Coastal Engineering 184 (2023) 104344

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Coastal Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/coastaleng

Wave transmission at submerged coastal structures and artificial reefs

Marcel R.A. van Gent a, b, *, Lisanne Buis a, b, d, Jeroen P. van den Bos b, c, Davide Wüthrich b
a
Dept. Coastal Structures & Waves, Deltares, Delft, the Netherlands
b
Dept. Hydraulic Engineering, TU Delft, Delft, the Netherlands
c
Boskalis, Papendrecht, the Netherlands
d
Van Oord, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Wave transmission at low-crested coastal structures has been studied, based on physical model tests with trap­
Wave transmission ezoidal impermeable, permeable and perforated structures. The differences between wave transmission at
Artificial reefs impermeable and permeable structures are relatively limited. For a perforated hollow structure with an
Coastal structures
impermeable vertical screen in the middle, the wave transmission is significantly less than for perforated
Breakwaters
Impermeable structures
structures without an impermeable vertical screen; the blocking of the orbital motion by the screen significantly
Rubble mound breakwaters reduces wave transmission. The effectiveness of an impermeable vertical screen to block the orbital motion and
Perforated structures consequently reduce wave transmission assists designers of artificial reefs to design structures that reduce wave
Physical model tests transmission. Empirical expressions based on a hyperbolic tangent function have been derived to describe the test
Design guidelines results. For permeable structures also available data for emerged structures has been used in the analysis, and the
newly introduced expression appears to be accurate for both submerged and emerged permeable structures.

1. Introduction sand nourishment) or by constructing a low-crested or submerged

structure in front of the existing structure such that the wave loading on
Aquatic biodiversity is under threat by for instance ocean warming, the existing structure reduces. The submerged structure can be a tradi­
acidification, local overexploitation of fisheries and locally declining tional coastal structure, but the function of dissipating wave energy can
water quality. The increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentra­ also be combined with the function of enhancing marine life by creating
tions threatens coral-dominated reef systems (see e.g. Hoegh-Guldberg an artificial reef as discussed before. The construction of an artificial reef
et al., 2007, and Hoegh-Guldberg, 2010). To enhance marine life and could be a measure against the consequences of climate change for
improve aquatic biodiversity, artificial reefs have been proposed. Some coastal protection and contribute to diminishing the negative conse­
of the proposed artificial reefs primarily focus on enhancing marine life quences of climate change for (the biodiversity of) marine life.
and stimulating biodiversity. Other artificial reefs combine the function Since the primary interest with respect to the hydraulic performance
of enhancing marine life with reducing the wave loading on the coast by of traditional submerged structures often is the reduction in wave
wave dissipation on the reef. Systems and coastal structures that have loading on the coast, the wave transmission at coastal structures has
the goal to stimulate marine life can have a significantly different shape been studied by a large number of researchers (e.g. Sollitt and Cross,
than traditional submerged coastal structures (see for instance Fig. 1 and 1972; Daemen, 1991; d’Angremond et al., 1996; Seabrook and Hall,
Van den Brekel, 2021, and Van Diederen, 2022). 1998; Bleck and Oumeraci, 2001; Calabrese et al., 2002; Briganti et al.,
Climate adaptation of existing coastal structures has become more 2003; Van der Meer et al., 2005; Van Oosten et al., 2006; Koutandos
important due to climate change, the resulting sea level rise and et al., 2006; Buccino and Calabrese, 2007; Makris and Memos, 2007;
increased wave loading for structures with depth-limited wave loading. Goda and Ahrens, 2008; Tomasicchio et al., 2011; Mahmoudi et al.,
In case sea level rise causes wave loading that becomes too severe, one of 2017; Lokesha et al., 2019; Brancasi et al., 2022; Le Xuan et al., 2022).
the options is to reduce the wave loading before the waves reach the Many of those studies resulted in empirical expressions to estimate wave
existing coastal structure (see for instance Van Gent, 2019, and transmission over low-crested structures, although wave transmission
Hogeveen, 2021). This can be achieved by increasing the foreshore (e.g. was also studied by means of numerical modelling (e.g. Van Gent, 1995;

* Corresponding author. Dept. Coastal Structures & Waves, Deltares, Delft, the Netherlands.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M.R.A. van Gent).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2023.104344
Received 9 March 2023; Received in revised form 13 May 2023; Accepted 26 May 2023
Available online 3 June 2023
0378-3839/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M.R.A. van Gent et al. Coastal Engineering 184 (2023) 104344

Metallinos et al., 2016) and machine-learning techniques (e.g. Van permeable structure is of importance. Wave transmission depends
Oosten et al., 2006; Panizzo and Briganti, 2007). Since the character­ heavily on the freeboard (Rc). Sollitt and Cross (1972) studied the wave
istics of artificial reefs such as overall shape, permeability and roughness transmission for emerged low-crested rubble mound structures with
can be quite different from traditional submerged coastal structures, it is wave transmission coefficients in the range of Kt = 0.2 to 0.5. Based on
unknown whether existing methods to estimate wave transmission can theoretical considerations and wave flume tests with regular waves,
be applied to submerged structures with other characteristics. To Sollitt and Cross (1972) concluded that the wave transmission depends
improve the understanding of wave transmission at submerged artificial for instance on the wave height, wave steepness (or wave length), the
reefs, new physical model tests have been performed. width of the structure, and permeability of the structure. Hamer and
In the present study, the primary focus is on assessing the wave Hamer (1982) studied wave transmission for an emerged impermeable
transmission over submerged coastal structures, with the aim to structure and found that, besides the wave height, wave steepness and
generate knowledge on wave transmission that can be used for a variety height of the structure, also the structure slope affects the wave trans­
of artificial reefs. For that purpose, physical model tests are performed in mission. In addition, they found that compared to the incident waves the
a wave flume, for a traditional trapezoidal impermeable submerged transmitted waves contain more energy in the higher frequencies. This
structure, a traditional trapezoidal permeable submerged structure, and indicates that the spectral shape changes which would lead to a shorter
three trapezoidal configurations with a non-standard submerged reef wave period at the rear side than at the front side.
structure to obtain information on the performance with respect to wave Daemen (1991) analysed wave transmission at submerged and
transmission. The aim is not primarily to propose a new shape of an emerged low-crested rubble mound structures with irregular waves.
artificial reef but to generate knowledge that can be used in the design of Daemen (1991) confirmed that wave transmission depends on the
other (non-tested) artificial reefs with respect to wave transmission. freeboard (Rc), wave height (Hm0), wave steepness (s) and crest width
The structure of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 earlier studies on (B). Daemen (1991) concluded that the slope angle has no or minor
wave transmission are discussed. In Section 3 the physical model tests influence within the studied ranges of the available data-sets. Daemen
are described. In Section 4 the test results are analysed, compared to (1991) also derived an empirical expression for trapezoidal rubble
existing empirical expressions, and a new expression is proposed. Sec­ mound breakwaters with 1 < Hm0/Dn50 < 6, − 2 < Rc/Hm0 < 2 and a
tion 5 describes the conclusions and recommendations. wave steepness based on the peak wave period of 0.01 < sop < 0.05 (sop =
2π Hm0/gT2p ), where Dn50 is the stone diameter:
2. Literature on wave transmission ( ( ) )( )
Hm0 Rc
Kt = 0.031 − 0.024
Dn50 Dn50
Wave transmission is defined as Kt = Hm0-t/Hm0 where Hm0 is the ( ( ) ( )1.84 )
spectral significant wave height of the incident waves in front of the Hm0 B
+ 0.51 − 5.42sop + 0.0323 − 0.0017 (1)
structure (Hm0 = 4√m0) and Hm0-t is the spectral significant wave height Dn50 Dn50
of the waves at the rear side of the structure. In the present study the
focus is on wave transmission at trapezoidal coastal structures or arti­ with a maximum of Kt = 0.75 and a minimum of Kt = 0.075.
ficial reefs. Many studies have been performed on wave transmission at d’Angremond et al. (1996) proposed expressions for impermeable
submerged (freeboard Rc < 0) and emerged low-crested coastal struc­ and permeable structures:
tures (freeboard Rc > 0). For traditional submerged structures the ( ) ( )
transmission of wave energy primarily occurs over the structure, while Rc ( [ ]) B − 0.31
Kt = − 0.4 + c 1 − exp − 0.5ξop (2)
for emerged structures the contribution of wave transmission through Hm0 Hm0
permeable structures increases for higher crests. Obviously for non-
overtopped structures only the wave transmission through the where ξop is the surf-similarity parameter (or Iribarren parameter) based

