REPAIR OF MARITIME STRUCTURES

A Dissertation submitted in part fulfilment of BSc(Hons) Environmental Civil Engineering

Eoghan McCormick

Glasgow Caledonian University School of the Built and Natural Environment

April 2011

Page | ii

ABSTRACT

This Dissertation is my own original work and has not been submitted elsewhere in fulfilment of the requirements of this or any other award. Signed: Student Name: Eoghan McCormick Date: Matric No: 200704220

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Contents 1 Introduction to Coastal Erosion...............................................................................................6 1.1 Aim...................................................................................................................................8 1.2 Objectives.........................................................................................................................8 3. Outline the failure modes of a breakwater and the main methods of repair..................9 4. Find out why current repair measures are not sufficient................................................9 5. Investigate a construction material with properties that can outlast current materials. .9 6. To set up an experiment that tests the effectiveness of material in a simulated marine environment......................................................................................................................10 2 Literature Review..................................................................................................................11 2.1 Waves.............................................................................................................................11 2.1.1 Bathysphere & Monography...................................................................................12 2.1.2 Bathysphere.............................................................................................................13 2.1.3 Monography............................................................................................................14 2.1.4 Energy and Force in waves.....................................................................................16 2.2 Tides...............................................................................................................................18 2.2.1 Atmospheric Influence on Tides.............................................................................20 2.3 Dissipation of Wave Energy..........................................................................................21 2.4 Breakwaters....................................................................................................................21 2.5 The problem with Breakwaters......................................................................................24 2.6 What is the relevance of repairing damage to current structures?.................................29 2.7 Case Study: Ardrossan Harbour, Scotland.....................................................................29 2.7.1 Background.............................................................................................................29 2.7.2 Where is Ardrossan?...............................................................................................31 2.7.3 What is the problem?..............................................................................................31

2.7.4 Tidal Pattern............................................................................................................32 2.8 Repairing damage...........................................................................................................33 2.9 High-strength concrete...................................................................................................34 2.9.1 Anti-washout Underwater Concrete........................................................................35 2.9.2 Superplasticizing Admixtures ................................................................................35 2.10 Mortars.........................................................................................................................36 2.10.1 Cement-Based.......................................................................................................37 2.10.2 Lime-Based...........................................................................................................38 2.10.3 Combining Lime with cement...............................................................................40 2.10.4 Silica Fume Particles.............................................................................................41 2.11 Which repair material to test?......................................................................................42 3 Methodology ........................................................................................................................44 3.1 The purpose of research.................................................................................................44 3.2 Types of Research..........................................................................................................44 3.2.1 Qualitative...............................................................................................................44 3.2.2 Quantitative.............................................................................................................45 3.2.3 Mixed Method.........................................................................................................45 3.3 Chosen Method..............................................................................................................45 3.4 Data Collection...............................................................................................................46 3.4.1 Lab based experiment.............................................................................................46 3.4.2 Description of the Experiment...............................................................................46 3.4.3 Experiment theory...................................................................................................47 3.4.4 Experimental materials............................................................................................48 3.4.5 The Samples............................................................................................................48 3.4.6 Procedure.................................................................................................................49 3.4.7 Sources of Error......................................................................................................50

4 Analysis of Results................................................................................................................52 4.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................52 4.2 Preconceptions...............................................................................................................52 4.3 Experiment Findings......................................................................................................52 4.3.1 Porosity Characteristics...........................................................................................55 4.3.2 Why material loss is important?..............................................................................57 4.3.3 Reviewing start and end weights.............................................................................58 4.4 In-situ Performance of Mortars......................................................................................60 4.5 Analysis of Information provided by Scottish Lime Centre..........................................60 5 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................61 5.1 Monitoring and Maintenance.........................................................................................61 5.2 Recommendations from the experiment........................................................................62 5.3 Practicality of repairs.....................................................................................................62 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Effects of Nature and Man..........................................................................................7 Figure 2: Cross section illustrating changes in waves approaching the shoreline (N.K. Coch et al, Geohazards: Natural and Human, Chapter 14: Coastal Process Page 397)........................12 Figure 3: Long gentle slope (Author, 2011).............................................................................13 Figure 4: Short steep slope (Author, 2011)..............................................................................14 Figure 5: 'Hump' on sea bed (Author, 2011)............................................................................15 Figure 6: Frictional Sea Bed (Author, 2011)............................................................................15 Figure 7: Changing position of lunar tides (NOAA, www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov, 2011) 18

Figure 8: Tide Table (BBC, www.news.bbc.co.uk/weather/coast_and_sea/tide_tables) ......20 Figure 9: Detached Breakwater................................................................................................22 Figure 10: Vertical Breakwater, Sloped-side and Curved side................................................22 Figure 11: Locations of damage (image edited by author)......................................................25 Figure 12: Real life situation of damage to coastal infrastructure (IStructE)..........................25 Figure 13: Causes of damage(IStructE)...................................................................................28 Figure 14: Ardrossan Breakwater

(Robertson, ICE)......................................................................................................................31 Figure 15: Tidal Patterns at Ardrossan: 5 hours before High Water at Dover, HW at Dover, 5 hours after HW (Nautical Almanac, 1984)...........................................................................33 Figure 16: Lime Cycle (Scottish Lime Centre)........................................................................39 Figure 17: Hydraulic Lime Cycle (Scottish Lime Cente)........................................................40 Figure 18: Clip from a table showing suggested ratings for recent advancements in concrete technology, (Mehta, 1999).......................................................................................................41 Figure 19: Mortar Performance values and characteristics (Lime Centre Trust).....................43 Figure 20: Jet Impact Apparatus..............................................................................................47 Figure 21: Porosity Characteristics Table................................................................................56 Figure 22: Line graph for progressive mass loss......................................................................58 Figure 23: Bar chart comparing start and end weights.............................................................59

Figure 24: Defects found -v- time (IStructE, 2001).................................................................62

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1 Introduction to Coastal Erosion In 2000 the United Nations estimated that by 2004 more than 75% of the worlds population would live within the coastal zone (Reeve et al, 2004). This trend of locating next to the sea has developed since since early human settlement; primitive reasons being for access to water for basic needs such as cooking, drinking and washing. Evolution and expansion of settlements soon meant that coastlines became desirable locations for reasons including employment, maritime trade and more recently recreational purposes. For many countries whose boundaries are exposed to the sea, there is a recognition that natural processes can cause significant effects including erosion and deposition. Wave action, change in sea level, tidal variation and flooding are examples of the processes which might cause erosion or deposition.It is the adverse effect of coastal erosion that has reduced the satisfaction of living on the shore. Communities began to notice that beaches were receeding and there was extensive loss of land. In some extreme cases families had lost their homes as a direct result of landslides, particularly cliff failure due to erosion by the sea. Erosion of coastlines continues to be a problem and the effort to which some countries got to prevent the loss of land is evident along many coastlines. In more recent times coastal protection measures have developed notably, which has allowed the build up of communities on coastlines to continue. These communities, industries and businesses within coastal zones are reliant upon sea defences which protect their livelihood from coastal erosion. Erosion and receding shorelines are processes which governments are keen to tackle; processes can be natural or a result of the interaction of man

within marine environments. The table below highlights possible factors and actions by nature and human activity which can cause considerable effects in coastal zones:

Influence of Nature Wave Action Tides and the rising sea level Wind Rain

Influence of Man Engineering Activities such as dredging, harbour/pier construction Disruption of shore current patterns and wave regimes

Figure 1: Effects of Nature and Man

Further dependency on maritime transport is foreseen

as a variety of industries strive to reduce their carbon footprints and meet the sustainability targets set by government bodies. Harbours and marinas will need to cope with increases in maritime traffic; some recent figures reported by the Department for Transport (DfT) indicate that existing UK ports are indeed thriving. Some 501 million tonnes of freight traffic were handled by UK ports in 2009; total traffic handled had also increased by 5% during 2010. As well as this, high volumes of leisure craft travelling to and from UK ports in 2009 made 21.6million international passenger journeys. In 2008 the Scottish Government confirmed that coastal infrastructure was set to receive increased funding, whether this was for the improvement or expansion of existing facilities or for new builds was unclear. Nevertheless it implies that in the near future coastlines in Scotland would receive some sort of investment, perhaps to cope with the forecasted increased uses. Protection of coastal areas from the environment and its elements will be a key factor in securing a future for ports throughout the UK. Recent designs and construction of coastal infrastructure have relied largely on the use of Portland cement, a construction material which has long since been established. Construction of the Olympic Port in Barcelona, Spain has seen the use of vast amounts of Portland cement.

At the American Concrete Institute Committee Number 201 the durability of Portland cement concrete was discussed and defined as its ability to resist weathering action, chemical attack, abrasion, or any other process of deterioration. For many existing ports and harbours constructed with concrete or masonry this means they must maintain structural integrity and provide a protective capacity over a prolonged period of time. They were designed and built when the variety of materials was limited and when the creation of Portland cement had not yet came about. However, as a result of wave action and the nature of sea water, very early coastal structures, some of which will be reviewed in Chapter 2, are in a continually deteriorating state. Soon the serviceability of some structures will be questionable. The durability of concrete and masonry structures in aggressive saline environments has become a priority in civil engineering. Many existing coastal structures are approaching or have passed their design life, thus maintenance and repair are necessary if the existing coastal protective structures are continued to be used. 1.1 Aim The aim of this dissertation is to investigate the erosive forces acting on marine structures such as breakwaters and to establish a repair material with the best long term performance.

