg/m3 * * Receent laboratoryy and prototype
submergeed GSCs (fullyy measuurements sugggest slightly hiigher
saturated)) value than
t Recio (20007)
m3
Density oof all submergged 800 kg/m 9900 kg/m3 ** ** Reccent laboratorry and prototy
ype
GSCs (fuully saturated) measu
urements sugggest higher vallue
Bulk moddulus of GSCss 2.5 × 106 Pa or 22.5 × 106 Pa or
o Adopted from Recioo (2007)/ Assu
uming
N/m2 NN/m2 loose sand
s
Shear moodulus of GSC
Cs 1.1 × 106 Pa or 11.1 × 106 Pa or
o Adopted from Recioo (2007)/ Assu
uming
N/m2 NN/m2 loose sand
s
Bulk moddulus of “foldd- 9 × 104 Pa
P or 9 × 104 Pa or Adopted from Recioo (2007)
ing” area inside GSCs N/m2 N/m2
N
Shear moodulus of “foldd- 4 × 104 Pa
P or N/m2 4 × 104 Pa or Adopted from Recioo (2007)
ing” area inside GSCs N/m2
N
Cohesionn between GSC
Cs 1.4 × 104 Pa or 0 Shear box tests show wed no cohesiion
N/m2 betweeen geotextile--geotextile inteerface.
Howev ver, apparent cohesion due to
ween GSCs might
“interllocking” betw
occur
Friction bbetween GSCss Nonwov
ven: 28º W
Woven: 16º Statistic friction anggles will be 19
9º +9º
N
Nonwoven: 28
8º =28º
Dilatancyy angles be- - W
Woven: 0 Dynam mic friction anngle or residuaal
tween GSSCs † N
Nonwoven: 9 friction
n angle
Constituttive model forr b slip
Coulomb CCoulomb slip New model
m simulate tes the both staatic
friction bbetween GSCss model mmodel with resid- and dy
ynamic frictionn
uual strength
Constituttive model forr oulomb
Mohr-Co M
Mohr-Coulom
mb
the deformmation of GSC Cs
† Krahn ett al. (2007) repoorted that the sh
hear stiffness off sand bag-sand
d bag is about 33% higher thann that of the san
nd bag
material. T
This was explained as the dilattants behaviour that occurs witth the large sheaar deformationss of sand bags.
4.2.3 N
Numerical Pullout Teests Resultss and Valid
dation
The ressults from different

d mo odel scenarrios used du uring the pullout
p testss are compaaratively
shown iin Figure 4--7. During each
e simulattion, respecctive measurred pullout forces weree applied
either oon crest GS
SCs or on slope
s GSCss. The disp placements were then compared with w the
measureed displacem ments. Bothh woven annd nonwoveen crest GSC models sshow a goo od agree-
ment wiith the meassured data.
Efffect of Eng
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
R 117
Figure 4--7: Comparisoon of measured (pullout teests) and com

mputed (UDEC
C 5) displacem
ments, when GSCs are
subject to puullout forces
Figure 44-7a and Fiigure 4-7b show the rresult from both experimental andd numericall pullout
tests forr nonwovenn and woven crest GSC Cs, which are
a the criticcal elementts for hydraaulic sta-
bility off submergedd and low-ccrested Struuctures. Both
h figures sh
how very goood agreemment with
the meaasurements.
Howeveer, slope GSCs shows an increas ing deviatio on from thee measuredd values, as the dis-
placemeent gets larrger. Hencee, the numeerical modeel slightly underestima
u ates the staability of
GSCs aagainst the pullout forrces. Thereefore, numeerical modeelling resultts from CO OBRAS-
Efffect of Eng
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
R 118
UC/UD DEC modellling system m might alsoo be slightlly conservaative. Overaall, the initiiation of
motion, which is the t most crritical pointt relevant with
w respect to the hyydraulic stab bility, is
within tthe acceptabble limit forr all scenariios. All the numerical model scennarios correctly pre-
dict thee initiation of
o motion as a the pulloout force ap pproached itts maximum m or less th
han 0.2 s
before iit reaches thhe peaks. Duuring the puullout tests, force was applied
a at a uniform raate of ca.
24 N/s. Therefore, the accuraccy is withinn 5 N that iss less than 4%4 of the ppeak force (required
(
force too trigger thee motion off GSCs) for slope GSC Cs. The diffeerences betwween the nuumerical
and the experimenttal results for
f crest GS SCs were alsso in the same range (lless than 4% % differ-
ence, w
when comparre the peak forces). Addditional numerical pullout results and the dettailed on
the diffe
ferent constiitutive modeels for the rrepresentation of GSC--GSC contaacts are desccribed in
O 20012f.
4.2.4 S
Summary and
a Conclu
uding Rem
marks
Accordiing to Recioo (2007), th he hydraulicc stability off GSC-strucctures is higghly sensitiv

ve to the
friction properties of GSCs. However,
H thhere were no
n detailed investigatioons on the effect
e of
friction properties of o GSCs. Moreover,
M thhe correct reepresentatio
on of frictionn between elements
e
is a keyy factor for a reliable numerical
n m
model. Therefore, severral inbuilt m models avaailable in
UDEC 5 for the reepresentation of interfaaces betweeen distinct bodiesb were tested withh experi-
mental data and thhe most app propriate coonstitutive models
m for the adequatte representtation of
both wooven and noonwoven GSCs G were ffound. Baseed on the ex xperimentall and the nu umerical
pullout test, interfaace friction between nnonwoven GSCs G can be
b better reppresented using
u the
Coulom mb slip moddel with resiidual strenggth, while th he standardd Mohr-Couulomb slip model
m is
sufficiennt for the reepresentatio
on of the inteerface betw
ween woven GSCs.
Accordiing to the numerical

n modelling
m re sults, the reequired forcces to pull nnumerical GSCs
G out
are slighhtly less thaan those ob
btained fromm the experimental resu ults. Whereeas, the slop
pe GSCs
show ann increasingg deviation from the m measured vallues, as the displacemeent gets larg ger. This
might bbe mainly due d to the 2D simplifi fication of thet 3D problem as thee side effeccts from
neighboouring GSCs are not prroperly reprresented in the t 2D num merical modeel. Furtherm more, the
GSCs w were modellled as recttangular bloocks with horizontal
h contacts
c bettween themm, which
ignore tthe effect of the irreguular GSC suurfaces (currvatures) on n the pullouut forces. Thherefore,
2D num merical moddelling migh ht result in a slightly leess hydraulic stability ccompared to o the ex-
perimenntal results.
4.3 C
CFD-CSD Simulation of GSC
C Hydrau
ulic stabillity tests
This secction outlinnes the proceedure to sim
mulate the hydraulic
h stability testss using weaakly cou-
pled CFFD-CSD models
m (COB BRAS-UC//UDEC) an nd some keey results. FFurther results and
more deetailed analyysis can be found in annd Dassanay yake and Ouumeraci (20012e).
Efffect of Eng
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
R 119
4.3.1 F
Forces actiing on GSC
Cs
COBRA AS-UC verssion is limitted to approoximately 550,000

5 cells. Since thhe height off a small
scale GSC tested inn the wave flume is onnly 28 mm, cell size close to GSC C-structure was
w kept
as 28 mmm × 7 mm, which is th he smallest ppossible meesh size to represent
r thhe flow arou
und GSC
with a rreasonable accuracy.
a Even
E 4 m of the flume can be mod-
with thhis grid sizee, only ca. 40
elled, beecause of thhe limitation
n with the mmaximum number
n of cells (see Seection 3.5.3)). There-
fore, it is not posssible to mo odel the floow through the gaps of o GSCs. A According tot Recio
(2007), at least 3 ceells are requ
uired to reprresent the gaps
g and 10 cells to reppresent the height
h of
GSCs. Since Reccio had beeen modellled the ex xperiments with relatiively largeer GSCs
(height = 0.10 m), it was possible to simuulate with 10 1 mm × 10 mm cells aand by redu ucing the
length oof the flumee to 44 m. Due
D to this limitation, during the current studdy, CFD sim mulation
were peerformed exxcluding thee flow betw ween GSCs. Then, the pressure
p insside the GSSC struc-
ture was obtained by b extrapollating the prressure meaasurements around the GSCs struccture us-
ing the rrelationshipps proposedd by Recio (22007) based d on experimmental resuults.
Figure 4--8: Mesh size used

u in COBR
RAS-UC moddel
Recio (2007) has performed

p pressure
p meeasurementts on an insstrumented container to record
wave-innduced presssures. This instrumentted containeer was placeed at differeent elevation ns in the
structurre to investiggate the inffluence of thhe location of the GSC (with respeect to the sttill water
level) oon the wavee-induced prressures. Thhen, by inteegrating the pressures aaround the contain-
ers, the total wave--induced forrces have b een derived d (Figure 4-9). Later, thhese pressurre meas-
Efffect of Eng
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
R 120
urementts were used for the vaalidation off the numeriical simulations. Howeever, the currrent ex-
perimennts were perrformed witth relativelyy smaller GSCs,
G so thaat it was noot possible to
t install
he GSCs. Foor the numerical simulaations of thee hydraulic stability
pressuree transducerrs within th
of GSC C-structures,, one of thee important inputs is thhe pressuree between G GSCs. For this
t pur-
pose,, R
Recio (20077) succeeded d to derive some relatiionship betwween the exxternal pressure and
the pressure at vaarious locattions insidee the GSC-structure. These emppirical relattionships
which hhave also beeen verifiedd by numeriical simulattions (Recio o and Oumeeraci 2006aa, 2007b,
2007c, 22007d, 2007e) are applied in this study in ord der to obtain the pressuure inside thhe GSC-
structurres.
Figure 4--9: Measured and

a computed d (using COBR
RAS model reesults) wave-iinduced pressuures, velocitiees and free
surface elevvation (Recio, 2007)
Then, by integratinng the pressu

ures aroundd GSCs, forcces at each nodal pointt of the perimeter of
the finite element mesh (FEM M of UDE C) in each h GSC weree derived aand the totaal wave-
inducedd forces on each
e GSCs were calcullated. Figure 4-10 show ws a typical time seriess used by
Recio ((2007) durinng his COB BRAS – U UDEC simu ulations. The GSCs at different locations
l
show a clear difference in term
mers of bothh total verticcal and horiizontal forcces. the totall vertical
and the horizontal forces actinng on them. These forcces were ap pplied on thhe external nodes
n of
Efffect of Eng
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
R 121
the GSCC structuress in the UD

DEC model . Figure 4-11 describees the proceess of obtaiining the
pressuree values froom COBRA AS model annd the appliccation of th
he calculatedd total forcees on the
externall nodes in thhe UDEC model
m (Figurre 4-11).
Figure 4--10: Resultantt forces acting

g on GSCs. hoorizontal and vertical
v compo
onents are appplied separatelly on each
GSC in the model
m (modiffied from Reciio 2007)
Figure 44-11 elaborrates the functionality of the weaakly coupled d CFD-CSD D by Recioo (2007).
The CF FD model COBRAS
C caalculate thee pressure around
a GSCCs and the ppressure results are
extracteed using nummerical wav ve/pressuree gauges. Thhen the wav ve-induced pressures along
a the
surface of each GS SC are calcu ulated and pprovide to CSD
C model UDEC (preessures are integrat-
ed into forces, see Recio and Oumeraci 22007c). Theese forces are a then appplied on eacch nodal
point off the perimeeter of the finite
f elemeent mesh (FFEM in UDE EC) in eachh GSC. Dettailed in-
formatioon on this weakly
w coupple models can be foun nd in Dassan nayake andd Oumeraci (2009a),
Dassanaayake and Oumeraci (2012f) annd Recio an nd Oumeraci (2007c).. Even thou ugh this
method has some limitations
l in modellinng the hydraaulic stabiliity of slopee GSCs it caan better
Efffect of Eng
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
R 122
be usedd for the simmulation of the hydraullic stability of crest GS

SCs from thhe current hydraulic
h
stabilityy tests (Dassanayake annd Oumeracci 2012f). This
T is main most of the nodes at
nly due to m
the periimeter of thhe crest GSC
Cs are expoosed and diffferent forcee componennts can be assign
a to
each of them.
Figure 4--11: Calculatioon of forces components

c aaround GSCs using
u pressure measuremennts from COB
BRAS and
application of
o those comp puted pressuree results on a slope
s GSC in the UDEC moodel
The ressults of the current hy ydraulic stabbility tests (see Sectio

on 3.4 and Dassanayak ke et al.
2011c) show that for
f submerg ged/low-cressted (Rc/Hm ≤ + 0.5) GSC-structur
G res, the inittiation of
damagee always at the crest off the structuure. Even iff the total nu
umber of diisplaced GS SCs dur-
ing the entire seriees of experiiments weree considered d, more thaan 70% of GGSCs are displaced
d
from thhe crest (Figgure 4-12). Therefore,, it was deecided to ap pply the CO
OBRAS-UC C/UDEC
modelling system to t study thee incipient m
motion of crest
c GSCs, which are much moree critical
and thuss more relevvant than slope GSCs.
Efffect of Eng
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
R 123
Figure 4--12: Percentagges of displaceed GSCs durinng 366 model tests in four test series (Daassanayake et al.
a 2011c)
Every mmotion of GSCs

G in this weakly ccouple COB
BRAS-UC/UDEC moddelling systtem will
disturb the wave-innduced flow w in the CFD
D model (C
COBRAS-U UC) and thuss, the wave--induced
forces oon them in the next time step. Thhis can onlly be solved
d with a fuully coupled
d model,
which iss outside thhe scope of this
t PhD.
Even w within the COBRAS-U

C UC/UDEC, is possible to updatee the geom metry of thhe GSC-
structurre in CFD model,
m but updating
u thee geometry at every timme step willl not be praacticable.
Therefoore, a more feasible
f opttion is to uppdate the geometry of the structuree only after a prede-
fined toolerance hass been exceeeded. Therrefore, it is assumed th hat as soonn as a GSC starts to
show a significant movement (movement nt >10% of thet length ofo the GSC or an upwaard rota-
tion of >>10⁰), the hydraulic
h oundary connditions as well as the forces actinng on the GSC
bo G will
be signiificantly altered. Hencee, the simullation of thiis weakly cooupled moddelling systeem devi-
ated froom real situation and thhe geometryy should bee updated in n order to ccontinue thee simula-
tion. Mooreover, thee detailed an
nalysis of thhe hydraulic stability test results ((see Dassan
nayake et
al. 20111c) showed that this is the thresho ld limit to distinguish
d whether
w aGGSC is stable or not
(Table 33-6). Therefore, the CO OBRAS-UC C/UDEC modelling
m sy
ystem can bbe successfu ully used
for the determinatiion of the hydraulic
h sttability of a crest GSC
C on a subm merged/low
w-crested
structurre.
4.3.2 C
Computatiional Doma
ain and Disscretization
n in the CSD
D Model (U
UDEC)
The commputational domain of UDEC is shhown in Fig gure 4-13. The

T numericcal model setup and
geometrry of the GSSC-structurre follow th e condition ns tested in the
t wave fluume. The foreshore
fo
slope annd the podest (Figure 3-25)
3 m boundary (fixed bounndary), which make
acts ass the bottom
the com
mputational domain mo ore stable. T
The GSC-strructure was discretizedd in finite trriangular
meshes (triangular elements inn the mesh aare approx. 7 mm x 7 mm).m
Efffect of Eng
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
R 124
Figure 4--13: Numericaal set up in thee UDEC modeel for simulation of 80% fillled nonwovenn GSCs
4.3.3 IInput Paraameters forr the Weaklly Coupled

d CFD-CSD
D Numericaal Simulatio
ons
The maain input vallues used fo or the COB RAS by Reecio (2007) and the CO OBRAS-UC C models
are sum
mmarized in Table 4-2. The main iinputs valuees for the UDEC
U modeel are compaaratively
shown iin Table 4-11. The valuees for the COOBRAS-UC C/UDEC modelling
m syystem were selected,
s
followinng the resullts of Recio (2007) andd newly con
nducted expeeriments annd numericaal studies
(e.g. nuumerical puullout testss, preliminaary CFD simulations,
s Dassanayaake and Oumeraci
O
2010c.)
Efffect of Eng
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
R 125
Table 4-22: Comparisonn of the main input

i parametter and assump
ptions used in
n the numericaal simulations
“COBR RAS” paraameters by

y Recio C
COBRAS-U
UC parameters used duuring this sttudy
(2007)
Descrip
ption Input valu
ues D
Description Inp
put values
Time steep 0.02 s T

Time step 0.02
2 s (or dynam
mic time steeps)
Density of water m3
1000 kg/m D
Density of water
w 00 kg/m3
100
Type off wave Stokes V, internal T

Type of wave Airy
y waves, w wave dynaamics as
wave makeer bou
undary condditions at the left
bou
undary of thee simulation
n area
Kinemattic vis- 1 × 10− 6 m2/s K

Kinematic vis- 1 × 10− 6 m2/s
cosity off water c osity of watter
Turbulennce model k − ε (n nonlinear T

Turbulence model
m k − ε (nonlinearr eddy visco
osity)
eddy visco
osity)
Turbulennce seed 0.5 TTurbulence seed 0.5

parametter pparameter
Eddy viscosity 5 EEddy viscosity 5

behaviouur pa- bbehaviour pa-
rameter raameter
Max Courant 0.3 MMax Co

ourant 0.3
number nnumber
Wave heeights 0.08 ~ 0.20

0m W
Wave heights 0.06
6–0.20 m
Wave peeriod 1.5 ~ 3 s W

Wave period
d 1.5 ~ 4.5 s
Water depth 0.61 m W

Water depth 0.5 ~ 0.8 m
Mesh inn domain 1600 × 100

0 M
Mesh in dom
main 319
90 × 172
4.3.4 V
Validation of the CFD
D Model (C
COBRAS-U
UC)
Results from COB BRAS-UC simulations were comp pared with the
t experim mental data obtained
o
from thhe hydraulicc stability teests. Both tthe inciden
nt wave con nditions as w well as the particle
velocityy around thee GSC-struccture and thhe pressure results are compared. Figure 4-14 shows
some tyypical resultts from two model testts with Rc = -0.1. Moree results aree reported in n Dassa-
nayake and Oumerraci (2012f)). There is vvery good agreement
a between
b thee measuredd and the
computeed results for
f free surrface elevattions. The particle
p vellocities andd pressure measure-
m
ments shhow some discrepanci
d es only for the peak vaalues. (scatter up to aboout 20% wh hich may
be considered as accceptable).
Efffect of Eng
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
R 126
Figure 4--14: Measuredd (hydraulic sttability tests) and computed

d (COBRAS-UC simulatioons) wave indu
uced pres-
sured, veloccities and fee surface
s elevatiion
The datta from num merical wav ve gauges w were then analysed
a to
o obtain inccident and reflected
r
wave paarameters. Figure
F 4-155 compares target and generated values
v wavee heights annd wave
periods from COB BRAS-UC simulations
s , showing a very good agreemennt (Scatter in wave
heights < 5% and scatter in wave w perioods < 3% ).. Wave refllection and wave transsmission
characteeristics of different
d tesst series froom the hyddraulic stabiility tests w
were studiess and re-
ported iin Ozegowsski (2012). Same param meter form
m the numerical model also compu uted and
no signiificant diffeerence (scattter < 5%) wwere found (Dassanayak
( ke and Oum meraci 2012f).
Efffect of Eng
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
R 127
Figure 4--15: Compariison of input and output w

wave parametter from COB
BRAS-UC moodel.(exemplaary results
from Rc = -00.10 m)
4.3.5 V
Validation of CFD-CS
SD Modelliing System
m (COBRAS
S-UC–UDE
EC)
Results from the nuumerical sim mulations aand the videeo records obtained
o duuring the flu
ume tests
were caarefully analysed to ideentify the coonditions reequired for the initiatioon of motioon of the
critical GSCs. Therre are two main
m types of forces accting on GS SCs due thee presence of o water;
forces ddue to hydroostatic/dynaamic pressuure and forcces due to shear
s stressees on the GSC
G sur-
face. Reecio (2007) simplified this problem m probablyy by assumin ng forces accting on a GSC
G due
to hydraaulic pressuure are domminant comppared to thee shear streess on the ssurface of th he GSC.
Howeveer, the forcees due to shear stressess might influ
uence the cy yclic deformmation of GSCs
G and
the slidiing of crestt GSCs towwards the laandward sidde. From the video reccords, it is apparent
that up rushing waater results in the upwward movem ment of the front sectioon of GSCs. At this
momentt, pressure values
v arou
und the facee of GSC might
m also bee large, but shear forcees due to
high vellocities cannnot be ignorred.
Instead of only twoo force com

mponents (hhorizontal to otal force an
nd vertical ttotal force), current
simulatiions were performed
p w 14 defeerent force components acting on each expossed node
with
of a singgle GSC ( Figure
F 4-16
6). These forrce compon nents consisst of both veertical and horizon-
tal forcee componennts which are
a induced by both preessure and shear stresss on differen nt nodes
of GSCs. Figure 4--16 shows time
t series of total verrtical and ho
orizontal for
orces acting on crest
GSCs (ccritical GSC
Cs) calculated by integrrating all off these comp
ponents.
Efffect of Eng
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
R 128
Figure 4--16: Total verttical and horizzontal forces oon crest GSCss
The dispplacements of a crest GSC