Fig. 1. Examples of artificial reef units: Upper: Reef enhancing breakwater by Reefy in wave flume (source: Van den Brekel, 2021); Lower: Moses by ReefSystems
(Lower left: model tests by Van Diederen, 2022; Lower-right:application in practice).

2
M.R.A. van Gent et al. Coastal Engineering 184 (2023) 104344

on Hm0 and the peak wave period Tp of the incident waves (ξop = tan considered in the following. Eq. (3) was also derived for very wide
α/s0.5
op ); c = 0.8 for impermeable structures and c = 0.64 for permeable crests, and therefore not considered further. In the following, expres­
structures, both with a maximum of Kt = 0.8 and a minimum of Kt = sions shown in Eq. (2) and Eq. (5) are used.
0.075. Based on the earlier studies it can be concluded that wave trans­
Briganti et al. (2003) proposed to replace the expression by d’An­ mission is primarily determined by the freeboard (Rc), the crest width
gremond et al. (1996) for permeable structures with a wide crest (B/Hm0 (B), the wave height (Hm0) and the wave steepness (s) while the influ­
> 10) by: ence of the structure slope (cot α), stone diameter (Dn50), porosity (n)
( ) ( ) and local water depth (h) are also included in empirical expressions by
( [ ]) B − 0.65
Kt = − 0.35
Rc
+ 0.51 1 − exp − 0.41 ξop for ξop < 3 some researchers. Impermeable structures show a somewhat different
Hm0 Hm0 performance in terms of wave transmission than permeable structures.
(3) d’Angremond et al. (1996) indicates that the same parameters affect
wave transmission for impermeable and permeable structures and that
with a maximum of Kt = 0.8 and a minimum of Kt = 0.075.
differences can be accounted for by changing a coefficient in the
Van der Meer et al. (2005) proposed to replace the expression by
empirical expression. In the present study the focus is on submerged
d’Angremond et al. (1996) for permeable structures with a very wide
structures and artificial reef structures.
crest (B/Hm0 > 12) by:
To illustrate the expressions by d’Angremond et al. (1996), Fig. 2
( )
Rc ( [ ]) shows Eq. (2) for impermeable and permeable structures, each for the
Kt = − 0.3 + 0.75 1 − exp − 0.5ξop for ξop < 3 (4) lowest and highest wave steepness within the range of validity (sop =
Hm0
0.01 and sop = 0.05), all with a slope of 1:2 and a crest width of B/Hm0 =
with a maximum of Kt = 0.8 and a minimum of Kt = 0.075, and to use 1.5. It is remarkable that the transmission coefficient does not show a
d’Angremond et al. (1996) for normal crest widths (B/Hm0 < 8), and to trend towards Kt = 1 for relatively low structures. This upper limit is one
interpolate between Eq. (2) and Eq. (4) for intermediate crest widths (8 of the aspects investigated in present research.
< B/Hm0 <12). d’Angremond et al. (1996) addressed the problem that available data
Kurdistani et al. (2022) proposed a formula for submerged homo­ from previous tests do not form a homogenous database. This is because
geneous rubble mound breakwaters based on a large dataset and nu­ model tests have been carried out by different laboratories, using
merical modelling. Kurdistani et al. (2022) compared their empirical different methods of wave generation and wave absorption, different
expression with expressions by d’Angremond et al. (1996), Seabrook methods to obtain incident waves from measured surface elevation, and
and Hall (1998), Calabrese et al. (2002), Briganti et al. (2003), and Goda different definitions of parameters. This also hampers data driven
and Ahrens (2008). Kurdistani et al. (2022) concluded that their formula techniques based on databases from different sources, like the machine-
outperforms mentioned empirical relations: learning method by Van Oosten et al. (2006) and other attempts to es­
timate wave transmission based on machine learning techniques.

( ( )0.75 ( )0.125 ( )0.39 )

Rc Beff Lp
Kt = 0.576 ln 0.042
0.428 (1 + cot α) 1− ω 0.413
ψ − 0.18
+ 0.923 (5)
Hm0 D50 Beff

where Rc is a negative value for submerged structures, Beff is defined as

Beff = (4B + bottom width)/5 for submerged structures, which results in
an “effective width” Beff larger than the crest width B. For a trapezoidal
structure: Beff = B + 0.4 cot α (h + Rc) in which h is the water depth in
front of the structure and h + Rc is the height of the structure. ω is a
non-dimensional wave parameter ω=(1/2π)tanh (2πh/Lp) in which the
local wave length Lp is based on the peak wave period Tp and the local
water depth h. For the ratio between the stone diameter D50 and the
nominal stone diameter Dn50 = 0.84 D50 has been used here. ψ is a kind
of wave damping parameter to account for dissipation inside the
permeable structure with porosity n: ψ = n0.5hBeff/BHm0. Compared to
Eqs. (1)–(4), Eq. (5) introduces the water depth in front of the structure h
and the porosity n as additional independent parameters.
Note that Eqs. (2)–(4), include the surf-similarity parameter, which
consists of the slope angle and the wave steepness, while Sollitt and
Cross (1972) and Daemen (1991) observed a dependency on the wave
steepness but not on the slope angle. Thus, the mentioned publications
all confirm that the wave steepness affects wave transmission, while the
dependency on the slope angle is apparently not that obvious. Besides
the freeboard, also the crest width clearly affects the wave transmission
since most researchers observed this dependency, except Van der Meer
et al. (2005) who concluded that for very wide crests there is no de­
pendency on the crest width. If very wide crests would not reduce the
wave transmission any further, it is hard to justify the practical rele­
vance of such more expensive structures in terms of hydraulic perfor­ Fig. 2. Wave transmission as function of the non-dimensional freeboards as
mance. Very wide structures for which Eq. (4) is developed are not expressed by d’Angremond et al. (1996) for impermeable and permeable
within the scope of the present study and therefore Eq. (4) is not structures (1:2 slopes and crest width of B/Hm0 = 1.5).