1.2

Objectives

The aim of this research will be fulfilled by completing the following objectives:

1. To investigate the effect of wave action on coastlines and coastal structures The earth is 71% ocean and 29% land; it is important to understand and monitor the adverse effects that waves, tides and currents may have on the structures we use to protect the already small land area. 2. Identify the use of breakwaters as a method of coastal protection There are numerous aids to coastal erosion so it should be made clear why breakwaters are an established solution and to illustrate how they help defend coastal areas. 3. Outline the failure modes of a breakwater and the main methods of repair Although the dissertation will aim to show breakwaters as a viable solution for coastal erosion; the failure modes will also be examined and how the structure can be rehabilitated. 4. Find out why current repair measures are not sufficient Construction in marine and coastal environments is continuous and many harbours and piers have had improvements or extensions. There is a need to establish why some repair materials for damaged breakwaters are not lasting as long as they could be. 5. Investigate a construction material with properties that can outlast current materials In civil engineering there is a push for sustainable construction and to design structures that will provide a long service life. If this is to be achieved then it is important to use materials which are durable; the dissertation will consider which material this might be for repairing breakwaters and indeed other coastal structures.

6. To set up an experiment that tests the effectiveness of material in a simulated marine environment Demonstrate that the chosen material has sufficient properties to combat coastal erosion, more so than current repair materials.

Much of these objectives will be met through a literature review. Understanding the theory of waves and tides, and the means by which mankind has learned to deal with their effect is critical and will be examined in Chapter 2. The methodology section, Chapter 3, explains the methods used for conducting research and the findings will be reported and analysed in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 defines the conclusions of the research.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2 Literature Review 2.1 Waves
It is globally recognised that the abrasion and destruction caused by wind-driven wave action presents the most significant impact

(Pilarczyk, 1990)

A wave is the medium by which energy is carried, a description which is verified by Coch et al and further reinforced by numerous academics throughout the presentation of The Secret Life of Waves (BBC, 2011). Waves are generated due to the frictional drag exerted on the water surface by wind. When a gust of wind touches over a body of water it causes the surface to crest, surface tension tries to flatten the crest which in turn causes a trough, and thus the shape of a wave is pushed forward. It is a primary objective of this dissertation to study the effect of wave action on coastlines so it is important to describe the composition of waves and their behaviour. Similar to sound waves, the highest part of an ocean wave is the crest and the lowest is the trough. The vertical distance between the crest and trough is the height of the wave (H). Waves are usually successive; the horizontal distance from crest to crest of successive waves is called the wavelength (L). A wave period is the time (in seconds) it takes for one full wavelength to pass a nominated point. The length, height and period will be governed by the wind velocity, wind duration and the length of frictional drag over the water surface (commonly known as fetch). Moreover, a wave will also change as it approaches the coastline. The above details of a typical wave composition have been adopted from text

written by Coch et al. These wave features are understood more easily if Figure 2 below is examined.

Figure 2: Cross section illustrating changes in waves approaching the shoreline (N.K. Coch et al, Geohazards: Natural and Human, Chapter 14: Coastal Process Page 397)

As a wave approaches shallow water, the base of the wave and the seafloor come into contact; waves are now said to be shoaling. Eventually when the water depth is half the wavelength (L/2), the waves increase in height, decrease in length and begin to break. At the shoreline the wave height has reached its limit; the top of the wave is travelling faster than the bottom of the wave which causes the wave to over topple. The energy carried by the wave is transferred onto the shore and turns into sound. The wave period at the shoreline is high, meaning waves are frequent so there is little time for water particles to soak into the sand; instead they are dragged backwards and take the beach material with them, thus, erosion occurs. 2.1.1 Bathysphere & Monography

Often understanding theory can be complimented by the use of images and illustrations. An example of this is Figure 2 which paints an accurate picture of the formation of waves approaching a typical shoreline. The diagram is confined in the sense that it cannot illustrate

how wave formation changes depending on the shoreline characteristics. In an attempt to improve understanding of wave formation some parts of Figure 2 have been interpreted (in the form of new images), to allow a more accurate understanding of bathysphere and monography, both described below. 2.1.2 Bathysphere

The above theory of wave formation leads to the statement that the height of a wave is directly proportional to the depth of water below it, i.e. the distance between the base of the wave and the sea bed will determine the wave height. The depth of water between the surface and sea bed is also known as the bathysphere. If the sea bed is a long and gentle slope the depth of water between the wave base and sea bed will gradually decrease. This allows the wave to slowly increase in height so that when it reaches the shoreline there is a significant erosive force; this effect can be seen in Figure 3. The waves will be greater in height and exert greater force on the shoreline.

Figure 3: Long gentle slope (Author, 2011)

However, when there is a sudden change in bathysphere at the shoreline, as illustrated in Figure 4, the wave has not had the chance to develop an increase in height. The base of the wave is in contact with the sea bed for a lesser time and as a result the waves are generally smaller and do not exert as substantial a force as in the case for figure 3.

Figure 4: Short steep slope (Author, 2011)

2.1.3

Monography

The terrain of the ocean floor is otherwise known as monography. The term accounts for the shape of the sea bed and will affect the formation of a wave and the flow of energy at its base. In recent observations by New and DaSilva, 2002 and other researchers (cited in Aguilar et al, 2005) it is stated that waves are generated most significantly by the flow of tides over the rough terrain of the ocean floor. In the short production The Secret Life of Waves, aired by the BBC on 28/01/1,1 Professor Michael McIntyre of Cambridge University demonstrated that at the lower half of a wave the water particles move in the opposite

direction to those at the top of the wave. Thus, this water movement will be affected by the monography. Figure 6 shows how changes in the profile of a sea bed influence wave development. The sea bed in Figure 5 has a hump; as the wave approaches the shoreline the wave base will begin to touch the hump and the wave height will begin to increase, however when the wave passes the hump the base of the wave does not touch the sea bed so the wave height decreases and the wave losses energy. In figure 6 the monography is extremely rough and uneven, producing a similar effect as that described above in relation to figure 5. The outcome of an extremely frictional sea bed is random wave heights and less energy released on the shoreline.

Figure 5: 'Hump' on sea bed (Author, 2011)

Figure 6: Frictional Sea Bed (Author, 2011)

Pillai et al (1977), state that a sloping beach affords natural protection to the shoreline by allowing waves to break and dissipate their energy; but this degree of protection will vary depending on bathysphere and monography described above. 2.1.4 Energy and Force in waves

Wave energy varies widely throughout the world, much to do with the influence of bathysphere and monography of the coastal zone but also because wind velocity is constantly changing. Possibly due to this variance in energy, Boccotti states that coastal structures cannot be effectively designed against wave force or energy. Instead the design of coastal structures is for the highest wave that might occur during the lifetime of the structure (Boccotti, 2000). The amount of energy carried by a wave can be related to the amplitude: high amplitude waves have high energy and low amplitudes have low energy. Vining (2005), accounts for one method of determining how much energy is in a wave. The text explains that the energy density (measured in J/m2), of a wave is the mean energy flux crossing a vertical plane parallel to a waves crest and can be measured using the following equation: Edensity = watergH2/8 A major drawback of accepting this theory is that the text was produced by a university student and mainly concerned with the harvesting of wave energy for renewable power. The reader is left unaware of the extent to which this formula is used, especially for estimating the force in waves along shorelines. Design of structures in civil engineering is commonly based upon limit state principles, where a structure is designed so that a maximum load is not exceeded. Bocotti believes structures should be designed to cope with the highest possible wave, which is another way of stating that the design should follow the limit state principle. This is perhaps a more useful way of designing breakwaters or harbours rather than carrying

out the laborious task of having to measure energy densities across a wide range of waves like Vining suggests.

2.2

Tides

It is worth noting that although wind-driven waves cause the majority of coastal erosion, tides and currents will also contribute to erosion of areas like bays and tidal inlets (historically, these are the areas which are most attractive for the setup of ports and marinas). Tides are one of the most reliable phenomena in the world (NOAA, 2011) and will continue to rise and fall along our coastlines every day. This is advantageous to engineers and people working on coastal projects as it means the height of water levels at specific times of day can be predicted. Tides are waves (except with a much longer period) which move in the ocean in response to the position of the moon and sun; they are created by the gravitational pull of the sun and moon on the earths oceans. Isaac Newtons law of universal gravitation helps explain that the gravitational attraction is greater when the object is heavier and also depending on its distance to the other object. The sun is heavier than the moon, however the moon is closer to earth so will have a greater gravitational pull. The side of the earth which faces the moon is called the near side and the gravitational attraction pulls the water on this side of the earth towards the moon, causing a bulge of water. A similar bulge occurs on the opposite side due to the force of inertia. Both are called tidal bulges.

