Wave Transmission Testing of the Martin Ecosystems ...martinecosystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/... · BioHaven® Floating Breakwater (BFB) through physical modeling in the

i

Wave Transmission Testing of the Martin Ecosystems BioHaven® Floating Breakwater

March 14, 2014

Submitted by:

Bret M. Webb, Ph.D., P.E.

Assistant Professor

Department of Civil Engineering

University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama USA

Submitted to:

Nicole Waguespack

Martin Ecosystems

5819 McCann Drive

Baton Rouge, LA 70809

ii

[This page was intentionally left blank]

i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... vi

1.0 Problem Statement ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Testing Conditions ....................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Wave Basin ................................................................................................................................................................ 3

2.2 Experimental Setup .................................................................................................................................................. 4

2.3 Dimensional Froude Scaling .................................................................................................................................. 4

2.4 Experimental Conditions ........................................................................................................................................ 5

3.0 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................ 9

4.0 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................................... 13

5.0 Appendices ................................................................................................................................................................. 15

5.1 Treatment 1A Testing Data ................................................................................................................................. 15

5.2 Treatment 1B Testing Data ................................................................................................................................. 17

5.3 Treatment 2A Testing Data ................................................................................................................................. 19

5.4 Treatment 2B Testing Data ................................................................................................................................. 21

5.5 Testing Photos ....................................................................................................................................................... 23

ii

List of Tables TABLE 1. INCIDENT WAVE AND WATER LEVEL CONDITIONS USED IN BFB TESTING. ALL VALUES SPECIFIED

ARE MODEL SCALE. ................................................................................................................................................... 6

TABLE 2. INCIDENT WAVE AND WATER LEVEL CONDITIONS USED IN BFB TESTING. ALL VALUES SPECIFIED ARE PROTOTYPE SCALE. ........................................................................................................................................... 7

TABLE A- 1. WAVE BASIN LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS FOR BFB TREATMENT 1A. ................................... 15

TABLE A- 2. WAVE BASIN LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS FOR BFB TREATMENT 1B. ................................... 17

TABLE A- 3. WAVE BASIN LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS FOR BFB TREATMENT 2A. ................................... 19

TABLE A- 4. WAVE BASIN LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS FOR BFB TREATMENT 2B. ................................... 21

iii

List of Figures

FIGURE 1. WAVE TRANSMISSION COEFFICIENT DEFINITION SKETCH. ................................................................... 1

FIGURE 2. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH ALABAMA WAVE BASIN RESEARCH FACILITY. ................................................. 3

FIGURE 3. DEFINITION SKETCH FOR THE DEPLOYMENT DEPTHS AND WATER LEVELS USED IN TREATMENTS 1 AND 2. LENGTHS ARE GIVEN IN FEET AND REPRESENT PROTOTYPE CONDITIONS. ...... 5

FIGURE 4. MEASURED WAVE TRANSMISSION COEFFICIENTS FOR TREATMENTS 1A, 1B, 2A, AND 2B (UNORDERED). ........................................................................................................................................................... 9

FIGURE 5. WAVE TRANSMISSION COEFFICIENTS AS A FUNCTION OF THE RATIO OF BFB CREST WIDTH TO WAVELENGTH. ........................................................................................................................................................ 10

FIGURE 6. MEASURED WAVE TRANSMISSION COEFFICIENTS AS A FUNCTION OF WAVE STEEPNESS. ............. 11

FIGURE 7. MEASURED TRANSMISSION COEFFICIENTS AS A FUNCTION OF VARIABLE DEPTH AND DEPLOYMENT DEPTH. ........................................................................................................................................... 12

FIGURE A- 1. USA WAVE BASIN EXPERIMENTAL SETUP FOR BASELINE TESTING. ............................................. 23

FIGURE A- 2. MARTIN ECOSYSTEMS BFB INSTALLED FOR TESTING DURING TREATMENT 2B. ..................... 24

FIGURE A- 3. MARTIN ECOSYSTEMS BFB INSTALLATION AND VIEW OF MOORING SYSTEM (PRIOR TO TESTING). ................................................................................................................................................................. 24

FIGURE A- 4. VIEW OF THE MOORING SYSTEM USED DURING WAVE BASIN TESTING. ..................................... 25

FIGURE A- 5. VIEW OF THE MARTIN ECOSYSTEMS BFB DURING TESTING FOR TREATMENT 2B. PERSPECTIVE IS FROM UNDER THE WAVE GAGE LOOKING TOWARD THE WAVE GENERATOR. ............ 25

FIGURE A- 6. VIEW OF THE MARTIN ECOSYSTEMS BFB DURING TESTING FOR TREATMENT 2B. ................. 26

iv

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Martin Ecosystems for the opportunity to evaluate the performance of their product in the University of South Alabama wave basin. The author would also like to acknowledge the tireless efforts of Dr. Jon Risinger, Jake Denson, Bryan Groza, and Kari Servold to complete the testing.

v


vi

Executive Summary

Comprehensive physical modeling of the Martin Ecosystems BioHaven® Floating Breakwater (BFB), without vegetation, was performed in the University of South Alabama's wave basin research facility. The testing, analysis, and report development was lead by Dr. Bret M. Webb, Ph.D., P.E. with assistance from Dr. Jon D. Risinger, Ph.D.