3
M.R.A. van Gent et al. Coastal Engineering 184 (2023) 104344

Modelling wave transmission using numerical models is another option the horizontal foreshore. The horizontal foreshore had a length of 13.9
but the modelling of interaction of breaking waves needs careful vali­ m. At the back of the flume a passive wave absorber was placed. In front
dation and appropriate modelling of for instance wave breaking pro­ and behind the structures wave gauges were positioned to separate
cesses and the flow in porous media. Hereafter, the focus is on physical incident and reflected waves from the measured surface elevations
modelling of wave transmission for various types of coastal structures in (Mansard and Funke, 1980). The wave transmission is defined as Kt =
the same test set-up using the same wave conditions, the same wave Hm0-t/Hm0 where Hm0 is the significant wave height of the incident waves
generation and active wave absorption technique, and the same method in front of the structure and Hm0-t is the significant wave height of the
to obtain incident waves from surface elevations. It is believed that these waves at the rear side of the structure, thus both wave heights are those
experiments provide new data to characterize wave transmission at propagating from left to right in Fig. 3.
permeable artificial reefs. Five trapezoidal structures were tested, all with a total height of h =
It is unknown to what extent available literature on wave trans­ 0.30 m, 1:2 slopes, and a crest width of B = 0.20 m.
missions can be applied for artificial reefs that have considerably
different characteristics (see for instance Fig. 1). Of course, each type of A) Impermeable structure: Smooth impermeable structure, made
artificial reef to enhance marine life can be tested to determine the wave of wood.
transmission performance. However, in order to provide additional B) Permeable structure: Homogeneous permeable structure of
guidance to design artificial reefs, more knowledge on the dominant stones, with Dn50 = 0.040 m and a porosity of n = 0.436. Stones
influence factors on wave transmission is desirable. For that purpose, the were fixed such that no displacements of stones occurred.
wave transmission performance of traditional low-crested structures C) Perforated structure: Hollow perforated structure, made of
(impermeable and permeable) is compared to those of some theoretical wood, with a surface porosity of n = 0.44 (slopes n = 0.443 and
structures. In the test programme the focus is on effects of the surface crest n = 0.424). Except for a few exceptions, to enable use of
porosity (i.e. the fraction of open space of the outer boundary of the velocity meters inside the structure, the circular holes all had a
structure) and the permeability of structures (i.e. determined by the diameter of 0.04 m.
porosity and size of the stones in the entire structure). Use will be made D) Perforated structure with an impermeable screen: As Struc­
of perforated structures, not to develop a new type of artificial reef but to ture C, but now an impermeable vertical screen was positioned in
improve the understanding of wave transmission. Nevertheless, if any of the middle of the structure.
the tested structures would be applied in reality as artificial reef, it is E) Perforated structure with a perforated screen: As Structure D,
likely that the various structures could to some extent enhance marine but now the vertical screen was perforated (n = 0.425).
life. However, evaluation of their performances other than comparing
the wave transmission characteristics is not part of the scope of the Fig. 4 shows the five (schematised) structures and pictures of each of
present research. The aim is also not to provide design guidelines for the structures. For the perforated structures (C to E) electromagnetic
specific artificial reefs as shown in Section 1, but to provide guidance velocity meters (EMF), with a diameter of 40 mm, were placed inside the
that can be used to design (other) artificial reefs. structures. The velocity measurements have been analysed in Buis
(2022) and are not further discussed here.
3. Physical model tests These configurations allow for comparing wave transmission at
impermeable and permeable submerged structures under the same test
The physical model tests were performed in the Scheldt Flume (110 conditions (Structures A and B). The first perforated structure (Structure
m long, 1 m wide, and 1.2 m high) at Deltares. The wave generator is C) was tested, not primarily to simulate real artificial reefs, but to study
equipped with active reflection compensation, accounting for short- the influence of surface permeability and core permeability (comparing
waves and long-waves effects. This means that the motion of the wave Structures A, B and C). Structure D was tested to examine the influence
paddle compensates for the waves reflected by the structure preventing of blocking the orbital motion for the part within the structure while
them to re-reflect at the wave paddle and propagate towards the model. Structure E was tested to examine the effect of partly blocking the orbital
Second-order wave generation has been applied to avoid spurious waves motion for the part within the structure.
that occur when first-order wave generation is applied. Tests were performed with significant wave heights of Hm0 = 0.10 m,
A horizontal foreshore was constructed on which the submerged 0.15 m, 0.20 m and 0.25 m. Two values of the wave steepness were used
structures and artificial reef structures were placed. Fig. 3 shows the leading to a wave steepness at the toe of the structures of around sm-1,0 =
cross-section of the foreshore in the flume. A 1:10 transition slope with a 0.015 and 0.03 (sm-1,0 = 2π Hm0/gT2m-1,0). Use is made of the spectral
total height of 0.35 m was made between the bottom of the flume and mean period Tm-1,0 since this wave period has shown to describe the

Fig. 3. Cross-section of the foreshore in the flume (upper panel) and close-up of perforated structure with positions of wave gauges WHM and velocity meters EMS
(lower panel).

4
M.R.A. van Gent et al. Coastal Engineering 184 (2023) 104344

Fig. 4. Five configurations of tested structures and pictures of each of these structures.

influence of the spectral shape on for instance wave run-up, wave 4. Analysis of test results
overtopping, and wave reflection at coastal structures (see Van Gent,
1999, 2001; Dekker et al., 2007). In all tests a JONSWAP wave spectrum 4.1. Test results
was used (with the standard peak enhancement factor of 3.3). All tests
consisted of about 1000 waves. The water depth at the toe of the Fig. 5 shows the measured wave transmission coefficients on the
structure was varied between d = 0.25 m–0.50 m in steps of 0.05 m, vertical axis and the non-dimensional freeboard on the horizontal axis.
which leads to a freeboard of Rc = − 0.20 m–0.05 m in steps of 0.05 m All wave transmission coefficients are above Kt = 0.5 and for the con­
(negative values for Rc refer to submerged structures, positive values ditions with the lowest relative crest, the wave transmission coefficients
refer to emerged structures). For Structures C and E the highest wave appear to approach asymptotically up to Kt = 1. Several prediction
height of Hm0 = 0.25 m has not been tested for the two highest free­ methods mentioned in Section 2 contain a maximum of Kt = 0.75 or Kt =
boards (Rc = 0.05 m and Rc = 0 m), while these structures are the only 0.80. Such a maximum is remarkable since it is expected that wave
ones tested with Rc = 0.05 m and Rc = 0 m. Thus, for Structures A, B and transmission should approach to Kt = 1 for a very low structure or for no
D only submerged structures have been tested while for Structures C and structure at all. The present test results show this expected trend towards
E also some emerged low-crested structures were tested. In total 184 Kt = 1.
tests were performed (32 for Structures A, B and D and 44 for Structures Although other parameters than the non-dimensional freeboard
C and E). Rc/Hm0 also affect wave transmission, Fig. 5 shows systematic differ­
ences between the various structures. First observations are.