Figure 7: Changing position of lunar tides (NOAA, www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov, 2011)

While the moon revolves around the earth, and the earth around the sun, their angle to the equator will increase and decrease; this is known as declination. Figure 7 above illustrates how each tidal bulge will move around the earth depending on the declination of sun and moon. The earth rotates through two tidal bulges each day, meaning coastal areas will have two high tides and two low tides each day. The lunar day (the time it takes for the moon to rotate one full turn around the earth) lasts for 24hours and 50minutes so the time between high tides or low tides will be 12 hours and 25 minutes. Absent from the illustrations above by NOAA is the presence of the sun. When the earth, moon and sun are in alignment the gravitational pull of the sun will have an additive effect on the tidal bulge. It creates larger high tides and smaller low tides which are called spring tides. When the sun and moon are at right angles to each other their gravitational pulls will cancel each other out creating what is known as neap tides. This type of alignment occurs every two weeks therefore in each lunar month there will be two spring tides and two neap tides. Tides are also affected due to the elliptical pattern in which the moon rotates around the earth and the earth around the sun. Once a month when the moon is closest to the earth, the gravitational pull is greater so differences in high tide and low tides are greater. Similarly when the earth is closest to the sun the gravitational pull is greater so tides will be affected in a similar way. In both cases when the moon is farthest away from the earth and the earth farthest away from the sun the tidal ranges are reduced. With this knowledge of tidal frequency and variation it is possible to design structures that can protect coastlines. As previously mentioned tides are predictable; the MET office can provide institutions with accurate times and heights of sea level each day. The example below

of a tide table from the BBC is a useful tool available to designers to make use of when designing suitable coastal protection structures.

Figure 8: Tide Table (BBC, www.news.bbc.co.uk/weather/coast_and_sea/tide_tables)

2.2.1

Atmospheric Influence on Tides

Air pressure can have a substantial effect on tide height; changing air pressures can exert pushing forces on the ocean and cause higher or lower than predicted tides. The following information has been cited on The Weather Window; it describes the effect of high and low atmospheric pressures and moreover it challenges the use of tide tables.
Tide tables assume a standard pressure of 1013 millibars. This means that a pressure of 1040 mb, pretty high but not abnormally so, could give a sea level lower by nearly 30 cms than expected ... The lowest pressure recorded around the British Isles is about 925 mb which would give sea levels nearly a meter above tide table predictions ... The highest pressure around the UK is about 1050 mb which would give sea levels about 40 cm lower.

(The Weather Window, 2011) The website is a compilation of opinions and estimations so is not fully reliable, however the above statement is informative of the effect of air pressure on tides. The clear problem has been established that waves, monography and bathysphere, wind, tides and air pressure are ever changing. It becomes increasingly difficult to predict accurate limits for each variable, thus the toughest challenge is to protect coastal areas from the combination of all these processes.

2.3

Dissipation of Wave Energy

With the knowledge of the behaviour of waves as they approach the shoreline it has become custom to create a Break Zone further offshore so that wave energy does not exert itself on beaches and harbour areas. This type of coastal protection is not a new topic within civil engineering; it has been around for many years and continues to develop,
The coastline has been engineered for many centuries prior to 3000 BC (Coastal Engineering: Process, Theory and Design Practice, Chapter 1, Introduction)

There are a number of engineering solutions for coastal protection but by far the most favoured solution is hard engineering. Hard engineering consists of resistive structures along the sea-front which dissipate wave energy, they include: sea walls, groynes, breakwaters and towards the end of the 19th Century coastal armouring gained popularity. Scotland has a coastline of about 12000km in length (Bird, 2010) and has hundreds of harbours, piers and ferry terminals (Bray et al, 1992) and hard engineering solutions are visible throughout. As indicated above, the focus of this dissertation will be on breakwaters. 2.4 Breakwaters

There are numerous types of breakwater and their design is continually changing however they can be classified as either shore-connected or detached. Reeve et al (2004) have suggested that a shore connected breakwater is an improvement upon a groyne; which is a long and straight wooden or block structure stretching into the sea often used to encourage sedimentation. Groynes have their benefits and disadvantages, and it could be said that a shore connected breakwater has similar coastal protection benefits to a groyne, due to the lengthy part of the breakwater which connects to the shore. It is questionable whether a shore connected breakwater is a breakwater, a groyne or something in-between.

Figure 9: Detached Breakwater

A detached breakwater is a concrete or block structure not connected to the shoreline (illustrated in Figure 9: Detached Breakwater), with two main functions: -To provide an area of calm water between it and the shoreline behind it, allowing easy manoeuvring of marine traffic and leisure craft. -To break the force of waves before they reach the shoreline, helping to reduce coastal erosion Prior to 1850 breakwaters had been constructed using large stone blocks but have been built with Portland cement since its mass commercial production post 1845 (Allsop, 2009). They are a common feature in UK coastal zones and are an established aid to coastal protection. As highlighted above seabed characteristics along shorelines vary considerably so the design of breakwaters had to change in order to resist the different levels of wave propagation and wave energy; illustrated below are some designs of how breakwaters have developed.

Figure 10: Vertical Breakwater, Sloped-side and Curved side

Possibly before the phenomena of wave behaviour was understood, the design of breakwaters used a vertical block structure (similar to that illustrated), to combat coastal erosion. The concept was theoretically simple break the wave before it reaches the shore. The vertical breakwater may have accomplished its main aim however over time the integrity of the structure was compromised as a result of wave action and chloride penetration. In some instances a vertical breakwater was not able to withstand the force of waves and so the design evolved. The vertical walls were adjusted to form a sloped side breakwater. The theory behind this was that approaching waves would not collide directly with the stone facing and erode the mortar in the joints, instead the waves would be forced upwards, lose energy and erosion of the breakwater facing would be minimised. Other breakwater designs came about including a caisson breakwater which abandoned the idea of using sloped and vertical sides. A curved side breakwater is a further development upon the original designs, both mentioned and illustrated above. The wave will run along the breakwater and is bounced or reflected back into the path of the next wave. This effect helps to reduce the size and power of waves before they reach the breakwater; the underlying concept behind this design was that if the wave contained less energy this would potentially reduce erosion of the breakwater facing. Despite the reliance on breakwaters, they and indeed all marine structures, deteriorate over their lifetime as a result of erosion/abrasion caused by wave action and tides discussed above in sections 2.1 and 2.2. Another contributing factor is chemical attack which will be addressed below. It is reasonable to say that construction industries, governments and indeed people have known of the damage to coastal structures for some time. The knowledge of damage prompted fairly recent developments to help reduce coastal erosion. In 1950 in Grenoble, France, the concept of coastal armouring took off with the invention of the

Tetrapod (Sogreah). This was a structure with a complex shape and large surface area spread along coastlines to absorb the energy from waves; new designs and improvements have been made since then. This method of protection relies heavily on the interlocking of the armour units but the force of waves often causes displacement (Groeneveld et al, 1984); the core material making up the breakwater beneath the units is subsequently washed out over time. There have been instances when these armouring units have been layered on top of existing breakwaters for extra interception of wave energy. However this method, particularly in older breakwaters, may not resolve the cause of failure and in a way it is covering up the problem. 2.5 The problem with Breakwaters

Existing breakwaters in the UK and Scotland can be from the Victorian age when block work and stone were used and modern breakwaters which have been constructed with cement. In many harbours across the UK the older masonry structures are gradually deteriorating; often the quality of the structure was governed by the mortar used. The longevity of masonry breakwaters is also determined from their resistance to alternate wetting/drying, freeze/thaw cycles and abrasion (Bray et al, 1992). The area which experiences cyclic wetting and drying is known as the Splash Zone. In the splash zone the sea water acts aggressively towards the breakwater material in the following ways: -It has a high concentration of sulphate ions which react with tricalcium aluminate hydrate in hardened concrete (sulphate attack). - Each wave or tide causes wetting of the breakwater surface and once the water evaporates dissolved solids are left behind. Formation of sodium sulphate crystals occurs in cracks and crevices leading to spalling of the breakwater facing.

-Magnesium salts present in sea water react with calcium silicate hydrate in hardened cement. This reaction produces compounds with poor cementing power and thus weakens the concrete (Allen, 1981) -Carbonation: the acidity of the sea water destroys the protective alkalinity of concrete Some of these effects, as well as the effect of wave action are highlighted on the proceeding diagram.

A: Abrasion - The function of a breakwater is to act

Figure 11: Locations of damage (image edited by author) Figure 12: Real life situation of damage to coastal infrastructure (IStructE)

as a barrier to waves approaching the shore. Therefore abrasion is inevitable and the process weakens the bonds of the joint material. Over time the breakwater facing crumbles. B: Scouring - At the base of a breakwater the sea bed experiences loss of material as a result of impact by waves. When the wave breaks on the facing of the breakwater the energy loosens the bed material, the process is known as scouring. The sediment is then carried away by the retreat of wave and tidal action.

C: Biological Weathering - This type of damage may occur if animals try to borrow through the top of the breakwater. In the case of sea walls, chemicals released by the growth of tree or plant roots can induce biological deterioration. D: Hydraulic Pressure - Air is often trapped in the cracks/joints due to the force exerted by waves. Deterioration by freeze thaw is then a problem; when the structure is critically saturated, the water freezes to ice and typically occupies 9% more volume. If there is no space to accommodate this expansion there will be distress in the structure. This distress can continue successively causing repeated loss of material. E: Chemical Weathering This may be due to penetration or run-off of rainwater; dissolved CO2 in rainwater forms a weak acid and can dissolve calcium carbonate present in lime mortars and OPC. In the event of acid rainfall, a weak sulphuric acid can attack masonry and cause expansion. All of the above types of damage and weathering are visible along coastlines and on coastal structures in existence today. Figure 12 illustrates clearly the damage to block work exposed to sea water. The mortar between blocks has been eroded away allowing further ingress of sulphates and salts into the structure, thus weakening it and cutting its service life. Sea walls and breakwaters tend to have reinforcement beneath the concrete surface; it may be in the form of steel or iron ties, straps or reinforcement bars. If the reinforcement becomes exposed to the severe contaminants present in sea water, such as chloride, corrosion of the protective film on the surface of the metal is initiated and rusting occurs (IStructE). Apart from the loss of strength the corroded item will occupy a larger volume within the structure and hence lead to bursting pressures followed by cracking and spalling. Breakwaters and armouring units under construction today are commonly Portland cement concrete structures and often the internal structure uses steel reinforcement for extra

strength. In any other design, the use of steel reinforcement is unlikely to corrode so much as to contribute to significant damage however for marine structures this is not the case, as explained below.
Carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere reacts with Portland cement concrete to form calcium carbonate, and this process is called carbonation. Its effect is to produce a hardened surface to the concrete, but mainly its effect is to reduce the normal alkalinity of the pore water from a pH value between 13.5 and 12.4 to about 9.4 which allows the destruction of the normal passive film on the reinforcement and thereby allows corrosion to proceed, in turn leading to the concrete disintegration and reduced strength. However, in marine conditions the effect of carbon dioxide is reduced because it cannot penetrate saturated concrete.

