Title Page
 Table of Contents
 List of Figures
 List of Symbols
 1. Introduction
 2. Erosion control alternative...
 3. Objectives of submerged...
 4. Effects of submerged breakw...
 5. Literature review
 6. Methodology: Formulation
 7. Results and comparisons
 8. Summary, conclusions and...
 Biographical sketch

Group Title: UFLCOEL-96012
Title: Hydrodynamics and sediment transport in the vicinity of submerged breakwaters
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00084993/00001
 Material Information
Title: Hydrodynamics and sediment transport in the vicinity of submerged breakwaters
Series Title: UFLCOEL-96012
Physical Description: xiii, 95 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Bootcheck, Michael Jonathan, 1971-
University of Florida -- Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Dept
Publisher: Coastal & Oceanographic Engineering Dept., University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1996
Subject: Breakwaters   ( lcsh )
Sediment transport   ( lcsh )
Beach nourishment   ( lcsh )
Shore protection   ( lcsh )
Hydrodynamics   ( lcsh )
Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering thesis, M.S   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Thesis: Thesis (M.E.)--University of Florida, 1996.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (leaves 76-82).
Statement of Responsibility: by Michael Jonathan Bootcheck.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00084993
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 36800141

Table of Contents
        Page i
    Title Page
        Page ii
        Page iii
        Page iii-a
    Table of Contents
        Page iv
        Page v
    List of Figures
        Page vi
        Page vii
    List of Symbols
        Page viii
        Page ix
        Page x
        Page xi
        Page xii
        Page xiii
    1. Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
    2. Erosion control alternatives
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
    3. Objectives of submerged breakwaters
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
    4. Effects of submerged breakwaters
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
    5. Literature review
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
    6. Methodology: Formulation
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
    7. Results and comparisons
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
    8. Summary, conclusions and recommendations
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83-94
    Biographical sketch
        Page 95
Full Text




Michael Jonathan Bootcheck









I want to express my sincere thanks to Dr. Robert G. Dean, my committee

chairman, for his support and guidance. Not only has Professor Dean led me in my

endeavors at the University of Florida, but has provided guidance and lessons that will aid

me for the rest of my career. Considerable thanks go to Dr. Robert J. Thieke, not only for

serving on my committee, but for expanding my interest in the considerable expanse that

is Fluid Dynamics. Thanks also go to Dr. Hsiang Wang for serving on my thesis


Thanks also go to Viktor Adams, George Chappell, Sidney Schofield, and Sonya

Brooks for their assistance in planning and executing the 30 + "field trips" to West Palm

Beach, Perdido Key, Miami, etc... although sometimes they seemed more like work than

leisure. The encounters of sharks, barracuda, stingrays, jellyfish and triggerfish will

always be some of my fondest memories of my stay in the coastal department.

Grateful thanks also go to the staff of Coastal Engineering, Becky Hudson, Sandra

Bivins, and Lucy Hamm. The numerous consultations between Becky and myself

probably had to do as much with life in general as they did with coastal, but I think that

they taught me some valuable lessons about people and the politics associated with them.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents for instilling in me the drive to do well

in school even when it is difficult to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Without their

assistance, I do not think I would have made it out of Purdue in the first place.


This thesis is dedicated to my family; it never could have come to fruition without their

help and support. I will always treasure the 25 years that I was able to spend with Bernard and

Frances Bootcheck. I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the time I have been able

to spend with Harold and Leona Moats, and look forward to many more. Last, but certainly not

least, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my mother, Marilynne, for her countless words of

encouragement and strive to the goal. Brian, Timothy and Ronald deserve much thanks for

bringing outside angles and insights to the forefront.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................... iii

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................... ...... vi

LIST OF SYMBOLS .................................................. viii

ABSTRACT ......................................................... xii

1 INTRODUCTION ......................................... .... .. 1
1.1 Objectives and Rationale ................ ....................... 1
1.2 Report Organization ............................................ 2

2 EROSION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES ................................ 3
2.1 Overview ................................................... 3
2.2 Construction Alternatives ................ ...................... 4
2.2.1 Traditional Solutions ............... .................. 6 Beach nourishment .............................. 6 Attached structures ............................... 8 Detached emergent breakwater .................... 10
2.2.2 Innovative Approaches ................................. 11 Beach dewatering .............................. 12 Artificial seaweed ............................. 16 Submerged breakwaters .........................21

3 OBJECTIVES OF SUBMERGED BREAKWATERS ........................ 23
3.1 Reduction of Wave Height ..................................... 23
3.2 Increase of the Sediment Retention Time.in the Vicinity ............... 24
3.3 Trapping Sediments Up/Downdrift............................... 25

4 EFFECTS OF SUBMERGED BREAKWATERS ..........................27
4.1 Hydraulics/Hydrodynamics ..................................... 27

4.2 Sediment Transport ........................................... 31

5 LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................. 34
5.1 W ave Transmission/Reflection Studies ............................. 35
5.2 Sediment Transport and Current Velocity Studies .................... 49