The purpose of the reduced scale modeling was to measure wave attenuation by the BFB and to report wave transmission coefficients for a range of wave and water level conditions across four unique experimental treatments. Treatments addressed deployment depth and BFB weight. Vegetative coverings were not considered. Experimental conditions consisted of six (6) water levels and eight (8) different waves. Each treatment consisted of forty-four (44) unique wave transmission experiments performed in replicates of three. The total number of unique experiments was 176, or 528 when accounting for replicates. These values do not reflect initial testing, without the structure in place, to establish baseline or background conditions.

The BFB system was modeled at a reduced Froude scale of 1:4 (model:prototype). The scaled dimensions of the unit were 6.25 ft by 1.9 ft by 0.3 ft (length x width x height). The BFB was moored to the basin floor at all six connection points provided. Mooring cables were rigged in a diagonal fashion to provide lateral resistance to wave induced motion. A video taken during the experiment clearly shows the behavior of these moorings during testing.

Measured wave transmission coefficients ranged from 0.44 to 0.99. Clear relationships between the transmission coefficient, structure size, wave characteristics, water levels, and deployment depths were evident. The wave attenuating capability of the BFB increases as the wavelength becomes small relative to the structure width. The wave attenuating capability of the BFB increases as the wave steepness increases. Finally, the wave attenuating capability of the BFB is maximized when the water depth is approximately 1.1 to 1.4 times larger than the deployment depth.

A statistical analysis of the various treatment results indicate that there is no significant effect of BFB weight on wave transmission, but there is a significant effect relative to deployment depth (shallow vs. deep). Generally, wave transmission coefficients were lower for the shallower deployment and higher for the deeper deployment. Based on these results, there is no indication that vegetative growth will have a negative impact on the wave attenuating capability of the BFB.

Performance of the BFB could be improved if the width were increased beyond the tested prototype value of 7.5 ft. The laboratory data clearly indicate that wave transmission will decrease as the structure size increases relative to the wavelength. Finally, performance of the BFB could be improved if the system were deployed at the Mean Tide Level (MTL) as compared to Mean High Water (MHW). By doing so, the amount of slack in the mooring system will be minimized during periods of low water and there will be less lateral translation of the BFB due to waves.

vii


1 1

1.0 Problem Statement

The goal of this testing contract is to quantitatively assess the performance of the Martin Ecosystems BioHaven® Floating Breakwater (BFB) through physical modeling in the University of South Alabama's wave basin research facility. Froude scaling was used to develop appropriate length scales of a dimensionally consistent model for the laboratory testing since the dimensions of a prototype BFB are too large to model at full scale. A scaling ratio of 1:4 (model:prototype) was used to scale the BFB dimensions and also represents the scaling between laboratory and full scale wave and water depth conditions.

For the purposes of this testing contract, performance is quantified in terms of wave transmission, which represents a reduction in wave height due to the presence of an obstruction. Wave transmission is commonly expressed as:

(1)

where Ht is the transmitted wave height and Hi is the incident wave height. Typically, values of Kt vary from near zero (0.0) to as much as unity (1.0). A value of 0.0 occurs when 100% of the incident wave height is damped, or blocked, by the obstruction. A value of 1.0 occurs when 0% of the incident wave height is blocked by the obstruction. It is rare, but possible, to obtain transmission coefficients greater than one. A definition sketch is provided in Figure 1.

Testing was performed to represent a wide range of wave and water level conditions. A total of forty-four (44) unique combinations of wave and water level characteristics were simulated, in replicates of three, for each of the four treatments modeled. A total of 528 (44 x 4 x 3) experiments were performed. The variability in the treatments was intended to simulate plant growth and deployment depth. More information about the testing facility, conditions, and scaling is provided in the following sections, as are the results and a brief discussion of the testing.

Figure 1. Wave transmission coefficient definition sketch.

€

Kt =Ht

Hi

2 2


3 3

2.0 Testing Conditions

2.1 Wave Bas in

The Martin Ecosystems BFB was tested in the University of South Alabama's wave basin research facility (Figure 2). The wave basin is 30 ft long, 20 ft wide, and 3 ft deep. Clean water from the building's potable freshwater supply is used to fill the basin for testing. A large pump is used to drain the basin. Water levels are set by either filling or draining the basin.

There is a wave-generating bulkhead at one end of the basin and a sloping sand beach at the other. The wave-generating bulkhead is connected to a computer-driven hydraulic piston, which controls its motion in the basin. A number of user-defined wave motion files were used to drive the bulkhead and generate waves for these tests. Waves in this facility may be either monochromatic (having all the same wave period) or spectral (having many different periods), but they are always unidirectional (having only one direction).