(PIANC, 1990)

Figure 13 highlights the various causes of damage to maritime structures. With closer inspection of the types of damage it is clear that more can be done by the civil engineer to prevent deterioration of coastal structures and improve their durability.

Construction faults and overload sum to 23% of damage which suggests poor quality control and poor structural design. Such faults could be eliminated by spending more time on the design stage and improved practice on site. Collision makes up 12% of damage to maritime structures; this factor cannot be completely eliminated however by making use of protective features along the sides of harbour walls and breakwaters it can be reduced. When construction faults, collisions and overload are eliminated the majority of faults will be during operational stages of the breakwater. The following causes are considered: erosion/storms 17%, chemical attack 20%, design material 5% and ice 6%. It is clear that monitoring maritime particularly after sub-zero important to the condition structures, severe storms and temperatures is of

prolong the service maintenance sufficient essential. with repair

life. Subsequent use material of a is

Figure 13: Causes of damage(IStructE)

2.6

What is the relevance of repairing damage to current structures?

The literature reveals that routine investigations and monitoring of the condition of coastal structures is minimal to non-existent. Perhaps this is because authorities are not concerned with small damages to breakwaters as they do not immediately affect port operations. Other sources including PIANC and the ICE suggest that not enough funding is available for small scale repairs. 2.7 Case Study: Ardrossan Harbour, Scotland

No doubt there are many examples of coastal structures that could be used to emphasize the topical issue of coastal erosion - an example of such is Ardrossan harbour. A site investigation is proposed to gain primary data that can be used to highlight the relevance of repairing damage. Ardrossan harbour has been chosen based on the ease of access for the author. 2.7.1 Background

Civil Engineering Heritage by Paxton & Shipway accounts accurately the history and development of Ardrossan harbour. In 1804 the 12th Earl of Eglinton approached Thomas Telford to discuss constructing a canal from Glasgow to his Ardrossan estate where he also proposed a large harbour to accommodate 100 vessels. The work began in 1806 and by early 1809 one of the two piers had already stretched 900 yards. As the project became more expensive a second engineer, Rennie, was been consulted and the projected cost rose to 90,000. After the death of the 12th Earl in 1819 the work halted until 1833. During this time the Clyde navigation and railway developments constructed a railway from the harbour to outside Kilwinning which was opened in 1831. It wasnt until 1833 when the harbour works started again under the 13th Earl, and at a reduced scale. On completion the harbour

comprised two tidal basins of 6 and 18 acres and a wet dock of 4 acres. A dry dock was built in 1846. Photo 1 in Appendix 1 shows the existing harbour at Ardrossan. At the early stage of the industrial revolution the railway line from Ardrossan harbour to Kilwinning was connected with Glasgow in 1840. The demand and supply chain began to increase; meaning rail, and subsequently road haulage became a preferred option for transporting goods rather than the canal. In 1832 Telford commented that the scheme was a striking instance of the risk which exists in an active nation of undertaking any new work which requires time in completion. Ardrossan harbour had the potential to be a major hub for transport however its development was hindered due to social factors affecting the construction process at the time. Perhaps if the work had not stopped during the death of the 12th Earl the works might have been completed sooner and the current port at Ardrossan might have been thriving today, rather than have been negatively affected by railway develpments. From 1886-92 the engineer Robert Robertson made improvements including an outer tidal basin which included a new breakwater 1320ft long (Appendix 1 provides a photo [number 2] of the existing breakwater). Robertson kept a log on the progress of the works, which are held today by the ICE. The logs detail the materials used in construction of the breakwater: concrete in bags weighing 24 ounces per square yard for the breakwater base and rubble-concrete for superstructure. Cement was also the

used throughout the project. Figure 14 shows a cross section of the original breakwater at Ardrossan.

Figure 14: Ardrossan Breakwater (Robertson, ICE)

Over time the harbour was developed and used for shipping interests on the Clyde and today is used by the oil industry, for the Arran ferry and as a marina. It is

expected that since its construction the breakwater has gradually deteriorated due to the action of waves, chemical attack, freezing/thawing and possibly collision. The site investigation was carried out revealed the degree of damage to the breakwater; it also allowed collection of primary evidence to support the relevance of breakwater repair today. 2.7.2 Where is Ardrossan? Ardrossan is on the South Western coast of Scotland facing the Firth of Clyde and Irish Sea. The harbour is owned by Clydeport the operating ferry company is Caledonain MacBrayne. 2.7.3 What is the problem? The harbour and breakwater are in existence from the early 1800s and have since been subject to the aggressive marine environment, changing tidal patterns and the erosive

force of waves. Photo 3 in Appendix 1 illustrates the magnitude of the waves penetrating the harbour on a relatively calm day and moderate sea conditions. The breakwater and harbour wall were originally made making use of lime based mortar. Over time the mortar has been worn away and subsequent repairs were made using a cement based mortar. Since repairs, sizeable pieces of the structure are noticed to have fallen off because of issues with the compatibility between the cement mortar and the stone facing. Such degradation is evident in Photo 4 and Photo 5 supplied in Appendix 1. Cement mortar will be further discussed in section 2.10. Further degradation of the breakwater and harbour wall could cause significant problems for the structures integrity. Photo 6 in Appendix 1 highlights the extent of internal damage at the harbour; in this case the reinforcement iron straps have been exposed. Port operations could potentially be disrupted if the damaged is unrepaired. The various types of damage highlighted in Figure 11 are representative of the condition of Ardrossan harbour. The photographic evidence in Appendix 1 is supportive of this; in particular Photo 7 shows how biological weathering exists regardless of how small the cause might be. 2.7.4 Tidal Pattern

The development of tides and how they affect coastlines has been discussed above in section 2.2. The variation of magnitude and direction of tides at Ardrossan can be seen below in Figure 15. The image shows the tidal bulge moving inland towards Ardrossan, 5 hours later the tide is still progressing but at a different rate and a further 5 hours later the tidal bulge has began to move in the opposite direction. The force in these tides, acting on the harbour since its construction has worn away the surface of the masonry at the harbour. Evidence of this is present in the images in Appendix 1.

Figure 15: Tidal Patterns at Ardrossan: 5 hours before High Water at Dover, HW at Dover, 5 hours after HW (Nautical Almanac, 1984)

2.8

Repairing damage

As well as natural erosive forces on coastal structures, they can be further damaged as a result of human error. Often a visual inspection is used to determine the condition of a breakwater or quay wall however tidal patterns make it difficult to complete a thorough inspection. Furthermore, the IStructE have suggested that routine underwater inspection programmes are non-existent and are only carried out if a problem is suspected. It is also the case that some structures are left to structurally fail before reinstatement work will begin (Zwamborn et al, 1995); if this is the case often coastal armouring is the solution. The use of hard engineering techniques to repair hard structures is becoming increasingly sceptical and is arguably not the solution when it comes to correcting damage by waves action on breakwaters. If regular inspection and subsequent maintenance was carried out the solution could be much easier. In an article published in the proceedings of the nineteenth coastal engineering conference, reasons for breakwater rehabilitation are discussed. It states that the optimum method depends on the following: The cause of failure

The degree and nature of the damage The acceptable level of risk to port operations or other facilities

Zwamborn et al state that the ultimate criterion is whether the structure is still functional and that the operation of the port must not be impaired. It is obvious from the illustrations provided above and the case of Ardrossan harbour, that those small losses of joint mortar and some pieces of masonry will not stop port operations. However, such erosion and damage of breakwaters is gradual and the difficulty is deciding on how much damage can occur before repair work should be carried out. Small scale repairs such as repairing damaged joints may prove to be tedious and ongoing but the advantages are that with a proper monitoring plan in place they could prevent total structural failure, are less costly than major repair works and will not overly disrupt port operations. To fulfil the objectives set out in Chapter 1 a review of the variety of materials available for small scale repairs to breakwaters is carried out below. 2.9 High-strength concrete

In the mid 19th Century when Portland cement was introduced to the construction industry some materials became available belonging to the Portland cement family, such as early strength cement. Construction and expansion of ports and marinas worldwide made use of such high strength cements to create vast modern harbours. CIRIA explain: Concrete is a highly versatile, cost-effective construction material, offering not only strength and durability, but also a wide range of opportunities in terms of structural type and form, construction techniques and surface aesthetics. [It] has been, and will continue to be used extensively in the marine environment. [With] over 800m spent on coastal defences in the UK every year at least 15 per cent of these works include concrete in various forms (sea walls and wave walls, armour units etc). (CIRIA, 2010)

