2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.02.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Competing mechanisms for boulder deposition on the southeast Australian coast

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
90
0
3

Year Published

2012
2012
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 124 publications
(96 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
3
90
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…7). Since these flow velocities would have caused rolling transport of ESA 9, ambiguities remain for the joint-bounded boulder scenario, which tends towards significant overestimation (Switzer and Burston, 2010;Etienne, 2012). Discrepancies may for instance be related to the overestimation of strain forces between the block and the strongly karstified reef body, or to the underestimation of the waves' impact and lift forces approaching the cliffs and their associated jets (Hansom et al, 2008).…”
Section: Boulder Transport and Flow Velocities Inferred By Inverse Momentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…7). Since these flow velocities would have caused rolling transport of ESA 9, ambiguities remain for the joint-bounded boulder scenario, which tends towards significant overestimation (Switzer and Burston, 2010;Etienne, 2012). Discrepancies may for instance be related to the overestimation of strain forces between the block and the strongly karstified reef body, or to the underestimation of the waves' impact and lift forces approaching the cliffs and their associated jets (Hansom et al, 2008).…”
Section: Boulder Transport and Flow Velocities Inferred By Inverse Momentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the block at Bondi Beach the original source gives a weight of "about 235 t" (Süssmilch, 1912, p. 155), whereas multiplication of axes and local rock density of ca. 2.35 g cm −3 (Süssmilch, 1912;Verhoef, 1993) reveals only 211 t. Furthermore, questions about the reliability of the report on the storm wave transport in 1912 have been raised, citing pre-1912 photographs of the boulder in its present position (Cass, 2002;Scheffers et al, 2008 (Süssmilch, 2012); often cited as an example for largest coastal boulder dimensions observed to have been moved during a storm (Felton and Crook, 2003;Switzer and Burston, 2010;Terry et al, 2013); values of dimensions and ρ b were taken from the original source (Süssmilch, 1912); a correction factor of 0.8 derived from recent photography (Boyson, 2012;Google Earth/Digital Globe, 2015) of the boulder was applied for calculation of V corr . (Goto et al, 2011 (Regnauld et al, 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Places where this ambiguity has been examined include New Zealand (Goff and others, 2004), Australia (Switzer and Burston, 2010), Spain (Lario and others, 2010), the Netherlands Antilles (Morton and others, 2006;Engel and others, 2012), Mexico (Ramirez Herrera and others, 2012), and the British Virgin Islands (Atwater and others, 2012a).…”
Section: Distinguishing Between Tsunami and Storm Depositsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Los depósitos de bloques imbricados y alineados a los largo de la costa, ya sea en un solo cordón o en varios cordones superpuestos, son claros indicadores de trasporte asociado a tsunami, según Browne (2011), Weiss (2012, Scheffers y Kinis (2014) y Roig-Munar et al (2017). En la última década el debate sobre el transporte de bloques para discernir su origen entre tsunami versus temporales ha obligado a considerar con más detalle el papel de la tormenta sobre las costas rocosas (Etienne y París, 2010;Switzer y Burston, 2010;Roig-Munar et al, 2017). En este sentido se han desarrollado ecuaciones que permiten estimar las alturas de agua necesarias sobre un bloque, bajo tres supuestos; bloques sumergidos, bloques subaéreos, y bloques delimitados por juntas o fracturas (Nott, 2003;Barbano et al, 2010, Pignatelli et al, 2010Engel y May, 2012).…”
Section: Introductionunclassified