• The wave transmission for the impermeable, permeable (rubble

mound breakwater), and the perforated structure with an imper­
meable vertical screen in the middle (Structures A, B and D) show a
similar trend while the wave transmission for the perforated struc­
ture without a screen (Structure C) and the perforated structure with
a perforated vertical screen in the middle (Structure E) is clearly
larger than for the other structures.
• The perforated structure (Structure C) shows the largest wave
transmission. The reduction in wave height due to the perforated
structure is generally more than a factor two less than for the
impermeable, permeable and perforated structure with a vertical
screen.
• The vertical screen in the centre of the perforated structure is highly
effective in reducing the wave transmission (compare Structure C
and D); the wave transmission for the perforated structure with a
vertical screen shows a performance that resembles those for
impermeable and permeable structures (compare Structure D with
Structures A and B).
• Perforating the vertical screen in the centre of the perforated struc­
ture for a large part eliminates the reducing effect of the vertical
screen (compare Structure E with Structure D).

The left panel of Fig. 6 shows the differences between the wave
transmission for the impermeable structure (Structure A) and the
Fig. 5. Measured wave transmission for each of the five tested structures.

5
M.R.A. van Gent et al. Coastal Engineering 184 (2023) 104344

Fig. 6. Left: Comparison between impermeable and permeable (rubble mound breakwater) structures (Structures A and B). Right: Comparison between three types of
perforated structures (Structures C, D and E).

permeable structure (Structure B) in more detail. Fig. 6 shows that for performance of the perforated structure with an impermeable vertical
structures that are slightly submerged (− 1 < Rc/Hm0 < 0) the wave screen approaches the performance of the impermeable and permeable
transmission for permeable structures is slightly larger than for imper­ structures. Fig. 5 shows that the results for structures that are slightly
meable structures. For these slightly submerged structures dissipation submerged (− 1 < Rc/Hm0 < 0) the wave transmission for this perforated
by wave breaking is deemed more important than wave dissipation due structure with a screen are between those for an impermeable structure
to roughness and friction of the permeable parts. For permeable struc­ and a permeable structure. For structures that are much more sub­
tures, the orbital motion is slightly less disturbed than for impermeable merged (− 2.5 < Rc/Hm0 < − 1.5) the wave transmission is even lower
structures; the permeable parts have a similar effect as an impermeable than for impermeable or permeable structures. Fig. 6 shows that
slope that is slightly below the actual surface of the permeable structure. perforating also the vertical screen in the centre of the perforated
As also observed for structures with a berm around the water level (see structure for a large part eliminates the reducing effect of the vertical
Chen et al., 2020), the wave breaking process is less intense for screen. Since (almost) no material is present in the core of the perforated
permeable structures than for impermeable structures (see also Metal­ structures, the volumetric porosity of the core of the perforated struc­
linos et al., 2016). The flow through the permeable structure towards the tures is close to n = 1.0. Since the performance of the perforated
wave front may reduce the intensity of the wave breaking and increase structure with an impermeable vertical screen is rather similar to the
the wave transmission for permeable structures compared to imperme­ impermeable (n = 0) and permeable (n = 0.436) structures, the results
able structures. indicate that the porosity and permeability of the core play a much
The left panel of Fig. 6 shows that for structures that are much more smaller role than the blocking of the orbital motion that is caused by the
submerged (− 2.5 < Rc/Hm0 < − 1.5) the wave transmission for perme­ impermeable vertical screen.
able structures is slightly lower than for impermeable structures. The wave energy that reaches the structure is divided into trans­
Apparently, for those low structures the dissipation by the roughness of mitted wave energy, reflected wave energy and dissipation. Wave
the stones and dissipation inside the permeable structure, become reflection is defined as Kr = Hm0-r/Hm0 where Hm0-r is the spectral sig­
relatively important compared to the influence of the permeable parts nificant wave height of the reflected waves in front of the structure.
on wave breaking. This could lead to more dissipation at the permeable Similar to the wave transmission coefficient Kt and the wave reflection
structure than for the smooth impermeable structure and consequently coefficient Kr, also for the dissipation a spectral wave height can be used:
to a somewhat smaller wave transmission for permeable structures for Kdissipation = Hm0-dissipation/Hm0 where Hm0-dissipation = 4√m0-dissipated with
these relatively low structures. m0-dissipated referring to the amount of dissipated wave energy. Using the
The right panel of Fig. 6 shows the differences between the wave energy balance K2t +K2r +K2dissipation = 1 leads to Kdissipation = (1-K2t -K2r )0.5.
transmission for the various perforated structures in more detail. The Thus, using the measured transmission coefficients and measured
perforated (hollow) structure (Structure C) shows a relatively high reflection coefficients a measure for the dissipation can be obtained.
amount of wave transmission. This indicates that the surface porosity, or This dissipation is the sum of dissipation due to wave breaking, rough­
permeability of the outer surface, contributes to the dissipation of en­ ness and permeability of the structure.
ergy but that (the absence of) a core is even more important. Apparently, Although other parameters than the non-dimensional freeboard Rc/
the orbital motion of the waves is disturbed by the perforated outer Hm0 also affect wave transmission, wave reflection and wave dissipation,
surface but far less than for an impermeable structure or a permeable the measured wave reflection is shown in Fig. 7 as function of this non-
structure. Although not tested, it can be expected that if the porosity or dimensional freeboard Rc/Hm0. The left panel of Fig. 7 indicates that the
diameter of the holes in the perforated surface would have been smaller, wave reflection is always larger for the impermeable structure than for
the permeability of the outer surface would reduce and therefore the permeable structure, which corresponds to wave reflection charac­
decrease the wave transmission. To increase the disturbance of the teristics for emerged impermeable and permeable structures. The
orbital motion of the passing waves, a vertical screen was placed in the spreading in the results indicates that the non-dimensional freeboard Rc/
centre of the perforated structure (Structure D). This proved very Hm0 is not the only ratio affecting wave reflection. For the perforated
effective, indicating that the main reductive effect on wave transmission structure with a vertical screen (Structure D) the right panel shows that
is due to (partly) blocking the orbital motion of the passing waves. The the reflection is reasonable well described using the non-dimensional

6
M.R.A. van Gent et al. Coastal Engineering 184 (2023) 104344

Fig. 7. Left: Wave reflection for impermeable and permeable structures (Structures A and B). Right: Wave reflection for three types of perforated structures
(Structures C, D and E).

freeboard Rc/Hm0 since the spreading around the trend is relatively non-dimensional freeboard Rc/Hm0 although also other parameters
small. This indicates that effects of for instance the wave steepness are affect the dissipation. The left panel of Fig. 8 indicates that for low
relatively small for this structure type. structures (− 2.5 < Rc/Hm0 < − 1.5) the wave energy dissipation is al­
Comparing the wave reflection for the perforated structure with a ways larger for the permeable structure than for the impermeable
screen (Structure D) with those for the impermeable structure (Structure structure, which confirms that for such low structures wave dissipation
A) show that these structures show similar values for the wave reflection is dominated by friction and permeability of the structure while dissi­
coefficients. Note that the reflection coefficients do not reach values pation due to wave breaking is relatively small. Since dissipation by
close to Kr = 0 for the tested non-dimensional freeboards. This explains friction and permeability of the structure is negligible for the imper­
why the wave transmission coefficients do not reach the value Kt = 1 meable structure, the wave dissipation approaches zero for very sub­
within the tested ranges. merged impermeable structures. For these low structures the wave
The reflections for the perforated structure (Structure C) and the reflection and dissipation are low, leading to relatively large wave
perforated structure with a perforated screen (Structure E) are very transmission.
similar, indicating that the perforated vertical screen hardly affects the For structures that are slightly submerged (− 1 < Rc/Hm0 < 0) the
wave reflection. The right panel of Fig. 7 shows a large influence of the wave dissipation for the permeable structure (Structure B) is generally
vertical screen if the screen is impermeable (Structure D) since the smaller than for the impermeable structure (Structure A). This confirms
reflection is clearly larger for this structure (Structure D compared to that for slightly submerged structures dissipation by wave breaking is
Structures C and E). more important than wave dissipation due to roughness and friction of
Fig. 8 shows the dissipation coefficient Kdissipation as function of the the permeable parts.