Later discoveries highlighted that there were problems with durability for structures in extreme environments such as marine concrete structures. More recent developments however have produced some construction materials with low permeability and high durability in extreme conditions. 2.9.1 Anti-washout Underwater Concrete Construction of coastal structures has a similar problem to inspection in that the rising and falling tides, storms and waves make difficult working conditions. Chanh and Trung (2008) are correct in saying that marine construction has become larger in scale in recent years. As a result construction of grand designs may be increasingly awkward and referring back to the chart produced by IStructE this could mean more breakwater damage due to construction faults a factor which should ideally be nonexistent. The development of an anti-washout underwater concrete (produced by using antiwashout admixtures (AWA)) can be considered for construction of breakwaters: it has properties including segregation resistance, high fluidity and self-levelling ability. Chanh et al support its use for work in sea water and their tests conclude that the use of AWA protects cement and fine aggregate from washout unlike untreated concrete. Indeed this type of construction material can be used for new constructions and has filling properties but its use as a repair material for damaged and eroded structures is hindered. 2.9.2 Superplasticizing Admixtures This so called super-plasticized, high performance concrete was made by using highly efficient water reducers. Mentioned above, the anti-washout concrete is one of the end

products of super-plasticizing admixtures however this is just one of many other forms. The high-strength concrete has a low water/cement ratio which gives it its low permeability. Mehta (1999) claims this is a key property to long term durability in aggressive environments. One criticism with the literature on high strength concrete is that research so far seems to only cover new builds. It fails to suggest how effective these products may be for repairing cracks and joints in damaged breakwaters so to suggest them as a sufficient repair material would be uninformed. 2.10 Mortars Mortars are made up of sand, a binder and water however it is the interchangeable variable (the binder) which will make the difference to how the mortar behaves. Taylor (1994), states that mortars should have requirements including: Ability to impart sufficient strength to the complete unit Allow movement of the structure Have a resistance to frost and other environmental attack Be of an impervious nature

Mortars can be said to be a traditional and established construction material and is commonly used because it is compatible with the damaged structure. Indeed any repair material must be sacrificial to the fabric being conserved. Many new materials developed around the last decade may not bond as well with the original material, thus their use is limited.

2.10.1 Cement-Based The use of cement-based mortars has become a dominant material for block and brick structures. In British Standards cement is defined as
the product obtained by intimately mixing together calcareous and argillaceous or other alumina, silica and iron oxide bearing materials, burning them at a clinkering temperature and grinding the resulting clinker

(British Standards) Due to its fast setting characteristics, effectively low cost and the low permeability of the hardened end product, cement based mortar is established worldwide. Rankin describes cement mortar as far superior in strength and durability to any of the various other types of mortars commonly used in construction due to the presence of a compound called tricalcium silicate. However in masonry structures, the tricalcium silicate introduces deleterious reactions with natural stone, thus weakening the structure (Appendix 4). With this knowledge it is evident that the use of cement mortars is primarily associated with concrete. Cement mortar between the joints does not have the ability to absorb moisture. Instead the block/stone of the sea wall or breakwater will retain the water. In sub-zero temperatures the water freezes and expands, exerting force onto the blocks and mortar. As a result there is spalling of the surface and the facing of the structure tends to fall off in sizeable pieces. Furthermore, the action of waves will flush salt water deep into any developing cracks on the surface. When the moisture tries to escape the chlorides will cause further damage as described in section 2.5. Does this mean that repairing damaged breakwaters with a material that has been eroded since its original installation is taking a step backwards in terms of durability

and projected lifetime? Given the objectives outlined in Chapter 1, this theory will be taken forward and researched in more detail. 2.10.2 Lime-Based Lime was a principal binder in mortars and dates back more than 12000 years; being used by the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians. Unfortunately as time progressed and new materials came about, much of the knowledge and expertise on limestone was lost. Then in the 19th Century Ordinary Portland cement (OPC) took its place as the dominant material. Still today the construction industry is struggling to grasp the benefits of lime much because of this lack of understanding. More research into the use of lime showed that it is resilient and flexible, with properties that can compete with OPC as a suitable construction material. Indeed many Roman harbours still stand today having resisted the erosive forces inflicted by decades of waves and tides. Naturally occurring limestone is burned with coal to produce a substance called quicklime; when added to water a violent reaction occurs and the end product is lime putty. A fresh lime mortar is made by mixing the lime putty with sand the process is illustrated below in Figure 16.

Figure 16: Lime Cycle (Scottish Lime Centre)

The use of a lime mortar as opposed to Portland cement as a patching material on eroded surfaces, cracks or joints will help sustain the structure and prolong its operation. The porous nature of lime mortar will absorb moisture, retain it and evaporate it into the atmosphere when drying; this process will preserve the stone of the breakwater, unlike the behaviour of a cement based mortar. As discussed in Chapter 1, an objective of this research project was to find a suitable repair material for damaged and eroded marine structures; when using lime mortar for repair work an advantage is the possibility to match the density of the stone and mortar to help minimise the risks of salt damage and stone decay. The porous nature of the material means that any minor cracks which do occur are less likely to admit water, and may even heal over a period of time by the slow action of dissolution and re-crystallisation of lime (Forster, 2004) In a video produced by the Scottish Lime Centre the recommendation is that mortars should not be used in an environment where frost damage will occur before it has time to cure. In compliance with this theory, use of lime mortar as a patching material may be problematic as it is not uncommon for structures in the sea to freeze over. This is further supported by Figure 13, which highlights that 6% of damage to maritime structures is caused by ice. With regards to its use for repairing coastal structures Natural Hydraulic Lime (NHL) has a key role to play as a patching mortar. NHL is produced from limestone containing certain other minerals, such as silica and alumina. It is available in forms ranging from 2-5 N/mm2 compressive strength at 28days. The production of NHL,

illustrated below in Figure 17, is a more complex process than that of ordinary lime production. The benefits of NHL include: - Hardening by carbonation; the process where a wet lime mortar, exposed to the air, loses water molecules and the carbon dioxide is reabsorbed allowing the mortar to harden. -NHL sets by hydrolysis; so it can be used for construction in marine environments where it will be required to set under water. It is also fast setting. -No shrinkage: shrinkage cracks in mortar can be reduced to little or none due to its hydraulic setting characteristics.

Figure 17: Hydraulic Lime Cycle (Scottish Lime Cente)

2.10.3 Combining Lime with cement Cement and lime mortars are arguably the two most feasible options for repair of maritime structures and the thought of creating a combination of these materials has not gone unnoticed. Holmstrom (1993) explains that the overall aim of combining a cement mortar to lime mortar is to achieve higher strength and durability, thus improving the quality of the mortar. The text accounts:

The standard laboratory tests...more realistic to lime on a site, show a considerable decrease [in strength] when replacing less than 50% of the lime mortar with the same weight in cement mortar.

Lime mortars are typically weak in the sense that they are soft and it takes a considerable length of time for them to set. The tests Holmstrom describes conclude that the addition of Portland Cement to lime mortar is seldom an improvement essentially they proliferate the negative effects on the already weak lime. This is not a feasible suggestion for a repair material. 2.10.4 Silica Fume Particles Silica fume is an extremely fine material, approximately one hundredth the size of an average cement particle (U.S Department of Transport). Their application to mortars is to increase compressive strength and help reduce permeability. The ultimate goal when repairing a breakwater or sea wall is to use a material that will achieve maximum longevity at the lowest cost and require minimal monitoring. Figure 18 suggests that silica fume may be a competitive material for the purpose of repair.

Figure 18: Clip from a table showing suggested ratings for recent advancements in concrete technology, (Mehta, 1999)

However, Zelic et al. carried out experiments to investigate the influence of silica fume in mortars and they report that the addition of silica fume to a mortar can reduce the overall porosity of a structure; this is unfavourable in a mortar as explained above in section 2.10. The addition of silica particles to mortar on their own will not be investigated further. 2.11 Which repair material to test? The evidence indicates that lime has potential to be an effective material for repairing cracks and loose joints on the face of a breakwater but the benefits of cement as a construction material are also recognised. Determination of the most suitable repair material for coastal structures is necessary: lime-based mortar (the traditional material) or a cement-based mortar (conventional material). Further justification of the choice of these materials can be found from the table below which provides a detailed comparison between OPC and a range of NHL. Both materials, especially lime, perform well in resistance to freezing/thawing and to sulphate exposure. As expected OPC has a higher compressive strength than NHL however the NHL has a greater flexural strength. In terms of durability both materials receive the same rating of 9 10 (the lower strength NHL receives a lower durability rating). Both materials have been given similar ratings because initially the table was produced for building conservation purposes and not specifically mortars suitable for repairing maritime structures. Nonetheless it is still clear that further analysis between cement and lime is needed.

Figure 19: Mortar Performance values and characteristics (Lime Centre Trust)

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY
3 Methodology

This chapter will outline the various research methods that were established in order to fulfil the aims specified in Chapter 1 and to research the chosen material in Chapter 2. 3.1 The purpose of research

The purpose of this research was to investigate the impact of waves on coastal infrastructure, with particular reference to breakwaters. Also, to evaluate the materials used to repair damages with a specific interest of finding the most suitable repair material. 3.2 Types of Research

A general understanding of research is that it is a process of gathering information or testing ideas and reporting on the results. There are two distinct approaches when focusing on methodology, qualitative and quantitative, and a third approach which is a mixture of these two methods. A review of each type is necessary to establish the advantages and disadvantages of each to help determine which type is the most appropriate. 3.2.1 Qualitative

A qualitative approach is defined by Davies (2007) as a set of interpretive, material practices that make the world visible. Holliday (2007) expands on this and explains that qualitative data which makes the world visible includes: descriptions of research events, descriptions of appearance, a narrative account or any documents.