G duringg a wave cy ycle are com
mparatively shown in Table
T 4-3
using exxtracted im
mages from high
h speed video records and thee COBRAS--UC/UDEC C results.
The ressults show a reasonablly good agrreement witth the magn nitude of thhe upward rotation,
and mottion towardds the seawaard side.
As the wave approaches the GSC-strucctures, displlacement veectors from m the UDEC C model
indicatee an upwardd rotation off the crest GGSC at the seaward side (note: diisplacementt vectors
from the UDEC modelm are drrawn with a dynamic scale). At tim me t = 2T/99, the UDEC C model
shows aan upward rotation
r and
d the same ccould be obsserved from m the high-spspeed video records.
Then thhe GSC from m the hydraaulic stabilitty tests show
ws a maxim mum of ca. 115⁰ upward d rotation
whereass the UDEC C model preedicts an uppward rotation of 12⁰ (at time t = 55T/9). Even n though
the UDE EC model predicts
p a sllightly smalller rotation
n, this is already largerr that the predefined
thresholld limit forr “no damaage” (stablee) condition n (Table 3--6). Therefo fore, the creest GSC
shows aan “incipiennt motion” (DC( =1, Taable 3-6) annd hence, ag grees with tthe results from
f hy-
draulic stability tesst. Moreoveer, the diffeerence betwween two maximum rot otation angeels might
be due to the limittation of thiis weakly ccoupled modelling systtem. Right after time t = 7T/9,
both expperimental and numeriical GSCs rreturn to theeir original horizontal
h pposition, bu
ut show a
sliding motion tow wards the seeaward sidee. At the en nd of the wave
w cycle, experimen ntal GSC
shows a sliding diistance of ca.
c 7.5% off the GSC length l and the UDEC model pred dicts the
sliding ddistance of 6% of the GSC
G lengthh. If the mod dels continuue, after few
w wave cycles, both
GSCs w will be detacched from thhe structurees.
Based oon the experrimental ressults from “nno damage”” and “incippient” motioon tests (DC
C =0 and
DC =1, Table 3-6)), model paarameters w were fitted so
s that it caan reproducced those teest cases
with a rreasonable accuracy (D Dassanayakke and Oum meraci, 2012 2f). Table 44-3 represen
nt an ex-
emplaryy result of calibrated COBRAS--UC/UDEC modelling g system. T Then the caalibrated
model wwas used forr the simulaation of new
w hydraulic stability tessts.
Efffect of Eng
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
R 129
Table 4-33: Upward and downward rotation

r of GS
SCs within a wave cycle, H = 0.134 m, T = 1.76 s, Rcc = 0.1 m-
nonwoven, 80%
8 filled GS
SCs (NW80H series)
Efffect of Eng
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
R 130
4.4 D
Detailed Numerical
N l Simulatiions and Analysis
A of
o Hydrau
ulic Stabiility
Initiallyy, a set of seelected hyd
draulic stabiility tests (sstable and in
ncipient mootions casess, Dassa-
nayake et al. 2011c) were rep produced wwith COBRA AS-UC/UD DEC modellling system and the
results w were comppared to callibrate the m modelling system
s and
d then to veerify it (seee Dassa-
nayake and Oumerraci, 2012ff for furtherr details). Once O the COOBRAS-UC C/UDEC modelling
m
system was verifieed, further simulations
s were cond ducted to obbtain additioonal data to
o fill the
gaps in the date seet and also to extend itt. These neew numericaal simulatioons were co onducted
mainly w with varyinng crest freeeboard from
m three test series
s (NW8 80H, NW1000H and W8 80H, see
Figure 3 26).
Table 4-44: Test program
mme for the numerical
n simu
mulations with COBRAS-UC
C/UDEC moddelling system
m
4.4.1 P
Pressure Acting
A on Critical
C GSC
Cs
The hyddraulic stabbility tests did not covver the creest freeboard between -0.01 m an nd 0.0 m
(model scale). Therrefore, it waas necessaryy to identifyy the most critical
c crestt freeboard in terms
of the hhydraulic sttability of crest
c GSCss. Hence, in n order to identify
i thee most criticcal crest
freeboarrd in terms of the hydrraulic stabillity of the crest
c GSCs, the wave innduced presssures at
the botttom of the seaward
s edgge of the crrest GSCs were
w compared using C COBRAS-U UC simu-
lations ((Regular waaves with Hm
H = 0.14 m and Tm = 1.5s). Acco ording to Fiigure 4-17 the
t max-
imum ddynamic prressure valu ues were reecorded wh hen the creest freeboarrd is Rc = -0.05 m.
Therefoore, it was decided
d to sttudy the hyddraulic stability for Rc = -0.05 m ccase in detail.
Efffect of Eng
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
R 131
Figure 4--17: pressure acting

a on the seaward
s edge of crest GSCss
4.4.2 E
Extended Hydraulic
H Stability
S Teests with COBRAS-U
C UC/UDEC M
Modelling
Figure 44-18 shows a comparisson of COB BRAS-UC/U UDEC resultts of 80% fi filled GSCs made of
nonwovven geotextile and Rc = -0.05 m w with hydrau ulic stabilitty curve deerived from
m the hy-
draulic stability tesst for Rc = 0 (NW80H H, see Figurre 3 26). Th he numericaal model reesults for
Rc = -0..05 m show w a slightly lower
l stabil ity than thaat for Rc = 0 m.
Since thhe COBRAS S-UC/UDEC simulatioons were performed forr a limited dduration (sim mulation
durationn: 3 ~ 5 wavv periods compared m minimum 100 regular wavesw were uused during g the hy-
draulic stability tessts), it is no
ot possible tto accuratelly distinguissh whether the degree of dam-
age to thhe GSC-struucture, but it i can only ddistinguish whether thee structure iis stable or not.
n
Then thhe COBRAS-UC/UDE EC results ffor Rc = -0.0

05 m were plotted in FFigure 4-19 9, which
containss the data from
f all thee experimennts form NW80H
N testt series for varying crrest free-
boards ffrom Rc = -0.25
- m to Rc
R = +0.0966 m. As exp pected from
m Figure 4-117 and Figu ure 4-18,
numericcal model results
r from
m Rc = -0.- 0.05 m sho ows the lowwest hydrauulic stabilityy among
tested crrest freeboaards.
Not onlly in the tesst series NWW80H, but also in otheer test seriees; NW100H H and W80 0H, there
were gaaps in the data
d set. First, new sim mulations weere performmed to bridgge these gap ps in the
data sett in order too have a con
ntinuous staability curvee with higher degree oof certainty. In addi-
tion, datta set was increases
i wiith additionnal simulatio
on with larg
ger relative crest freebo
oards up
to Rc/HHm = + 2.0 annd the resullts are showwn in Figure 4-19, Figurre 4-20 andd Figure 4-21.
Efffect of Eng
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
R 132
Figure 4--18: COBRAS S-UC/UDEC results of the hydraulic staability of low--crested GSC--structures: co
omparison
of 80% filleed GSCs made of nonwoveen geotextile (Rc
( = -0.05 m)m with the hyydraulic stabillity curves
for (NW80H H; Rc = 0 m
Figure 4--19: Hydraulicc stability currve for low-crrested and sub

bmerged GSCC-structures m made of nonwo oven, 80%
filled GSCs (series NW80 0H/Rc = -0.255 m ~ +0.096 / regular wavee tests with Hmm) including COBRAS-
C
UC/UDEC results
r
Efffect of Eng
H Sttability – Nu
umerical
R 133

ve for low-creested and subm
merged GSC-structures maade of nonwov ven, 100%
filled GSCss (series NW1 100H/Rc = -00.25 m ~ +0.0 096 / regular wave tests w
with Hm) inclu
uding CO-
BRAS-UC/U UDEC results

merged GSC-sstructures madde of woven, 80%
8 filled
GSCs (seriees W80H / Rcc = -0.25 m ~ +0.096 m / regular
r wave tests with Hmm) including COBRAS-
C
UC/UDEC results
r
Hyydraulic Staability Form
mulae and Stability Nom
mograms 134

Remarks
Recio (22007) demoonstrated th he possibilitties to numeerically sim
mulate the hyydraulic staability of
GSC-strructures connsidering th heir flexibiliity. He used
d a weakly coupled CFFD and CSD D model
(COBR RAS/UDEC)), which ressulted in reaasonably acccurate resu ults. Accordding to the available
a
literaturre, this was the first num
merical studdy on the hyydraulic staability of GSSC-structuree subject
to wavee attack witth weakly coupled
c CFD D and CSD D models. There
T are seeveral limitaations in
the CO OBRAS/UD DEC as disscussed in this chaptter. In spitte of thesee limitation ns, CO-
BRAS/U UDEC is thhe most reasonable moddelling systeem for GSC C-structures up to date.
In curreent study, COBRAS

C annd UDEC 4 versions werew replaced with reccently released CO-
BRAS-U UC and UD DEC 5 mo odels. Apartt from thatt, new mod difications wwere introdduced to
simulatee the simpliified GSC model
m in COOBRAS-UC C/UDEC mo odelling sysstem such ass simpli-
fied GSSCs with thee correct masses
m and aaccurate overlapping leengths. UD
DEC has sev veral op-
tions too defined prroperties off GSC-GSC C joints. Fro
om those, the
t best maatching mod del were
selectedd to represennt the GSC-GSC contaacts and verrified using the pulloutt test results. More-
over, foorces actingg on each node
n at the perimeter of
o the GSC Cs were calcculated and d applied
separateely, which allows morre accuratee simulation ns (both sliiding and rrotation mootions of
GSCs can be propeerly simulated).
Then seeveral hydrraulic stabillity tests weere simulatted with thee COBRASS-UC/UDEC C model
and a goood comparrison of expperimental ddata and num merical resu
ults were foound. This step veri-
fies cappability of thhe COBRAS-UC/UDE EC modellin ng system too simulate tthe hydrauliic stabil-
ity of suubmerged/loow-crested GSC-structu tures.
Finally, a parametter study was carried oout using th he validated

d model syystem to ex xtend the
range of the condittions testedd in the labooratory. Thee main objeective of theese simulatiions was
to obtaiin additionaal data for three
t test seeries, NW80H, NW100H and W880H that were w later
used forr the develoopment of hyydraulic staability curvees
In concllusion, COBBRAS-UC/U UDEC resuults show a relatively

r good agreemment with thhe exper-
imental data. Hencce, this CFD D-CSD moddel system has h an enco ouraging pootential for practical
p
applicattions. Howeever, this sy
ystem has seerious limitations becau
use of the 22D simplificcation of
a truly 3D-problemm. Thereforre, one of thhe future reesearch taskks is to exttend the COOBRAS-
UC/UD DEC to a cooupled 3D-m model systeem. Meanw while, the 2D
D-modellingg system sh hould be
applied cautiously.
mograms 135
5 Hyydraulicc Stabilitty Formu

ulae and
d Stabilitty Nomoograms
One of the main obbjectives off the current nt research study
s is to develop
d new w simplified
d formu-
lae and//or nomograams for thee hydraulic sstability of GSCs subject to wavee loads baseed on re-
cent andd past expeerimental/nu umerical invvestigationss. The existting formullae and nom mograms
from puublished liteerature weree critically rreviewed/an nalysed in Section 2.7 aand already summa-
rised in Table 2-8. In this chap pter, the poossibilities to simplify the
t process--based stability for-
mulae oof Recio (20007) are firsst examinedd (Section 5.1),
5 before starting wiith the deveelopment
of new hydraulic stability
s nommograms annd simplifieed formulaee (Sections 55.2-5.4). In n Section
5.5 the ppossibility of
o using thee same stabiility curves for both reg gular and irrregular wav
ves were
studied and Sectionn 5.6 summarises the ooutcomes off Chapter 5.
5.1 Simplificattions of Recio’s

R Foormulae
The com mplicated process-base
p ed stability formulae ofo Recio (2007) are coompared to the less
compliccated formuulae of Wou uters (1998) and Oumerraci et al. (2 2002b) by cconsidering the slid-
ing stabbility of cresst containers for the zerro-freeboardd case, i.e. when
w the w
water surfacee and the
crest off the structurre are at thee same levell (Figure 5-1).
Figure 5--1: Comparisoon between Reecio’s stabilityy formulae with and without deformatioon effects including fur-
ther availablle formulae (R
Recio 2007)
In Recio’s (2007) formulae (F Figure 5-2)), the requirred containeer length lc is a function of u2
2 2
(lc ∝ u ∝ H with u being the horizontal fflow velociity and H th he wave heigght), whereeas in the
Hudsonn-like formuulae lc is ap pproximatelly proportio onal to H 4 (lc ∝ H3/4)). Moreover, in the
3/4
stabilityy formula foor crest GSC

Cs by Oumeeraci et al. (2002b),
( whhen Rc = 0, lc is proporrtional to
mograms 136
H ( lc ∝ H ). Thereefore, Recioo’s formulaae are much h more sennsitive to thhe wave heeight. As
shown iin Figure 5--1, for smalller wave heeights (H<1.5 m) the foormulae of W Wouters (19 998) and
Oumeraaci et al. (20002b) proviide slightlyy larger GSCCs than Reccio´s formuula. For largger wave
height llarger (H>11.5 m) this is
i rather thee opposite. The compaarison in Fiigure 5-1 iss mainly
focusedd only on Reecio’s (20077) formula w with and wiithout the deformation
d effect, and
d the oth-
er simplle Hudson-llike formulaae which immplicitly incclude the efffect of GSC
C-deformatio on.
Furtherm more, in shallow waterr, the calcullated GSC length lc fro om Recio’ss (2007) formulae is
2
less sennsitive to thee wave period (lc ∝ u w w water butt u ∝ 1/T
with u indeependent of T in shallow
in deepeer water), whereas
w lc iss dependentt of T in Ou
umeraci et al.
a (2002b) aand Wouterrs (1998)
for sloppe containerrs (see Tablle 2-8). How wever, in thhe formula by
b Oumeracci et al. (20
002b) for
the cresst containerss, lc is indep pendent fromm the wave period T (see Figure 5 -1).
In orderr to analyse the perform

mance of Reecio’s form mulae, a neww MATLAB B routine waas devel-
oped for the formuulae to calcuulate the reqquired size (characteris
( stic length, l c) of GSCss (Dassa-
nayake and Oumerraci 2013c). In this rouutine, the required
r len
ngth lc for th
the crest GSSCs of a
submergged GSC-sttructure is calculated as shown in 5 Figure 5-3 shows the ap-
i Figure 5-2.
proach uused in the new routinee, which cann be easily modified
m fo
or other struuctures.
Figure 5--2: Process bassed hydraulic stability form

mulae for crestt GSCs of a su
ubmerged reeff (Recio 2007))
mograms 137
The maiin calculatioon steps of the MATLA

AB routine as illustrateed in Figuree 5-3 are:
(i) DDefine the design paraameters releevant for th he selected GSC-structture. Then calculate
c
tthe horizonttal particle velocity andd acceleratiion at the ellevation of tthe critical GSC us-
iing an approopriate wav ve theory.
(ii) SSelect the appropriate
a deformatioon factors KCD, KCM, KCL and KR ((see Recio and Ou-
mmeraci 20099)
(iii) CCalculate thhe minimum m characterristic GSC length lc by b assigningg the valuees corre-
ssponding too the lower limits of thhe force coeefficients; CD, CM and CL for the selected
GGSC-structuure (see Reccio and Oum meraci 2009 9)
(iv) CCalculate thhe Reynold ds number uusing the caalculated GS SC length l c with equaation 5.6
aand calculatte the new force
f coeffi cient with equations
e 5.3 and 5.5.
(v) UUsing new force coeffficient from m step (iv), recalculate
r the new reqquired lc an nd deter-
mmine the diffference bettween the pprevious value.
(vi) IIf, the lengtth differencce calculate in step (v) is larger th
han a threshhold limit (ee.g. 5%),
tthen increasse the calcu ulated GSC C length by 5% and folllow steps ((iv) to (vi) until the
ddifference is lower than n the threshhold limit.
(vii) SSteps (ii) too (vi) shoulld be perfoormed for bothb sliding and overtuurning to deetermine
wwhich form mulae gives thet largest rrequired len ngth lc.
Figure 5--3: Flow chaart for the ap

pplication of the Recio (2
2007) stability
y formulae (ddeveloped forr the new
MATLAB routine)
r
mograms 138
By usinng the new MATLAB routine, thhe applicabiility and lim mitations off different forms
f of
Recio’s formulae were
w analysed and repoorted in Dasssanayake and a Oumeraaci (2013c). In addi-
tion, a ssimplified version
v for this
t processs - based staability form
mulae were pproposed. This
T sec-
tion proovides an ovverview of this
t simplifyying processs, while connsidering exxemplarily the
t most
relevantt formulae for
f the curreent study.
Based oon the expeerimental daata, Recio ((2007) sugg gested a separate set oof formulaee for the
calculattion of force coefficien nts (Eqs. 5.33, 5.4 and 5.5).
5 In most of the caases, once the
t wave
height rreached ca. 0.2 m ~ 0.6 6 m, the lowwer limit of the drag coefficient annd the upperr limit of
the lift ccoefficient are consideered in the fformulae. Therefore,
T fo
or prototypee applicatio ons, only
the lowwer limits off the drag coefficient
c aand the upp
per limit of lift coefficiient might be
b suffi-
cient (FFigure 5-4). The form mulae were developed considering relativelyy smaller Reynolds R
4 6
numberr; (Re = uD//ν and Re = 10 ~10 ). T Therefore, the
t formulaae should bee applied caautiously
as most of the prottotype casess might resuults in Reyn nolds numbeer well beyoond this lim mit. If the
trend shhown in Figgure 5-4 con ntinues, the drag coeffiicients mighht still be reeduced for larger Re
numberrs (Re >106) and conseq quently migght result in
n smaller GSC lengths than the caalculated
values with constaant (e.g. lowwer limit of C D) force coefficients.
Figure 5--4: Example caalculations off force coefficiients using Reecio’s (2007) formulae for ttwo GSC appllications
The resuults of exam

mple calculaations with model scalle dimensions are show wn in Figuree 5-5 for
design w
wave periodds, T = 1.0 s and T = 2..0 s and a negative
n crest freeboardd Rc = -0.155 m. Ac-
cording to the form mulae, whicch calculatee the force coefficientss, as the Reeynolds nummber in-
creases drag coeffificient CD drops
d from 15 to 4. In contrast, th he lift coeff
fficient CL increases
from 0.33 to 1.2 (Fiigure 5-5e and
a Figure 55-5f). Sincee the formulla is more ssensitive to the drag
coefficient, a droop of the required G GSC length h lc occurss for wavee heights between
mograms 139
H = 0.175 m and H = 0.225 m. m For largeer wave heig

ghts, GSC length
l lc inccreases agaain expo-
nentiallyy with increeasing wavee height.
Figure 5--5: Calculated length of GSCCs for differennt wave param

meters using Recio’s
R slidingg formulae (caalcula-
tions were performed
p with
h model scalee dimensions)
mograms 140
Figure 55-6 further illustrates

i th
he applicatiion of Recioo’s formulaee exemplariily for the hydraulic
h
stabilityy of crest GSCs
G of a submerged
s GSC-structture at protootype scalee (calculatio
ons were
performmed with prrototype dim mensions). In order to o apply thee formulae, first, the structure
s
should satisfy two conditions; Hi/dr ≥ 0.55 and d/L ≤ 0.1. Hencee, if the subbmergence depth is
1.5 m, then the minimum
m wave
w heighht, which satisfies th his conditioon (Hi/dr ≥ 0.5), is
Hi = 3.00 m. For exxample, a wavew period of 7 s and a water deepth of 10 m would saatisfy the
other crriterion (d/L L ≤ 0.1). Seecond, the fforce coeffificients that satisfy equuations 5.3 and 5.5
reach thheir upper limits
l in terrms of Reyynolds num mber, conseq quently, thee lower limmit of the
drag coefficient (C CD = 4) and the upper llimit of the lift coefficiient (CL = 11.2) as illustrated in
Figure 55-6a. Third,, as shown in Figure 5 -6b, the con ntribution from
f the horrizontal parrticle ve-
2
locity iss significannt (u ). Therrefore, the iinertia force acting onn the GSC ccan be negllected as
they havve a phase difference of o ca. π/2. BBased on th hese results, the formuulae were simplified
(Figure 5-7) and thhe simplified Recio forrmula is useed for the caalculation oof GSC leng gth lc for
differennt incident wave
w heightts (Figure 5--6d and Figure 5-19).
Figure 5--6: Applicationn of Recio’s formulae

f for suubmerged GS
SC-structures (prototype
( scaale dimensions)
mograms 141
The proocess basedd hydraulic stability fformulae off Recio (20 007) were critically evaluated
(Dassannayake and Oumeraci 2013c) andd the resultss from the most relevaant applicattions for
f the hydrraulic stabillity of crest GSCs of a submergedd reef, are presented
this studdy namely for p
here. Tw wo major simplificatio
s ons were suuggested fo or the formu
ulae considdering the prototype
p
applicattions.
(i). Om
missions of the n process tto calculate the force coefficient based on the
t iteration t GSC
length lc and the Reynolds
R nu
umber, wheen the form mulae are ap pplied for tthe prototyp pe scale.
Instead of using thhe supplemeentary equaations (eqs. 5.3 and 5.5) given inn the formu ulae, it is
sufficiennt to use thhe lower lim
mit of the ddrag coefficiient and thee upper lim
mit of the lifft coeffi-
cient as the values of CD and CL in the forrmulae (eqss. 5.1 and 5.2).
(ii). Reccio’s formuulae are more sensitivee to the horrizontal partticle velocitity than to the
t hori-
zontal pparticle acceeleration (D Dassanayakee and Oum meraci 2013cc). Even thoough the maximum
m
wave innduced forcees on a subm merged boddy does not reach its maaximum forr the maxim mum hor-
izontal pparticle veloocity, it is accurate
a enoough for thee engineerin
ng practice tto consider only the
maximuum velocityy (where accceleration iss zero) for the t calculatiion of the reequired GSC length
lc.
Figure 55-7 presents the simpliified Recio ’s formulaee for the hydraulic stabbility of creest GSCs
of a subbmerged GS SC-structuree. Since, thhese are sim
mplified formmulae, somee of the infl fluencing
factors ((e.g. Inertiaa force) are ignored. Thherefore, theese formulaae should bee used cautiiously as
in somee flow regim mes, which are outsidee the tested range (i.e. Re > 2×1005), combinaations of
inertia aand drag forrces might beb crucial foor the hydraaulic stabilitty. More deetails on thee Recio’s
formulaae and the siimplificatio on process ccan be found d in Dassanayake and O Oumeraci (2 2013c).
Figure 5--7: Simplified Recio’s form

mulae for the hyydraulic stability of crest GSCs
G of a subm
merged GSC-structure
mograms 142
5.2 E
Effect of th
he Engineeering Prooperties of
o GSCs on
o Hydrau
ulic Stabiility
The infl
fluence of thhe sand fill ratio (test series NW8 80H and NW W100H), thhe interfacee friction
betweenn GSCs (tesst series NWW80H and W W80H) and the inclined d placementt of GSCs (NW80H
and NW W80I)] on thhe hydraulicc stability wwere compaaratively an nalysed throough four teest series
(Figure 3-26). Thee effects off these paraameters on the hydraullic stabilityy of submerrged and
low-crested GSC-sstructures were
w quantifi fied by conssidering the test series NNW80H (no onwoven
80% fillled and horizontally placed
p GSC Cs) as the reference
r caase as it reppresents on
ne of the
most coommonly ussed GSC typ pes. The diffferences beetween stab bility numbeers Ns, whicch corre-
spond too “incipientt motion” (D
DC 1) of creest GSCs of the test series NW80H H and the other
o test
series w
were calculaated using equation
e 5. 8 and preseented in Figure 5-8 ass percentag ge differ-
ences.
 Percenntage changee   stability nnumber  N s _ k  - stability number  N s __ NW 80 H  