Fig. 8. Left: Wave energy dissipation for impermeable and permeable structures (Structures A and B). Right: Wave energy dissipation for three types of perforated
structures (Structures C, D and E).

7
M.R.A. van Gent et al. Coastal Engineering 184 (2023) 104344

The right panel of Fig. 8 shows that wave dissipation for the perfo­ (Structure A). This leads to wave transmission coefficients for Structure
rated structure (Structure C) is lower than for the perforated structure D that are similar to those of the permeable structure for relatively low
with a perforated vertical screen (Structure E). For the structure with an structures (dissipation dominated by roughness/permeability) and
impermeable vertical screen (Structure D) the dissipation is the largest similar to those of the impermeable structure for slightly submerged
of these three perforated structures. The wave dissipation values for this structures (dissipation dominated by wave breaking). The impermeable
structure (Structure D) are comparable to those of the permeable vertical screen in the perforated structure (Structure D) increases both
structure (Structure B), while the wave reflection values for this struc­ the reflection and the dissipation compared to the other perforated
ture (Structure D) are comparable to those of the impermeable structure structures (Structures C and E), leading to significantly lower wave

Fig. 9. Influence of wave steepness (left panels) and crest width (right panels) on wave transmission: Upper panel for impermeable structure, mid panel for
permeable structure and lower panel for perforated structure (Structures A, B and D).

8
M.R.A. van Gent et al. Coastal Engineering 184 (2023) 104344

transmission for this Structure D compared to the other perforated The wave transmission is expressed as the ratio between the wave
structures. heights at the rear side and at the front of the structure. Besides changes
The test results show that in order to limit wave transmission, the in the wave height, also some changes can be observed in the wave
perforated structure with an impermeable vertical screen (Structure D) period, although these changes are less pronounced than for the wave
is preferred over the other perforated structures (Structures C and E). height. Within the present test programme, for the impermeable struc­
Therefore, the main focus of further analysis is on the performance of the ture the ratio is on average Tm-1,0-t/Tm-1,0 = 0.94, for the permeable
impermeable structure, the permeable structure, and the perforated structure 0.97, for the perforated structure 1.04, for the perforated
structure with a screen (Structures A, B and D). structure with a vertical screen 0.95 and for the perforated structure
Fig. 9 indicates the influence of the wave steepness (left panels) and with a perforated screen 1.04.
the influence of the crest width (right panels) for the impermeable, Fig. 10 shows this ratio of the wave periods versus the non-
permeable and perforated structures (Structures A, B and D). In Fig. 9 dimensional freeboard. The figure shows that the more the structure is
‘low steepness waves’ refers to a wave steepness of the incident waves in submerged, the more the ratio of the wave periods tends towards one.
front of the structures of sm− 1,0 < 0.022 (sm− 1,0 = 2π Hm0/gT2m-1,0) and For crest elevations closer to the still waterline, which corresponds to
‘high steepness waves’ refers to a wave steepness of sm− 1,0 > 0.022. conditions with a lower wave transmission, the ratios deviate more from
‘Narrow crest’ refers to a crest with of B < 1.5 Hm0 and ‘wider crest’ one. For the impermeable, permeable structure and the perforated
refers to a crest width of B > 1.5 Hm0. structure with a vertical screen (Structures A, B and D), the wave periods
Fig. 9 shows that both the wave steepness and crest width affect the at the rear side on average reduce slightly; the amount of energy in
wave transmission. For each of the structures the wider crests clearly frequencies around the peak of the wave energy spectrum reduces
lead to lower wave transmission coefficients than the narrow crests. slightly more than the energy at frequencies higher than the peak of the
Note that only one crest width was tested such that the variation in the wave energy spectrum (see left panel of Fig. 11), leading to a slight
non-dimensional crest width is due to the variation in wave conditions. decrease of the wave period Tm-1,0-t compared to the wave period in front
For each of the structures the conditions with a lower wave steepness on of the structure (Tm-1,0). Note that the wave spectra in front of the
average lead to higher wave transmission coefficients than the condi­ structure, as shown in Fig. 11, have a clear second-order peak at the
tions with a higher wave steepness. The influence of the wave steepness double frequency of the peak. For the structures with relatively less
is relatively pronounced for the impermeable structure. The influence of wave dissipation, the perforated structure and the perforated structure
the wave steepness is present for slightly submerged structures but for with a perforated screen (Structures C and E), the wave periods at the
more submerged structures no or negligible effects of the wave steepness rear side on average increase slightly; the amount of energy in fre­
are observed in the wave transmission. This indicates that the wave quencies higher than the peak of the wave energy spectrum reduces
steepness affects the wave breaking, which is more important for slightly more than the energy around the peak of the spectrum (see right panel of
submerged structures than for more submerged structures. Fig. 11), leading to a slight increase of the wave period Tm-1,0-t compared
For the perforated structure (Structure D) the right panel of Fig. 7 to the wave period in front of the structure (Tm-1,0). Apparently, the
showed that the wave reflection does not depend on the wave steepness primary wave is hardly affected by the perforated structures (Structures
of the structure. For the dissipation (right panel of Fig. 8) the variations C and E) while the second-order peak, corresponding to shorter wave
around the trend due to variations in the wave steepness seem to lengths, clearly is.
decrease for more submerged structures, which again indicates that the Fig. 10 shows trendlines with the expression Tm-1,0-t/Tm-1,0 = 1–0.012
influence of wave steepness reduces for more submerged structures. (3-Rc/Hm0)2 in red (Structures A, B and D) and Tm-1,0-t/Tm-1,0 = 1 + 0.012
For each of these structures the test results confirm the outcome of (3-Rc/Hm0)2 in black (Structures C and E).
earlier studies that wave transmission depends on the wave height, the
wave steepness (or wave length), the freeboard, and the crest width. 4.2. Empirical expressions to estimate wave transmission