Water levels in the basin were recorded using capacitance style gages. These gages recorded the water level position at a frequency of 10 Hz. These records were subsequently used to determine wave height and wave period statistics.

Figure 2. University of South Alabama wave basin research facility.

4 4

2.2 Exper imenta l Se tup

The purpose of this testing contract is to measure wave transmission. Waves encountering an obstruction may be transformed through transmission, reflection, and/or diffraction. Reflected waves can be removed from measured signals provided the basin is sufficiently long and you use as many as three gages on the windward (up-wave) side of the structure. Wave diffraction, however, is much more difficult to account for in measured signals, so it is generally avoided during wave transmission testing.

A splitter wall was used to partition the wave basin into testing and non-testing areas (see Figure 1). The splitter wall was placed approximately 6.25 ft from a basin wall to create the testing area. This allowed the BFB to fit loosely within the test section to ensure freedom of movement, but simultaneously prevented waves from diffracting around the ends of the structure and contaminating the wave measurements. The testing section ran nearly the entire length of the 30-ft-long wave basin. The BFB was "moored" to the basin floor using plastic-coated stainless steel cable at all six mooring points provided on the unit. Mooring lines were installed in an "x" or diagonal fashion to provide lateral resistance to wave motion.

Water levels and wave characteristics were measured using only one gage during testing. Typically, as many as four gages might be used: three gages on the windward side of the structure, and one (or more) gages on the leeward (protected) side. Due to the short length of the basin, using more than one or two gages is impractical. Therefore, a single gage method was used during testing. This method has been successfully used in every wave transmission study performed in the USA wave basin, and has also been successfully used by other investigators. When taking measurements in this fashion, the wave conditions are often referred to as the "with" and "without" structure conditions. Taking a ratio of their values results in an "influence" coefficient instead of a transmission coefficient, but the two are basically identical.

In the single gage method a suite of baseline experiments is performed to determine the "incident" wave conditions without the structure in place. All other measurements of the "transmitted" wave are made with the structure in place. Since the testing section is straight and of uniform cross-section and depth, this measurement technique is synonymous with measuring the true incident wave characteristics on the windward side of the structure. An inherent benefit is that there is no need to remove a reflected wave signal. A consequence is that more experiments must be performed.

2.3 Dimens iona l Froude Sca l ing

The Martin Ecosystems BFB was tested at a reduced scale in the wave basin. Dimensional similitude was used to scale down the dimensions of the prototype unit. Here, the Froude number was used to set the scaling relationship. The Froude number represents the ratio of inertial to gravitational forces. Froude scaling is commonly applied when modeling surface gravity waves.

A scaling ratio of 1:4 (model:prototype) was applied to scale the dimensions of the BFB. The prototype dimensions of the BFB tested were 25 ft by 7.5 ft by 1.2 ft (length x width x height). The reduced model scale dimensions were 6.25 ft by 1.9 ft by 0.3 ft (length x width x height). Only the geometric properties of the BFB were scaled for testing. No attempt was made at scaling, or incorporating, vegetative coverings in this testing.

The 1:4 Froude scaling ratio also establishes the relationship between model (laboratory) and prototype (field) water level and wave conditions. Experimental depths ranged from 0.67 ft < d < 1.5 ft. Here, depth is defined as the vertical distance between the basin floor and the still water level (SWL) as shown in Figure 1. After scaling is applied, the corresponding prototype depth range is 2.7 < d < 6.0 ft. Wave heights, or the vertical distance between successive wave crests and troughs, in the laboratory testing ranged

5 5

from 2 in < H < 8 in. This corresponds to a prototype, or full-scale, range of 0.67 ft < H < 2.7 ft. Finally, wave periods, or the elapsed time between successive wave crests, in the laboratory testing ranged from 1 s < T < 2.5 s. This corresponds to a prototype range of 2 s < T < 5 s.

2.4 Exper imenta l Condi t ions

Laboratory testing was conducted to determine the wave transmission coefficients over a wide range of wave and water level conditions using four unique treatments. The treatments were used to simulate the effects of deployment depth and vegetative growth. More specifically, Treatments 1(A/B) and 2(A/B) simulated "shallow" and "deep" water deployments, respectively (see Figure 3). In these treatments, the moorings were set such that the BFB would be floating without resistance from the mooring system, then the water levels were varied to simulate tide ranges and/or extreme water levels. Additionally, Treatments (1/2)A and (1/2)B simulated the effects of vegetative growth on the BFB system. Since vegetative coverings were not considered for the model testing, applying weight to the unit simulated the increased weight and decreased buoyancy of the BFB. The amount of weight used was representative of one year of vegetative growth (based on manufacturer's specifications).