 %   % (5.8)
 in stability number  N s _ k    stability number  N s _ NW 80 H  
   
k  Tesst Series (i.e.. NW 80 H , NW N 80 I ), see Figure

N 100 H , W 80 H , and NW F 3-26 ffor descriptio
ons
The expperimental results

r showw different ffailure mech
hanisms forr different ssubmergencce depths
and the importancee of the eng gineering prooperties of GSCs also varies depeending on th he domi-
nant faiilure mechaanism for a particular G GSC-structu ure and for a particular
ar freeboard
d (Dassa-
nayake et al. 2011c, Dassanay yake and OOumeraci 20 012b, 2012cc and 2012dd). The relaative im-
portancee of the enngineering properties
p ((woven andd non-woveen geotextille, 80% an nd 100%
sand filll, horizontaal and inclin
ned GSC pl acement) iss shown in Figure
F 5-8 as a functio
on of the
surf sim
milarly param meter and for
f two cresst freeboard d (Rc = -0.2 m in Figurre 5-8a and Rc =0.0
m in Figgure 5-8b).
Figure 5--8: Effect of thhe sand fill rattio, the geotexxtile material, and the inclin
ned placementt of GSC on hydraulic
stability of GSC-structure
G es for crest freeeboards Rc = 0.2 m (a) and d Rc = 0.0 m (b
(b).
mograms 143
For the tested condditions with a zero cresst freeboardd, GSCs made of woven en (interfacee friction
angle = 13.33⁰) geootextile (with an approoximately 50 0% lower frriction coefffficient than
n nonwo-
ven geootextile withh interface friction
f anggle = 22.64⁰)) resulted in
n ca. 44% loower stabiliity num-
bers, whhen consideering the “incipient mootion” of crrest GSCs (Figure
( 5-8bb). Though most of
the exissting studiees (e.g. PIAANC 2011) on GSC-sttructures reecommend a sand fill ratio of
80%, a 100% filledd GSC show ws a 36 % hhigher stability numberr for a surf similarly paarameter
of 5, com
mpared to 80%
8 filled GSC
G (Figuree 5-8b).
Apart frfrom changiing the eng gineering prroperties off GSCs, the hydraulic stability caan be in-
creased by changinng the inclin nation anglee of GSCs during
d placement. An iinclination angle of
only 155⁰ resulted in approxim mately 28% % higher stability num mber compaared to horiizontally
placed G GSCs, when the wave conditionss required for fo incipientt motion off the GSCs are con-
sidered.. In additioon to the im
mprovementts of the hy ydraulic staability whicch is achiev ved by a
higher ffriction anggle between GSCs, high gher sand filll ratios and
d inclined pplacement of o GSCs,
these paarameters siignificantly
y retard the damage dev velopment of o GSC-struuctures overr the en-
tire storrm duration (Dassanayaake et al. 20011c, Dassaanayake and d Oumeracii 2012c). Th herefore,
not onlyy the condiitions requirred for inciipient damaage to a GS SC-structuree, but also the tem-
poral deevelopmentt of the dam mage and thhe differentt damage levels that m might result,, are im-
portant for a properr the comprrehensive quuantificationn of the effeect of the diifferent facttors con-
sidered in this studdy.
With thhis backgrouund, it was required too develop separate

s hyddraulic stabbility curvess for the
three afforementionned test seriees (NW80H H, NW100H H and W80H H). In orderr to develop a single
stabilityy curve/form
mula accoun nting for thhe effect off friction beetween GSC Cs and the sand fill
ratio, a more detaiiled study on
o several ssand fill rattios and sev veral types of geotextiiles with
varying friction prroperties woould be requuired. Such h a detailed study was not feasiblle within
the framme of this stuudy.
5.3 N
New Hydrraulic Stab
bility Nom
mograms for Subm
merged an
nd Low-C
Crested
G
GSC-Strucctures
By com mbining prevvious and current hydrraulic stabillity tests and numericaal modelling g results,
new hyddraulic stabbility nomoggrams and ssimplified fo ormulae forr the hydrauulic stability
y of low-
crested//submerged GSC-strucctures are ddeveloped. This section outliness the new stability
curves and the sttability form mulae for horizontallly placed; nonwoven 80% filled GSCs
(NW80H H), nonwovven 100% filled
f GSCss (NW100H H) and wov ven 80% filllled GSCs (W80H).
(
Ideally, a single hyydraulic stability curvee should be found, whiich can desscribe the beehaviour
of both submergedd (Rc<0) an nd surface ppiercing low w-crested GSC-structur
G res (Rc>0). For ex-
ample, Vidal et al. (1992) sh w the relative freebooard (Rc* = Rc/D50)
howed a rellationship with
and the stability nuumber (Ns=H Hs/ΔD50) off low-cresteed rubble mo ound breakw
kwaters by consider-
c
ing fourr different damage
d cateegories. Thhe possibilitty of develo
oping a simi
milar relation nship for
the subm merged/loww-crested GS SC structurres is also examined
e in
n this PhD sstudy. Baseed on the
new dam mage classiification developed in this study (Table 3-6)), the relatioonship betw ween the
*
stabilityy number Ns and the rellative crest ffreeboards Rc
R is first analysed
a (F igure 5-9).
mograms 144
Figure 55-9 provides an impresssion of the tested relattive crest freeeboards (R Rc*=Rc/H) that
t indi-
cate thee applicabiliity range of each of thee new prospective form mulae (only tthe hydrauliic stabil-
ity resuults from thee regular wave tests arre shown). Moreover,
M Figure
F 5-9aa~ Figure 5-9d sug-
gest thee specific frreeboards thhat need to be covered d by the planned numeerical simulaations in
order too fill the gapps in the daata set. Tes t series NWW80H, whicch is the refference casee for the
*
compariison, covereed a large spectrum
s (- 3.0 <Rc < + 0.5) of reelative crestt freeboardss (Figure
5-9a). TThe experiennces gained d during thiis test seriess were impoortant to opptimise the test pro-
grammees for the otther 3 test series (NW880I: Figure 5-9b, W80H H: Figure 5--9c, NW100H: Fig-
ure 5-9dd).
o the relative crest freeboarrd Rc* on the hydraulic

Figure 5--9: Influence of h stab
bility of GSC--structures.
mograms 145
Most off the tests for test serries NW80II (Figure 5--9b), W80H H (Figure 55-9c) and NW100H
N
(Figure 5-9d) weree performed d with the paarameters required for the “incipieent motion”” (DC 1)
of crest GSCs. Theerefore, the amount of data showin ng the “no damage” daamage level (DC 0)
is relatiively small. During thee test seriess NW80I (F Figure 5-9bb), the wavee maker reaached its
limit in terms of maximum
m waave parameeters. Thereffore, most of o the tests w were showiing dam-
age levvels from “nno damage” (DC 0) tto “minor damage” (D DC 2). Theerefore, no stability
curve/foormula is developed fo or that case . Woven GSCs
G were tested
t in thrree crest freeeboards
(Rc = -00.2 m, 0.0 m,
m +0.496 m,m in modell scale) and therefore numerical
n siimulation were
w per-
formed to obtain additional data betweeen Rc = -0 0.2 m and Rc R = 0.0 m. Figure 3-3 31 well-
illustratted that thee hydraulicc stability of crest GSCs
G of a submergedd/low-cresteed GSC-
o both the relative creest freeboarrd and the surf similariity parameteer which
structurre depends on
is confirmed by Fiigure 5-9 . Since theree are no cleear boundariies betweenn the two im mportant
damagee categories, “no damaage” (DC 00) and “inciipient motio on” (DC 1)), data weree plotted
with thhe stability number Ns N and a m modified rellative freeb board Rc*m mod = Rc*/ξξ0 where
*
Rc = Rc/Hm repressents the reelative crestt freeboard and ξ0 the surf similaarity parameeter, and
new hyddraulic stabbility curvess were thenn developed d. Based on n the hydrauulic stability y results
from reggular wave tests, a curv ve which diistinguishess the “no daamage” (DC C 0) and thee “incipi-
ent mottion” (DC 1) 1 damage levels was first drawn n (Figure 5-10).
5 Heree, stability numbers
n
d (i.e. Rc*mood = Rc*/ξ0, with Rc* = Rc/Hm).
were plootted againsst modified relative creest freeboard
Each reegular wavee test consissts of 100 wwaves and th he mean waave height H m and mean wave
period Tm from the time domaain analysis were consiidered when n calculatingg the stabiliity num-
ber Ns aand the wavve steepens S0 .

bmerged GSCC-structures mmade of nonwo
oven, 80%
filled GSCs (series NW80 0H with Rc = -0.25 m ~ +0..096 m / regullar wave tests with Hm)
mograms 146
The “inncipient mootion” curvee shows thhe lowest hydraulic

h sttability arouund Rc*mod = -0.08,
which ccorrespondss to a crest freeboard oof ca. Rc = -0.05 m (in n model scaale). Thereffore, nu-
merical modelling was mainlly focusing on this ran nge of cresst freeboardds. For all non-zero
n
relative crest freebboards there is a tendenncy of increeasing damaaged levels as the test parame-
ters movve upwardss from the cu urve. Howeever, one off the main liimitations oof the modiffied rela-
*
tive creest freeboardds Rc mod = (Rc/Hm)/ξₒₒ is, when RcR = 0, it does
d not shoow the influuence of
the surff similarity parameter
p (see Figure 33-28). Therrefore, theree are no cleaar differences in the
damagee categories when moveed upwards from the “iincipient mo otion” curvee.
Similarlly, new stabbility curvess are develooped for oth

her two testt series, nonnwoven 100 0% filled
GSCs (N NW100H - Figure 5-11) and wovven 80% fillled GSCs (W80H ( - Fiigure 5-12).. In both
figures, the data pooints showing “no dam mage” (DC 0) are less than those in Figure 5-10,
5 be-
cause thhe test paraameters werre carefullyy selected too obtain the thresholdd limit betw ween “no
damagee” and “incipient motion” (DC 1 ) damage levels. l Wheenever it w was evident that the
wave paarameters werew not suffficient to ddamage the structures, those tests were omittted from
the origginal test proogramme.

merged GSC-structures maade of nonwovven, 100%
filled GSCs (series NW10 00H with Rc = -0.25 m ~ +0 0.096 / regulaar wave tests w
with Hm)
mograms 147

merged GSC-sstructures madde of woven, 80%
8 filled
GSCs (seriees W80H / Rc = -0.25 m ~ + +0.096 / regulaar wave tests with
w Hm)
Since nnonwoven GSCs

G were tested onlyy with threee crest freebboards, therre is a largee gap of
data. Thhis gap was filled with the numericcal simulatiion results (COBRAS-U UC/UDEC)).
Furthermmore, if somme damage level is acccepted in thee engineerin

ng practice, then there is a pos-
sibility to select parameters
p above
a the hhydraulic sttability curves presentted in Figuure 5-10,
Figure 55-11 and Fiigure 5-12, even thoughh in GSC-structures, generally noo damage is allowed
(Hornseey et al. 20111).
5.4 Simple Staability Forrmulae

The hyddraulic stability of rockk armours aat the crest of
o a low-creested and suubmerged breakwa-
b
ter has been extennsively investigated byy several ressearchers over the lastt three decaades and
several hydraulic stability form
mulae were developed based on th hose results.. Among them, Van
deer Meeer (1988), Van der Meeer and Pilaarczyk (1990), Vidal ett al. (1992), Vidal et al. (1995),
Burger (1995), Burrcharth et all. (2005), CCappietti (20
011), etc. arre noteworthhy. Apart frrom that,
Kramerr et al. (2005), Van derr Linde (20 10) and van n den Bosch h et al. (20112), etc. stu
udied the
hydraulic stability of interlockking armouur units at thhe crest (e.g
g. Dolos, X X-block, etc.). How-
ever, thhe investigaations on th
he hydraulicc stability of
o crest GSCs of low-ccrested and d/or sub-
merged GSC-structtures (See Dassanayak
D ke and Oumeraci 2013cc for furtherr details) aree limited
to a few
w series of experimenta
e al studies (F
Figure 5-13)) namely; Oumeraci
O et al. (2002a)), Oume-
mograms 148
raci et aal.(2002b) and

a Mori (2009). Givenn the range of Rc/Hs vaalues testedd in previous studies
(Figure 5-13), the formulae developed
d un
under the cu urrent study
y (eq. 5.9) ccovers relatiive crest
freeboarrds of -2.0 ≤ Rc/Hs ≤ +0.5
+ in ordeer to bridge the knowleedge gaps oon the hydraaulic sta-
bility off low-cresteed and subm merged GSC C-structuress. The possibilities to eextend the range of
validityy of the form
mulae by inccorporating previous hy ydraulic staability tests were examiined and
results aare presenteed in Section
n 5.5.
Figure 5--13: Applicabiility of previou

us and current
nt formulae in terms of relative crest freebboard
A new w hydraulic stability formula foor “incipien nt motion”” of crest GSCs in a low-
crested//submerged GSC-struccture was deeveloped using the staability curvves drawn in
n Figure
5-10, Fiigure 5-11 and
a Figure 5-12.
5 This fformula can
n be written as;
2
 Rc 1   Rc 1 
Ns o  A     B   C (5.9)
 H o   H o 
where; Ns  H / (GSC /w )  1  lc sin   and  o  tan  / H / L0
and wherre;
A, B, annd C = empiirical param meters depennding on thee type of geotextile mat
aterial and th
he sand
fill ratioo, which aree derived fro
om the hydrraulic stabillity tests [-]
H = Hm for regularr wave tests or H2% for irregular wave tests [m m]
Hm = inncident mean wave heeight from regular waave tests measured m at intermediaate water
depth (aat the beginnning of the foreshore sllope) [m]
H2% = m mean of thee highest 2%% of the inccident wavees in a time series (meaan of the highest 20
incidentt waves from m the wavee reflection analysis off 1000 wavees and for a Rayleigh distribu-
tion the values H2% % = 1.4 Hs)[mm]
Rc = creest free boarrd [m]
L0 = waave length att deep wateer
Ns = staability numbber [-]
w = dennsity of watter [kg/m3]
G [kg/m3]
lc = lenggth of a GSC C [m],
 = sloppe angle of the structurre [°],
mograms 149
L0 = g T2/(2) = deeep water wave length ccalculated using

u the meean wave peeriod [m]
When eeq. 5.9 is used for the stability

s calcculations with
w the dataa from irreggular wave tests,
t the
mean wwave height Hm can be replaced
r byy H2%. Here H2% is the representattive wave height for
tests wiith wave spectrums insstead of thee commonly y applied Hs. In some coastal eng gineering
applicattions such as
a the desig gning of low
w-crested ruubble mountt breakwateers on depth h limited
foreshorres, H2% was
w found as a a better rrepresentatiive value for
f design tthan the sig gnificant
wave heeight Hs (VVan der Meeer 1988, V Van der Meer 1998, Ro ock Manuaal 2007). Th herefore,
both Hs and H2% were
w consideered in the aanalysis and d found, H2% % is a betterr representa
ative val-
ue for thhe hydraulic stability of
o crest GSCCs of a low-crested or submerged GSC-structture (see
Section 3.4.5 and section
s 5.5)..
The appplicability range

r is given in Tablee 5-1 and th
he values foor A, B andd C constan nt for the
tested teest series arre provided in Table 5- 2. The curv
ves are plottted in Figurre 5-14 for compari-
c
son.
Table 5-11: Validity rannge of the new
w hydraulic staability formulaae
Table 5-22: Empirical parameters

p for the new hydrraulic stability
y formula
As show wn in Figurre 5-14, the hydraulic sstability currves for twoo different ggeotextile materials
m
(woven and nonwooven) tend to converge as the subm mergence deepth increasses. The diffferences
betweenn woven annd nonwoveen GSCs aree reduced in n terms of the
t hydraullic stability (e.g. for
Rc = -0.2 m, Figuree 3-34), maainly becausse of differeent dominan nt failure meechanisms (see
( Sec-
tion 3.4.8 and Figuure 5-8).
Furtherm more, 100% % filled GS SCs show ssmaller overrlapping len ngths comppared to 80 0% filled
GSCs. T The overlappping length h is importaant for the overall stab
bility of low
w-crested sttructures
as the ppossibility of pulling ou
ut or overturrning of slo
ope elementss could be hhigher. How wever, as
the subm mergence depth
d increaases, only tthe crest ellements govvern the staability of th
he entire
mograms 150
structurre. Thereforre, nonwoveen 80% andd 100% filleed curves teend to diverrge as the submerg-
ence deppth increasees (see Secttion 3.4.7 annd Figure 5--14).
Figure 5--14: Incipient motion curvess derived from

m regular wave tests
Even thhough equattion 5.9 was developedd based on an extensiv

ve series off experimen ntal stud-
ies, the results from
m previous experimenntal studies and numeriical simulattions were used for
the validdation (see Section 5.5).
Nonwovven 80% fillled and 100 0% filled GSCs were teested for sev veral crest ffreeboards, whereas
the wovven 80% fillled GSCs were
w testedd only for th
hree different crest freeeboards. Th herefore,
the stabbility curve for woven geotextile is relatively y less reliab
ble unless m more data from
f the
numericcal simulatiions are addded to the pplots. Thereefore, the validated
v COOBRAS-UC C/UDEC
model w was used foor the simulaation of addditional cresst freeboard
ds, in order to extend thhe range
validityy of the form
mulae (Dassanayake andd Oumeracii 2012f)
Moreovver, Coghlann et al (2009) and Hornnsey et al. (2011)