4.2.1. Existing expressions

Comparing the expressions by d’Angremond et al. (1996) shown in
Eq. (2) and Fig. 2 with the test results shown in Fig. 5, indicates that the
present test results do not confirm the upper limit of Kt = 0.8. Replacing
the upper limit Kt = 0.8 by Kt = 1.0 in Eq. (2) enables to compare Eq. (2)
with those test results for which the predictions are below Kt = 1.0. The
upper left panel of Fig. 12 shows the comparison. For the permeable
structure the match is rather good (on average a bias of Kt = 0.02 with
RMSE = 0.0604) but for the impermeable structure there is a systematic
overestimate of the wave transmission (bias of Kt = 0.15 with RMSE =
0.1587). Replacing c = 0.64 in Eq. (2) for permeable structures by c =
0.61 would remove the bias for the permeable structure while replacing
c = 0.8 in Eq. (2) for impermeable structures by c = 0.54 would remove
the bias for the impermeable structure. However, then the wave trans­
mission for values larger than about Kt = 0.8 would be overestimated
while those for smaller values would be underestimated.
Note that in the present tests for slightly submerged structures (− 1 <
Rc/Hm0 < 0) the permeable structure showed less wave transmission
than the impermeable structure, while the expressions by d’Angremond
et al. (1996) predict the opposite for slightly submerged structures. For
the more submerged structures (− 2.5 < Rc/Hm0 < − 1) the expressions
do not provide accurate estimates due to the upper limit (either Kt = 0.8
or Kt = 1.0).
Fig. 10. Ratios of the wave period at the rear side and at the front of the The upper right panel of Fig. 12 shows the comparison between the
structures with empirical expressions for Structures A, B and D in red and for data and the expression by Goda and Ahrens (2008) for permeable
Structures C and E in black. structures. The comparison shows a systematic overestimation of the

9
M.R.A. van Gent et al. Coastal Engineering 184 (2023) 104344

Fig. 11. Changes in spectral shape for the impermeable structure (Structure A: left) with considerable wave dissipation and for the perforated structure (Structure C:
right) with relatively limited wave dissipation, for the same offshore wave condition.

Fig. 12. Comparison between measured and predicted wave transmission coefficients; Upper left panel for d’Angremond et al. (1996) (Eq. (2)); Upper right panel for
Goda and Ahrens (2008); Lower left panel for Tomasicchio et al. (2011); Lower right panel for Kurdistani et al. (2022) (Eq. (5)).

10
M.R.A. van Gent et al. Coastal Engineering 184 (2023) 104344

measured values (on average a bias of Kt = 0.06 with RMSE = 0.0604). asymptotic values for very high and very low freeboards, are different
The lower left panel of Fig. 12 shows the comparison between the data for these structures (Structures C and E). Nevertheless, the validity of the
and the modified expression from Goda and Ahrens (2008) as proposed expressions for emerged structures still needs to be examined.
by Tomasicchio et al. (2011). The comparison shows overestimations of Fig. 14 shows the measured versus calculated wave transmission
the measured values but the differences are clearly less than for the using Eq. (6). This figure shows that the empirical expression summa­
original expression by Goda and Ahrens (2008) (on average a bias of Kt rizes the data accurately (note that Eq. (6) is calibrated based on these
= 0.03 with RMSE = 0.0405). The lower right panel of Fig. 12 shows the data), and accounts for effects of the wave height, the wave steepness (or
comparison between the expression by Kurdistani et al. (2022) for ho­ wave length), the freeboard and the crest width. Note that Eq. (6) does
mogeneous submerged rubble mound structures as shown in Eq. (5) and not include (potential) influences by the local water depth, porosity and
the test results for permeable structures. The graph shows that the test stone diameter; within the tested range the influence of the local water
results show a systematically higher wave transmission than those pre­ depth is not clearly present while for the rubble mound structure
dicted using Eq. (5) (on average a bias of Kt = 0.13 with RMSE = (Structure B) the porosity and stone diameter have not been varied. The
0.1304). Replacing the coefficient 0.428 in Eq. (5) by the value 0.53 expression is based on data for submerged impermeable, permeable and
would remove the bias. However, then the wave transmission for values perforated structures (− 2.5 < Rc/Hm0 < 0). For two perforated struc­
larger than about Kt = 0.85 would be overestimated while those for tures (Structures C and E) some emerged structures have been tested up
values smaller than about Kt = 0.7 would be underestimated. Note that to structures (Rc/Hm0 = 0.5). The wave steepness was in the range be­
the expression by Kurdistani et al. (2022) for homogeneous submerged tween sm-1,0 = 0.015 and 0.033. The non-dimensional crest width varied
rubble mound structures as shown in Eq. (5), was derived based on a between B/Lm-1,0 = 0.017 and 0.075, or B/Hm0 = 0.9 and 2.3. Only
larger data-set of permeable structures, including variations of for trapezoidal-shaped structures with slope angles of 1:2 have been
instance the porosity (0.40 ≤ n ≤ 0.60) and stone diameter (0.017 m ≤ examined.
Dn50 ≤ 0.193 m).
4.3. Comparison of new expression with other data
4.2.2. New expression
Since the mentioned existing empirical expressions show bias and For permeable low-crested structures available data by Daemen
other systematic deviations, while also for the perforated structures no (1991) and Calabrese et al. (2002) has been compared to Eq. (6) using the
expression exists, a new empirical expression is developed that sum­ coefficients in Table 1 for permeable structures. Tests by Daemen (1991)
marize the present test results. For this purpose, the following expression were with trapezoidal rubble mound structures with 1:1.38 slopes and a
is used: permeable core, and Calabrese et al. (2002) were with trapezoidal rubble
( ( ( )c3 )) mound structures with 1:2 slopes. Calabrese et al. (2002) varied the crest
Rc B
Kt = c1 tanh − + c2 + c4 + c5 (6) width. Note that those data-sets cover a somewhat different range of
Hm0 Lm− 1,0
conditions and structure geometries since a considerable portion of those
tests are for emerged structures (up to Rc/Hm0 = 4) and cover a wider
where the crest height is made non-dimensional using the wave height
range of the crest width (up to B/Lm-1,0 = 0.27 or B/Hm0 = 10.6).
and the crest width is made non-dimensional using the wave length
Fig. 15 shows the comparison between Eq. (6) and the available data
based on the spectral wave period: Lm-1,0 = (g/2π) T2m-1,0. This means
by Daemen (1991) and Calabrese et al. (2002). The relative freeboard
that the influence of the wave steepness and crest width are combined in
(Rc/Hm0) is the most important ratio to estimate wave transmission (on
one ratio (i.e. B/Lm-1,0). The coefficients in Eq. (6) vary to some extent for
the horizontal axis of the left panel), but also the relative crest width
each of the five structures. These coefficients are shown in Table 1
(B/Lm-1,0) affects wave transmission (not on the horizontal axis of the left
together with the values for the RMSE.
panel), the two curves in the left panel of Fig. 15 are obtained using Eq.
Fig. 13 illustrates the shape of Eq. (6). The curves in Fig. 13 are
(6) with two different values of the relative crest width, to illustrate the
extrapolated (dashed parts of the curves) to higher structures than tested
range of influence of the relative crest width for the shown data points.
in the present test programme. As will be explained in the next section,
These curves in the left panel of Fig. 15 are for a relative crest width of
the (extrapolated) curve for permeable structures (Structure B) is
B/Lm-1,0 = 0.02 and B/Lm-1,0 = 0.2 since most of the tests are within that
confirmed by other data. For the impermeable structure (Structure A)
range of crest widths. The RMSE value for the data by Daemen (1991) is
and for the perforated structure with an impermeable screen (Structure
RMSE = 0.0397 for the data by Calabrese et al. (2002) RMSE = 0.0577
D), the deviations from the coefficients for the permeable structure
(the bias is less than Kt = 0.01 for each of the three subsets). The match
(Structure B) are based on the present data (only coefficients c1 and c4
between the measured and calculated wave transmission is good, as
are different). For the other two structures (Structures C and E) test
illustrated in the right panel of Fig. 15.
results are available also for (slightly) emerged structures. The test re­
sults indicate that for these structures (C and E) the wave transmission is
5. Conclusions and recommendations
likely not to reach such low transmission values for (non-tested) struc­
tures that are more emerged since for these structures (C and E), the
The wave transmission at low-crested structures has been investi­
waves can relatively easily propagate through the structure, even if they
gated by means of physical model testing in a wave flume. The trape­
are emerged. Therefore, coefficients c1 and c5 that determine the
zoidal structures were either impermeable, permeable (homogenous
rubble mound structure) or hollow with a perforated surface. Three
types of the latter were tested. The perforated structures can be seen as
Table 1
Coefficients in Eq. (6). artificial reef structures but in the performed test programme they pri­
marily serve as structures to investigate processes related to wave
Structure type c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 RMSE
transmission. In the performed tests, the low-crested structures were
A: Impermeable structure 0.47 3.1 0.75 0 0.5 0.0166 mostly submerged. The study provides the following insights.
B: Permeable structure (rubble 0.43 3.1 0.75 − 0.25 0.5 0.0198
mound structure)
C: Perforated structure 0.13 3.1 0.75 − 0.15 0.82 0.0149 • Wave transmission for tested hollow perforated structures is clearly
D: Perforated structure with 0.40 3.1 0.75 − 0.15 0.5 0.0229 larger than for impermeable and permeable structures, unless an
screen impermeable vertical screen is placed inside the hollow structure. In
E: Perforated structure with 0.17 3.1 0.75 − 0.15 0.76 0.0137 that case the orbital motion of the wave is strongly affected and the
perforated screen
impermeable screen results in much lower wave transmission,

