Wave Attenuation of Floating Breakwaters with Different Numbers of Mooring Lines
CSEF · 2003 Aerodynamics/ Hydrodynamics
Overview
Objectives/Goals Floating breakwaters absorb waves to protect the shore. Compared to gravity breakwaters (solid structures resting on the bottom), floating breakwaters are less expensive; do not disturb currents, fish, or sediment movements; are more aesthetic, and transportable. However, floating breakwaters are susceptible to damage by waves and require higher maintenance. This experiment compares the number of lines used to anchor a breakwater to its ability to absorb the energy of approaching waves. It is believed that a floating breakwater with more lines anchoring it to the bottom will absorb more of the wave's energy and result in waves with a smaller height. Methods/Materials Waves were made in a rectangular testing tank by dropping a weight into one end of the tank. Wave height was measured behind the breakwater. Styrofoam sphere breakwaters were anchored to the bottom of the tank with one to eight mooring lines. For each number of mooring lines, ten trials were conducted. The data were analyzed with one-factor independent-groups analysis of variances (ANOVA), with number of mooring lines as the categorical independent variable, and wave height as the continuous dependant variable. Results The wave heights for each number of mooring lines were statistically significantly different (F = 2.58, p < .025). Conclusions/Discussion However, there was no clear trend showing either higher or lower number of lines resulting in lower wave heights. The lower numbers of mooring lines, however, were more likely to tear free from the anchoring tape. The higher number of lines required more material and labor to construct. It is recommended that further studies be done on the durability and expenses of different numbers of lines.
Summary statement
I explored the relationship between the number of mooring lines anchoring a floating breakwater to the bottom and its effectiveness in attenuating wave energy.
Help received
Dad introduced me to ANOVA calculation, supported me financially, and gave advice. Mom helped with backboard design. Mr. Linke helped proofread my project and gave guidance. Mr. Larry Nordell introduced me to floating breakwaters.
Competition history
- CSEF 2003
Resources
Related projects
ISEF · 2024
Effects of Mooring Systems on Submerged Point Absorber Wave Energy Converters
CSEF · 2017
Tsunami Guard: Finding the Most Effective Wave Breaker Design
CSEF · 2008
Air Bubble Breakwater
CSEF · 2015
Focusing Waves: How Stationary Barriers Focus Wave Energy
CSEF · 2014
Commotion in the Ocean: The Effect of Wave Barriers on Tsunami-Induced Seiche Waves
CSEF · 2013
Investigating Wave Barriers to Reduce the Power of Storm Surges
JSHS · 2025
Evaluation of the Performance of Breakwater Designs at a Coastal Marsh Shoreline Using a Smartphone-Based Wave Intensity Sensor (WILSON)
CSEF · 2002
Taming Tidal Waves
Closest projects by meaning, across every fair and year in the corpus.
Browse more like this
Source: California Science & Engineering Fair public projects