( havee conductedd experimen
ntal stud-
ies on thhe hydrauliic stability of
o GSC-revvetments wiith three non-overtoppiing seawardd slopes;
1:1, 1:11.5 and 1:2 and found d 1:1 slope provided the
t highest stability aggainst wavee attack.
Therefoore, only 1:11 slope is co
onsidered inn this PhD study.
mograms 151
5.5 V
Validity off Proposed Stabilitty Nomog
grams and
d Formulaae
Finally, instead of defining tw wo separate stability cuurves for the tests withh regular waaves and
irregulaar waves, thhe possibility of using tthe same sttability curv
ves (Figure 5-14) for both
b type
of wavees were studdied. Here, the irregulaar wave tesst data (test series NW W80H) are plotted in
Figure 55-18 by usinng the charaacteristic w
wave height H2%, which h is the mean
an of the hig
ghest 2%
of the w
waves in thee time series (mean of the highestt 20 inciden nt waves froom the wav ve reflec-
tion anaalysis and for
f a Rayleiigh distributtion of the values H2% % = 1.4 Hs). The results s show a
w the initiial curve devveloped forr regular waave test (seee Figure 5-10).
better aggreement with
Moreovver, the hyddraulic stabiility curve ffor 80% no onwoven GS SCs is validdated by co omparing
the dataa from two previous
p model tests cconducted by b Oumeraci et al. (20002a and 200 02b) in a
small sccale model (2 m wide wave flumee of LWI, Braunschwe
B eig) and in a large scalle model
wave flume GWK, Han
(large w nnover) to sstudy the hy ydraulic stabbility and thhe hydraulicc perfor-
mances of low-crested GSC-sstructures. O One of the main
m objecttives of thesse experimeents was
to identtify the mosst relevant parameters
p for the hyddraulic stability of highh overtoppin ng GSC-
structurres. In addittion, the hy
ydraulic perrformance of o these GS SC-structurees was also investi-
gated. TTwo differeent types off structuress were testeed: low-cressted reef sttructures an nd revet-
ments ((Figure 5-15). The app plicability oof new form 5 for nonnwoven 80% filled
mula (eq. 5.8)
GSCs w was verified using the hydraulic
h staability resullts from these two scalee model stuudies.
Figure 5--15: Small (LW WI) and large (GWK) scalee model tests on the hydrau
ulic stability oof crest GSCs by Oume-
raci et al. (2002a and 2002b)
mograms 152
The maiin reasons for

f the selecction of thesse two speciific model studies
s are;
(i) the currrent PhD sttudy is focuused on sub bmerged/low-crested G GSC-structu ures and
the dataa sets from these two studies aree most relev vant as in bboth cases the tests
were peerformed wiith 80% filleed nonwoveen GSC and d with 1:1 seeaward sloppe.
(ii) Since most
m of the model testss were perfo formed eitheer with zeroo crest freeb
board or
with negative crestt freeboardss, with the help
h of these data sets, it is possib ble to ex-
tend thee range of validity of thhe new form
mula.
Figure 55-16 providdes an imprression of tthe tested relative cresst freeboardds (Rc*=Rc//H) with
irregulaar tests perfformed in th
he current P
PhD study and from th he previouss hydraulic stability
tests byy Oumeraci et al. (20022a and 20022b). The creest freeboardds of irreguular wave teests from
the currrent study cover
c a widde range froom -3.0<(RRc/Hs)<+ 1.0. Howeverr, most of the tests
were peerformed with
w negative crest freeeboards. Th herefore, thee results froom Oumeraaci et al.
(2002a and 2002b) are useful to t extend thhe validity of
o the formuula for low-ccrested stru
ucture.
Even thhough the damage classification syystem used by Oumeraaci et al. (22002a and 2002b)
2 is
differennt from whaat was prop
posed in Tabble 3-6, dammage definitions; “stabble” and “little dis-
placemeent” in the two formerr studies arre considereed as equiv
valent to thee damage leevel “no
damagee” (DC 0) annd “incipien
nt motion” ((DC =1) in the
t current study.
Figure 5--16: Hydraulic stability tesst data for low

w-crested/subm
merged GSC--structures maade of nonwooven, 80%
filled GSCs (series NW80 0H with Rc = -0.25 m ~ +0..096 / Irregulaar wave tests w
with Hs)
The stabbility curve derived fro

om regular wwave tests (Figure
( 5-100) was thenn compared with the
hydraulic stability results from
m irregular w
wave tests. Each irreguular wave teest consists of 1000
irregulaar waves (JO
ONSWAP spectrum).
s H
Here, the ch
haracteristic wave heighht Hm0 and the peak
mograms 153
wave peeriod Tp froom the frequuency domaain analysiss were consiidered whenn calculatin ng stabil-
ity num
mber Ns and wave steep pness So. Ass shown in Figure 5-17 7, when thee stability nuumber is
plotted against the modified crest
c freebooard, the staability numbber appearss to be loweer for ir-
regular waves withh height Hm0m than for r
regular wav ves with hei
ight Hm. Thherefore, in order to
developp an “incipieent motion”” curve for tthe irregulaar wave testss, the test da
data should either
e be
plotted with differeent parametters (e.g. H22% or Hmax) or new em mpirical paraameters for the new
formulaae should bee found.

bmerged GSC
C-structures m
made of nonwo oven, 80%
filled GSCs (series NW80H with Rc = -0.25 m ~ +0.096 / Irregu ular wave testts with significant wave
height, Hs)
Finally, instead off defining a separate sttability curv ves (or find
ding new em mpirical parrameters
for the nnew formulla) for the tests
t with reegular wavees and irreggular waves,, the irregullar wave
test dataa are plottedd in Figure 5-18 by usinng the characteristic wave
w height H 2%. When n plotting
the dataa from Oum meraci et all. (2002a an
and 2002b), assuming a Rayleighh distributio on in the
measureed wave heights, charaacteristic waave height H2% is obtaained as H2%% = 1.4 Hs. The re-
sults shoow a betterr agreement with the innitial curve developed for regular wave test usingu the
mean w wave height Hm. Thereffore, when uusing the fo ormula (eq. 5.9), it is ppossible to use H2%
as the reepresentativve wave height for irreggular wavess.
mograms 154

bmerged GSC C-structures m
made of nonwo
oven, 80%
filled GSCs (series NW80 0H/Rc = -0.255 m ~ +0.096 / Irregular wav
ve tests with H 2%)
The new w hydraulicc stability fo

ormula is thhen plotted in Figure 5-19 togetheer with otheer availa-
ble formmulae (Tablle 2-8) for the Rc = 0 m case. Th he new formmula resulteed in slightlly larger
GSC lenngths lc thaan those fromm the simplle stability formula forr crest contaainers by Oumeraci
O
et al. (2002b). Sincce the crest formula byy Oumeraci et al. (20022b) was deve veloped afterr several
small sccale (at LW
WI) and larg ge scale (at GWK) lab boratory testts (sand filll ratio = 80
0%) with
relative crest freebboards of Rc/H
R s = 0 ~ 1.3, the reeliability off the formuula for low w-crested
GSCs-structure witth those creest freeboardds is high. Therefore,
T the new form mula was co ompared
with thee formula frrom Oumeraaci et al. (20002b).
The new w formula for nonwov ven 80% fi filled GSCs provides slightly
s largger (ca. 10%
%) GSC
lengths lc than the formula off Oumeraci et al. (2002 2b). Therefo
ore, the neww formula might
m re-
sult in sslightly consservative reesults for rellative crest freeboards; Rc/Hs = 0 ~ 1.3.
Moreovver, as expeected the curve for N NW100H resulted in sllightly smaaller (ca. 8% %) GSC
lengths lc than those calculateed with the formulae of
o Oumeraci et al. (20002b) for 80 0% filled
GSCs. T Therefore the
t new forrmula prediicts the hyd draulic stab
bility of 80% % and 100 0% filled
GSCs w with a reasoonable accuuracy for th e low-crestted structuree subject too irregular wave
w at-
tack. Hoowever, no experimenttal data are yet available to perform m a final vaalidation off the new
formulaa for fully suubmerged GSC-structu
G ures (Rc<0)..
mograms 155
Figure 5--19: Comparisson between new

n hydraulic stability form mula and otherr available forrmulae for thee design of
crest GSCs of
o a low-crestted GSC struccture with Rc = 0 m
mograms 156

Remarks
A main objective of o this studyy is to find out how reecent and paast experim mental investtigations
and num merical sim
mulations aree incorporatted for the developmen nt of new ssimplified hydraulic
h
stabilityy formulae based
b on . Chapter
C 2 crritically rev
views existin
ng stability formulae and
a nom-
ograms with a sum mmary of th he results aare provided d in Table 2 8. Comppared to suffficiently
high suurface-pierciing structurres (i.e. witthout excesssive wave overtoppinng), submerrged and
low-crested GSC-sstructures have
h criticall knowledg ge gaps relaated to the hydraulic stability.
s
Therefoore, systemaatic investiggations werre carried out, primarilly to recognnize the parrameters
importaant for the hydraulic staability. The main resultts of Chapteer 5 can be rrecapitulatees as:
 AAs a part of chapter 5,, a thoroughh and a systematic anaalysis of thee process-baased sta-
bbility formuulae of Reccio (2007) w was performmed. Based on the outc tcomes of thhis anal-
yyses, a simpplified versiions of the fformulae were proposeed (Figure 5 7).
 UUsing the newn experimmental and numerical results from m regular w wave tests, new hy-
ddraulic stabbility nomog grams weree developed d for horizo ontally placeed, nonwov ven 80%
ffilled GSCss, nonwoven n 100% fillled GSCs and woven 80% 8 filled GGSCs. The stability
ccurve for 800% filled no onwoven G SCs was latter extended d to irregulaar waves coombining
tthe results of
o the curreent and pastt experimen ntal studies with wave spectra. It was w then
sshown that the stability y curves deeveloped using regular wave test ddata can alsso be ap-
pplied for irrregular wav ves by substiituting the mean
m wave height Hm oof regular waves
w by
ccharacteristtic wave heeight H2%. This stabillity curve was w validatted for low w-crested
sstructure ussing the exp perimental ddata from small
s and laarge scale teests from Oumeraci
O
eet al. (2002a, 2002b)
 FFinally a neew hydrauliic stability fformula wass proposed for submergged/low-creest GSC-
sstructures. Not
N only in submergedd structures,, but also in n most of thee low-cresteed struc-
ttures, the crritical elemeent are the G
GSCs at thee crest. Therrefore, this formula app plies on-
lly for the inncipient mottion of crestt GSCs (Fig gure 6 1 andd Figure 6 22).
 FFor sufficieently high structures
s suuch as nonee overtopping revetmeents, where stability
oof slope GS SCs close too the free wwater surfacee is critical,, Hudson likke stability formula
ffrom Oumeeraci et al. (2 2002b) can be applied as the form mula is deveeloped and validated
v
wwith both sm mall and larrge scale exxperimental data.
It is impportant to sttress that th

he stability ccurves are developed
d solely
s basedd on small scale
s ex-
perimennts (averagee length of a model G GSC ≈ 0.14 m) and tw wo types of geotextiles (woven
geotextiiles with intterface fricttion angle = 13.33⁰ and d nonwoven n geotextilee with interfface fric-
tion anggle = 22.64⁰⁰). Due to th he lack of llarge scale data
d or field d data, it is still not po
ossible to
fully vaalidate (for submerged
s GSC-structu
G ures) the cu
urves for diffferent scalees though thhe stabil-
ity curvves are preseented in a non-dimensi
n ional form. Some of the previous eexperimental inves-
tigationns (e.g. Oum meraci et al. 2002a, 20002b) have shown scalle effects w when compaare small
scale tesst results wiith large scaale results. T
Therefore, these
t curvess should be used cautio ously.
Suummary, Co
onclusions, Recommen
ndations and
d Outlook 157
6 Su
ummary,, Conclu
usions, R
Recommeendation
ns and O
Outlook
More veersatile matterials and innovative
i ssolutions arre required for the desiign of new,, cost ef-
fective shore proteection structtures. Geoteextile Sand Containers (GSC) is a low cost, soft and
reversibble solution for the aboove problemm with a hiistory of mo ore than 500 years in hydraulic
h
and marrine applicaations. In thhe earlier ap
applications,, coastal GS SC-structurres were considered
as tempporary or shhort term solutions. Thee main conccerns were the durabiliity issues su uch UV-
resistannce, biologiccal effects, abrasion aand damagee resistancee, etc. How wever the extensive
e
researchh works connducted during the reccent past an nd their fin
ndings remaarkably redu uced the
weaknesses of coasstal structurres made off GSCs.
Neverthheless, GSC C is still an emerging teechnology and

a no prop per guidelinnes are available for
the desiign of GSC C-structures on a soundd scientific base.
b Due to
t the flexibbility and th
he lower
specificc gravity of GSCs as co ompared too rock or cooncrete armo our units, G
GSCs behav ve differ-
ently annd thereforee, the establiished designn formulae for rock or concrete unnits are not applica-
ble. A few formullae were deeveloped foor the prediiction of th he hydraulicc stability of
o GSC-
structurres and amoong those, thet formulaae developeed by Recio o (2007) aree the only process-
based hhydraulic staability form
mulae for GS SCs. Howev ver, these fo
ormulae stilll need to bee simpli-
fied andd refined in order to maake them moore user frieendly for prracticing enggineers.
This PhhD study atttempts to evaluate

e thee effect of th
he most im mportant enggineering prroperties
on the hhydraulic sttability of GSC-structu
G ures and too develop neew formulaae for the hydraulic
h
stabilityy of crest GSCs
G for sub bmerged/low w-crested GSC-structu
G ures. The mmost importaant engi-
neering properties of GSCs arre the mechhanical prop perties of thhe geotextilee material, the sand
fill ratioo, the type of
o the fill material
m and the interfacce friction. However,
H thhe knowledge about
the influuence of thee sand fill ratio and thee interface friction
f of GSCs
G on thee hydraulic stability
of GSC-structure iss still very poor.
p Nonee of the exiting formulaae for the hyydraulic staability of
GSC-strructures acccounts for the sand filll ratio. Moreover, a cleear definitioon for a san nd fill ra-
tio is stiill lacking. Therefore, a proper deefinition forr the sand fill
f ratio bassed on a sy ystematic
investiggation on thhe relationsships betweeen the sand d fill ratio and the hyydraulic staability of
GSC-strructures is crucial,
c to achieve
a a beetter understtanding of thhe hydrauliic functionin ng GSC-
structurres under thhe wave attaack. Furtheermore, Reccio (2007) identified
i thhe interfacee friction
betweenn GSCs as an importan nt parameteer that conssiderably afffects the hyydraulic staability of
GSC-Sttructures. Moreover,
M a friction facctor between n containerss (μ) is alreeady includeed in the
formulaae of Recio. Despite of the interfface friction n already in ncorporated in the form mulae of
Recio (22007), the effect of in nterface fricction properrties is still not fully eexplained orr experi-
mentallyy verified.
Therefoore, the maiin contributions of thiss thesis are: (i) improvvement of thhe understan nding of
the influuence of keey engineeriing propertiies of GSCss; the sand fill ratio annd the interfface fric-
tion bettween GSCss on the hydraulic stabbility of coaastal GSC-sstructures annd (ii) deveelopment
of stabillity formulaa that accou
unt for thesee two engineeering propeerties.
Suummary, Co
ndations and
d Outlook 158
To achiieve an impproved undeerstanding oon the impo ortant engineeering propperties of GSCs that
affect thhe hydraulicc stability of
o GSC-struuctures, expeerimental an
nd numericaal studies were
w per-
formed focusing onn the follow wing issues:
(i) factoors influencing the sand d fill ratio oof GSCs, (iii) Developm ment of a phhysically-baased and
o GSC (iii) effect of thhe sand fill ratio on
practicaally feasiblee definition of the sandd fill ratio of
the hydrraulic stabillity of structures made of GSCs (iv nfluencing tthe friction between
v) factors in
GSCs (vv) influencee of the pro operties of ggeotextile materials
m andd the sand ffill ratio on the fric-
tion bettween GSC Cs and ultim mately on thhe hydrauliic stability of GSCs (vvi) methodo ology to
properlyy represent friction bettween GSC s in the num merical mod delling of G
GSC-structu ures (vii)
Refiningg the Recioo’s (2007) formulae,
f m
mainly conssidering thee stability oof submergeed GSC-
structurres (viii) Deevelopmentt of empiriccal relationsships for th he hydraulicc stability ofo GSCs
based onn further exxperimental and numeriical investig gations
First, thhe present knnowledge reelated to thee engineerin ng propertiees of GSCs and their efffects on
the stabbility of GSSC-structurees, and exissting hydrau ulic stability
y formulae for GSC-sttructures
were crritically reviewed. Seco ond, four s eries of esppecially dessigned laborratory expeeriments,
which aallowed to have
h an insiight into thee influence of the abov ve mentioneed propertiees on the
stabilityy of GSC-sttructures an nd also to obbtain the reqquired parameters for tthe numericcal mod-
elling of their stabiility, were performed.
p E
Experimenttal investigaations consissted of two types of
laboratoory experim ments (drop tests and puullout tests)), small scaale wave fluume tests (h hydraulic
stabilityy tests) and hydraulic flume tests (permeabillity tests). Third,
T num
merical modeelling of
GSC-strructures waas conducteed using a w weakly cou upled RANS S-VOF moddel and FEM M-DEM
models (COBRAS S-UC/UDEC C). This waas the best feasible option to num merically model
m the
hydraulic stability of GSC-strructures in tthe framew work of this PhD. Finallly, combin ning both
the expeerimental annd numerical results, nnew stability y curves an nd a simple formula waas devel-
oped foor the hydraaulic stabilitty of crest GSCs and validated with w the preevious expeerimental
data froom small annd large scalle hydraulicc stability teests. The neewly developoped stabilitty curves
and sim mple stabilitty formulaee are expectted to fosteer the appliications of GSC structtures for
coastal pprotection.
This chaapter summmarises the main

m resultss and conclu usions drawwn from thiss study and provides
p
recommmendations with
w respecct to the praactical appliication of th he proposedd hydraulic stability
formulaa, including their limitaations. Finallly, the impo
ort tasks forr future reseearch are prroposed.
6.1 Summary of Main Results

R an
nd Conclu
usions
6.1.1 S
Sand Fill Ratio:
R New Definition
Based oon the resullts of an exttensive anaalysis of thee current knnowledge, seeveral mod del GSCs
were coonstructed with
w varying g geometriees, geotextille materials and sand ffill ratios. The
T main
objectivve was to deetermine prractical sandd fill ratios and to devvelop a meth
thod to preddict final
externall dimensionns of a GSCC, once the ssand fill ratiio and the dimensions
d of empty flat bag is
known. The main outcomes
o off this exerciise can be su
ummarised as follows:
Suummary, Co
ndations and
d Outlook 159
(i) A After consideering variou us parameteers and proccesses that affect

a the saand fill ratio
o, a new
deefinition forr the sand fill
f ratio of GSCs was proposed. The new deefinition caan be de-
nd fill ratio, which can be used as the
sccribed as thee initial san t represenntative paraameter to
deescribe GSC Cs. The initial sand filll ratio of a GSC is defined usinng the fully inflated
voolume of thhe empty bags describeed by (eq. 3.1) of Robin n (2004) annd the dry bulk
b den-
sitty of the sannd fill.
(ii) Tw wo types off nomogram ms (for nonw woven and woven geottextile) werre developed d to pre-
diict the final external dimensions oof GSC, oncce the sand fill f ratio andd the dimen nsions of
emmpty flat baag is known n (see Figuree 3 3). .
(iii) Thhe sand fill ratio is exppected to chaange due to o both short and long teerm processes. Most
reelevant proccesses that contribute
c too alter the sand
s fill ratiio were idenntified and the evo-
luution of the sand fill rattio is presennted as a flow chart (Fig gure 3 4).
(iv) A procedure was developed to dettermine thee final sand d fill ratio oof GSC und der field
coonditions (see Figure 3 15)
6.1.2 D
Drop Testss: New Insights in the Sinking an
nd Deforma
ation Behaaviour of GSCs
A new U Underwaterr Drop Testting Facilityy (UDTF) was w develop ped and connstructed to system-
atically investigate the sinking
g behaviourr of GSCs. Some
S of thee main desiggn concernss such as
sink vellocities, spreading of GSCs
G when released fro om the wateer surface, ddeformationns result-
ed fromm filling, hanndling and due
d to instaantaneous lo oads when hitting
h the bbottom of th
he model
were stuudied and thhe most impportant resuults can be su
ummarised as follows:
(i) Inn still waterr, the sink trajectoriess and the deviations
d from
f the innitial dropp
ping axis
m
mainly depennd on the in nitial orientaation of the GSC. When n a GSC drropped with h its larg-
esst cross secttion parallell to the watter surface, it deviates only
o 0.2 ~ 11.2 GSC len ngths af-
teer it sinks 100 times its length,
l whille other inittial orientations resultss in much laarger de-
viiations, which could ev ven reach 5 GSC length hs.
(ii) Thhe results from
fr the droop tests withh fully dry GSCs (0% saturation) showed about 25%
leess sink veloocities than those with fully saturaated GSC (100% saturaation).
(iii) A significantt decrease (20~50%)
( inn sink veloccity was ob bserved nearar the bottomm (when
thhe distance between
b thee GSC and the bottom m is less than n ca. 0.5 G SC length) and just
beefore hittingg the seabed d
(iv) D
Drag coefficiients for GS SCs, when tthey releaseed with theiir largest crross section n parallel
too the water surface, aree comparabble to those of smooth cylinders ( CD = 1.0 ~ 1.2) for
thhe tested Reeynolds num mbers Re = 22.0×104 ~ 1.5×10
1 5
h Re definedd using the sink ve-
with
loocity, u and the length scale
s of GS
SC in the sin nking directtion, D. How wever, when n a GSC
reeleased withh its smallesst cross secttion parallel to the watter surface, it shows drrag coef-
ficcients betwween 0.6 and d 1.2, whichh are higherr than that of o a smoothh cylinder for
fo tested
5 6
Reynolds num mbers Re = 4.0×10 ~ 1.5×10 .
(v) Thhe results on o the deformation of 80%~110% % filled GS SCs show thhat 90% filled con-
taainers are leess sensitivee to deformaation due to o filling proocess and du
due to the immpact on
thhe bottom, when
w droppped in deepper water. According
A to the smalll scale drop p test re-
suults, GSCs canc expand during the filling proccess (due to o the elongaation of thee geotex-
Suummary, Co
ndations and
d Outlook 160
tille material) by 3% ~ 12%.

