Coastal Structures’ Effects on Shorelines

Noble, Ronald M.

doi:10.1061/9780872621909.127

Cited by 13 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Holly Beach rubble-mound structure is the only project that falls within Dally and recommended L, /X range for "salient" formation; all other projects fall between two recommended ranges, implying that the beach -sponse will be between "uniform protection" for the segmented system (only one salient rather than seven distinct forms), and salient formation. Noble (1978) presents a relationship for minimal impact, and all projects are outside this range, indicating that there will be some impact of the project on the beach. All projects fall outside Toyoshima's (1972Toyoshima's ( , 1974 recommended range of L. /X.…”

Section: Empirical Predictions Of D1 and Louisiana Breakwater Projectmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of the empirical guidance suggests that design configuration DI as well Chapter 4 Empirial Analysis of Breakwater Design between "no between "no "no sinuosity" "no sinuosity" (unpublished) sinuosity" and sinuosity" and "subdued "subdued sasalient" lient" Noble (1978) more than more than more than more than more than "minimal "miniinimal nimal im-"minimal "minimal impact" impact" pact" impact" impact"…”

Section: Empirical Predictions Of D1 and Louisiana Breakwater Projectmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Numerical Model Study of Breakwaters at Grand Isle, Louisiana

Gravens¹,

Rosati²

1994

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Empirical Predictions Of D1 and Louisiana Breakwater Projectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Empirical Predictions Of D1 and Louisiana Breakwater Projectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Numerical Model Study of Breakwaters at Grand Isle, Louisiana

Gravens¹,

Rosati²

1994

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In general, the simplicity of the empirical methods evaluated and prototype data limitations resulted in widely varying predictions for most design relationships. However, several of the evaluated relationships proved to predict prototype response, although careful consideration must be given to Table 3 Empirical Relationships for Detached Breakwater Design Inman and Frautschy (1966) Predicts accretion condition; based on beach response at Venice in Santa Monica, CA Toyoshima (1972Toyoshima ( , 1974 Recommends design guidance based on prototype performance of 86 breakwater systems along the Japanese coast Noble (1978) Predicts coastal impact of structures in terms of offshore distance and length; based on California prototype breakwaters Walker, Clark, and Pope (1980) Discusses method used to design the Lakeview Park, Lorain, OH segmented system for salient formation; develops the Diffraction Energy Method based on diffraction coefficient isolines for representative waves from predominant directions Gourlay (1981) Predicts beach response; based on physical model and field observations Nir(1982) Predicts accretion condition; based on performance of 1 2 Israeli breakwaters Rosen and Vadja (1982) Graphically presents relationships to predict equilibrium salient and tombolo size; based on physical model/prototype data Hallermeier (1983) Develops relationships for depth limit of sediment transport and prevention of tombolo formation; based on field/laboratory data Noda (1984) Evaluates physical parameters controlling development of tombolos/salients; especially due to on-offshore transport; based on laboratory experiments Shore Protection Manual (1984) Presents limits of tombolo formation from structure length and distance offshore; based on the pattern of diffracting wave crests in the lee of a breakwater Dally and Pope (1986) Recommends limits of structure-distance ratio based on type of shoreline advance desired and length of beach to be protected Harris and Herbich (1986) Presents relationship for average quantity of sand deposited in lee and gap areas; based on laboratory tests…”

Section: Prototype Breakwater Databasementioning

confidence: 99%

Engineering design guidance for detached breakwaters as shoreline stabilization structures / by Monica A. Chasten ... [et al.] ; prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Chasten¹