11
M.R.A. van Gent et al. Coastal Engineering 184 (2023) 104344

Fig. 13. Expressions to summarize the present test results (Eq. (6)); the dashed parts of the curves cover a range without tests in the present test programme
(extrapolations).

structures. The flow through the permeable structure towards the

wave front may reduce the intensity of the wave breaking and in­
crease the wave transmission for permeable structures compared to
impermeable structures.
• Obviously, the wave transmission reduces for higher structures (i.e.
less submerged). Wave transmission for impermeable and permeable
structures, as well as for the perforated structure with a vertical
screen, consistently show that the wave transmission also decreases
for wider crests (B/Hm0) and for a higher wave steepness (sm-1,0). For
these three structure types the wave periods at the rear side reduce
compared to the wave periods at the front. For the perforated
structures that lead to a relatively low amount of wave reflection and
wave energy dissipation (i.e. without an impermeable vertical
screen), the opposite trend was found, namely an increase in the
wave period.
• Empirical expressions exist for impermeable and permeable struc­
tures. Although observed trends with respect to crest level, crest
width and wave steepness are present in the applied expressions, the
match between the test results and earlier empirical expressions is
not very accurate, except for the expressions by d’Angremond et al.
(1996) and Tomasicchio et al. (2011) that show a quite good
agreement with the test results for the permeable structure. Never­
theless, a new expression (Eq. (6)) better describes the test results.
Fig. 14. Measured versus calculated wave transmission coefficients, using The new expression matches rather well with two other available
Eq. (6). data-sets for permeable structures. The ranges of validity of this
expression (Eq. (6)) for permeable structures, based on the ranges of
comparable to those for impermeable and permeable structures. For the three applied data-sets, is characterised by crest levels between
the other hollow perforated structures, the wave reflection and wave − 2.5 ≤ Rc/Hm0 ≤ 2.5 and crest widths between 0.017 ≤ B/Lm-1,0 ≤
dissipation are relatively small, also if a perforated vertical screen is 0.27 (or 0.9 ≤ B/Hm0 ≤ 10.6). For impermeable structures and
placed inside the hollow structure. The effectiveness of an imper­ perforated structures, the expressions are considered valid for sub­
meable vertical screen to reduce wave transmission assists designers merged structures only. It is recommended to analyse the validity of
of artificial reefs to design structures that reduce wave transmission. the expression for impermeable structures also for emerged struc­
• Wave transmission for impermeable and permeable structures is tures. Since the tests did not contain conditions where wave breaking
comparable but not the same. For structures that have a crest deep occurred seaward of the low-crested structures, it is recommended to
below the waterline, the wave transmission tends towards 100% (Kt validate the expressions also for low-crested structures for such
= 1), unlike described by some existing empirical methods. For very depth-limited wave conditions.
submerged structures the wave transmission for permeable struc­
tures is somewhat less than for impermeable structures. For struc­ For applications of artificial reefs to enhance marine life and to
tures with a crest at the waterline or just below, the wave improve the biodiversity, it is recommended to study the velocities that
transmission is somewhat larger for permeable structures than for can cause dislodgement of underwater flora and the velocities that are
impermeable structures. Apparently, the wave breaking process is too large for aquatic fauna. Artificial reefs can be designed such that the
less intense for permeable structures than for impermeable desired aquatic flora and fauna is enhanced. For that purpose, more

12
M.R.A. van Gent et al. Coastal Engineering 184 (2023) 104344

Fig. 15. Comparison between data by Daemen (1991) and Calabrese et al. (2002) for permeable structures and Eq. (6). Left panel: measured values as function of the
dimensional freeboard; Right panel: measured versus calculated transmission coefficients (Eq. (6) with coefficients for permeable structures given in Table 1).