1 Furtheermore, dropping in deeeper water could furthher elon-
gaate the geottextile skin of GSCs (aafter 15 drop
p tests, the small scalee GSCs show
wed fur-
thher 3% ~ 18% expansio ons).
6.1.3 P
Pullout Tessts: New In
nsights on tthe Effects of Sand Filll Ratio andd Friction
The pulllout tests were

w conduccted to quanntify the efffect of the sand
s fill rattio, the typee of geo-
textile m
material, seaward slope of GSC-sstructures (o overlapping g length), sttacking patttern, test
conditioons (dry or submerged d), etc. on thhe underwaater pullout forces. Thee influence of these
parametters on pulloout forces of
o crest and slope GSC Cs were then n analysed iin detail. So ome con-
cluding remarks drrawn from th he results sttudy may bee summarizzed as follow ws:
(i) Frrom the fivee different tested

t sand fill ratios (80%,
( 90%,, 100%, 1100%, and 120%), the
reesults of thee pullout tests have shhown that th he pullout forces
f increease with in
ncreasing
saand fill ratioos (or increm
ment of the weight of GSC).
G In thiis comparisson only thee amount
off sand filledd into the GSCs
G was vvaried and the
t size of the t empty bbag was un nchanged
(ssame amounnt of geotex xtile). Hencce, the weig ght of each GSC increaases as the sand fill
raatio increasees.
(ii) Inn order to determine th he optimum sand fill raatio, a non-d dimensionaal parameterr was in-
trooduced as a relative pu ullout forcee (Ratio bettween pullo out force annd the weigh ht of the
G
GSCs). Optim mal sand fiill ratios in terms of th he resistancce against ppullout of thhe GSCs
w
were found to t be betweeen 90% ~ 100%. The slope contaainers havee in averagee at least
1330% higher resistance than t the creest containerrs.
(iii) A
All the GSCs showed 30% 3 ~ 50% % higher pulllout resistaances than w what was estimated
baased on the interface friction
fr propperties of geeotextile maaterials. Thhe pullout reesistance
is roughly proportional to t the frictioon coefficieents for geotextile mateerials obtainned from
diirect shear tests.
t
(iv) G
GSCs showeed ca. 10~15 5% higher pullout forcces, when GSCs G are suubmerged. There is
noo apparent reduction in interface friction properties. Th herefore, thhis slight diifference
m
might be duee to the setttlement of G GSCs, oncee they are wet.
w Conseqquently, it is not re-
quuired to alter the jointt propertiess in numeriical modelliing, becausse, GSCs in n a low-
crrested/subm merged struccture are w wet at least once durin ng each testt and all th he GSCs
(eemerged andd submerged) will show w nearly a similar
s behaaviour.
6.1.4 HHydraulic Stability Tests:

T New Insights on
n the Effect of Sand F
Fill Ratio, Friction
F
aand GSC Placement
P
The sannd fill ratio, the type of o geotextille material and the intterface fricttion betweeen GSCs
stronglyy affect diffferent proceesses governning the hydraulic stab bility of GSSC-structurees. These
tests theerefore reprresent the firrst attempt systematicaally quantify
y the effects
ts of these engineer-
e
ing propperties and the inclineed placemennt of GSCs on the hyd draulic stabiility. The hydraulic
h
stabilityy tests weree conducted d on low-crrested GSC C-structures with both positive (eemerged)
and neggative (subm merged) cresst freeboardds. The mosst importantt outcomes of the expeerimental
studies and their immplications for the engiineering praactice can be summarissed as follow ws:
Suummary, Co
ndations and
d Outlook 161
(i) G GSCs show different

d faailure mechaanisms for different su ubmergencee depths. Moreover,
M
deepending onn the domin nant failure mechanism m for a particular GSC C-structure and
a for a
paarticular creest freeboaard, the relaative signifficance of the engineeering propeerties of
G
GSCs also vaaries.
(ii) AAs expected, for most off the low-crrested structtures, the crrest GSCs rrepresent thee critical
ellements in terms
t of thee hydraulic stability. Th herefore, when designiing low-creested and
suubmerged GSCG structu
ures, it is im
mportant to consider
c moore carefullly the most relevant
faailure mechaanisms of crest GSCs, including the effect off the most re relevant eng gineering
prroperties.
(iii) Thhe hydraulic stability ofo the crest G GSCs depen nds on bothh relative creest freeboarrd Rc/Hm
annd surf simiilarity parammeter ξ0.
(iv) Foor the testedd condition ns with a zeero freeboarrd, GSCs made m of wovven geotextile (with
ann approximaately 50% lowerl frictioon coefficieent than nonnwoven geootextile) ressulted in
400% lower sttability num mbers, whenn the incipieent motions of crest GSSCs are conssidered.
(v) Thhough mostt of the exissting studiess and recom mmendation ns for the coonstruction of GSC-
strructures (e..g. PIANC, 2011) sugggest a sand d fill ratio of 80%, GSC C with 100 0% filled
GSC show a 36 % higheer stability nnumber for surf similarrly parameteers around 5.
G 5
(vi) AApart from changing
c th
he engineeriing propertiies of GSC,, the hydrauulic stability y can be
inncreased by changing th he inclinatioon angle off GSCs in a GSC-structture. GSCs inclined
byy -15⁰ towaards the sho ore resulted in approxim mately 30% % higher stabability numb ber com-
paared to horizzontally plaaced GSCs, when the wave w conditions requireed for incipient mo-
tioon of the GSSCs are con nsidered.
(vii) IIn addition to the imprrovements oof the hydrraulic stabiliity (in term ms of incipieent dam-
agge) which arre achieved d by a higheer friction an ngle betweeen GSCs, hiigher sand fillf ratios
annd inclined placement of o GSCs, thhese parameeters also co ontribute siggnificantly to retard
thhe damage developmen
d nt of GSC-sstructures over
o the enttire storm dduration. Th herefore,
noot only the conditions required too trigger dam mage to a GSC-structu
G ure, but also
o the de-
veelopment off the damag ge over the eentire stormm duration and
a the diffe ferent damag ge levels
thhat might reesult, are eq
qually imporrtant for a comprehens
c sive quantittative assesssment of
thhe effect of the
t differen nt factors coonsidered in this study.
6.1.5 PPermeabiliity Tests: New

N Insigh
hts on the Effect
E of Sand Fill Raatio, Type of Geo-
ttextile and GSC Placeement
These ttests represeent the firstt attempt too systematiccally quantify the effeects of the sand fill
ratio, thhe type of geotextile
g material
m andd the inclin
ned placement of GSC Cs on the hydraulic
h
permeabbility of GSSC-structurees. The perm meability teests were co
onducted onn low-cresteed GSC-
structurres with a zero
z crest freeboard.
f TThe permeaably coefficcient was ddetermined for each
model cconfiguratioons and resu ults are giveen in Table 3 7. Main outcomes m may be sum mmarised
as followws:
(i) Inn spite of thhe inhomogeeneities in G

GSC-structuures (and filll, geotextilee and gaps between
G
GSCs), it is still
s possiblee to describbe the permeeability with
h Darcy’s laaw due the relative-
lyy low velociities of the porous
p flow
w
Suummary, Co
ndations and
d Outlook 162
(ii) NNonwoven 100% filled GSCs havee a ca. 3~4 times t higheer permeabiility than noonwoven
800% filled GSCs.
G This might
m be mmainly due to o the largerr gaps betweeen the 100 0% filled
G
GSCs compaared to thosee of the 80% % filled GSC Cs.
(iii)800% filled woven
w GSCss have ca. 2..5 times hig
gher permeaability coeffficients commpared to
800% filled noonwoven GSCs. Nonw woven GSCss are relativ vely more fllexible and compact
w
when they arre in water. In contrast , woven GS SCs are lesss flexible annd leave larger gaps
beetween GSC Cs. Moreov ver, due thee different textures off the wovenn (smooth) and the
noonwoven (rough) geoteextiles, the resistance of o the flow through thee gaps migh ht differ,
thhus resultingg in low perrmeability ccoefficients for 80% filled nonwovven GSCs.
(iv) Innclined placcement of nonwoven
n 880% GSCs reduces thee permeabillity of the structure
s
byy 50%.
6.1.6 N
Numerical Simulatio on of Pulloout Tests: Identification of Prroper Constitutive
M
Models forr Friction Between
B GSSCs
The hydraulic stabbility of GSC-structurres is highlly sensitivee to the friiction propeerties of

GSCs. H However, thhere were no
n detailed investigatio ons on the effect of frriction prop
perties of
GSCs. M Moreover, the
t correct representati
r ion of frictiion between
n elements iis a key facctor for a
reliable numerical modelling. Therefore, pullout tessts were sim
mulated withh the compu utational
dynamicc 2D modell UDEC 5 and
a the mainn outcomes are:
(i) A parameteriised simple rectangulaar shape was proposed for the sim mulation of GSCs in
thhe UDEC model
m by tak
king into acccount the exxternal dimension, sannd fill ratio, type ge-
ottextile mateerial, overlappping lengthhs, GSC maass, etc.
(ii) D
Different joinnt models available
a in UDEC 5 were
w tested by
b performi
ming several numeri-
caal pullout teests. Then thhe numericaal results were
w comparred with expperimental data and
thhe most appropriate con nstitutive m
models for addequate rep presentationn of both wo
oven and
noonwoven GSCs were determined.
d Based on thhe experimeental and thhe numericaal pullout
teests, interfacce friction between noonwoven GSCsG can be better reppresented using
u the
Coulomb slipp model wiith residual strength, whereas
w thee standard M
Mohr-Coulo omb slip
m
model is suffficient for thhe representtation of thee interface between
b wooven GSCs.
6.1.7 NNumerical Simulations of Hydrraulic Stab bility of GS

SC-Structuures: Impro
ovement
aand Validaation of a Partially
P Cooupled CFD
D-CSD Mod del
(i) NNumerical siimulations were

w perforrmed mainlyy to obtain additional ddata to fill the gaps
inn the laboraatory data obtained
o froom the hyd
draulic stabiility tests. D
During the process,
soome importaant improveements werre proposed to the exitiing weakly coupled CF FD-CSD
m
model system m “COBRA AS-UC/UDE EC”, includ
ding a system matic validdation of thee system
coomponent and
a the overrall weakly coupled mo odel systemm based on th the experimmental re-
suults.
(ii) COBRAS annd UDEC 4 versions byy Recio (20 007) were replaced
r witth recently released
COBRAS-UC C and UDE EC 5 modeels. Apart from
f that, new
n modifiications were intro-
Suummary, Co ndations and
d Outlook 163
duuced to simmulate the sim mplified GS SC model in n COBRAS S-UC/UDEC C modelling g system
suuch as parammeterised GSCs
G with m
more accurattely defined d physical pproperties.
(iii) Foorces actingg on each node
n at the perimeter of o the GSCCs were calcculated and d applied
seeparately, which
w allow
ws more reaalistic simulations (botth sliding aand rotation n can be
simmulated).
(iv) Seeveral hydrraulic stabiility tests w were succeessfully rep produced w with the CO OBRAS-
U
UC/UDEC model m (valid
dation).
(v) UUsing the vallidated mod del system a parameter study was then carriedd out in ord der to ex-
teend the rangge of the co onditions teested in thee laboratory
y. The mainn objective of these
simmulations tot obtain fu urther data ffor the deveelopment off hydraulic stability cuurves for
thhree test seriies, NW80H H, NW100H H and W80H H (See Figuure 6-1 and FFigure 6-2) .
6.1.8 N
New stabiliity formula
ae: Applicaability and Limitation
ns
One of the main obbjectives off this study is to devellop new sim mplified hyddraulic stability for-
mulae bbased on reecent and past p experim mental inveestigations anda numeriical simulattions. In
Chapterr 2, existingg stability fo
ormulae andd nomogram ms were critically revieewed/analysed with
a summ mary of the results in Table
T 2-8. MMost of the knowledgee gaps weree found to be b rather
related to the hydrraulic stability of subm merged and low-crest GSC-structu
G ures as com
mpared to
sufficienntly high suurface-pierccing structurres (i.e. with
hout excesssive wave ovovertopping)). There-
fore, systematic invvestigationss were condducted, main nly to identtify the paraameters releevant for
the hydrraulic stabillity. The maain results ccan be summ marizes as:
(i) A more detaiiled analysiis of the proocess based d stability foormulae of Recio (200 07) and a
simmplified veersions of th
he formulae were develloped (Figurre 5-7).
(ii) Thhen new hydraulic
h sttability nom mograms were
w develo oped for hhorizontally placed,
noonwoven 800% filled GSCs,
G nonwooven 100% filled GSC Cs and woveen 80% filleed GSCs
byy combiningg experimen ntal results from regular wave tessts and from m numericall simula-
tioons.
(iii)Thhe stability curve for 80%
8 filled nnonwoven GSCs
G was extended
e to irregular waves
w us-
inng the resullts of the cuurrent and ppast experim mental stud dies with w wave spectraa. It was
thhen shown that
t the stab
bility curvess developed d using regu ular wave teest data cann also be
appplied for irrregular waaves by sub stituting thee mean wav ve height H m of regulaar waves
byy characteriistic wave height H2% %. This new
w stability curve was validated for f low-
crrested structture using the
t experim mental data from
f small and large sscale tests from
fr Ou-
m
meraci et al. (2002a, 200 02b)
(iv) Fiinally a neww formula was
w proposeed for the hydraulic
h staability of suubmerged/low-crest
G
GSC-structurres. In mostt of those strructure, the critical element are thhe GSCs at the t crest.
Thherefore, thhis formula applies onlly for the in ncipient mottion of cresst GSCs (Figure 6-1
annd Figure 6--2).
(v) Foor sufficienntly high sttructures, H Hudson likee stability formula
f froom Oumeraaci et al.
(22002b) can be applied as the form mula is deveeloped and validated w with both smmall and
laarge scale exxperimentall data.
Suummary, Co
ndations and
d Outlook 164
Figure 6--1: New hydraaulic stability formula

f for crrest GSCs of low-crested/su
l ubmerged GSC
C-structures
Figure 6--2: Incipient motion

m curves derived from regular wave tests
6.1.9 A
Applicabiliity and Lim
mitations off the Propo
osed Stabiliity Formulaa
It is impportant to sttress that th

he new stabbility formulla and the related curve
ves in Figuree 6-1and
Figure 66-2 were deeveloped sollely based oon small scaale experim ments (averagge length of a mod-
Suummary, Co
ndations and
d Outlook 165
el GSC ≈ 0.14 m) and a two types of geotexxtiles (woveen geotextilles with inteerface friction angle
= 13.33⁰ and nonw woven geoteextile with iinterface friiction anglee = 22.64⁰).. Due to thee lack of
large sccale data or field data for
fo submergged GSC-strructures, it is still not ppossible to fully
f val-
idate thee stability curves
c for diifferent scalles though the
t stability
y curves are presented in i a non-
dimensiional form.
Also, iff the geomettrical propo ortions of GS SCs substan ntially diffeer from thosse considereed in this
study, (ii.e. length : width : heiight = 10 : 5 : 1), the sttability curvves might noot be directtly appli-
cable. TTherefore, itt is advisabble to use siimilar geom metrical prop portions as this research study
becausee, they repreesent most commonly
c uused (see Recio
R 2007, Oumeraci eet al. 2002aa, Oume-
raci et aal. 2002b, Oumeraci
O Oumeraci et al. 2012, Wilms
et al. 2007, O W et al. 2012) leng
gth/width
ratio of empty bag (length : wiidth = 1.8 : 1.0).
6.2 R
Recommen
ndations for
f the En
ngineerin
ng Practice and Futture Reseearch
Based oon the knoowledge gaiined duringg this reseaarch study, some recoommendatio
ons were
drawn ffor the enginneering pracctice and foor future research as folllows:
(i) T The COBR RAS-UC/UD DEC resultss show a reelatively goo od agreemeent with thee experi-
mmental dataa. Hence, th his CFD-C SD model system hass an encourraging poteential for
ppractical appplications. However, tthis system has seriouss limitationss because of o the 2D
ssimplificatiion of a trully 3D-probllem. Thereffore, one off the future research taasks is to
eextend the COBRAS-U UC/UDEC to a coupleed 3D-modeel system. M Meanwhile, the 2D-
mmodelling system
s shouuld be applieed thoughtffully.
(ii) B Before startting any detailed invesstigations on n hydraulicc stability off GSCs, it is
i neces-
ssarily requiired to deteermine the aactual dimeensions of the prototyppe GSC to be used.
TTwo nomoggrams (for nonwoven and woven geotextile, Figure 3-33) developed during
tthis study can
c be used for the preddiction of th he final exteernal dimennsions of GS SC, once
tthe sand filll ratio and the
t dimensioons of emptty flat bag is i known (FFigure 3-3). Howev-
eer, the exacct final dimmensions off GSCs can only be found by connstructing prototype
p
ccontainers and
a by perfo forming meaasurements.. For this pu urpose, a coomprehensiv ve meth-
oodology to determine the t final sannd fill ratio of a GSC is i developedd by consid dering all
rrelevant proocesses associated witth the consttruction of GSC structtures, which h can be
aapplied in practice
p (Fig
gure 3 15). This proced dure will guuide throughh field investigation
iis to quantiffy the deforrmations of GSC during g different phases
p of coonstruction..
(iii) FFor convenntional rubb ble mound sstructures, studies
s are available foor the prediiction of
tthe damagee for a series of storms throughoutt the lifetim me of the strructure. Thiis allows
eengineers too balance in nitial costs with expeccted mainten nance costss in order to
o reduce
tthe overall costs of thee structure aand also to possibly reeduce unexppected main ntenance
ccosts (Melbby, 2005). Since
S GSC sstructures arre highly seensitive to th
the changes in wave
pparameters,, it is essenntial to know w the damaage development in ordder to achieeve opti-
mmal GSC-sttructures by y selecting tthe proper material
m forr GSCs andd the most appropri-
a
aate inclinatiion angle off GSCs. Thiis series of experimentts has highliighted the effects
e of
eengineeringg propertiess and inclineed placemeent of GSCss on both teemporal and d spatial
Reeferences 166
ddamage devvelopment. In additionn, the awareeness of dom minant failuure modes will
w help
tto create sitte specific GSC
G solutioons by alterring the mosst relevant eengineering g proper-
tties of GSCCs.
(iv) FFor prototyype GSC-strructure a coomprehensiive monitorring program mme is essential to
eensure an optimum
o perrformance oover the enttire design life
l time annd to obtain data for
tthe validation of the hy ydraulic staability formu
ulae. A sepaarate budgeet is required for the
ccollection of
o “baselinee data set” aand for the monitoring g programmme to ensuree that the
mmonitoring will be perrformed reggularly and properly by y competentt personnel.. Results
oof such a monitoring
m programme
p can also so
o used for the
t validatiion of the hydraulic
h
sstability forrmulae, whiich are baseed on small scale experiimental resuults.
This ressearch studyy has signifficantly enhhanced the understandiing of the eengineering
g proper-
ties of GGSCs and their influeence on the hydraulic stability off submergedd/low-cresteed GSC-
structurres. Howeveer, substantiial research and develo
opment still needs to bee performed
d.
(i) A As the sandd fill ratio, the

t interfacee friction beetween GSC Cs, and the inclination angle of
GGSCs conssiderably afffect the hyydraulic staability and the t long ter erm perform mance of
GGSC-structuures, the fu uture researcch and deveelopment sh hould addreess the defin nition of
aan optimal sand fill ratio by accouunting for the t elongatiion propertiies of the geotextile
aand by balaancing the advantages
a and drawbaacks of high h and moder erate sand fiill ratios.
UUltimately, future stan ndards and gguidelines should
s explicitly consiider the eng
gineering
pparameters of GSCs.
(ii) T The ratio between the weight of G GSCs and thet maximu um tensile sstrengths off the bag
mmaterial (geeotextile) could be a rrelevant parrameter to determine
d thhe degree of
o defor-
mmation during the con nstruction aand the insttallation pro
ocess of GSSCs. However, this
ccan only bee confirmed by prototyppe tests, beccause the teensile strenggth of the geotextile
mmaterial cannnot be prop perly scale down.
(iii)CCOBRAS-U UC/UDEC modelling system has serious limitations bbecause off the 2D
ssimplificatiion of a trully 3D-probllem. Thereffore, one off the future research taasks is to
eextend the COBRAS--UC/UDEC C to a coup pled 3D-mo odel system m. A fully coupled
mmodel can then
t be used for the peerformance of more detailed and m more systemmatic pa-
rrameter studies to anallyse the effeect of furtheer friction angles
a betw
ween GSCs, seaward
sslope angle of the struccture, furtheer sand fill ratio
r of GSC
Cs on the hyydraulic staability. A
ssimilar studdy will geneerate knowlledge to develop a single hydraullic stability formula
ccontaining the
t aforemeentioned keyy engineerin ng propertiees of GSCs.. Moreover, proper-
lly calibrateed 3D-modee systems ccan be used d for the sim
mulation off large scalee models
wwith prototyype dimenssions. Thereeby, the scaaling probleems can be answered. Further-
mmore, addittional numeerical simullations can also be perrformed to vverify the formulae
f
ddeveloped forf small scale.
Reeferences 167
Reeferences
Abelev,, A.V., Valeent, P.J, Plaant, N.G., annd Holland, K.T. (2003
3), “Evaluattion and Quuantifica-
tioon of Randdomness in Free-fall Trrajectories of Instrumeented Cylinnders.” Procceedings,
O
Oceans 20033 marine tecchnology aand ocean sciences confference, Saan Diego, CA,
C Sep-
teember 22-266 (DVD-RO OM).
Ante M
Munjiza, A. (2004), Th he Combineed Finite-D
Discrete Eleement Methhod, John Wiley
W &
Soons Ltd, Enngland, ISBN
N 0-470-84 199-0
ASR (2005a), Artifficial Surfin
ng Reef Connstruction -Technical Document
D 3 ASR Consstruction
D
Document 3 – Reef Con nstruction Suummary
ASR (2005b), Artificial surfin
ng reef consstruction – Technical
T Document
D 4,, ASR Consstruction
D
Documents-G Geotextile Materials
M
BAW (1993), Merrkblatt Anwwendung voon Geotextillen Filtern an WassersstraXen. Bu
undesan-
stalt für Wassserbau, Karrlsruhe, Gerrmany.
Bear, J. (2000), Modelling
M Groundwate
G er Flow an nd Contamin nant Transpport, Coursse demo
w mdlet.com/ddemos/mgfc-course/mgfcclas.html)), Faculty of Civil
website (httpp://www.cm
Enngineering, Technion-IIsrael Instituute of Techn
nology, Haiifa, Israel
Bergadoo, D.T., Maanivannan, R. and Baalasubraman niam, A.S. (1996), Filttration Critteria For
Prrefabricatedd Vertical Drain
D Geotexxtile Filter Jackets In Soft
S Bangkook Clay, eo osynthet-
iccs Internatioonal S 1996,, Vol. 3, Noo. 1
Bezuijen A, Schrijjver R.R., Klein
K Breteller M., Berrendsen E., Pilarczyk KK.W. (20022b) Field
teests on GSC
Cs. Proceedin
ng of 7th Innt. Conferen
nce on Geossynthetics, N
Nice, France
Bezuijen A., Adel H. den, Gro oot M.B. dee and Pilarcczyk K.W. (2000),
( Ressearch on GSCs
G and
itss application in practicce, Proceediings of 27th
h Internation
nal Confereence on Coaastal En-
giineering (ICCCE) Conference, Sydnney, Ausraliia
Bezuijen A., de Grroot M. and
d Klein Bretteler M. (20 001), Geotextile tubes - analyse reesultaten
Brrutusbakprooeven, Delft
ftcluster , Thhe Netherlan
nds (in Dutch)
Bezuijen A., de Grroot M.B., Klein Breteeler M., Beerendsen E. (2004), Plaacing accurracy and
stability of GSCs,
G Proc. EuroGeo 3,, Munich, Germany
G
Bezuijen A., Oungg O., Klein Breteler
B M. , Berendsen
n E., Pilarczzyk K.W. (22002a). Mo odel tests
onn GSCs, plaacing accurracy and geeotechnical aspects. Prroc. 7th Int.. Conf. on Geosyn-
thhetics, Nice,, France
Bezuijen, A. and Vastenburg,
V , E. (2008),, Geosystem
ms, Possibilities And L
Limitations For Ap-
pllications, Prroceeding of
o EuroGeo44; Fourth European Geeosyntheticss Conferencce, Edin-
buurgh, Scotlaand, United Kingdom
Blacka, M. J., Carlley, J.T., Co
ox, R.J., Hoornsey, W.P
P. and Restaall, S.J. (20007), Field Measure-
M
m
ments of Fulll Sized Geo ocontainers , Proceedin
ngs of Austrralasian Coaasts and Po orts Con-
feerence 2007, Melbourne, Australiaa
Reeferences 168
Blacka, M.J., Carlley, J.T. an

