Predicting the response of hard and soft rock coasts to changes in sea level and wave height

Trenhaile, Alan S.

doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0035-7

Cited by 63 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We assume debris does not accumulate at the cliff toe, and therefore does not enhance or weaken the wave erosion at the cliff toe (e.g. Trenhaile, 2011).…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

An exploratory numerical model of rocky shore profile evolution

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We assume debris does not accumulate at the cliff toe, and therefore does not enhance or weaken the wave erosion at the cliff toe (e.g. Trenhaile, 2011).…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

An exploratory numerical model of rocky shore profile evolution

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Understanding the interactions between coastal morphology and variable incident hydrodynamics is crucial to improving our understanding of the implications of future climate change and the potential changes in coastal erosion (e.g. Bray and Hooke, 1997;Walkden and Hall, 2005;Dickson et al, 2007;Trenhaile, 2011). The focussing of wave energy and erosion around rock coastlines is controlled by prevailing wave and current directions (Carter et al, 1990), the availability and distribution of sediment (Sunamura, 1976(Sunamura, , 1982Limber and Murray, 2011), coastline planform and foreshore geometry (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alongshore variability in wave energy transfer to coastal cliffs

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. The alongshore distribution of wave energy is believed to be an important control on the spatial variability of coastal erosion. There is, however, a lack of field data quantifying the alongshore variability in wave energy on rock coasts, whereby the relative control of coastline geometry versus foreshore characteristics on wave energy delivery remains unclear. A number of studies have identified high-frequency cliff-top ground shaking to be generated by wave impacts at the cliff toe during high tides (HT). To capture the variability of wave-cliff impact energy along-coast, we installed an array of cliff-top seismometers along a 1 km stretch of coastline in North Yorkshire, UK. Our aim is to constrain how wave energy transfer to the cliff toe varies, and to examine the relative energy transfer around typical coastline features, including a bay and headlands. Whilst the greatest HT ground motion energy is recorded at a headland and the lowest at the centre of the bay (5% of that observed at the headland), we identify no systematic alongshore variation in the HT ground motion energy that can be related to coastline morphology. We also note considerable variation between features of similar form: the total HT ground motion energy at one headland is only 49% of the next headland 1 km alongshore. Between neighbouring sites within the bay, separated by only 100 m, we observe up to an order of magnitude difference in ground motion energy transfer. Our results demonstrate the importance of the foreshore in driving the variations in energy delivery that we observe. Local alterations in water depth and foreshore topography control the alongshore distribution of wave energy available to generate cliff HT ground motions. Importantly, this apparently local effect overrides the influence of macroscale coastal planform morphology, which has previously been assumed to be the dominant control. The results show that foreshore characteristics that hold influence over wave energy transfer vary significantly over short (~100 m) distances, and so we expect erosion controlled by wave impacts to vary over similar scales.

show abstract

“…Topographic data are essential because they reveal patterns of cliff failure, talus erosion, and beach change, which can be used, in turn, to better understand the processes responsible for erosion of sea cliffs (e.g., Collins and Sitar, 2008;Hampton, 2002;Vann Jones et al, 2015;Young, 2015;Young et al, 2009). Topographic measurements and the understanding gained from them are necessary for predicting the future response of coastal cliffs to storms and sea-level rise (Bray and Hooke, 1997;FitzGerald et al, 2008;Hapke and Plant, 2010;Limber and Murray, 2011;Trenhaile, 2011;Walkden and Hall, 2005;Young et al, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%