information is required on velocities that occur during storm conditions Buccino, M., Calabrese, M., 2007. Conceptual approach for prediction of wave
transmission at low-crested Breakwaters, ASCE. J. Waterway, Port, Coast. Ocean
for specific shapes of artificial reefs. For estimates of velocities inside
Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-950X(2007)133:, 133–3.
perforated structures Buis (2022) provides information. Besides veloc­ Buis, L., 2022. Wave Transmission over Artificial Reefs. M.Sc. thesis. TU Delft, Delft.
ities, also the influence of the amount of light in artificial reefs, such as http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:f98b4e33-e512-424a-a7ab-671f2f85e8b7.
inside perforated structures, needs further investigation. The amount of Calabrese, M., Vicinanza, D., Buccino, M., 2002. Large-scale Experiments on the
Behaviour of Low Crested and Submerged Breakwaters in Presence of Broken Waves.
perforation (size of gaps and percentage of open space) is likely to affect ICCE 2002, Cardiff, pp. 1900–1912.
the ecological success (in addition to for instance the material, rough­ Chen, W., Van Gent, M.R.A., Warmink, J.J., Hulscher, S.J.M.H., 2020. The Influence of a
ness and variations of the substrate), and the effectiveness of such Berm and Roughness on the Wave Overtopping at Dikes, 156,. Elsevier, Coastal
Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2019.103613
coastal protection structures with respect to the wave transmission. Daemen, I., 1991. Wave Transmission at Low-Crested Structures. M.Sc. thesis. TU Delft,
Delft. http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:433dfcf3-eb87-4dc9-88dc-8969996a6e3f.
Author statement Dekker, J., Caires, S., Van Gent, M.R.A., 2007. Reflection of non-standard wave energy
spectra by sloping structures, World Scientific. Proc. Coastal Structures 2007,
760–770.
MvG: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investiga­ Diederen, C., 2022. Experimental Wave Flume Study: the Stability of an Artificial Reef.
tion, Data curation, Visualization, Supervision, Writing-Original draft; M.Sc. thesis. TU Delft, Delft. http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:16c0b36b-9137-429
7-a47e-6c53f0ee3826.
LB: Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Visu­ d’Angremond, K., Van der Meer, J.W., De Jong, R., 1996. Wave Transmission at Low-
alization; JvdB: Methodology, Investigation, Review & Editing; DW: Crested Structures. ASCE. Proc. ICCE 1996, Orlando.
Methodology, Investigation, Review & Editing. Goda, Y., Ahrens, J.P., 2008. New formulation of wave transmission over and through
low-crested structures. ICCE 2008, 3530–3541. https://doi.org/10.1142/
9789814277426_0293. Hamburg.
Declaration of competing interest Hamer, D.G., Hamer, F.C., 1982. Laboratory experiments on wave transmission by
overtopping. Coast Eng. 6 (3), 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-3839(82)
90019-9.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Hoegh-Guldberg, O., 2010. Coral Reef Ecosystems and Anthropogenic Climate Change.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-010-0189-2.
Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Mumby, P.J., Hooten, A.J., Steneck, R.S., Greenfield, P., Gomez, E.,
the work reported in this paper. Harvell, C.D., Sale, P.F., Edwards, A.J., Caldeira, K., Knowlton, N., Eakin, C.M.,
Iglesias-Prieto, R., Muthiga, N., Bradbury, R.H., Dubi, A., Hatziolos, M.E., 2007.
Data availability Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science (New York,
N.Y.) 318 (5857), 1737–1742. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152509.
Hogeveen, K.P.J., 2021. Climate Adaption of Rubble Mound Breakwaters; A Study to the
Data will be made available on request. Accuracy of Overtopping Formulas for Combination of Solutions. M.Sc. thesis. TU
Delft, Delft. http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:3a6ec8ac-0b81-4d32-adf1-6d7b4f842ce
b.
Acknowledgements Koutandos, E., Koutitas, C., Prinos, P., 2006. Permeability effects on breaking waves over
submerged rubble mound breakwaters. In: Proc. 7th Int. Conf. On Hydroscience and
The assistance by Wesley Stet (Deltares) during the model tests is Engineering (ICHE-2006), September 2006 (Philadelphia, USA).
Kurdistani, S.M., Tomasicchio, G.R., D’Alessandro, F., Francone, A., 2022. Formula for
highly appreciated. The support by Deltares via Deltares Strategic
wave transmission at submerged homogeneous porous breakwaters. Ocean Eng. 266
Research Program Infrastructure Systems is acknowledged. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.113053.
Le Xuan, T., Le Manh, H., Ba, H.T., Van, D.D., Duong Vu, H.T., Wright, D., Bui, V.H.,
Anh, D.T., 2022. Wave energy dissipation through a hollow triangle breakwater on
References
the coastal Mekong Delta. Ocean Eng. 245 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
oceaneng.2021.110419.
Bleck, M., Oumeraci, H., 2001. Wave Dampening and Spectral Evolution at Artificial Lokesha, Sannasiraj, S.A., Sundar, V., 2019. Hydrodynamic characteristics of a
Reefs (Tech. rep.). Leichtweiß-Institute for Hydraulic Engineering. submerged trapezoidal artificial reef unit. Proc. IME M J. Eng. Marit. Environ. 233
Brancasi, A., Leone, E., Francone, A., Scaravaglione, G., Tomasicchio, G.R., 2022. On (4), 1226–1239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475090218825178.
formulae for wave transmission at submerged and low-crested breakwaters. J. Mar. Mahmoudi, A., Hakimzade, H., Ketabdari, M.J., Cartwright, N., Vaghefi, M., 2017.
Sci. Eng. 2022 (10), 1986. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10121986. Experimental study on wave transmission and reflection at impermeable submerged
Briganti, R., Van der Meer, J.W., Buccino, M., Calabrese, M., 2003. Wave transmission breakwaters. International Journal of Coastal Offshore and Environmental
behind low-crested structures. Proc. Coastal Structures 2003, 580–592. https://doi. Engineering 2 (3). https://doi.org/10.22034/ijcoe.2017.149252.
org/10.1061/40733(147)48.

13
M.R.A. van Gent et al. Coastal Engineering 184 (2023) 104344

Makris, C., Memos, C.D., 2007. Wave Transmission over Submerged Breakwaters: thesis. TU Delft, Delft. http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:cddecc08-adf6-4994-8b37-69f
Performance of Formulae and Models. International Society of Offshore; Polar b8009858d.
Engineers. MARS—Reef Design Lab. (n.d.). https://www.reefdesignlab.com/mars1. Van der Meer, J.W., Briganti, R., Zanuttigh, B., Wang, B., 2005. Wave transmission and
Mansard, E.P.D., Funke, E.R., 1980. The measurement of incident and reflected spectra reflection at low-crested structures: design formulae, oblique wave attack and
using a least squares method. Proc. ICCE 1980, 154–172. spectral change. Coast. Eng. 52 (10–11), 915–929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Metallinos, A.S., Repousis, E.G., Memos, C.D., 2016. Wave propagation over a submerged coastaleng.2005.09.005.
porous breakwater with steep slopes. Ocean Eng. 111, 424–438. https://doi.org/ Van Gent, M.R.A., 1995. Wave Interaction with Permeable Coastal Structures. Ph.D.-
10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.11.015. thesis. Delft University of Technology, Delft. ISBN 90-407-1182-8, Delft University
Panizzo, A., Briganti, R., 2007. Analysis of wave transmission behind low-crested Press.
breakwaters using neural networks. Coast. Eng. 54, 643–656. https://doi.org/ Van Gent, M.R.A., 1999. Physical Model Investigations on Coastal Structures with
10.1016/j.coastaleng.2007.01.001. Shallow Foreshores; 2D Model Tests with Single and Double-Peaked Wave Energy
Seabrook, S.R., Hall, K.R., 1998. Wave transmission at submerged rubble mound Spectra. Delft Hydraulics Report H3608, December 1999, Delft.
Breakwaters, ASCE. Proc. ICCE 198. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784404119.150. Van Gent, M.R.A., 2001. Wave run-up on dikes with shallow foreshores. Journal of
Sollitt, C.K., Cross, R.H., 1972. Wave Reflection and Transmission at Permeable Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, ASCE 254–262, 127-5, Sept/Oct
Breakwaters, Technical Report No. 147. R. M. Parsons Laboratory, Department of 2001.
Civil Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/1 Van Gent, M.R.A., 2019. Climate Adaptation of Coastal Structures. Keynote in Proc.
42968. Applied Coastal Research (SCACR 2019), Bari, Italy.
Tomasicchio, G.R., D’Alessandro, F., Tundo, G., 2011. Further developments in a new Van Oosten, R.P., Peixo Marco, J., Van der Meer, J.W., Van Gent, M.R.A., Verhage, H.J.,
formulation of wave transmission. ASCE. Proc. Coastal Structures 2011, 634–645. 2006. Wave transmission at low-crested structures using neural networks. Proc. ICCE
Van den Brekel, E.R.I., 2021. Hydrodynamic and Ecological Performance of a New 2006. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812709554_0413.
Modular Unit for Living Breakwaters; Wave Flume Experiments and Results. M.Sc.

14