Excluding the baseline experiments performed to determine the "incident" wave heights, 176 unique experiments were performed in replicates of three, resulting in 528 experiments. The incident wave characteristics are given in Table 1. Eight unique waves were simulated for water depths ranging from 8 in to 16 in. Four unique waves were simulated for a water depth of 18 in. Water depths were varied by 2 in, resulting in testing depths of 8 in, 10 in, 12 in, 14 in, 16 in, and 18 in. The corresponding prototype scale water depths are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Definition sketch for the deployment depths and water levels used in Treatments 1 and 2. Lengths are given in feet and represent prototype conditions.

2.7ʼ3.3ʼ

4.0ʼ4.7ʼ

5.3ʼ6.0ʼ R*

*This is the approximate range between MLLW and MHHW at many locations in LA.

Treatment 1A - Shallow Water Deployment

2.7ʼ3.3ʼ

4.0ʼ4.7ʼ

5.3ʼ6.0ʼ

R*

*This is the approximate range between MLLW and MHHW at many locations in LA.

Treatment 2A - Deep Water Deployment

6 6

Table 1. Incident wave and water level conditions used in BFB testing. All values specified are model scale.

7 7

Table 2. Incident wave and water level conditions used in BFB testing. All values specified are prototype scale.

8 8


9 9

3.0 Results

The measured wave transmission coefficients for all treatments are provided in Appendices 7.1 - 7.4 of this report and have also been transmitted in a digital spreadsheet format for further use and analysis. In this section, testing results will be presented and described. Limited discussion of the results is provided in the following section.

Measured values of the wave transmission coefficient ranged from 0.4 < Kt < 1.0. As shown in Figure 4, there does not appear to be a discernible trend amongst the four treatments. The only notable behavior is that Kt values are consistently higher for Treatment 2 as compared to Treatment 1. The statistical significance of these results is described more fully in the following section.

The published technical literature on floating breakwaters clearly shows an inverse relationship between the wave transmission coefficient and the ratio of structure crest width (B in Figure 1) to wavelength. As the structure crest becomes large relative to the wavelength, the transmission coefficient decreases. This behavior is found in the laboratory measurements and is shown in Figure 5.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Tran

smis

sion

Coe

ffic

ient

, Kt

Treatment 1A Treatment 1B Treatment 2A Treatment 2B

Figure 4. Measured wave transmission coefficients for Treatments 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B (unordered).

10 10

Due to the size of the model unit and limitations of the wave generator, the maximum ratio of B/L, where L is the wavelength, attained in the testing was less than 0.5. The results shown in Figure 5 clearly indicate a dependence on this ratio, and average transmission coefficients for values of B/L > 0.3 are much lower than those for B/L < 0.3.

The relationship between wave transmission and wave steepness is shown in Figure 6. Here, wave steepness is defined as:

(2)

where g is the gravitational constant and T is wave period. Wave steepness values ranged from 0.01 to 0.2. There is an inverse relationship between the measured transmission coefficients and wave steepness. As wave steepness increases, the transmission coefficient decreases. Wave steepness may increase either due to increasing wave heights and/or decreasing wave periods.

€

Hi

gT 2

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45

Tran

smis

sion

Coe

ffic

ient

, Kt

Crest Width / Wavelength


Figure 5. Wave transmission coefficients as a function of the ratio of BFB crest width to wavelength.

11 11

While much weaker than the relationship between the transmission coefficient and either B/L or wave steepness, there is also an apparent dependence on the ratio of water depth to deployment depth. Here, deployment depth refers to the depth at which the BFB moorings are taught but the unit is still floating freely. As the water level falls below this position, the mooring system becomes slack and the BFB unit is allowed to translate laterally. As the water level rises above this position, the mooring system is further tensioned, the BFB unit becomes submerged, and lateral translation is reduced.

The relationship between wave transmission coefficient, water level, and deployment depth are shown in Figure 7. Generally, transmission coefficients are highest when the water depths are much smaller and much larger than the deployment depth. The smallest transmission coefficients measured (Kt < 0.5) for all four treatments occurred when the ratio of water depth to deployment depth was in the range 1.1 to 1.4.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.01 0.10 1.00

Tran

smis

sion

Coe

ffic

ient

, Kt

Wave Steepness


Figure 6. Measured wave transmission coefficients as a function of wave steepness.

12 12

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00

Tran

smis

sion

Coe

ffic

ient

, Kt

Variable Depth / Deployment Depth


Figure 7. Measured transmission coefficients as a function of variable depth and deployment depth.

13 13

4.0 Discussion

The selected combinations of wave characteristics and water levels are reflective of mild to moderate wave action found in sheltered waters and tide ranges typical of the Gulf of Mexico region. These testing conditions, and the four treatments considered, produced transmission coefficients ranging from 0.44 to 0.99. The following general relationships are demonstrated by the results:

• Kt decreases as the ratio of breakwater width to wavelength (B/L) increases • Kt decreases as wave steepness increases • Kt is minimized when the water depth is 1.1 to 1.4 times larger than the deployment depth

These results suggest that the BFB will be most effective at attenuating short period waves, like wind chop. This concept is reinforced by the relationship to wave steepness, where short period waves are attenuated more effectively by the BFB (i.e. lower Kt) values. The results also suggest that the wave attenuating capabilities of the BFB are improved when the unit is slightly submerged.