Page | 44

3.2.2

Quantitative

A quantitative approach seeks to find answers/information through the application of scientific procedures which were developed in order to increase the likelihood that the information gathered will be relevant to the question asked and will be reliable and unbiased (Davies, 2007). Quantitative research is further explained in (Naoum, 2007) as a way to test or verify a theory rather than develop it and that it is ideally suited to research which will require facts about a subject to test a theory/hypothesis. 3.2.3 Mixed Method

A study tends to be more qualitative than quantitative or vice versa. Mixed method research resides in the middle of this continuum because it incorporates both elements of qualitative and quantitative approaches (Davies, 2007). There is an increasing use of the mixed method approach as it combines the benefits of qualitative and quantitative methods. 3.3 Chosen Method

The chosen method of research for this dissertation will be the mixed method approach. It is thought to be the most suitable approach because: A site investigation has been taken (visit to Ardrossan harbour), through which primary data was gathered in the form of photographs and field notes. Qualitative analysis permits interpretation of the data and it can be related to the theories or processes described in the literature review.

Page | 45

The objectives set out in Chapter 1 will require observational data to be collected. Then by using the quantitative approach the data gathered can be analysed and reported so that the technical problem is resolved.

A visit is scheduled with the Scottish Lime Centre to gather primary information on the applications of lime mortar. Interpretation of any conversations, memos or even questions asked during the visit can be included in the research by using the qualitative approach.

3.4

Data Collection

To fulfil objective 6 a lab based experiment will be conducted. The simulation of wave action on coastal structures requires much effort and at a high level of difficulty; the impracticality of conducting an in-situ test is that a purpose built testing rig would need to be created. The financial burden that this could impinge is not feasible for a research dissertation at this level. Therefore, the resources that are available will be exploited so that the most reasonable results can be produced. 3.4.1 Lab based experiment

The purpose of the experiment is to fulfil objective 6 in Chapter 1: to set up an experiment that tests the effectiveness of material in a simulated marine environment. 3.4.2 Description of the Experiment

The experiment rig, detailed below, is used primarily to study fluid mechanics but will be used to simulate wave action due to certain constraints with equipment. It consists of a water nozzle, an impact surface, a water tank with connected scale and water recirculation plumbing. A pump draws water from a collection tank and provides sufficient head for water to flow through the nozzle. The impact surface will deflect the water jet. Page | 46

Figure 20: Jet Impact Apparatus

The chosen materials will be attached to the impact surface. A holding unit has been made to attach the samples onto the retaining screw. The nozzle, impact surface and retaining screw are each detailed on the apparatus diagram. The experiment will be used to test for material loss and any degradation of the samples, for a given flow rate over a period of time. It is a simulation of the behaviour of waves as they approach coastal structures such as breakwaters and sea walls. The sample will be attached at a known distance above the jet nozzle to allow impact and penetration of the water jet. 3.4.3 Experiment theory

The experiment is used to calculate the force produced by a jet of water. Appendix 5 contains the theory behind the experiment; it states that Newtons laws of motion can be used to analyse motion in fluids. Newtons 2nd Law tells us The rate of change of momentum of a body is equal to the resultant force acting on the body, and takes place in the direction of the force.

Page | 47

This statement provides the formula to calculate the theoretical force. It can be written as: Force = Rate of change of momentum. The rate of change of momentum is the difference between the rate at which the water leaves the impact surface and the rate at which it leaves the nozzle. Thus Ftheoretical = (u). The actual force is calculated by the equation Factual = M x g; where M is the mass and g is gravitational acceleration. Once the jet reaches a certain momentum it will begin to force the impact surface upwards. Weights are then loaded on the outside of the rig so that the impact surface can return to its original position above the jet. Its original position is determined by a datum level on the apparatus. The total mass of the weights is used as the value for M. 3.4.4 Experimental materials

Time constraints have meant that primary samples to test cannot be made for the experiment. The main reason for this is so that any samples being tested have an adequate strength to produce meaningful results. It is generally accepted that a cement mortar kept in normal curing conditions will develop 75% of its strength in the first 28 days. Lime based mortars will develop strength slowly, even over many years; therefore it is important to use a sample that has sufficient strength to allow a comparison to be made.

3.4.5

The Samples

The space and availability of equipment in the lab limits the number of samples that can be tested - a total of 3 samples will be used. ...sampling is the selection of elements that will be representative of the whole population (Czaja, 1996). The limitations in the number of Page | 48

samples that can be tested mean that the chosen samples (described below) will not be representative of all the types and forms of construction material. Regardless of this, the samples will be used and when the testing is finished the interpretation of the data will determine if the results are transferable to a larger scale. 3.4.5.1 Sample 1: Cement-Based Mortar

The sample of cement-based mortar (CBM) was provided by the Scottish Lime Centre during a visit by the author. The origin and material properties are unknown but the sample is assumed to be representative of typical OPC composition. 3.4.5.2 Sample 2: Lime-Based Mortar

The sample was provided by the RICH centre of Glasgow Caledonian University. It is clear by visual inspection that this lime based mortar (LBM) has a high aggregate proportion. 3.4.5.3 Sample 3: Lime-Based Mortar

This sample was also provided by the Scottish Lime Centre during a visit by the author. It is slightly lighter in weight than the other samples and it is visible that there are more air voids 3.4.6 Procedure

Accuracy and fair testing are important factors of the experiment: to achieve this it is important that each sample is treated in the same way to avoid bias. The following steps are taken when carrying out the experiment: 1 The initial mass is recorded and a description of the sample included. Page | 49

2 The sample is placed in the testing rig. The jet is turned on so that there is sufficient impact of the water with the sample. The jet runs continuously for 4 hours. 3 After 4 hours the sample is removed from the rig and a weight is recorded. The sample will be saturated so a value greater than the initial weight is expected. 4 The sample is left to dry, in conditions greater than room temperature. 5 A weight is recorded when the sample is dry to determine if any material has been lost due to impact with the water jet. The procedure is repeated for each sample over a period of three days. 3.4.7 Sources of Error

It is unknown whether the experiment apparatus is approved by industry standards as an effective way of simulating wave action. Resource availability and time constraints are contributing factors to not having appropriate equipment. If the theory of material loss in coastal structures were to be tested at a commercial level however, then it would be necessary for a purpose built testing rig to be used; one which could appropriately show how the mortar would behave in-situ when being struck by the force of waves. The literature review highlighted the damage that chlorides in sea water have on masonry structures in marine environments. However, due to the sensitivity of the apparatus, water with a sufficient level of salt was unable to be used. This may render the results inappropriate due to the fact that the literature review reveals that much of the damage to coastal structures is caused by the nature of sea water. Three samples are to be tested in the experiment apparatus for 4 hours each day for three days. Achieving continuity in each jet impact rig may impinge upon the success of the Page | 50

results. Accurate heights between nozzle and sample may vary slightly. The accuracy of the gauge in recording a collected volume of water may vary slightly across the three pieces of equipment.

Page | 51

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

4 Analysis of Results 4.1 Introduction In order to meet the objectives of this research, this chapter of the dissertation will relay, in numerical and graphical format, the results of the experiment that has been conducted. There is also a review of a short survey completed by the Scottish Lime Centre Trust on the topic of the practicalities of the use of lime mortars. 4.2 Preconceptions Prior to carrying out the experiment and having reviewed the literature around the topic the author had formed some expectations for results that might be produced from the experiment. As previously discussed, lime based mortars are a softer and less durable material than cement based mortars; thus the lime based samples being tested were expected to experience considerably larger degradation after impact with the jet in comparison to the cementitious sample. With regards to the amount of material loss overall it was unknown if the results would be quantifiable or if they would produce a significant trend. Sample 1 (CBM) was expected to lose little to no material whereas samples 3 and 4 (LBMs) were expected to show definite evidence of erosion both numerical and visually. 4.3 Experiment Findings The observations from the experiment have been entered into Microsoft Excel to produce a table of results for each sample. These have been included in Appendix 2.