nd Cox, R.JJ. (2008), Field
F Measu
urement of ELCOMAX
X® EL-
COROCK® Geocontain ners at Cliftoon Springs Boat
B Harbo our, Victoriaa
Bleck M
M. and Wertth K. (2012 2), Geotextille sand-filleed containerrs as structuures againstt erosion
off sandy coaasts - a comparison tto rock matterial relating design, functionaliity, eco-
efffectivenesss and costs, 12th Baltic S
Sea Geotechnical Confference, Roostock, Germ many
Bourzaeev, A. (20003), Hydrau u in einem Deckweerk aus Geo
ulische Proozesse an und otextilen
Saandcontaineern, Diplom
m-Arbeit (M Master Stuudent Project Report) LWI, TU
U Braun-
scchweig, Gerrmany (in German).
G
Bouyze, J.G. and Schram, A.R.
A (1990)), Stabiliteiit van Grondkribben en Onderwwatergol-
brrekers Opgeebouwd uit Zandworstten, TU-Delft, Studentarbeit (Masster Studentt Project
Report) (in Dutch).
D
Bretelerr, M.K. andd Pilarczyk
k, K.W. (19998), Altern
native revettments, Pilaarczyk, K. (editor),
D
Dikes and Reevetments, A.A.
A Balkem ma (publishher)
Bukreevv, V. I. andd Gusev, A. V. (1996), Motion of a sphere in a fluid duee to gravity,, Journal
off Applied Mechanics
M an
nd Technicaal Physics, Vol. 37, No
o. 4, pp 494––501
Burger, G. (1995), Stability of low-cresteed breakwaaters. Final Proceedings
P s, EU reseaarch pro-
jeect Rubble mound
m breakwater failuure modes, MAST 2 co ontract MA
AS2-CT92-0 0042. Al-
soo published in Delft Hy
ydraulics repport H1878/H2415.
Cappiettti, L. (2011), Convertin
ng Emergennt Breakwatters Into Su
ubmerged B
Breakwaters, Journal
off Coastal Reesearch, pp 479 – 483
Cazzufffi, D., Mazzzucato, A., Moraci,
M N. and Tondelllo, M. (199 99), A New
w Test Appaaratus for
fhhe Study of Geotextiless Behaviourr As Filters in Unsteadyy Flow Connditions. Geotextiles
annd Geomem mbranes Jourrnal, Vol. 1 7, Elsevier,, pp 313-329
9.
CFGG ((1986), AFNOR G380 017, Associiation Francc¸aise de No ormalisationn (French Commit-
C
teee on Geotexxtiles), La Plaine
P Saintt-Denis, Fraance (in Fren
nch).
Chen, R
R.H., Ho, C..C. and Hsu u, C.Y. (20008), The Efffect of Fine Soil Conten
ent on The Filtration
F
Chharacteristiccs of Geoteextile Underr Cyclic Flo
ows. Geosy ynthetics Intternational, 15, No.
2,, pp 95–1066. [doi: 10.1680/gein.20008.15.2.95]
Chew, S
S.H., Tian, H., Tan, S.A A. and Karurunaratne, G.P.
G (2003), Erosion staability of pu
unctured
geeotextile filtters subjected to cyclicc wave load
dings—a lab
boratory stuudy, Geotextiles and
G
Geomembrannes Journal,, Vol. 21, ppp 221–252.
Christoppher, B.R. & Holtz, R.D.
R (1985),, Geotextilee Engineering Manual,, US Federal High-
w
way Adminisstration, Reeport FHWA A-TS-86/20 03, Nationall Highway Institute, Washing-
W
toon, DC, USA
A.
Chu, P.CC., Gilles, A.F.
A and Faan, C.W. (2 004), Experriment of faalling cylindder through
h the wa-
teer column, Experimenta
E al Thermal and Fluid Scinece
S 29, pp 555-5688 Crowe C.T., Rob-
errson J.A. annd Elger D.F
F.(2001), Enngineering Fluid Mech
hanics, seven
enth ed., Joh
hn Wiley
& Sons Inc, NewN York, p. 714.
Chu, P.C
C., Gilles, A.F.,
A Fan, C.W.,
C Lan, JJ. and Fleischer, P. (20
002), Hydroodynamics of
o falling
cyylinder in water
w columnn, Advancess in Fluid Mechanics,
M 4,
4 163-181.
Reeferences 169
Coghlann, I.R., Carrley, J.T., Cox

C R.J., BBlacka,chu M.J.,
M Mariaani, A., Resstall, S.J., Hornsey,
H
W
W.P., and Shheldrick, S.M M. (2009), T
Two-Dimennsional Phyysical Modeelling of San nd Filled
G
Geocontainerrs for Coasstal Protecttion, Proceeedings of Australasian
A n Coasts an nd Ports
Conference 2009,
2 Wellin
ngton New Zealand
Corbellaa, S. and Stretch,
S D.D
D. (2012), G
Geotextile sand
s filled containers as coastal defence:
Soouth Africaan experiencce, Geotexttiles and Geomembran
G nes Journal,, Vol. 17, Elsevier,
E
ppp120-130
Cundalll, P.A. and Hart,
H R.D. (1989)
( Num
merical of diiscontinua, In
I Golden, C
Colo
CUR (22006), CUR
R 217: Ontwerpen met G
Geotextiele Zandelemeenten, Stichtting CUR, Gouda
G
Dael N.. (2009) SP
PAN 1.3 (SPatial ANnnotation) MA ATLAB co ode and Insttructions foor SPAN
1.3, downloaaded from File Exchangge, MATLA AB central, Website
W acccessed on Jan 2010,
[hhttp://www.m
mathworks.com/matlabbcentral/fileeexchange/aauthors/678813]
das Nevves, L., Loppes, M.L., Veloso-Gom
V mes, F. Tav
veira-Pinto, F., Iglesiass, G. and Garcia,
G S.
(22008), Sandd Filled Con
ntainers In D
Dune Erosio
on Control: Experimenntal Stability y Analy-
sis, Proceeding of EuroGeo4; Fourrth Europeaan Geosynth hetics Confference, Ed dinburgh,
Sccotland, Unnited Kingdoom
Dassanaayake, D.T.. and Oumeeraci, H. (20009a), Expeerimental an nd numericcal modellin ng of the
hyydraulic staability of geeotextile sannd containeers for coasttal protectioon - State of
o the art
reeport, Internnal report (N
Nr. 1), Leichhtweiß-Instiitute for Hy
ydraulic Enggineering an nd Water
Resources, Braunschwei
B ig, Germanyy.
Dassanaayake, D.T. and Oumerraci, H. (20009b), Plann
ned Researcch on the Hyydraulic Staability of
G
Geotextile Sand Contaiiners. Proceeedings of 7. FZK-Kolloquium "Potentialee für die
M
Maritime Wiirtschaft", Hannover,
H G
Germany, pp p. 45-49.
Dassanaayake, D.T.. and Oumeeraci, H. (2 010a), Sinkking Behaviiour and Deeformation of Geo-
teextile-Sand Containers-- State of tthe Art Rev
view, Intern
nal Report (Nr. 6), Leiichtweiß
Innstitute for Hydraulic
H Engineering
E and Water Resources, Braunschwweig, Germaany
Dassanaayake, D.T.. and Oumeeraci, H. (20010b), Desiign and con nstruction aaspects of fu
ully sub-
merged geoteextile sand container ( GSC) strucctures: sinking behavioour and defo
m ormation
off GSCs, Intternational Workshop on Geosyn nthetics and d Modern M Materials in Coastal
Prrotection annd Related Applications
A s, IIT Madrras, India, pp
p. 242-244..
Dassanaayake, D.TT. and Oum meraci, H. (2010c), Hydraulic
H Stability
S off Submergeed GSC-
Sttructures-Pllanned Flum
me Test- Innternal Repo ort (Nr. 08)), Leichtweiiß Institute for Hy-
drraulic Enginneering and Water Resoources, Braaunschweig, Germany
Dassanaayake, D.T. and Oumeeraci, H. (20010d), Expeerimental Sttudy on thee Effect of Sand
S Fill
Ratio on Pulllout Forces of Geotextiile Sand Co ontainers Strructures-Moodel test ressults- In-
teernal Reportt (Nr. 09), Leichtweißß Institute for
fo Hydrauliic Engineerring and Water
W Re-
soources, Brauunschweig, Germany
Dassanaayake, D.T.. and Oumeeraci, H. (2 010e), Prelliminary dro op tests on GSCs: Preliminary
laaboratory innvestigations results, Innternal Rep
port (Nr. 07)), Leichtweeiß Institute for Hy-
drraulic Enginneering and Water Resoources, Braaunschweig, Germany
Reeferences 170
Dassanaayake, D. T.T and Oum meraci, H. ((2010f): Field measurrement of pprototype geeotextile
saand containeers - draft field
f investiigation repo
ort - Internaal report (N
Nr. 10), Leicchtweiß-
Innstitut für Wasserbau,
W Technische
T Universitätt Braunschwweig
Dassanaayake, D.T.. and Oumeeraci, H. (2 011d), Effeect of the Engineering
E Properties of Geo-
teextile Sand Containers
C on their Hyydraulic Staability underr Wave Loaads, CoastD
Doc 2011
G
Graduate Sem minar, Brau
unschweig, G Germany.
Dassanaayake, D.T.. and Oumeeraci, H. (20012a), Impo ortant engin neering propperties of geotextile
ructures, 8th Interna-
saand containeers and theiir effect on the hydraullic stability of GSC-stru
ference on Coastal aand Port Engineerin
tioonal Confe ng in Devveloping Countries
C
(C
COPEDEC VIII),
V Chennnai, India, ppp 1940-19
951.
Dassanaayake, D.T. and Oumerraci, H. (20012b), Important Engineering Propperties of Geotextile
Saand Containners and Th
heir Effect oon The Hyddraulic Stab
bility of GSSC-Structurees, Terra
ett Aqua Jouurnal, Issue 127, Interrnational Association of Dredginng Companies, The
Netherlands, pp 3-11.
N
Dassanaayake, D.T. and Oumeeraci, H. (20012c), Engin neering pro
operties of ggeotextile saand con-
taainers and thheir effect on a damagee developmeent of low-crested /
o hydraulicc stability and
suubmerged sttructures, The
T Internatiional Journal of Ocean n and Climaate Systemss, Vol. 3,
Isssue 3, Multti Science Publishing,
P E
Essex, UK, pp 135-150 0.
Dassanaayake, D.T.. and Oumeeraci, H. (20012d), Hyd draulic stability of coasstal structurres made
off geotextile sand contaainers: Effeect of engin
neering propperties of GGSCs, 33rd Interna-
tioonal Conferrence on Co
oastal Enginneering (ICCCE) 2012, Santander,
S SSpain, p14
Dassanaayake, D.T. and Oumeraci, H. (20012e), Effecct of fill ratio and type of geotextille on the
hyydraulic staability of Geeotextile Saand Contain geo 5, 5th
ners in coasttal engineerring. Eurog
Euuropean Geeosyntheticss Congress, Valencia, Spain
S
Dassanaayake, D.T.. and Oumeeraci, H. (20012f), Numerical modeelling of thee hydraulic stability
off GSCs withh COBRAS S-UC and UUDEC 5, Intternal reportt (Nr. 13), L
Leichtweiß--Institute
foor Hydraulicc Engineerin
ng and Watter Resourcees, Braunschweig, Germ many.
Dassanaayake, D.T.. and Oumeeraci, H. (20013a), Expeerimental an nd numericcal modellin
ng of the
hyydraulic staability of geeotextile saand containers under wave
w loads,, Proceedin
ngs of 9.
FZZK-Kolloquuium "Mod dellierung iim Seebau und Küsteeningenieurw rwesen", Haannover,
G
Germany
Dassanaayake, D.T.. and Oumeeraci, H. (20013b), Geottextile sandd container structures for
f shore
nd
prrotection – hydraulic stability
s forrmulae and nomogram ms, 2 Interrnational Workshop
W
onn Geosyntheetics and Modern
M Mateerials in Coastal Protecction and Reelated Appllications,
IIT Madras, Cheanni,
C In
ndia, pp 68-881.
Dassanaayake, D.T.. and Oumeeraci, H. (22013c), New w Hydraulicc Stability FFormulae for
fo GSC-
Sttructures, Innternal repo
ort, Leichtw
weiß-Institu
ute for Hyd
draulic Engiineering annd Water
Resources, Braunschwei
B ig, Germanyy.
Dassanaayake, D.T. and Oumeeraci, H., W Werth, K. and d Heerten, G.
G (2013), SSetting up monitor-
m
inng plans to assess
a the performance
p e and the du
urability of exposed geeotextile enccapsulat-
edd sand elemments in co oastal enginneering appplications, 2nd Internatiional Workkshop on
G
Geosyntheticcs and Mod dern Materiials in Coasstal Protection and Reelated Appllications,
IIT Madras, Cheannai,
C India, pp 11 5-128.
Reeferences 171
Dassanaayake, D.T.., Oumeraci, H. and S Streicher, M.

M (2011a), Sinking beehaviour an nd defor-
m
mation of geeotextile sannd containeers during in
nstallation of
o scour prrotection forr marine
annd offshore structures, Proceedinggs of 8. FZK
K-Kolloquiu um “Maritimmer Wasserrbau und
K
Küsteningeniieurwesen”,, Hannover,, Germany, pp. 33-38
Dassanaayake, D.T.., Oumeraci, H. and S Streicher, M.
M (2011b), Sinking beehaviour annd defor-
m
mation of geootextile san
nd containerrs – Experim and Results, Internal
mental Investigations an
Report (Nr. 11),
1 Leichtw weiß Instituute for Hyd
draulic Engineering andd Water Reesources,
Brraunschweiig, Germany y
Dassanaayake, D.T., Soysa, A., Munith-H adi, F. and Oumeraci, H. (2011c),, Hydraulic stability
off low-cresteed GSC-strructures, Innternal repo
ort (Nr. 12),, Leichtweiiß-Institute for Hy-
drraulic Enginneering and Water Resoources, Braaunschweig, Germany.
Davidsoon, M. A., Bird, P.A A.D., Bullocck, G.N. and
a Huntleyy, D.A. (19996), A neew non-
diimensional number forr the analyssis of wavee reflection from rubblle mound breakwa-
b
teers, Coastal Eng., 28, 93
3- 120.
De Grooot . M.B., Klein Breteeler M. andd Bezuijen A. (2003), Results off geotextile tube re-
otextile tubee onderzoeek), Final project repport (DC1-321-11),
seearch (Resuultaten geo
D
Delftcluster , The Netherlands (in D
Dutch)
De Grooot, M.B., Klein

K Breteleer M. and B
Berendsen E.
E (2004), Feasibility
F oof Geocontaainers At
Thhe Sea, Prooceedings Of
O 29th Inteernational Conference
C on
o Coastal Engineering (ICCE
20004) Conferrence, Lisbo
on, Portugall
Delft H
Hydraulics (11975), Artifficial Islandd in the Bau
ufort-sea: M 1271 part III, Compaarison of
stabilty of shhore protecttion with ggabions and d sand sausaages (2-dim
m); M 1271 part V,
stabilty of shhore protecction with ssan dsaugess on circulaar insland ((3-dim), Deelft, The
N
Netherlands
Delft H
Hydraulics (1994),
( Stab
bility of Geeotubes® and
a Geocontainers®, R
Report Prep
pared for
N
Nicolon b.v.,, Delft, The Netherlandds
Deltrarees (2008), Large
L Scale Physical M Model Test on o the Stability of Geoocontainers,, by Van
Stteeg, P and Klein Breteeler, M., Deeltares reporrt prepared for
f Delft cluuster
Deltrarees (2010), Large
L Scalee Physical M
Model Testt on the Staability of G
Geotextile Tu
ubes, by
V
Van Steeg annd Vastenbuurg, E.W., DDeltares report prepared
d for Delft ccluster
EurOtopp (2007), European
E Ov
vertopping Manual. Edds Pullen, T.,
T Allsop, NN.W.H., Brruce, T.,
K
Kortenhaus, A.,
A Schüttru
umpf, H.., V
Van der Meer, J.W., ww
ww.overtoppping-manual.com.
Fakhim
mi, A. (2008), A hybrid d discrete-finnite elemen
nt model forr numericall simulation
n of geo-
m
materials, Elssevier, Com
mputers and Geotechniccs, Vol 36 (2 2008), pp 3386-395.
Fowler, J. and Traainer, E. (1998), Overrview of geeocontainer projects inn the United
d States.
Prroceedings of the Westtern Dredginng Conferennce, Housto
on, TX, USA A.
Fowler, J., Toups, D. and Du uarte, F. annd Gilbert, P.
P (1995), Geotextile
G C
Contained Dredged
D
M
Material, Redd Eye Crossing, Batonn Rouge, LA A.” Proceed
dings, Westeern Dredgin
ng Asso-
ciiation 16th Technical
T Conference,
C 28th Annuual Texas AandM Dreddging Semin nar, Uni-
veersity of Wisconsin
W Seea Grant Drredging Wo orkshop, May
M 23-24, 1995, Minn neapolis,
M
MN
Reeferences 172
Garcia, N., Lara, J.L.,

J Lomonnaco, P., Loosada, I.J. (2004b),
( Flo
ow at low-ccrested breaakwaters
unnder breakinng condition
ns. Proceeddings of the 29th Intern
national Connference on
n Coastal
Enngineering, World Scieentific, pp 44240–4252.
Garcia, N., Lara, J.L., Losadaa, I.J. (2004 a), 2-D num
merical anallysis of neaar-field flow
w at low-
crrested breakkwaters. Coaastal Engineeering 51 (1
10), pp 991–
–1020.
Giroud, J-P. (1982),Filter criteerial for geootextile, Pro
oceedings of
o 2nd internnaitonal con
nference
onn geotextilee, Las Vegass, pp 103-1008
Greben,, J.M., Coopper, A.K., Gledhill,
G I.M
M.A. and dee Villiers, R.
R (2008), N
Numerical modelling
m
off structures of dolosse and their iinteraction with
w wavess , 2nd CSIR R Biennial Confer-
ennce, CSIR Innternational Conventioon Centre Prretoria, ISBBN 97807988855730.
Grett, H
H. (1984), Das
D reibungssverhalten vvon Geotex xtilien in bin
ndigem undd nichtbindig
gem Bo-
deen, Mitteiluungen des Franzius-Ins
F stituts für Wasserbau
W und Küstenningenieurw
wese der
U
Universität Hannover
H (in
n German).
Groblerr, J.H., de Villiers,
V R, and Coopeer, A.K. (20010), Modeelling of fluuid-solid intteraction
ussing two staand-alone codes, 7th S
South Africaan Conferennce on Com mputational and Ap-
pllied Mechannics (SACA AM10), Prettoria, 10-13 January 20
010, pp 10
Grüne, J., Sparbooom, U., Schmidt-Kopppenhagen, R., R Wang, Z. and Ouumeraci, H. (2006),
Laarge-Scale Investigatio
I ons Of Geottextile Sand
d containers Used For SScour Proteection Of
O
Offshore Moonopiles Sup pporting W
Wind Energyy Turbines, Proceedinggs of OMA AE2006 :
255th Internattional Confference on Offshore Mechanics
M and
a Arctic Engineering, Ham-
buurg, Germanny
T. and Burchharth, H. F. (2000), Ann alternativee stability eq
Hald, T quation for rock armou
ured rub-
blle mound brreakwaters.. In Proceeddings of thee 27th international connference on
n coastal
enngineering (ICCE
( 2000
0) Sydney, AAustralia, pp p. 1921–1934
Heertenn, G. (1982), Dimensio oning the ffiltration prroperties off geotextiless considerin
ng long-
teerm conditioons. Proceeedings of thhe 2nd Interrnational Conference oon Geotextiiles, Las
V
Vegas, USA,, Vol. 1, pp.. 115–120.
Heertenn, G., Jacksoon, A., Restall, S. andd Saathoff, F.
F (2000), New
N Develoopments with Mega
Saand Containers of No onwoven N Needle-Punccture Geoteextile for thhe Constru
uction of
Coastal Structures, Proceedings o f Internatio onal Conferrence on CCoastal Enggineering
20000, Austraalia
Heertenn, G., Klomppmaker, J. and
a Partridgge, A. (2008
8), Design and
a Construuction of Waterfront
Sttructures With
W Special Designed N Nonwoven Geotextiles, 7th Internnational Con
nference
onn Coastal and
a Port En ngineering in Developping Countries (COPE EDEC VII), Dubai,
U
UAE.
Heieh, C
C., Wang, J.B.
J and Ch hiu, Y.F. (20006), Weathering prop perties of G
Geotextiles in Ocean
ennvironment,, Geosyntheetics Internaational, pp 210-217.
2
Hendar,, P. A. (19960), Stability of Rockk-fill break
kwaters, PhD Thesis, Chalmers Univ.
U of
Teechnology. Dept. of Hy ydr. Göteboorg, Sweden n.
Hollandd, K.T., Greeen, A.W. Abelev,
A A. and Valent, P. J. (2004), Parametterization ofo the in-
w
water motionns of falling
g cylinders uusing high-sspeed video
o, Experimeents in Fluid
ds 37, pp
6990–700
Reeferences 173
Hornseyy, W.P. Caarley, J.T., Coghlan,