A statistical analysis of the wave transmission data reveals that deployment depth has an effect on wave attenuation, but the simulated vegetative growth does not. A single factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine statistical significance of testing results for Treatments 1A and 1B; Treatments 2A and 2B; Treatments 1A and 2A; and for Treatments 1B and 2B. The effect of deployment depth on wave transmission was statistically significant at the 95% confidence interval. Generally, the deeper deployment depth resulted in larger transmission coefficients (i.e. more transmission). However, the effect of simulated growth, using weight, showed no statistical significance at the 95% confidence interval. Therefore, the wave attenuating capability of the BFB is not expected to change significantly due to weight.

The wave attenuating capability of the BFB could be improved if the width were increased beyond the 7.5 ft (prototype scale) simulated in the physical modeling. Additional testing of (a) short period waves and/or (b) a wider unit would more clearly demonstrate these capabilities. The wave attenuating capability of the BFB could also be improved by deploying the unit at the Mean Tide Level (MTL) instead of Mean High Water (MHW). The laboratory testing results clearly indicate that as the amount of slack increases in the mooring system, the additional lateral translation leads to increased wave transmission (i.e. poor attenuation). Finally, deployments of the BFB in shallower waters should maximize its wave attenuating capabilities.

14 14


15 15

5.0 Appendices

5.1 Treatment 1A Tes t ing Data

The reduced testing data for Treatment 1A are given in Table A-1 (multiple parts). Treatment 1A corresponds to a deployment depth of 10 in at the initial time of deployment (no weight).

WAVE DEPTH (IN) REPLICATE Havg (in) Tavg (s) Havg (in) Tavg (s) Hi (in) Ht (in) Tavg (s) Kta 1.63 2.05b 1.62 2.05c 1.64 2.05a 2.07 2.08b 1.97 2.10c 1.97 1.55a 2.16 2.13b 2.38 1.93c 2.26 2.10a 2.14 2.10b 2.25 2.13c 2.18 2.10a 2.98 2.10b 2.98 2.08c 3.03 2.10a 3.33 2.08b 3.51 2.08c 3.54 2.08a 1.96 1.78b 2.00 1.78c 2.03 1.73a 2.26 1.75b 2.27 1.63c 2.30 1.68a 2.33 1.75b 2.17 1.75c 2.20 1.78a 2.48 1.80b 2.51 1.80c 2.45 1.78a 3.38 1.78b 3.33 1.75c 3.51 1.70a 3.95 1.78b 3.85 1.78c 3.95 1.75

Analysis

3.91 1.77 0.9118.00 3.91 1.77 4.28

1.75 0.8816.00 3.40 1.74 3.85 3.40

0.7014.00 2.48 1.79 3.54 2.48 1.74

12.00 2.23 1.76 3.13 2.23 1.75 0.71

10.00 2.28 1.68 2.91 2.28 1.75 0.78

2.25 2.00 1.75 0.89

MEBFB02

8.00 2.00 1.76

2.13 0.9118.00 3.46 2.08 3.81 3.46

3.00 2.10 0.8116.00 3.00 2.09 3.71

2.08 0.6914.00 2.19 2.11 3.19 2.19

2.26 2.06 0.8612.00 2.26 2.05 2.62

2.06 0.8910.00 2.00 1.91 2.24 2.00

0.82

Transmitted Data - Treatment 1A

MEBFB01

8.00 1.63 2.05 1.98 1.63 2.13

Table A- 1. Wave basin laboratory testing results for BFB Treatment 1A.

16 16

Table A-1 (continued)


WAVE DEPTH (IN) REPLICATE Havg (in) Tavg (s) Havg (in) Tavg (s) Hi (in) Ht (in) Tavg (s) KtAnalysisTransmitted Data - Treatment 1A

a 2.88 2.13b 2.24 2.03c 2.81 2.08a 3.10 2.20b 2.92 2.20c 3.22 2.23a 3.68 2.13b 3.35 2.10c 3.42 2.13a 4.06 2.18b 4.09 2.15c 3.87 2.15a 5.26 2.15b 5.15 2.15c 5.14 2.15a 6.08 2.13b 6.01 2.13c 6.13 2.13a 2.60 1.40b 2.49 1.40c 2.92 1.40a 2.93 1.43b 3.05 1.43c 2.85 1.43a 3.11 1.45b 3.19 1.45c 3.08 1.45a 3.64 1.45b 3.61 1.45c 3.57 1.45a 3.80 1.48b 3.87 1.48c 3.79 1.45a 4.63 1.45b 4.38 1.45c 4.45 1.45