1993

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Detached breakwaters are generally shore-parallel structures that reduce the amount of wave energy reaching the protected area by dissipating, reflecting, or diffracting incoming waves. The structures dissipate wave energy similar to a natural offshore bar, reef, or nearshore island. The reduction of wave action promotes sediment deposition shoreward of the structure. Littoral material is deposited and sediment retained in the sheltered area behind the breakwater. The sediment will typically appear as a bulge in the beach planform termed a salient, or a tombolo if the resulting shoreline extends out to the structure (Figure 1). Breakwaters can be constructed as a single structure or in series. A single structure is used to protect a localized project area, whereas a multiple segment system is designed to protect an extended length of shoreline. A segmented system consists of two or more structures separated by gaps with specified design widths. Unlike shore-perpendicular structures, such as groins, which may impound sediment, properly designed breakwaters can allow continued movement of longshore transport through the project area, thus reducing adverse impacts on downdrift beaches. Effects on adjacent shorelines are further minimized when beach fill is included in the project. Some disadvantages associated with Chapter 1 Introduction Detached breakwater project in Spain wetland areas (Landin, Webb, and Knutson 1989; Rogers 1989; Knutson, Allen, and Webb 1990; EM 1110-2-5026). Recent wetland/breakwater projects include Eastern Neck, Maryland (Figure 6) constructed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with dredge material provided by the U.S. Army Engineer District (USAED), Baltimore; and Aransas, Texas, presently under construction and developed by the USAED, Galveston, and the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC). Detailed summaries of the design and performance of single and segmented detached breakwater projects in the United States have been provided in a number of references (Dally and Pope 1986, Pope and Dean 1986, Kraft and Herbich 1989). Table 1 provides a summary of a number of detached breakwater projects. Most recently constructed breakwater projects have been located on the Great Lakes or Chesapeake Bay (Figure 7) (Hardaway and

show abstract

“…Beach profiles were taken along the pier at Valiathura using a calibrated lead line. Wave records were collected using a pressure sensor (Sivadas, 1981) Earlier studies by Shepard (1950), Sonu (1973) and Noble (1978) justify the use of piers for nearshore observations. A recent study by Miller, Birkemeier & DeWall(l983) has discussed in detail the effects of a pier on beach and nearshore areas and noticed significant effects especially for smaller scale, higher frequency changes.…”

Section: G E O G R a P H I C A L S E T T I N G A N D M E T H O D Of Smentioning

confidence: 99%

Berm development on a monsoon‐influenced microtidal beach

Thomas

Baba

1986

Sedimentology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mechanisms of berm development along a microtidal‐high energy beach is examined. Such a beach with medium‐sized sand and monsoon wave‐controlled profile at Valiathura, south‐west coast of India, is selected for this study. The waves which very rarely fall below 1 m, often exceed 4 m during the monsoon period of May to October. The erosion‐accretion pattern of the beach shows a cyclicity and the berm development is mainly due to the onshore migration and welding of longshore bars on to the beach following the monsoon rough season. The stages of berm development in the present microtidal beach are more or less similar to the model presented by Hine for a mesotidal case, except for the following intermediate additional stages. The longshore bar develops due to the erosion of beach when the wave steepness was above 0·04, gets flattened when it falls below 0·04, and then reforms nearer to the shoreline as a swash bar. This reformed bar gets divided and the inner bar gets welded on to the beach, followed by the outer bar developing the berm. During the onshore migration of the longshore bar and berm development the beach face becomes partially reflective with the surf scaling parameter, εb between 2·5 and 33. The inshore is dissipative with the inshore surf scaling parameter, εs≫33. The offshore side of the longshore bar is partially reflective with its surf scaling parameter, εbar between 2·5 and 33. The breakers are spilling or plunging. Vertical growth of the berm is mainly due to the changes in swash‐limit caused by the variations in wave steepness, breaker height and type. Vertical growth stops when the beach‐face attains equilibrium with the grain size‐wave energy relationship, and a wave steepness below 0·02 helps to sustain this state.

show abstract

Coastal Structures’ Effects on Shorelines

Cited by 13 publications

References 0 publications

Numerical Model Study of Breakwaters at Grand Isle, Louisiana

Numerical Model Study of Breakwaters at Grand Isle, Louisiana

Engineering design guidance for detached breakwaters as shoreline stabilization structures / by Monica A. Chasten ... [et al.] ; prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Berm development on a monsoon‐influenced microtidal beach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About