C I. R. and Coxx, R.J. (201 11), Geotexxtile sand container
c
shhoreline prootection systtems: Desiggn and appliication, J. Geotextiles
G aand Geomembranes
Joournal, Vol. 29, pp 425-439
Hsu, T.-J., Sakakiyyama, T., Liu,
L P.L.-F.. (2002), A numerical model for wave motiions and
tuurbulence floows in fron
nt of a compposite break
kwater, Coastal Engineeering Journ
nal, Else-
viier, Volumee 46, pp 25––50
Hudsonn, R. (1956)), Laboratorry Investigaation of Ru
ubble-Moun
nd Breakwaaters. Journaal of the
W
Waterways and
a Harbourr Division, ppages 93-11 18.
Hudsonn, R. (1961)), Laborato
ory Investiggation of Rubble
R Mou
und Breakw
water, Transs. ASCE
1226, pages 4992-541.
Hughes, S.A. (19993), Physicaal Models aand Laboraatory Technniques in Cooastal Engiineering,
V
Volume 7. Coastal Engin neering Ressearch Centter, USA.
Hughes, S.A. (2003), Physicaal Modellingg Consideraations for Coastal
C Strucctures, Adv
vances in
Coastal Struccture Desig gn, editors M Mahan, R.K
K., Magoonn, O. and PPirrello M, Ametica
Soociety of Ciivil Engineeering, pp 977-116
Itasca C
Consultants (2011), UD
DEC Manuaal, Volume 4, Theory and
a Backgroound and Volume
V 1
U
Users Guide,, USA
Jacksonn, L.A. and Corbett,
C B.A
A. (2007), R
Review of Existing
E Mu
ulti-Functionnal Artificiaal Reefs,
A
Australasian Conferencee On Coastss And Ports 2007.
Jacksonn, L.A. and Hornsey, W.P.
W (2002) , Engineerin
ng and Artiificial Reef,
f, Geotechniical Fab-
ricc Report, Australia
A
Jacksonn, L.A., Corrbett, B.A., Restall, S.JJ. (2006), Failure
F moddes and stabbility modeelling for
deesign of sannd filled geeosynthetic units in cooastal structures, Internnational Con
nference
onn Coastal Enngineering 2006, Worlld Scientificc, San Diego o, USA, Boook of Abstrracts.
Jacksonn, L.A., Ruussell, E.R.,, Restall, S
S.J, Corbettt, B.A., To
omilinson, RR. and McGrath J.
(22004), Mariine Ecosystems Enhaancement of a Geotex xtile Coastaal Protectio
on Reef-
N
Narrowneck Reef Case Study, Procceedings off Internation nal Confereence on Coaastal En-
giineering 20004, Lisbon, Portugal.
Jacksonn, A.; Recioo, J.; Mockee, Z.; Jacksoon, L. (2012
2), Case Stuudies and L
Lessons Leaarnt from
A
Applications of Sand Fillled Geotexxtile Contain ners in the Arabian
A Guulf. 8th Interrnational
Conference On Coastaal And Porrt Engineering In Deeveloping Countries PIANC-
COPEDEC 2012, 2 Chennnai, INDIA.., pp 1068-1 1073.
Jacobs, B.K. and Kobayashi,
K N. (1983), Sandbag sttability and
d wave runuup on bench
h slopes.
U
University off Delaware , Research R
Report No. CE-83-36.
Jacobs, B.K. and Kobayashi, N. (198 5), Experim
mental Stu
udy on sanndbag stability and
ruunup.Proceeedings Coasstal Zone.
Kawasaaki, K. (19999), Numerical simulatiion of break
king and po
ost-breakingg wave defo
ormation
water, Coastal Engineering Journaal, Elsevier, Volume
prrocess arounnd a submerrged breakw
411, pp 201–2223
Reeferences 174
Klein B
Breteler, M.., Uittenboo ogaard, R.E
E. and Eysiink, W.D. (2001), Duumping accu uracy of
geeotextile tubbes in flow and waves (Storten vaan geotextille tube in sttroming en golven),
Prroject leadeer: De Groo ot M.B., DC
C1-321-5, Nov
N 2001, Delftcluster
D r , The Nettherlands
(inn Dutch)
Koernerr, G.R. andd Koerner, R.M. (20066), Geotextile tube asssessment ussing a hang
ging bag
teest, Geotextiiles and Geo
omembranees Journal, Vol.
V 24, Elsevier, pp 1229–137
Kortenhhaus, A., Van der Meeer, J., Burchharth, H.F., Geeraerts, J., Pullen, T., Ingram
m, D. and
Trroch, P. (20005), Quanttification off Measurem
ment Errors,, Model andd Scale Efffects Re-
laated to Wavee Overtoppiing, Work ppackage 7, CLASH
C pro
ogramme
Krahn, T., Blatz, J., Alfaro, M.
M and Bathhurst, R. J. (2007),
( Largge-scale intterface sheaar testing
off sand bag dyke
d materials. Geosynnthetics Inteernational, 14,
1 No. 2, 1119–126.
Kramerr, M., Zanutttigh, B., Vaan der Meerr, J.W., Vid
dal, C., Giro
onella, F.X. (2005), Laboratory
exxperiments on low-cressted breakw waters. Coasstal Engineeering 52 (100–11), 867–8885
Kübler, S. (2002), Hydraullische Stabbilität von geotextilen
n Sandconttainern untter See-
gaangseinwirkkung. Diplo omarbeit (M
Master Ressearch Projject Report
rt) am Leicchtweiß-
Innstitut für Wasserbau.
W
Kutay, MM. E. and Aydilek,
A A. H. (2004), Retention performanc
p ce of geotexxtile contain
ners con-
finning geomaaterials, Geo
osynthetics International, 11, No. 2,
2 pp 100-1 13.
Lara, J. L., Losadaa I. J., del Jeesus, M., Baarajas, G. and
a Guanche R. (2010aa), Numericcal Mod-
ellling of Waave-Structurre Interactioon With a Three
T Dimeensional Naavier-Stokess Model,
V European Conference
C on Computtational Flu uid Dynamiccs, Lisbon, PPortugal
Lara, J. L., Losada, I. J., del Jeesus, M., Baarajas, G., Guanche,
G R.
R (2010b), IIH-3VOF: A Three-
D
Dimensional Navier-Sto okes Modell for Wave and Structu ure Interactiion, In Procceedings
off the 32nd Internationaal Conferennce On Coaastal Engineeering (ICC CE 2010) Shanghai,
Chhina.
Lara, J.L., Garcia, N. and Lossada, I.J. (22006), RAN
NS modellin ng applied tto random wave
w in-
teeraction withh submergeed permeabble structurees, Coastal Engineering
ng 53 (10), Elsivier,
ppp 395–417.
Lara, J.L
L., I.J. Losaada and R. Guanche.
G (22008), Wave interaction
n with low mmound breaakwaters
ussing a RAN NS model, Ocean
O Enginneering, ELSSEVIER, 35 5, pp 1388- 1400.
Lara, J.L
L., Losada, I.J. and Liu
u, P.L.-F. (22006), Breaaking waves over a miild gravel sllope: ex-
peerimental and
a numericcal analysiss, Journal of o Geophyssical Reseaarch, AGU, 111, p.
C11019 (20006)
Latham
m J.P., Mindel J., Xiang
g J., Guisesaa R., Garciaaa X., Painaa C., Gormaana G., Piggotta M.
annd Munjizabb A. (2009), Coupled FEMDEM//Fluids for coastal enggineers with h special
reeference to armour stab
bility and bbreakage., Geomechani
G ics and Geooengineerin
ng, 2009,
V
Vol:4, pp 7977-805
Latham
m, J.P., Munjjiza, A., Miindel, J., Xiiang, J., Gu
uises, R., Gaarcia, X., Paain, C., Gorrman, G.
annd Piggott, M. (2008),, Modellingg of massive particulattes for breaakwater eng gineering
ussing coupled FEMDEM M and CFD D,), Chinesee Society off Particuoloogy and Insstitute of
Prrocess Engineering, Chinese
C Ac ademy of Sciences, Elsevier
E B.VV., Particuuology 6
(22008) pp 572–583
Reeferences 175
Lawsonn, C.R. (20008), Geotexttile Containnment for Hydraulic

H an
nd Environm
mental Engiineering,
G
Geosyntheticcs Internatio
onal 2008
Lenze, BB., Heertenn, G., Saatho
off, F. and S
Stelljes, K. (2002),
( Geo
otextile Sannd Containers - Suc-
ceessful Soluttions Again nst Beach E Erosion at Sandy
S Coassts and Scoour Problem
ms under
H
Hydrodynam mic Loads, Littoral
L 20022, The Chan nging Coastt. EUROCO OAST / EUC CC, Por-
too – Portugal, Ed. EURO OCOAST – Portugal, IS SBN 972-8558-09-0
Li, T., Troch, P. and
a De Rou uck, J. (20004a), Wavee overtoppin
ng over a ssea dike, Jo
ournal of
Computationnal Physics 198,
1 pp 6866–726
Lin P.annd Liu, P.L
L.-F. (1998),, A numericcal study off breaking waves
w in thee surf zone.. Journal
off Fluid Mecchanics 359,, 239-264.
Liu P. 22004, A finite volume//volume of fluid methood for solving the Navvier-Stokes-equation
wwith applicattion to water-wave probblems, Lectture Notes of
o the 3 Dayys Compactt Course,
LW WI, Germanny.
L.-F. and Lin P. (1997
Liu, P.L 7), A numerrical model for breakin
ng wave: thhe Volume of Fluid
m
method. Ressearch Repo ort. No. CA
ACR-97-02 2, Centre fo
or Applied Coastal Research,
R
O
Ocean Enginneering Labo
oratory, Uni
niversity of Delaware,
D U.S.
U
Liu, P.L
L.-F. and Lin P. (20022), Cobras M
Manual, Co
ornell Breakking Wave aand Structu
ures, Co-
brras Manual,, a VOF- baased RANS--model. Corrnell Univerrsity U.S.
Liu, P.LL.-F., Lin P.,
P Chang K.A.
K and Saakakiyama T. (1999), Numerical modelling of wave
innteraction with
w porous structures. J. Waterwaay, Port, Co
oastal and O
Ocean Engiineering,
A
ASCE 125 (66), pp 322-3
330.
Lohani, T. N., Mattsushima, K.,K Aqil, U. , Mohri, Y. and Tatsu uoka, F. (20006), Evaluaating the
strrength and deformatio on characteeristics of a soil bag pile
p from fu full-scale laaboratory
teests. Geosynnthetics Inteernational, 113, No. 6, pp
p246–264.
Losada,, I.J., Lara, J.L.,
J Christeensen, E.D. , Garcia, N. (2005), Modelling
M off velocity an
nd turbu-
leence fields around and d within loow-crested rubble-mou
r und breakwwaters.Coastal Engi-
neeering 52, ppp 887-913.
Losada,, I.J., Lara, J.L., Guan
nche, R., Goonzalez-On
ndina, J.M. (2008), Nuumerical anaalysis of
w
wave overtoopping of rubble
r mouund breakwwaters. Coaastal Enginneering 55, pp 47-
622.Munjiza, A. (2004), The Combbined Finitee-Discrete Element
E Meethod, ISBN
N 0-470-
844199-0, Johhn Wiley and d Sons, 3488.
Matsuokka, H., Sihoong, L. andd Yamaguchhi, K. (2001 1), Mechaniical Propertties of Soilb
bags and
thheir Applicaation to Earrth Reinforccement, Pro
oceedings off the Internnational Sym
mposium
onn Earth Reinnforcement, Fukuoka, JJapan, pp 587-592.
Matsushhima, K., Aqil,
A U., Mo
ohri, Y. and Tatsuoka, F.
F (2008), Shear
S strenggth and defo
ormation
chharacteristiccs of geosyn
nthetic soil bags stacked horizonttal and incliined, Geosy
ynthetics
Innternational, 2008, 15, No.
N 2, pp1119-135
McGrannahan, G., Balk,
B D. an
nd Andersoon, B. (20077), The rising tide: asssessing the risks of
cllimate changge and hum
man settlemeents in low elevation coastal zonees, Environm
ment and
U
Urbanizationn, Vol. 19, No.
N 1, 17-377 (2007)
Reeferences 176
Mindel,, J. E. (20088), Interfacee Tracking and Solid-F

Fluid Couup pling Technniques with
h Coastal
Enngineering Application ns, PhD Thhesis, Imperrial Collegee of Sciencee, Technolo
ogy, and
M
Medicine, Loondon, UK
Mirafi ((2004), Physical Properrties of Geoosynthetics, Technical Brochure.
B
Moraci,, N. and Maandaglio, M.C.
M (2008),, The Desig gn of Geotexxtile Filterss for Granullar Soils,
Thhe First Pann American Geosynthettics Confereence and Ex
xhibition, CCancun, Mex xico
Mori, E
E. (2009), Coastal Strucctures Madee of Geotex
xtile Elemen nts Filled W
With Sand: Field
F and
di di Firenzee, Florence, Italy
Exxperimentall Research, PhD Thesiss, Universittà degli Stud
Mori, E
E., D’eliso, C. and Amminti, P.L. (22008), Physsical Modellling on Geeotextile Saand Con-
taainer Used for
f Submerg ged Breakwwater, Proceeeding so th
he second innternationall confer-
ennce on the application
a of
o physical modelling to
t port and coastal prottection, Coaastlab08,
Bari, Italy
Muttrayy, M. (2001), Wellen nbewegung an und in n Einem Geschuettete
G en Wellenbrecher -
Laaboruntersuuchungen Im Grossm massstab Un nd Theoretiische Unterrsuchungen
n-. PhD-
Thhesis, Mitteeilungen Leeichtweiss-IInstitut fuerr Wasserbau
u der TU B
Braunschweeig, Ger-
m
many, pp. 1-3304. (in Gerrman)
Muttrayy, M. and Oumeraci,
O H.
H (2002), Wave Tran nsformation
n at Slopingg Perforated
d Walls,
Prroceedings of the Intern
national Coonference on
n Coastal En
ngineering 22002, p 203
31-2043
Muttrayy, M. and Oumeraci,
O H.
H (2005), T Theoretical and
a experim
mental studyy on wave damping
d
innside a rubbble mound breakwater.
b Amsterdam
m, The Neth
herlands: Ellsevier, Coaastal En-
giineering, vool. 52, no. 8,, pp. 709-7225.
NAUE (2009), Subbmerged Direct Shear S
Stress Resullts, Internal Communiccation.
NAUE and Soil Fiilters Australia (2003) , Designing
g with Geottextile Sandd Containerrs, Tech-
niical Brochurre.
NAUE F
Fasetechnikk (2004a), Direct
D Shearr Stress Ressults, Internal Communnication
NAUE F
Fasetechnikk (2004b), Secutex
S GR
RX, Technical Brochuree (in Germaan).
Oberhaggemann K.., Stevens M.A., Haqque S.M.S. and Faisaal M.A. (2 006), Geob bags for
Riverbank Prrotection, 3rrd Internatioonal Conferrence on Scour and Eroosion, Amstterdam
Oberhaggemann, K.. and Hossaain, M.M. ((2011), Geo
otextile bag revetmentss for large rivers in
Bangladesh, Geotextiless and Geom
membranes Journal, Vol. 29, pp 4022-414
Ogink, M.J.M., (1975), Invesstigations oon the hydrraulic charaacteristics oof synthetic fabrics,
D
Delf Hydraullics Laborattory, Publiccation No. 146, Delft, The
T Netherlaands,
Oumeraaci, H , Korrtenhaus, A.. and Werthh, K. (2008)), Core Madde of Geoteextile Sand Contain-
C
errs for Rubblle Mound Breakwaters
B s and Seawaalls: Effect on
o Hydrauliic Stability and Per-
foormance, 7thh Internation
nal Confereence on Coastal and Po ort Engineeering in Devveloping
Countries (COPEDEC VII), V Dubai,, UAE
Oumeraaci, H. (19999a), Physiccal modellinng, field measurement
m ts and num
merical modelling in
cooastal enginneering: synnergy or coompetition?? 2nd Germman-Chinesee Joint Semminar on
Recent Developments in n Coastal Enngineering - Sustainab
ble Developmment in thee Coastal
Zoone, Tainann, Taiwan, pp.
p 513-5377.
Reeferences 177
Oumeraaci, H. (19999b), Streng

gths and lim
mitations of physical mo
odelling in coastal eng
gineering
- synergy efffects with numerical
n m
modelling an
nd field measurements . In: Evers,, K.-U.et
all. (eds.): Keynote
K Add dress, Procceedings Hyydralab Woorkshop onn Experimen ntal Re-
seearch and Synergy
S Efffects with Mathematical Modelss, Keynote lecture, Haannover,
G
Germany, ppp. 7-38.
Oumeraaci, H. (19999c), Hydrromechanikk. Vorlesun
ngsumdruck
k für das G Grundfach "Hydro-
m
mechanik", Leichtweiß ß-Institute ffor Hydrau
ulic Engineeering and Water Resources
Brraunschweiig, Germanyy
Oumeraaci, H. (2000), The Susstainability C
Challenge in
i Coastal Engineering
E g (Keynote Lecture).
L
Prroceedings 4th
4 Internattional Confe ference of Hydrodynam
H mics
Oumeraaci, H. (20004), Sustainaable coastall flood defeences: scien
ntific and m
modelling ch
hallenges
toowards an inntegrated risk-based deesign conceept. Keynote Lecture. PProc. First IMA In-
teernational Conference
C on
o Flood R Risk Assessm ment. Bath, UK, IMA - Institute of
o Math-
em i Applications: pp. 9--24.
matics and its
Oumeraaci, H. (20009), Wasserbauliches Versuchswwesen und Dimensions
D sanalyse, Hydrome-
chhanics and Coastal Enngineering LLecture No
otes – SS 2009,
2 Leichhtweiss Insttitute for
H
Hydraulic Enngineering and
a Water Resource, Technical
T University
U B
Braunschweeig, Ger-
m
many (In Gerrman)
Oumeraaci, H. and Recio, J. (2010), Geootextile sand d containers for shore protection, Invited
Chhapter in Handbook
H off Coastal annd Ocean Engineering, Editor: Kim
m Y.C., Wo orld Sci-
enntific Publisshing, Singaapore, pp 5553-600
Oumeraaci, H., Blecck, M. and Hinz,
H M. (22002a), Unteersuchungen
n zur Funkttionalität geeotextiler
Saandcontaineer. Berichtee Leichtweeiß-Institut für Wasseerbau, Techhnische Un niversität
Brraunschweiig, Nr. 874, Braunschw weig, Germaany, (in German).
Oumeraaci, H., Bleck, M., Hinz,
H M. aand Küblerr, S. (2002 2b), Großmmaßstäblichee Unter-
suuchungen zur
z hydrauliischen Stabbilität geoteextiler Sand
dcontainer unter Welllenbelas-
tuung. Berichhte Leichtw
weiß-Instituut für Wassserbau, Teechnische U Universität Braun-
scchweig, Nr. 878, Braun
nschweig, GGermany, (in
n German).
Oumeraaci, H., Blecck, M., Hin
nz, M. and M
Möller, J. (2
2002c), Theeoretische U
Untersuchun
ngen zur
A
Anwendung geotextiler Sandcontaainer im Kü üstenschutzz. Berichte Leichtweiß
ß-Institut
füür Wasserbaau, Technische Univer sität Braunsschweig, Nr. 866, Brauunschweig, Germa-
nyy, (in German).
Oumeraaci, H., Grüüne, J., Spaarboom, U.,, Schmidt-KKoppenhageen, R., and Wang, Z. (2007a),
Sttability Tessts of Geoteextile Sandd containerss for Monoopile Scour Protection n (Unter-
suuchungen zuur Kolkbild dung und zuum Kolksch hutz bei Monopile-Grüündungen von v Off-
shhore-Windenergieanlag gen), Final R
Research Reeport, Coastal Researchh Centre (F
FZK), (in
G
German)
Oumeraaci, H., Hinzz, M., Bleck
k, M. and K
Kortenhaus, A. (2003), Sand-filledd geotextile contain-
th
errs for shore protection, 6 Internattional Confeerence on Coastal
C and Port Engineeering in
D
Developing Countries
C (C
COPEDEC VI), Colom mbo, Sri Lannka.
Reeferences 178
Oumeraaci, H., Korrtenhaus, A.. and Dassaanayake, D.T. (2012), Prototype