Page | 52

Test 1: The first test was used on a trial and error basis to determine which flow rate would be sufficient to produce reasonable results and also to ensure that the samples could withstand 4 hours of jet impact. A flow rate of 3 litres per minute was used which produced a jet of water strong enough to reach over the surface of the sample. Due to complications when attaching sample 1 to the test rig it was unable to be tested; the sample broke free from the glue attaching it to its base and would have taken time to be reaffixed. Only the lime mortar samples were tested i.e. Samples two and three. After 4 hours of impact by the jet samples 2 and 3 were removed and weighed. As the samples were saturated with water their wet mass was greater than the start mass, as shown in Tables 2 and 3 in Appendix 2. Sample 2 has a flat and even surface and appears to have a low void ratio after impact with the water jet it had gained 2.75g. Sample 3 is an uneven and weaker sample of lime mortar with a higher void ratio after impact with the jet it had gained 4.80g. Both samples were left in the same location with the average temperature greater than 20 degrees to allow them to dry after which they returned to their original weight. Test 2: Sample one was reattached to its base and was ready to be tested for the first time. The results indicated that after testing samples 2 and 3 at a flow rate of 3 litres per minute there was no loss of material. As outlined above in section 2.10 cement mortars have greater durability than lime mortar, it was decided that if the lime mortar did not show signs of degradation at a flow rate of 3 litres per minute then neither would the CBM. For test 2 the flow rate was

Page | 53

increased to 5 litres per minute which produced a stronger jet of water that touched over all three samples with much turbulence. After 4 hours of testing the samples were removed and weighed. Sample one gained 3.07g, sample 2 gained 2.64g and sample 3 gained 4.47g. This was the first test that had been carried out using the cement based mortar; it appears that there is a clear difference in the degree of saturation between the cement mortar and different types of lime mortar. These porosity characteristics will be discussed later in this chapter. After the samples had sufficient time to dry they were weighed. Sample one had experienced a small mass loss of 0.06g. The supposedly weaker LBMs however had still not lost material (evident from tables 2 and 3 in Appendix 2); reasons for this will be discussed further in this chapter. Test 3: For test 3 the flow rate was further increased to 10 litres per minute - which was highly turbulent. The test ran for 4 hours after which the samples were removed and weighed and the following mass increases recorded for each sample when wet: sample 1 gained 3.11g, sample 2 gained 2.58g and sample 3 gained 4.09g. After having time to dry each sample demonstrated a clear loss of material evident from the values below taken from Tables 1-3 in Appendix 2: sample 1 had lost 0.14g, sample 2 had lost 0.15g and sample 3 had lost 0.59g. Up to this point trial and error was being used to obtain a reasonable flow rate; as 10 litres per minute had produced comparable results, it was decided that this would be used for further tests.

Page | 54

Test 4: The flow rate of 10 litres per minute was used and all 3 samples were tested. After the 4 hours of testing sample 1 gained 3.07g which was the same mass increase as in Test 2. Sample 2 had gained 2.56g and sample 3 had gained 4.57g. The samples were left to dry after which the results showed that sample 1 had lost no material, sample 2 lost 0.15g and sample 3 lost 0.57g. Test 5: This test was the last test to be carried out; it was run at a flow rate of 10 litres per minute and all 3 samples were tested. The results in Tables 1-3 in Appendix 2 show similar results to those from the previous test for wet mass and dry mass for each sample. 4.3.1 Porosity Characteristics

Highlighted above in section 2.5 the porosity of the structure can be a governing factor of longevity and extent of damage. In brief, a porous material will absorb and retain water which can freeze, expand and cause cracks in sub-zero temperatures. In the experiment the porosity of the sample was taken as the gain in mass after impact with the water jet. A percentage value for the average mass increase for each sample over the duration of the 5 tests has been calculated and presented in the table below. The value for average weight was obtained by averaging the start weight of each sample before impact with the jet and average percentage mass increase in the same way.

SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE 2 SAMPLE 3

POROSITY CHARACTERISTICS AVERAGE AVERAGE % MASS WEIGHT (g) INCREASE 46.66 6.67 47.71 7.01 47.05 9.66

Page | 55

Figure 21: Porosity Characteristics Table

Sample 1 was the cement based mortar and after impact with the jet its average percentage mass increase was 6.67%. Sample 2 was the lime based mortar which after impact with the jet had an average percentage mass increase of 7.01%. Sample 3 was also lime based mortar and after impact with the jet had an average percentage mass increase of 9.66%. These results suggest that the cement based mortar is the least porous in comparison with lime based mortars. Furthermore, a lime based mortar with a higher aggregate content is less porous than a lime mortar of regular composition. From the images supplied above in section 3.4.4 the variation of surface texture between each sample can be seen. The surface of sample 1which faced the water jet is relatively flat with some visible small air voids. Sample two is flat and even with no air voids on the surface and sample 3 is rough with numerous voids present. The texture and composition of each sample contributes to its porosity; air voids present allow water to penetrate deeper into the sample and a greater surface area will allow for more absorption. These results can give some indication of the porosity of cement and lime mortars when applied to external facings of breakwaters or harbour walls. In Chapter 2 it was explained that, in existing coastal structures, due to the low porosity of the cement mortar less water particles are absorbed, resulting in a higher uptake by the masonry and block work. Natural processes will then cause expansion of the block work and the facing will deteriorate. If a structure were to be repaired by re-pointing the joints with lime mortar perhaps the situation Page | 56

would be different. The results indicate that lime mortars absorb more water meaning there is less water particles forced into the masonry, therefore, use of a lime mortar may be beneficial to the structure. 4.3.2 Why material loss is important?

Material loss is measured by subtracting the dry mass of the sample from its mass before jet impact. This parameter was monitored due to its helpfulness in illustrating how each sample performs or reacts to the force exerted on it by a jet of water. At the end of the testing period it was possible to produce a graph to illustrate the progressive mass loss for each sample. The results showed that each sample had lost different amounts of material and at different flow rates. The line graph, Figure 22, illustrates the progressive mass loss in each sample throughout the 5 tests. For the first test, sample one was not tested so its mass loss was zero however from Test 2 onwards the loss of mass material was slightly consistent. Sample two lost zero mass for the first two tests but from Test 3 onwards mass loss was slightly consistent this is represented in Figure 22 by an increasing line. For sample 3 the graph shows no loss of material in Tests 1 and 2 however for Test 3 there a rapid loss of mass was followed by slight material loss in the next two Tests. Test 3 appears to have caused the largest amount of material loss; this is seen in Figure 22 when each line spikes suddenly and then progresses at a consistent rate during the remaining tests. The test was run at a flow rate of 10 litres per minute which from these results appears to have had a significant effect on the mortar; sample 3 in-particular shows a large loss of material at this flow rate of 0.59g.A possible explanation for this anomaly could be that atmospheric pressure variations had an influence when recording a weight for the Page | 57

samples. Otherwise there may have been loose debris or weak outer particles on the surface of each mortar which a flow rate of up to 5 litres per minute was not strong enough to wash away.

Figure 22: Line graph for progressive mass loss

4.3.3

Reviewing start and end weights

The purpose of the experiment was to determine which material could be considered the most effective for use as a repair material in marine environments. The durability of the material and its resistivity to waves and tides should be prime considerations. Figure 23 below has

Page | 58

been created to help illustrate the durability of each sample by comparing the start and end weights.

Figure 23: Bar chart comparing start and end weights

Cement based mortar was the lightest sample and had the least material loss. Its start weight was 46.78g and end weight was 46.56g giving a total loss of 0.22g. Table 1 in Appendix 3 also states that at the end of the test period the weight of sample 1 was 99.53% of its original mass. This degree of durability is due to the presence of tricalcium silicate present in the cement which has been described in section 2.10.1. Sample 2 was the heaviest sample and had a start weight of 47.80g. After the test period its end weight was 47.41g which is 99.18% of the orignal sample weight. Sample 3 shows the greatest signs of degradation as its end weight was 98.50% of the start weight; as previously mentioned this is likely due to the presence of more air voids. Page | 59

It is clear from Figure 23 that erosion in lime based mortars is greater than in a cement based mortar. However as discussed in Chapter 2 it was stated that an effective mortar would be sacraficial to the structure. This means lime mortars may afford more protection to a structure than a cement based mortar by allowing their own self decay rather than that of the masonry work. 4.4 In-situ Performance of Mortars

Although the experiment has demonstrated the different performances of the mortars it might not be reflective of their in-situ performance. It is clear from the literature in Chapter 2 that the masonry surrounding a repaired joint will have an influence on how the mortar reacts under tidal conditions or when struck by a wave. These results may have varied significantly if a larger scale sample had been used, one with a number of blocks joined by a mortar sample. For the cement mortar there may have been no material loss at all as generally in reality it could take years for significant signs of damage to appear, as discussed in Chapter 2 section 2.5 the IStructE are in agreement with this statement. The loss of material in sample 3, 0.71g, might have been slightly less as surrounding masonry might have sheltered the air voids. 4.5 Analysis of Information provided by Scottish Lime Centre

Whilst reviewing the literature on the types of construction material that are suitable for repairing coastal structures a visit to the Scottish Lime Centre Trust and Charlestown workshops was organised. The Trust are responible for promoting lime as a suitable conservation material for traditional and historic buildings in Scotland; steming from this objective is the view that lime is always a preferred material.

Page | 60

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
5 Conclusion 5.1 Monitoring and Maintenance

Much of the information gathered from the literature review indicated that routine investigations to monitor the condition of coastal defence structures are infrequent and without appropriate planning. It is also the case that faults are only recognised when the scale of damage is excessive throughout the structure; sometimes this is intentional as owners would rather carry out repairs on a larger scale than small, tedious repairs. The graph below, Figure 24, shows that the majority of faults or damages in maritime structures occur after 3 years. As supported by the literature review, at present it is assumed that much of the coastal structures in the UK operate without any defined routine inspection. Therefore it is advised that a schedule for routine investigations should be made for ports throughout the UK. A maximum of every 3 years is suggested as a feasible time scale for repeating inspections. Companies or port operators may find that the benefits could include reduced repair costs if significant damage is noticed earlier or extended operating lives of structures. Lime-mortar is not made or used for its compressive strength but for its flexural strength. It is therefore said to be sacrificial to the structure to which it is applied. If anything the experiments carried out in fulfilment with the objectives in Chapter 1, show that degradation of lime based mortar is greater than that of cement based. Thus, a structure that makes use of lime mortar as a joint sealant and for repairs to cracks will lose material steadily over its lifetime, but to the advantage of the structure. Page | 61

Figure 24: Defects found -v- time (IStructE, 2001)

5.2

Recommendations from the experiment

The experimental results showed a larger degradation in both lime mortars over time in comparison with the cement mortar. A mortar in a coastal structure, or indeed any other structure or building, needs to be able to deform and develop micro-cracks so that the overall integrity of the structure remains stable. The results indicate that lime mortars, as a result of their associated properties, are more favourable repair materials for coastal structures rather than cement mortars 5.3 Practicality of repairs

A detailed design stage and adequate quality control throughout the construction stage might always be an easier way, not to mention economical way, of preventing damage and degradation to coastal structures. Maintenance and repair of damaged coastal structures can require the set up of a working platform and the need for large and heavy machinery whilst Page | 62

working between tides and in awkward conditions. Therefore the practicality of carrying out small scale repairs such as re-pointing with lime mortar is ambiguous. Of course the benefits of lime mortar and its positive influence on masonry are recognised. Using the harbour at Ardrossan as an example, if repairs were to be carried out the time scale in which they could be completed could be extensive. Provision of a working platform on the sea side of the harbour wall, access to the breakwater with a safe working platform would also be required. Once repairs have been carried out they would need to be protected from the ingress of tides and wave action. Whether or not these requirements are feasible will remain largely up to the owner/party that is interested in carrying out the repairs.