4.49 1.43 0.9018.00 4.49 1.45 4.96

1.44 0.7416.00 3.82 1.47 5.17 3.82

0.7714.00 3.60 1.45 4.66 3.60 1.45

12.00 3.13 1.45 3.98 3.13 1.45 0.79

10.00 2.94 1.43 3.51 2.94 1.48 0.84

2.76 2.67 1.42 0.97

MEBFB04

8.00 2.67 1.40

2.15 0.9118.00 6.07 2.13 6.69 6.07

0.7816.00 5.18 2.15 6.60 5.18 2.13

14.00 4.01 2.16 5.89 4.01 2.13 0.68

12.00 3.48 2.12 5.13 3.48 1.64 0.68

4.65 3.08 1.59 0.66

2.64 1.46 0.63

MEBFB03

8.00 2.64 2.08 4.19

10.00 3.08 2.21


a 2.72 2.48b 2.59 2.45c 2.67 2.48a 3.20 2.53b 2.96 2.48c 3.07 2.50a 3.19 2.50b 2.95 2.50c 2.99 2.50a 3.19 2.43b 3.17 2.40c 3.34 2.40a 4.42 2.38b 4.40 2.38c 4.50 2.38a 2.18 1.03b 2.31 1.05c 2.38 1.03a 2.66 1.03b 2.91 1.03c 2.89 1.05a 2.42 1.03b 2.45 1.03c 2.31 1.00a 2.80 1.00b 2.63 1.00c 2.89 1.00a 3.14 1.08b 3.36 1.08c 3.22 1.08

3.24 1.03 0.5516.00 3.24 1.08 5.90

1.03 0.5114.00 2.77 1.00 5.46 2.77

2.39 1.03 0.5012.00 2.39 1.02 4.84

1.03 0.7010.00 2.82 1.03 4.00 2.82

2.29 1.04 0.63

MEBFB06

8.00 2.29 1.03 3.61

0.8916.00 4.44 2.38 5.00 4.44 2.38

14.00 3.23 2.41 3.77 3.23 2.37 0.86

12.00 3.04 2.50 3.27 3.04 2.16 0.93

3.28 3.08 2.51 0.94

2.66 1.76 0.85

MEBFB05

8.00 2.66 2.47 3.15

10.00 3.08 2.50

17 17


5 .2 Treatment 1B Tes t ing Data

The reduced testing data for Treatment 1B are given in Table A-2 (multiple parts). Treatment 1B corresponds to a deployment depth of 10 in at one year post-deployment (with weight).



6.73 2.21 0.8916.00 6.73 2.21 7.55

2.24 0.7914.00 5.29 2.24 6.73 5.29

4.23 2.23 0.5912.00 4.23 2.23 7.14

2.26 0.6110.00 3.86 2.26 6.29 3.86

3.23 2.31 0.58

MEBFB08

8.00 3.23 2.31 5.57

0.7916.00 4.89 1.85 6.18 4.89 1.85

14.00 3.41 1.90 5.71 3.41 1.85 0.60

12.00 3.18 1.88 5.25 3.18 1.88 0.61

5.00 3.08 1.89 0.62

2.79 1.90 0.66

MEBFB07

8.00 2.79 1.86 4.23

10.00 3.08 1.84


Transmitted Data - Treatment 1B Analysis

3.70 1.77 0.8718.00 3.70 1.71 4.28

1.75 0.8216.00 3.15 1.76 3.85 3.15

0.7014.00 2.49 1.77 3.54 2.49 1.74

12.00 2.36 1.78 3.13 2.36 1.75 0.75

10.00 2.40 1.72 2.91 2.40 1.75 0.82

2.25 2.02 1.75 0.90

MEBFB02

8.00 2.02 1.77

2.13 0.8118.00 3.07 2.00 3.81 3.07

2.81 2.10 0.7616.00 2.81 2.08 3.71

2.08 0.6914.00 2.19 2.08 3.19 2.19

1.88 2.06 0.7212.00 1.88 2.08 2.62

2.06 0.8110.00 1.82 2.10 2.24 1.82

0.70

MEBFB01

8.00 1.39 2.07 1.98 1.39 2.13

Table A- 2. Wave basin laboratory testing results for BFB Treatment 1B.

18 18



WAVE DEPTH (IN) REPLICATE Havg (in) Tavg (s) Havg (in) Tavg (s) Hi (in) Ht (in) Tavg (s) KtTransmitted Data - Treatment 1B Analysis