P D
Drop Tests on Opti-
m
misation on thet Constru uction of Sccour Protecttion System ms Using GSSCs (GeoDumping-
Phhase I), Finaal research report, Leicchtweiß-Insstitut für Waasserbau, Teechnische Universi-
U
täät Braunschwweig, Nr. 10029, Braunsschweig, Geermany
Oumeraaci, H., Korrtenhaus, A.
A and Wert rth, K. (20007b), Hydraaulic perforrmance and d armour
stability of ruubble moun
nd breakwaaters with core
c made of
o geotextille sand con ntainers -
Comparison with conven ntional breaakwaters. In
ntern. Conf.. on Coastall Structuress, ASCE,
V
Venice, Italy.
Ozegowwski, J. (20012), Hydraulic Perfoormances of o Low-Creested and SSubmerged Coastal
Sttructures Made
M of Geootextile Sannd Containers, Bacheloor Thesis suupervised by
y Dassa-
naayake, D.T. and Oumeraci, H., Leeichtweiß-Innstitut für Wasserbau,
W Technische Univer-
T
sittät Braunscchweig, Brau
unschweig, Germany
Pain, C. C., Umpleeby, A. P., de
d Oliveria,, C. R. E., and
a Goddarrd, A. J. H. (2001), Tettrahedral
mesh optimissation and adaptively for steady-sstate and trransient finiite element calcula-
m
tioons. Compuuter Method
ds in Applieed Mechaniccs and Engineering, 1990, 3771–37 796.
Pattersoon Britton & Partners (2008),
( Mannly Ocean Beach
B Emerrgency Actiion Plan forr Coastal
Errosion, Issuue No. 6, Maarch, for Maanly Counccil,
PIANC (2011), Thhe Applicatiion of geosyynthetics in
n waterfrontt areas-PIAN
NC Report No. 113
byy MarCom Working
W Group 113.
Pilarczyyk, K. (19998), Dikes and Revetm ments, desiign, mainteenance and safety asseessment,
A
A.A. Balkemma, Rotterdaam, the Nethherlands.
Pilarczyyk, K. (20055), Coastal Stabilizatioon and Alterrnative Solu
utions in Intternational Perspec-
P
tivve, Keynotee lecture, Arrabian Coasst, Dubai, UAE
U
Pilarczyyk, K. W. (22000), Geo
osynthetics aand Geosysstems in Hy
ydraulic andd Coastal Engineer-
E
inng. A.A. Ballkema, Rottterdam, the Netherland
ds.
Porraz M
M.J.L., Maasa A. J. A. and Mediina, R.R. (1 1979), Morrtar-filled C
Containers, Lab and
occean experieences. Proceedings Co astal Structu
ures, pp 270
0-289
Ray, R.. (1977), A Laboratory
y Study of The Stabiliity of Sand
d-Field Nyloon Bag Breeakwater
Sttructures, US
U Army Cooastal Enginneering Research Centrre, Vickburgg, USA
Recio, JJ. (2007), Hydraulic
H staability of geeotextile san
nd containeers for coasttal structurees- effect
off deformatioons and stability formuulae. Leichw weiss-Instittute for Hyddraulic Eng gineering
annd Water Resources.
R Braunschwe
B eig, Germaany, Techniical Univerrsity Braunsschweig,
PhhD, http://ddeposit.ddb.dde/cgi-bin/ddokserv?idn n=98792972 20
Recio, JJ. and Oum
meraci, H. (22006a), A nuumerical stuudy on the hydraulic pprocesses asssociated
w
with the instaability of GSC-structurres using a VOF-RANS
V S model, LW WI Report No.
N 941,
Leeichtweiss-IInstitute forr Hydraulicc Engineerin
ng and Wateer Resourcees, Techniscche Uni-
veersität Braunnschweig, Germany.
G
Recio, JJ. and Oumeeraci, H. (2006b), Proccesses affeccting the stability of revvetments made with
geeotextile sannd containeers, 31st Inteernational Conference
C on Coastal Engineering (ICCE
20006) Conferrence, Worlld Scientificc, San Diego o, USA, Vo
ol. 5, 5080-55092.
Reeferences 179
Recio, JJ. and Oumeeraci, H. (2006c), Geootextile sandd containers for coastall structures, hydrau-
licc stability formulae
f an
nd tests forr drag, inerttia and lift coefficientts, LWI Repport No.
9336, Leichtw weiss-Institu
ute for Hydrraulic Enginneering and d Water Ressources, Tecchnische
U
Universität Braunschwe
B ig, Germanny.
Recio, JJ. and Oummeraci, H. (2007a),
( Efffect of Deformations on the Hyydraulic Staability of
Coastal Strucctures madee of Geotexxtile Sand Containers.
C Geotextile and Geomembrane
Joournal, vol. 25. Elsevier, pp. 278–2292.
Recio, JJ. and Oummeraci, H. (2007b),
( Hyydraulic pro
ocesses associated witth the instaability of
G
GSC-structurres — A nu umerical stuudy using the
t “COBR RAS-Model””. Leichtweeiß Insti-
tuute for Hydrraulic Engin
neering and Water Reso ources, LWI-Report Nrr 941.
Recio, JJ. and Oum
meraci, H. (2
2007c), Num merical sim
mulations on
n the stabiliity of coasttal struc-
tuures made of
o geotextilee sand contaainers (GSC
C). Leichtweiß Institutee for Hydraaulic En-
giineering andd Water Ressources, LW
WI-Report Nr.
N 942.
meraci, H. (2007d), Perrmeability of GSC-structures, moodel tests and
Recio, JJ. and Oum a anal-
ysses, LWI Report
R No. 943,
9 Leichtwweiss-Instittute for Hyd
draulic Enggineering an
nd Water
Resources, Technische
T Universität
U B
Braunschwweig, German ny.
Recio, JJ. and Oum
meraci, H. (2
2007e), Proocesses affeecting the hydraulic staability of geotextile
saand containeers — experimental stuudies. Leich
htweiß Institute for Hyddraulic Enggineering
annd Water Reesources, LW
WI-Report Nr. 944.
Recio, JJ. and Oum
meraci, H. (22008a), Hyddraulic perm meability off structures made of geotextile
saand containners: Laboratory tests and conceeptual modeel. Geotexttiles and Geomem-
G
brranes Journaal, Vol. 26, Elsevier, ppp. 473-487.
Recio, JJ. and Oum
meraci, H. (2
2008b), Proocesses affecting the hyydraulic staability of co
oastal re-
veetments madde of Geoteextile sand ccontainers. Coastal
C Eng
gineering (22009a), pp 260-284
2
Recio, JJ. and Oum
meraci, H. (2009),
( Proocess basedd stability formulae
f for
or coastal sttructures
m
made of geottextile sand container, C
Coastal Eng
gineering, Vol.
V 56, Elseevier, pp 63
32-658
Recio, JJ., Hocine Oumeraci,
O H.,
H Mocke, G. (2010),, Stability Formula
F andd Numericaal Model
foor Structuress made with
h Geotextilee Sand Con
ntainers used
d for Coastaal Stabilizattion, 2nd
Innternational Conferencee on Coastaal Zone Eng
gineering an
nd Managem ment (Arabiaan Coast
20010), Muscaat, Oman
Restall, S. and Saaathoff, J. (20 002), Austrralian and German
G Exp
periences w
with Geotexttile Con-
taainers for Cooastal Proteections, EurooGeo 2002..
Restall, S., Hornseyy, W., Oum
meraci, H., H
Hinz, M., Saaathoff, F., and Werth, K. (2004), Austral-
iaan and Germ
man Experieences with ggeotextile Containers
C foor Coastal PProtection, proceed-
p
inngs Eurogeoo 2004
Robin, A
A.C. (2004)), Paper bag
g problem, M
Mathematiccs today, Bu
ulletin of thhe Institute of
o Math-
em
matics and its
i Applications 40 (Junne 2004), pp
p 104-107.
Rock M
Manual (20007), The Ro
ock Manuall. The use of
o rock in hydraulic
h en
engineering,, CIRIA,
nd
CU
UR, CETMMEF, 2 edition, C683, CIRIA, Lo ondon.
Saathofff, J., Oumeeraci, H. and
d Restall, S
S. (2007), Australian
A an
nd German experiencees on the
usse of geotexxtile contain
ners, Geotexxtiles and Geomembra
G anes Journall, Vol. 25, Elsevier,
E
ppp 251–263
Reeferences 180
Seelig, W.N. (1983), Wave Reflection

R ffrom Coastaal Structurees. Proceediings Conferrence on
Coastal Strucctures 1983,, American Society of Civil Enginneers (ASCE E), pp. 961--973.
Shin, E.C. and Ohh, Y.I. (20044), Consoli dation Proccess of Geo
otextile Tubbe Filled wiith Fine-
G
Grained Matterials, Interrnational Joournal of Offshore
O and Polar Enngineering, Vol. 14,
N
No. 2, June 2004
2 (ISSN 1053-5381 )
Sierra, JJ.P., Gonzáález-Marco,D. Mestress, M., Gironnella,X., Olliveira, T.C
C.A., Cácerees I. and
M
Mösso, C. (22010), Num merical moddel for wavve overtoppping and traansmission through
peermeable cooastal structtures, Enviro
ronmental Modelling
M & Software 225 (2010), Elsevier,
E
ppp 1897-19044
Slinn, D
D.N. (2011), Numerical Simulationns Techniqu ues applied to Coastal and Oceanoographic
Enngineering - Computaational Flui d Dynamiccs (CFD), LectureL Nootes, Departtment of
Civil and Cooastal Engin neering Uniiversity of Florida,
F US
SA, (Accesssed on 02-008-2011,
htttp://users.coastal.ufl.ed
du/~slinn/),
Smid,R. (2001), Untersuchun
U ngen zur Errmittlung derd mittlerenn Wellenübberlaufrate an einer
seenkrechten Wand
W und einer
e 1:1.5 ggeneigten Böschung
B fü
ür Versuchee mit und oh
hne Frei-
boord. Studiennarbeit LWII., (Master R
Research Prroject Reporrt) (in Germ
man)
Sorenseen, R.M. (2006), Basicc Coastal EEngineering,, ISBN-10: 0-387-233333-4, Sprin
nger Sci-
ennce + Businness Media, Inc., 233 Sppring Streett, New York
k, NY 100113, USA.
Tan, C.Y. and Cheew, S.H. (2
2008), Moddelling Geottextile Container In M
Marine Consstruction
U
Using Geotecchnical Cenntrifuge, Prroceedings of
o the 4th Asian
A Regioonal Conferrence on
G
Geosyntheticcs, Shanghaii, China, ppp 615-620
d slope prottection. Sierra Cali-
Tekmarrine Inc. (19982), Large--scale modeel studies off artic island
foornia.
TenCatee (2007), Determinatio
D on of the L
Long Term Properties for Mirafi®® PET-Series Rein-
foorcement Geeotextiles by GRI-GT77 and NCMA A Guidelinees, Techniccal Note by TenCate
G
Geosyntheticcs North Am merica
Ting C..L., Lin M.C., Cheng C.Y. (20044), Porosity Effects on Non-breakking Surfacee Waves
ovver Permeabble Submerged Breakwwaters. Coasstal Engineeering Journaal, Elsevier,, Vol. 50
Isssue 4, pagees 213-224.
Troch P
P. and De Rouck
R J. (19
998), Devellopment of 2D numericcal Wave fllume for sim mulation
off Wave inteeraction with
h rubble moound breakwwaters. In: Proceedinggs 26th Interrnational
Conference ono Coastal Engineering
E g (ICCE 19998) Confereence, Copennhagen, Den nmark.
Troch P
P. and De Rouck
R J. (19
999), An A
Active Wavee Generatíng g-Absorbing
ng Boundary y Condi-
tioon for VOF F type nummerical moddel. Coastall Engineerin
ng, Vol. 388(4), pp. 22
23- 247,
Ellsevier, Thee Netherland
ds.
U.S.-CE
EM (2004), Coastal En
ngineering M
Manual, U.S
S. Army Co
orps Of Enggineers, Eng
gineering
U
Use of Geoteextiles
van denn Bosch, I., ten Oever, E., Bakker,, P., and Mu
uttray, M. (2
2012), Stabbility of inteerlocking
arrmour unitss on a breakkwater cresst, Proceedings of the 33rd Internnational Con nference
O
On Coastal Engineering
E (ICCE 201 2) Santandeer, Spain.
Van derr Linde, J.P
P. (2010), Stability
S of single layeer armour units on low
w-crested strructures,
D
Delft Universsity of Tech
hnology, Thhe Netherlan nds
Reeferences 181
Van derr Meer, J.W

W. (1987), Stability
S of bbreakwater armour layers - Designn formulae.. Journal
off Coastal Enngineering, 11, pp. 2199-239
Van derr Meer, J.W
W. (1988), Rock
R slopess and graveel beaches under
u wave attack, PhD
D thesis,
D
Delft Hydrauulics Laboraatory, The NNetherlands
Van Deer Meer, J.W
W. (1998), Applicatioon and stabiility criteriaa for rock and artificiial units,
nts". Edited by K.W. PPilarczyk. Balkema,
Chhapter 11 inn: "Seawallls, dikes annd revetmen B
Rotterdam, The
T Netherlaands
Van derr Meer, J.W
W., Pilarczy
yk, K.W. (1 990), Stabiility of low-crested annd reef breaakwaters.
Prroc. 22nd Internationa
I al Conferencce on Coasstal Engineeering, Delftft, The Nethherlands,
ppp. 1375–13888.
Venis, W
W.A., (19668), Closuree of estuarinne channelss in tidal reegions, Behhaviour of dumping
d
m
material wheen exposed to
t currents aand wave acction, De inngenieur, 500, 1968
Verhageen, H.J. (20004), Classiccal, Innovattive and Un
nconventional Coastal PProtection Methods,
M
keeynote addrress, Nato Advanced
A W
Workshop on n Environm
ment friendlyy coastal prrotection
strructures, Vaarna, Bulgaaria
Vidal, CC., Losada,, M.A., Maansard, E.PP.D. (1995), Stability of low-cre sted rubblee mound
brreakwater heads.
h Journ
nal of Waterrway, Port, Coastal, an
nd Ocean Enngineering vol.
v 121,
N
No. 2. ASCE E, pp. 114–122
Vidal, CC., Losada, M.A., Med dina, R., Maansard, E.P..D., Gomes-Pina, G. (11992), An universal
u
annalysis for the
t stability of both low
w-crested annd submerg ged breakwaaters. Proc. 23rd In-
teernational Conference on
o Coastal E Engineeringg, Italy, pp. 1679–16977.
Wang, Y.W. and Lin, Y.W. (2008), C Combinationn of CFD anda CSD ppackages fo or fluid-
strructure inteeraction, Jou
urnal of Hyddrodynamiccs, Volume 20 (6), pp 7756-761
Warnocck, J. E. (19950), Hydraaulic Similiitude, In: H. ditor, Enginneering Hydraulics,
H Rowe, Ed
W
Wiley, New York,
Y N.Y (1950),
( pp. 136–17
Weerakkoon, S.; Moocke, G.P.; Smit, F.; A
Al Zahed, K. (2003), Co
ost Effectivee Coastal Prrotection
th
W
Works Usingg Sand Filled Geotextille Containerrs. 6 Internnational Connference on n Coastal
annd Port Enggineering in Developingg Countries (COPEDEC VI), Coloombo, Sri Lanka.
L
Werth, K., Recio, J., Oumeraci, H. and H Heerten, G.. (2008), Hy
ydraulic perrmeability of GSC-
strructures: Laaboratory teests and resuults. Proc. 31st
3 Internaational Confference Coaastal En-
giineering (IC
CCE 2008), Hamburg, G Germany
Wilms, M., Wahrm
mund, H., Sttahlmann, A
A., Heitz, C. and Schlurrmann, S. (22011), Kolk
kbildung
unnd dimensiionierung des
d Kolkschhutzsystemss eines OW WEA Schw werkraftfunddaments,
H
Hydraulischee dodellverssuche zum STRABAG G Schwerkrraftfundameent, HTG Kongress
K
20011, Germaany, 395-4044.
Won, M
M.S. and Yoou-Seong Kim,
K Y.S. (22007), Intern
nal Deform
mation Behavvior of Geo osynthet-
icc-Reinforcedd Soil Wallss, Geotextilles and Geomembraness J, Vol. 25,, Elsevier, pp
p 10-22
Wouterss, J. (1998)), Open Taludbekledinggen; stabiliteit van geo
osystems (SStability of Geosys-
teems) Deftt Hydraulics
H Report
R H19 30, Annex 7 (in Dutch).
Reeferences 182
Wu, C. S., Hong, Y.S.

Y and Wang,
W R.H. ((2008), The influence ofo uniaxial ttensile straiin on the
poore size andd filtration characterisstics of geo
otextiles, Geotextiles aand Geomembranes
Joournal, vol. 26 (2008), Elsevier, ppp 250–262
Xiang JJ., Latham J.P., Vire A., Anastaasaki E. an nd Pain, C.C. (2012), Coupled FLUIDI-
F
TYY/Y3D techhnology an nd simulatioon tools forr numericall breakwateer modellinng, Proc.
333rd Internattional Confeerence Coasstal Engineeering (ICCE
E 2012), Sanntander, Spaain
Zanuttiggh, B. and Van
V der Meeer, J.W. (20006), Wavee reflection from
f coastaal structuress. ASCE,
Prroceedings of the Interrnational Coonference on
o Coastal Engineeringg 2006, San n Diego,
ppp 4337-43499
Zanuttiggh, B., and Van der Meer,
M J.W. ((2008), Wave Reflection From C Coastal Strucctures in
D nal, Elsevieer, Volume 55, Issue 10, Octo-
Design Condditions, Coaastal Engineeering Journ
beer 2008, pp 771-779
Zellwegger, H., (20007), Geotextile bags ffor river errosion contrrol in Banggladesh, und
derwater
beehaviour annd environm
mental aspeccts. Diplomaa thesis, ETH Zürich.
Zhao, Z
Z.K., Chew,, S.H., Karuunaratne, G
G.P., Tan, S.A.,
S Delmaas, Ph. and LLoke, K.H.. (2000),
G
Geotextile Filter
F In Reevetment Suubjected To o Cyclic Wave
W Loadiing, GeoEnng 2000,
M
Melbourne, Australia
A

Diss Dassanayake

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Diss Dassanayake

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Experimental and Numerical Modelling of

the Hydraulic Stability of Geotextile Sand Containers

zur Erlangung des Grades einer

Eingereicht am: 12. April 2013

Berichterstatter: Prof. Hocine Oumeraci

I wouldd like to exppress my deeep gratitudee to my PhD

I am verry much thaankful to all LWI stafff for their asssistance an

Finally I like to exppress my grratitude deeeply from th

July 20113 / Braunschweig, Geermany Darshan

Zunächsst wurde der Wissensstan nd zu den beetreffenden Eigenschafte

First, thee present knnowledge rellated to the engineeringg properties of

Though most of thee previous studies

Abstracct ......................................................................................................................................... iii

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... ii

Abbreviiations .............................................................................................................................. xiv

5 Hyddraulic Stabbility Formu

Referennces .................................................................................................................................. 167

Figure 33-11: Drag coefficient

List of Nottations and

More veersatile matterials and innovative

Figure 1--1: Coastal struuctures made of geotextile sand containeers (GSCs)

Wave rrunup and waave reflection low high

Neverthheless, theree are still seeveral criticcal issues th

draulic stability off GSC-structures (see T Table 2-8) and

Moreovver, Recio (2007)

mproved by incorporating some

(i) Innvestigate thhe effect of the sand filll ratio on th

First, thhe present knowledge

Figure 1--2: Tentative methodology

One of the most im mportant fin

Table 2-11: Engineeringg properties off geotextile m

GSCs, w which are related

Table 2-22: Types of geeotextile contaainments usedd in coastal eng

a) Avaailable definnitions of thee sand fill ra

The sannd fill ratio is

b) Facttors influenccing the san

The inittial sand filll ratio of a GSC

Furtherm more, if a GSC

c) Effeect of the sannd fill ratio on the hydrraulic stabillity

Many auuthors (e.g. Venis 1968 8, Grüne et al. 2006, Recio

2.2.2 IInterface Friction

One of the most important

Figure 2--2: Results of biaxial

Regardiing the effecct of deformmation of G

standingg of the efffects of the above menntioned prop perties of GSCs

Sand Fill Properties off

Figure 2--3: Interrelatioonship of prop

During his series ofo experimeental investtigations, Recio

Figure 2--4: Wave induuced load on in

meability of the structurre influencees the hydraaulic stability (Hen-

The floww through a GSC-stru ucture is nott homogeneeous. A lam

GSC-strructures will preferablly be descriibed by thee Darcy perrmeability ccoefficient k (Recio

The firsst permeabiility analysiis was condducted by Oumeraci

Howeveer, as shownn in Table 2-5, 2 there iss a significaant variation

Figure 2--5: Comparisoon between available

Only veery few off process-orriented inveestigations have

The oveerall permeeability of th he GSC-strructure is governed

Pullout / Sliding orr

Figure 2--6: Potential failure modess of a GSC-reevetment (Jacckson 2006, Recio

Figure 2--7: A cross-sectional drawin

Figure 2--8: Pullout of GSCs

PULL OUT Important fa

Figure 2--9: Factors inffluencing pullo