Page | 63

APPENDIX 1
Photographs taken by the author on a visit to Ardrossan Harbour

Photo 1: Ardrossan Harbour, 2011

Photo 2: Ardrossan Breakwater, 2011

Page | 64

Photo 3: Wave penetration along pier wall

Photo 4: Loss of mortar between joints (Sea side)

Page | 65

Photo 5: Loss of mortar/blockwork (Pier side)

Photo 6: Reinforcement exposed on pier wall

Page | 66

Photo 7: 'Biological' weathering on pier wall

Page | 67

APPENDIX 2
Table of Results for each sample produced in MS Excel indicating which components were measured.

APPENDIX 3
Page | 68

Tables illustrating the percentage of original weight remaining after the jet impact experiment. SAMPLE ONE: CEMENT BASED MORTAR % OF FLOW START END START RATE WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH (L/m) T (g) T (g) T 46.78 3 46.78 46.72 99.87 5 46.72 46.58 99.57 10 46.58 46.58 99.57 10 46.58 46.56 99.53 10
FLOW RATE (L/m) 3 5 10 10 10 START WEIGH T (g) 47.80 47.80 47.80 47.65 47.50 END WEIGH T (g) 47.80 47.80 47.65 47.50 47.41 % OF START WEIGHT 100 100 99.69 99.37 99.18

DA Y 1 2 3 4 5

SAMPLE TWO: LIME BASED MORTAR DA Y 1 2 3 4 5

SAMPLE THREE: LIME BASED MORTAR FLOW START END % OF DAY RATE WEIGHT WEIGHT START (L/m) (g) (g) WEIGHT 1 3 47.30 47.30 100 2 5 47.30 47.30 100 3 10 47.30 46.71 98.75 4 10 46.71 46.64 98.60 5 10 46.64 46.59 98.50

Page | 69

APPENDIX 4
Short survey (and answers) created for issues to discuss during visit to Scottish Lime Centre, Charlsetown Workshops. Dissertation Project: Repair of Coastal Structures

Environmental Civil Engineering

Eoghan McCormick

Page | 70

Q: When OPC was created the use of lime became somewhat discontinued in the construction industry. However, is there a definitive reason why there has been an increased use of lime in recent years? A: Mostly because it was realised that denser, harder more brittle mortars were positively damaging natural stone and brick masonry (mass solid walls). Cements contain tricalcium silicates and tricalcium alluminates which can both introduce deterious reactions with natural stone in particular. Mortars (whether in existing buildings or for new build) should always be weaker than the masonry units.

Q: In the UK many coastal structures built in Roman times are still in operation. Commonly these structures made use of lime as a binder in the mortar. What can be said about the longevity of lime based mortars. A: That they are very durable; look at all our Medieval castles and cathedrals, all built in lime mortars and natural stone masonry. The Parthenon in Rome is over 2000 years old and was the largest unreinforced (lime) concrete dome in the world until 1952! Hadrains wall is of stone and lime mortar.

Q: Lime has some clear advantages over other construction materials for use in mortar, such as cement based mortar and the addition of silica fume particles but how well do you think lime can compete with said materials as a sufficient repair material. A: For repair purposes, mortars should be compatible with the structure and not set up stresses. If introducing an overly hard mortar, masonry units can be threatened by accelerated decay, fracturing etc etc

Page | 71

Q: An associated problem with lime mortar is chloride penetration. What can you say about this, or have there been any developments to help protect against it. A: There are no constituents in natural hydraulic lime mortars that can react with chloride salts. For harbour work, we encourage people to use sea water as the mix water. It goes off more quickly, a psoitive advantage if working between tides.

Q: There are numerous properties that can be tested to gain understanding of the durability of lime mortar exposed to the elements. Material loss and shrinkage are an example of two. Would you agree? A: If lime mortars are of the right type ie. NHL 3.5 and NHL 5 then once sufficiently cured and fully carbonated they can remain durable for exceptionally long periods of time. Shrinkage is a workmanship issue only.

Q: Is it reasonable to say lime mortar is a practicable answer to repairing damage in marine environments? A: Totally!

Page | 72

APPENDIX 5

Page | 73

REFERENCES
Textbooks & Journals D.A. Aguilar et al, Laboratory generation of internal waves from sinusoidal topography, 2005 Paolo Boccotti, Wave Mechanics for Ocean Engineering, Elsevier, 2000 CIRIA, The use of concrete in maritime engineering a guide to good practice, 2010 Martin Brett Davies, Doing a Successful Research Project, Palgrave Macmilan, 2007 Dominic Reeve et al, Coastal Engineering: processes, theory and design practice, Spon Press, 2004, (Pg.3)

E.C.F Bird, Encyclopaedia of the Worlds Coastal Landforms, Volume I, Springer, 2010 Figure 1: N.K. Coch et al, Geohazards: Natural and Human, Chapter 14: Coastal Process (Page 397)

Figure 2: PIANC, Inspection, Maintenance and Repair of Maritime Structures Exposed to Damage and Material Degradation by a Salt Water Environment, Report by PTC II (MarCom) WG 17, 1990

Alan M. Forster, How Hydraulic Lime Binder Works, Scottish Lime Centre Trust, 2004

George A. Rankin, Portland Cement, Journal of the Franklin Institute, 1916, 181:6 G. Appa Rao, Long term drying shrinkage of mortar, Dept. Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, 2000

G.D. Taylor, Construction Materials, 2nd Edition, Longman Singapore Publishers, 1994 R.L. Groeneveld et al, Rehabilitation methods for Damaged Breakwaters, Proceedings: 19th Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE, 1984

Page | 74

I Struct E, Inspection of underwater structures, Table 3: Effects of Contaminants in water Adrian Holliday, Doing and Writing Qualitative Research, 2nd Edt, 2007

Ingmar Holmstrom, Adding cement to Lime Mortar, Lime News, Journal of the building Limes Forum, Volume 2, Number 1, 1993

J Vining, Ocean Wave Energy Conversion, University of Wisconsin, 2005

J.A Zwamborn; Phelp, D, When must breakwaters be repaired/rehabilitated?, Proceedings of the Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1995

R.G. Naoum, Dissertation and research writing for Construction Students, 2nd Edt, 2007

Nautical Almanac, 1984, MacMillan Press

Nguyen Van Chanh et al, Design and Construction of Antiwashout Underwater Concrete, 3rd ACF International Conference, 2008

K.W. Pilarczyk, Coastal Protection, A.A. Balkema Publishing, 1990 N.Naryana Pillai et al, Shore Protection using Stones enclosed in net, Coastal Engineering, 1977, 1: 349-358

P.Kumar Mehta, Advancements in concrete Technology, American Concrete Institute, 1999 Robert Robertson, Ardrossan Harbour Extensions, Paper No. 2851, ICE original document Rowland Paxton & Jim Shipway, Civil Engineering Heritage, 2007 R.N. Bray et al, Old Waterfront Walls, Construction Industry Research and Information Industry, 1992

Page | 75

R.T.L Allen, Concrete in Maritime Works, 2nd Edition, 1981 William Allsop, Coasts, Marine Structures and Breakwaters, Proceedings of ICE Conference, 2009, Article 2: History of breakwaters in the UK

Web Resources

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), www.noaa.gov, last accessed 25/03/11

Scottish Government Infrastructure Investment Plan 2008, www.scotland.gov.uk, 2008, accessed 01/02/11

Sogreah, Invention of the Tetrapod, www.sogreah.fr/index-gb.php, accessed 01/02/11

U.S Department of Transport, Federal Highway Administration, Infrastructure, Silica Fume, www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/materialsgrp/silica, accessed 01/02/11

The Weather Window, www.weather.mailasail.com, accessed 21/04/11

Multimedia Resources

BBC (Documentary), The Secret Life of Waves, Aired in January 2011 University of the West of England (Building Conservation Film 7), Lime Mortars, Renders and Plasters Scottish Lime Centre Trust (DVD), Traditional masonry building repair using lime mortars, 2008, Produced by Studio Scotland Ltd

Page | 76

BIBLIOGRAPHY
J.Bird, Major Seaports of the UK, 1963, Hutchinson Press R. Czaja et al, Designing Surveys: A guide to decisions and procedures, 1996

Page | 77