4.71 1.43 0.9518.00 4.71 1.43 4.96

1.44 0.7916.00 4.10 1.46 5.17 4.10

0.7814.00 3.66 1.45 4.66 3.66 1.45

12.00 3.23 1.45 3.98 3.23 1.45 0.81

10.00 2.94 1.42 3.51 2.94 1.48 0.84

2.76 2.45 1.42 0.89

MEBFB04

8.00 2.45 1.40

2.15 0.9118.00 6.10 2.13 6.69 6.10

0.7716.00 5.07 2.13 6.60 5.07 2.13

14.00 4.01 2.12 5.89 4.01 2.13 0.68

12.00 3.25 2.12 5.13 3.25 1.64 0.63

4.65 3.07 1.59 0.66

2.86 1.46 0.68

MEBFB03

8.00 2.86 2.13 4.19

10.00 3.07 2.16



3.53 1.03 0.6016.00 3.53 1.06 5.90

1.03 0.4514.00 2.47 1.03 5.46 2.47

2.54 1.03 0.5212.00 2.54 1.03 4.84

1.03 0.6010.00 2.41 1.03 4.00 2.41

1.78 1.04 0.49

MEBFB06

8.00 1.78 1.05 3.61

0.7916.00 3.95 2.38 5.00 3.95 2.38

14.00 3.05 2.38 3.77 3.05 2.37 0.81

12.00 2.91 2.49 3.27 2.91 2.16 0.89

3.28 2.76 2.51 0.84

2.46 1.76 0.78

MEBFB05

8.00 2.46 2.47 3.15

10.00 2.76 2.47

19 19


5 .3 Treatment 2A Tes t ing Data

The reduced testing data for Treatment 2A are given in Table A-3 (multiple parts). Treatment 2A corresponds to a deployment depth of 14 in at the initial time of deployment (no weight).



7.43 2.22 0.9916.00 7.43 2.22 7.55

2.21 0.9014.00 6.04 2.21 6.73 6.04

4.64 2.22 0.6512.00 4.64 2.22 7.14

2.30 0.6010.00 3.76 2.30 6.29 3.76

3.16 2.30 0.57

MEBFB08

8.00 3.16 2.30 5.57

0.8116.00 4.98 1.87 6.18 4.98 1.85

14.00 3.91 1.88 5.71 3.91 1.85 0.68

12.00 3.12 1.90 5.25 3.12 1.88 0.59

5.00 3.00 1.89 0.60

2.84 1.90 0.67

MEBFB07

8.00 2.84 1.88 4.23

10.00 3.00 1.88


Transmitted Data - Treatment 2A Analysis

3.28 1.77 0.7718.00 3.28 1.58 4.28

1.75 0.7816.00 3.02 1.73 3.85 3.02

0.8414.00 2.96 1.73 3.54 2.96 1.74

12.00 3.00 1.75 3.13 3.00 1.75 0.96

10.00 2.75 1.76 2.91 2.75 1.75 0.95

2.25 2.58 1.75 0.99

MEBFB02

8.00 2.58 1.78

2.13 0.8418.00 3.21 2.12 3.81 3.21

2.81 2.10 0.7616.00 2.81 2.14 3.71

2.08 0.8814.00 2.80 2.13 3.19 2.80

2.69 2.06 0.9912.00 2.69 2.09 2.62

2.06 0.9910.00 2.33 2.09 2.24 2.33

0.97

MEBFB01

8.00 1.93 2.06 1.98 1.93 2.13

Table A- 3. Wave basin laboratory testing results for BFB Treatment 2A.

20 20



WAVE DEPTH (IN) REPLICATE Havg (in) Tavg (s) Havg (in) Tavg (s) Hi (in) Ht (in) Tavg (s) KtTransmitted Data - Treatment 2A Analysis


4.63 1.43 0.9318.00 4.63 1.48 4.96

1.44 0.9316.00 4.79 1.45 5.17 4.79

0.9714.00 4.53 1.44 4.66 4.53 1.45

12.00 3.92 1.44 3.98 3.92 1.45 0.99

10.00 3.27 1.43 3.51 3.27 1.48 0.93

2.76 2.85 1.42 0.99

MEBFB04

8.00 2.85 1.43

2.15 0.8418.00 5.63 2.16 6.69 5.63

0.7716.00 5.07 2.17 6.60 5.07 2.13

14.00 4.77 2.15 5.89 4.77 2.13 0.81

12.00 4.70 2.14 5.13 4.70 1.64 0.92

4.65 4.23 1.59 0.91

3.91 1.46 0.93

MEBFB03

8.00 3.91 2.16 4.19

10.00 4.23 2.13



2.59 1.03 0.4416.00 2.59 1.03 5.90

1.03 0.5914.00 3.22 1.04 5.46 3.22

3.39 1.03 0.7012.00 3.39 1.03 4.84

1.03 0.7310.00 2.92 1.04 4.00 2.92

2.52 1.04 0.70

MEBFB06

8.00 2.52 1.03 3.61

0.7116.00 3.55 2.41 5.00 3.55 2.38

14.00 3.67 2.44 3.77 3.67 2.37 0.97

12.00 3.46 2.46 3.27 3.46 2.16 0.99

3.28 3.23 2.51 0.98

3.35 1.76 0.99

MEBFB05

8.00 3.35 2.47 3.15

10.00 3.23 2.29

21 21


5 .4 Treatment 2B Tes t ing Data

The reduced testing data for Treatment 2B are given in Table A-4 (multiple parts). Treatment 2B corresponds to a deployment depth of 14 in at one year post-deployment (with weight).



