compresses the air inside, which, on its expansion when the wave recedes, forces out any unconnected face stones. The hole thus formed is rapidly enlarged by the sea if the storm continues; and a breach is eventually formed. The sloping-block system was, accordingly devised to provide against the dislocation of superstructures by the inevitable irregular settlement, by forming them of a series of sloping sections, composed of concrete blocks laid at an angle, free to settle independently on the mound, as shown in fig. 10. In the first superstructure thus constructed, in 1869–1874, at the
Fig. 10.—Colombo North-West Breakwater with Titan Crane. entrance to Karachi harbour, founded 15 ft. below low water on a rubble mound and 24 ft. high, the blocks in each section, consisting of two rows of three superposed blocks laid at an inclination of 76° shorewards, were entirely unconnected; and, consequently, though the superstructure offered as little opposition as practicable to the waves by having its top slightly below high water, the waves in a storm forcing their way into the vertical joint between the two rows, threw some of the top 27-ton blocks of the inner row down on the harbour slope of the mound. This cause of damage was obviated in effecting the repairs, by connecting the top blocks with the next ones by stone dowels. The superstructures of the breakwaters forming Madras harbour, commenced in 1876, were similarly constructed in sloping, independent sections, 412 ft. thick, composed of two distinct rows of four tiers of blocks founded upon a rubble mound 22 ft. below low water (the rise of tide at springs being 313 ft.), and raised 312 ft. above high water. The blocks in each row were connected by a tenon, projecting at the top of each block, fitting into a mortise in the block above it. The retention of the vertical joint however, between the two rows led to the overthrow of the greater part of the superstructures of the outer arms at Madras, situated in a depth of 45 ft. and facing the Indian Ocean, during a cyclone of 1881. In the reconstruction of these superstructures, bond was introduced in the successive tiers of each sloping section; and the blocks of the two upper tiers were cramped together. Alter settlement on the mound had ceased, a thick capping of mass concrete was laid all along the top of the superstructure; and, finally, a mound of concrete blocks was deposited at random on the mound in front of the sea face of the superstructure to break the force of the waves and prevent undermining. A similar wave-breaker, with blocks somewhat specially arranged, was deposited in front of the sloping concrete-block superstructure of the breakwater sheltering the Portuguese harbour of Marmagao on the west coast of India, more particularly with the object of preventing the undermining of the superstructure founded only 18 ft. below low water of spring tides, on a layer of rubble spread on the muddy sea-bottom, the settlement in this case being occasioned by the yielding of the soft clay bed. This breakwater having been commenced in 1884, subsequently to the failure at Madras, the superstructure, formed of concrete blocks weighing 2812 to 3712 tons was built in accordance with the design adopted for the reconstructed outer arms at Madras, with the exceptions that the separate sections were given a slope of 70° instead of 76° shorewards to ensure greater stability, that the superstructure was made 30 ft in width instead of 24 ft., that the top tier of blocks in each section was secured to the next tier by two dowels, each formed of a bundle of four rails, penetrating 312 ft. into each tier, so as to enable the top courses to be more correctly aligned than with tenons and mortises, and that the outer side of the continuous concrete-in-mass capping was raised about 22 ft. above low water (fig. 11). The rise of spring tides at Marmagao is 6 ft.
At Colombo the superstructures of both the south-west and north-west breakwaters were built on the sloping-block system in sections 512 ft. thick, and built at an angle of 68° shorewards (fig. 10); and the blocks, from 1612 to 31 tons in weight, were laid in bonded courses across each section, with four tiers of blocks in the south-west breakwater founded 20 ft. below low water on the rubble mound, and six tiers of blocks in the north-west breakwater, founded 3034 ft below low water. Five oblong grooves, moreover, were formed in moulding the blocks, in the adjacent faces of each sloping section, extending from top to bottom of the sections. These, when settlement on the mound had ceased, were filled with concrete in bags which not only connected the tiers of blocks in each section together, but also joined the several sections to one another, and effectually closed the transverse joints between the successive sections, which were further connected together by a continuous capping of concrete-in-mass along the whole length of the breakwater.
Fig. 11.—Marmagao Breakwater.
These sloping blocks are laid by powerful overhanging, block-setting cranes, called Titans (see Cranes), which travel along the completed portion of the breakwater, and lay the blocks in advance on the mound levelled by divers, as shown in fig. 10. The earlier Titans, employed for the sloping-block superstructures at Karachi and Madras, were constructed to travel only backwards and forwards on the completed work, with sufficient sideways movement of the little trolley travelling along the overhanging arm, from which the block is suspended at the proper angle, to lay the blocks for each side of the superstructure. In later forms, however, such for instance as the Titan laying the 14-ton blocks at Peterhead breakwater in horizontal courses, the overhanging arm is supported centrally on a ring of rollers, placed on the top of the truck on which the Titan travels, so that it can revolve and deposit blocks at the side of the superstructure for protecting the mound, as well as in advance of the finished work. These Titans possess the important advantage over the timber staging formerly employed for such breakwaters, that, in exposed situations, they can be moved back into shelter on the approach of a storm, or for the winter or stormy months, instead of, as in the case of staging, remaining out exposed to the danger of being carried away during stormy weather, or necessitating loss of time in erection at the beginning of the working season.
Though composite breakwaters are still occasionally constructed with a superstructure founded on a rubble mound at, or above, low-water level, these breakwaters are now almost always constructed with the superstructure founded at some depth below low water, even at harbours on the continent of Europe, where formerly broad quays founded at sea-level, protected by a parapet wall and outer concrete blocks, were the regular form of superstructure adopted. The breakwater for the extension of the harbour at Naples provides an interesting example of this change of design. A solid superstructure, formed of large concrete blocks capped with masonry, about 50 ft. wide at the base, is laid on a high rubble mound at a depth of 31 ft. below mean sea-level, and provides a quay on the top, 2412 ft. wide, protected on the sea side by a promenade wall, 10 ft. high and 1212 ft. wide at the top, raised 1923 ft. above sea-level (fig. 12). In view of the increased depth at which superstructures are now founded upon rubble mounds, causing the breakwaters to approximate more and more to the upright-wall type, it might seem at first sight that the rubble base might be dispensed with, and the superstructure founded directly on the bed of the sea. Two circumstances, however, still render the composite form of breakwater indispensable in certain cases: (1) the great depth into which breakwaters have sometimes to extend, reaching about 56 ft. below low water at Peterhead, and 102 ft. below mean sea-level at Naples; and (2) the necessity, where the sea-bottom is soft or liable: to be eroded by scour, of interposing a wide base between the upright superstructure and the bed of the sea.
Fig. 12.—Naples Harbor Extension Breakwater.
The injuries to which composite breakwaters appear to have been specially subject must be attributed to the greater exposure and depth of the sites in which they have been frequently constructed, as compared with rubble mounds or upright walls. The latter types, indeed, are not well suited for erection in deep water, in the first case, on account of the very large quantity of materials required
