Investigation of Different Oriented 2D Straight Breakwater Under Dynamic Conditions

Öz

In this study, flow behavior behind a breakwater was investigated for plane-based model. In the examination, straight models at different position angles were used for the breakwater. Dynamic inlet flow was used, and the wave model has been applied in commonly used two-row amplitude. The focus is on the area between the breakwater and the coastline, which is important for the use of breakwaters. The usage of Θ=+80 position angle in placement of straight breakwater gives the most suitable response. The results were discussed in detail.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• amplitude
• breakwater
• pressure
• wave.

Kaynakça

1. Miche, R. 1944. Mouvements ondulatoires de la mer in profendeur constante ou decroissante. Annals des Ponts et Chaussees; Paris, Vol. 114.
2. Minikin, RR. 1950. Winds, waves and maritime Structures. Charles Griffin, London.
3. Ito, Y, Tanimoto, K. 1971. Meandering damages of composite type breakwaters. Tch.Note of Port and Harbour Res; Inst., No 112. 20p. (in Japanese)
4. Nagai, S. 1973. Wave forces on structures. Advances in Hydroscience, Academic Press, New York; 9: 253–324.
5. Goda, Y. 1974. New wave pressure formulae for composite breakwaters. Proc. 14th Int.Conf. on Coastal Engineering; ASCE, 1702–1720.
6. Goda, Y. 1985. Random seas and design of maritime structures. University of Tokyo.
7. Ahrens, JP, Mc Cartney, BL. 1975. Wave period effect on the stability of riprap. Proc. Civil Engineering in the Ocean III; 2: 1019- 1034.
8. Takahashi, S, Tanimoto, K. 1994. Design and construction of caisson breakwaters – the Japanese experience. Coastal Engineering; 22(1–2): 57–77.

9. Van der Meer, JW. 1988. Rock slopes and gravel beaches under wave attack. Delft University of Technology, Doctoral Thesis; No. 396, Delft.
10. Naimi, S, Özdemir, Z. 2020. Yapılarda yer altı suyuna karşı yapılan koruma sistemlerinin uygulanabilirliği ve güvenliğinin incelenmesi. AURUM Journal of Engineering Systems and Architecture; 4(1): 113-133.
11. Zhao,XL,Ning,DZ,Zou,QP,Qiao,DS,Cai,SQ.2019.Hybrid floating breakwater-WEC system: a review. Ocean Engineering; 186: 106126.
12. Loukogeorgaki, E, Yagci, O, Kabdasli, MS. 2014. 3D Experimental investigation of the structural response and the effectiveness of a moored floating breakwater with flexibly connected modules. Coastal Engineering; 91: 164–
13. Huang,J,Chen,G.2022.Experimentalstudyofwaveimpacton a vertical wall with overhanging horizontal cantilever slab and structural response analysis. Ocean Engineering; 247: 110765.
14. Mares-Nasarre, P, Argente, G, Gómez-Martín, ME, Medina, JR. 2019. Overtopping layer thickness and overtopping flow velocity on mound breakwaters. Coastal Engineering; 154: 103561.
15. Mustapa,MA,Yaakob,OB,Ahmed,YM,Rheem,C,Kohb,KK, Adnana, FA. 2017. Wave energy device and breakwater integration: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews; 77: 43–58.
16. Dentale, F, Reale, F, Leo, AD, Carratelli, EP. 2018. A CFD approach to rubble mound breakwater design. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering; 10: 644-650.