7.11 2.24 0.9416.00 7.11 2.24 7.55

2.22 0.9614.00 6.43 2.22 6.73 6.43

5.12 2.23 0.7212.00 5.12 2.23 7.14

2.25 0.7910.00 4.99 2.25 6.29 4.99

4.84 2.27 0.87

MEBFB08

8.00 4.84 2.27 5.57

0.7816.00 4.81 1.91 6.18 4.81 1.85

14.00 4.40 1.92 5.71 4.40 1.85 0.77

12.00 4.38 1.88 5.25 4.38 1.88 0.83

5.00 4.21 1.89 0.84

3.72 1.90 0.88

MEBFB07

8.00 3.72 1.87 4.23

10.00 4.21 1.86


Transmitted Data - Treatment 2B Analysis

3.53 1.77 0.8218.00 3.53 1.78 4.28

1.75 0.8516.00 3.27 1.73 3.85 3.27

0.9214.00 3.27 1.73 3.54 3.27 1.74

12.00 3.22 1.77 3.13 3.22 1.75 0.99

10.00 2.68 1.78 2.91 2.68 1.75 0.92

2.25 1.96 1.75 0.87

MEBFB02

8.00 1.96 1.78

2.13 0.8518.00 3.25 2.10 3.81 3.25

2.96 2.10 0.8016.00 2.96 2.10 3.71

2.08 0.8514.00 2.70 2.08 3.19 2.70

2.06 2.06 0.7812.00 2.06 1.93 2.62

2.06 0.9410.00 2.10 2.08 2.24 2.10

0.92

MEBFB01

8.00 1.82 2.08 1.98 1.82 2.13

Table A- 4. Wave basin laboratory testing results for BFB Treatment 2B.

22 22





4.74 1.43 0.9518.00 4.74 1.46 4.96

1.44 0.9416.00 4.85 1.48 5.17 4.85

0.9514.00 4.43 1.44 4.66 4.43 1.45

12.00 3.67 1.43 3.98 3.67 1.45 0.92

10.00 3.14 1.43 3.51 3.14 1.48 0.89

2.76 2.71 1.42 0.98

MEBFB04

8.00 2.71 1.43

2.15 0.8418.00 5.64 2.15 6.69 5.64

0.7916.00 5.20 2.13 6.60 5.20 2.13

14.00 4.54 2.14 5.89 4.54 2.13 0.77

12.00 4.30 2.13 5.13 4.30 1.64 0.84

4.65 3.82 1.59 0.82

3.11 1.46 0.74

MEBFB03

8.00 3.11 2.15 4.19

10.00 3.82 2.13



2.94 1.03 0.5016.00 2.94 1.04 5.90

1.03 0.5914.00 3.21 1.03 5.46 3.21

3.04 1.03 0.6312.00 3.04 1.04 4.84

1.03 0.6110.00 2.46 1.06 4.00 2.46

1.90 1.04 0.53

MEBFB06

8.00 1.90 1.04 3.61

0.7116.00 3.57 2.42 5.00 3.57 2.38

14.00 3.47 2.45 3.77 3.47 2.37 0.92

12.00 3.45 2.48 3.27 3.45 2.16 0.99

3.28 3.39 2.51 0.99

2.99 1.76 0.95

MEBFB05

8.00 2.99 2.52 3.15

10.00 3.39 2.49

23 23


5.5 Tes t ing Photos

A number of photos were taken during testing and they are provided below. Digital copies will also be transmitted on storage media.

Figure A- 1. USA wave basin experimental setup for baseline testing.



7.22 2.30 0.9616.00 7.22 2.30 7.55

2.30 0.9414.00 6.31 2.30 6.73 6.31

5.20 2.23 0.7312.00 5.20 2.23 7.14

2.20 0.7610.00 4.78 2.20 6.29 4.78

4.33 2.70 0.78

MEBFB08

8.00 4.33 2.70 5.57

0.7516.00 4.62 1.89 6.18 4.62 1.85

14.00 4.63 1.90 5.71 4.63 1.85 0.81

12.00 4.68 1.89 5.25 4.68 1.88 0.89

5.00 4.39 1.89 0.88

3.37 1.90 0.80

MEBFB07

8.00 3.37 1.92 4.23

10.00 4.39 1.90

24 24

Figure A- 2. Martin Ecosystems BFB installed for testing during Treatment 2B.

Figure A- 3. Martin Ecosystems BFB installation and view of mooring system (prior to testing).

25 25

Figure A- 4. View of the mooring system used during wave basin testing.

Figure A- 5. View of the Martin Ecosystems BFB during testing for Treatment 2B. Perspective is from under

the wave gage looking toward the wave generator.

26 26

Figure A- 6. View of the Martin Ecosystems BFB during testing for Treatment 2B.

Documents

Wave Transmission Testing of the Martin Ecosystems ...martinecosystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/... · BioHaven® Floating Breakwater (BFB) through physical modeling in the