6 METHODOLOGY: FORMULATION ...................................51
6.1 Hydrodynamics and Hydraulics ................................ 51
6.1.1 Analytical Model ................ .................... 52
6.1.2 Numerical Model ................... ................ 55
6.2 Sediment Transport ............................................ 59
6.2.1 Suspended Load ....................................... 60
6.2.2 Bed Load ............................................ 61

7 RESULTS AND COMPARISONS ....................................... 63
7.1 Hydrodynamic Results of Submerged Breakwaters ................... 63
7.1.1 Studies of W ave Attenuation ............................. 63
7.1.2 Studies of Ponding Elevation ............................. 67
7.2 Studies of Sediment Transport ................ .................. 69

8.1 Summary and Conclusions ...................................... 74
8.2 Recommendations ........................................... 75

REFERENCES ................................. ....................... 76

APPENDIX ............................... ............................ 83

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............................................. 95


Figure Page

4.1 Sketch of Elevation and Plan View of Nearshore Zone with Submerged Segmented
Breakwater or Natural Bar ............................................ 29

4.2 Scour Locations, Cross-Sectional View ................................. 30

4.3 Definition Sketch for Cross-Shore and Longshore Sediment Transport .......... 32

5.1 Graph of Transmission and Reflection Coefficients (Goda, 1969) .............. 39

5.2 Plot of Experimental Data Set for Goda's Energy Equation ................... 40

5.3 Ponding Level as a Function of R/Ho, Diskin, et al. (1970) ................... 42

5.4 Ponding Level as a Function of Incoming Deep Water Wave Height ............ 43

5.5 Plot of Transmission Coefficients for Tanaka Study (1976) ................... 47

5.6 Plot of Values for Averin and Sidorchuk .................................48

6.1 Definition Sketch Including Coordinate Frame ............................. 51

6.2 Plot of Normalized Values for Analytical Model ........................... 55

6.3 Definition Sketch of Various Flow Possibilities ............................ 58

7.1 Comparison of Goda (1967) Laboratory Data and Model Results .............. 64

7.2 Comparison of Conserved Energy Measurements by Goda with Predictions by
Numerical Model ..................... ........................... 65

7.3 Comparison of Model and Averin and Sidorchuk (1967) ..................... 66

7.4 Comparison Between Numerical Model and Tanaka (1976) ................... 67

7.5 Comparison of Model Values with Diskin, et al. (1970) ...................... 68

7.6 Plot of Longshore Average Profile Changes for July 1992 to June 1995 for Palm
Beach, Fl, PEP Reef Installation ........................................ 70

7.7 Diagram of Zones in Vicinity of Breakwater ............................... 71

7.8 Numerical Model Sediment Erosion Volume Estimates for P.E.P. Reef ......... 71

7.9 Numerical Model Estimation of Ponding Elevation for P.E.P. Reef ............. 72

7.10 Normalized Plot of Sediment Transport and Ponding Elevations for P.E.P. Reef
Simulations ...................................................... 73


a, Goda's coefficient for eta values due to cos (ot)

Ac Seelig's cross-sectional flow area

Ace Seelig's cross-sectional flow area between the

breakwater & shoreline at the end of the system

B Seelig's breakwater gap width

bo2 Goda coefficient for nonlinear terms

b22 Goda coefficient for nonlinear terms

By elevation of bottom of vent

C Wave Celerity

Cd Seelig's discharge coefficient

C1,2.3,4 coefficients, Ahrens (1987)

dso median stone size diameter

Dc constant

DEP height of breakwater vent

e base of natural logarithms

E wave energy per unit surface area ( -pgH2)
f Darcy-Weisbach friction coefficient (0.16)

-7 wave energy flux

g acceleration due to gravity

h total water depth

he critical depth over weir

h, Depth of water at structure including ponding effects

(Numerical Model Variable)

H Wave height

Ho Deep water wave height

HIR,T wave height (incident, reflected, transmitted)

Hmo deepwater significant wave height

Hmax maximum wave height (Goda)

Hmin minimum wave height (occurs at the nodes at x=1/4,31/4)

IMAX number of units in breakwater

k wave number, 2xt/L

K 0.77

K" coefficient

KPP coefficient

L wavelength

Lo deep water wave length

N Number of breakwaters

P.E.P. Prefabricated Erosion Prevention

Qsand volume of sediment moved

Q,,, volume of suspended load sediment transport

Qbed volume of bedload sediment transport

Qx water transport rate alongshore

qy water transport rate cross-shore

qyc water transport rate cross-shore over crest

qyv water transport rate cross-shore through vents

R freeboard(distance from water surface to top of breakwater)

Re Reynold's number

RUp vertical height of runup on the structure if the breakwater

were high enough that no overtopping occurred

s 2.65

T wave period

Tv elevation of top of vent

W Diskin's height of breakwater

WBZ width of the breaking zone

X breakwater length

XLV percentage of length of breakwater vented

YMio ratio of waveheight to depth

ZC Diskin's distance from top of breakwater to ponding


a Goda's empirical parametric approximations

P Goda's empirical parametric approximations

At incremental time unit

Ax length of individual units

AY distance from shoreline to breakwater

li free surface elevation of incoming wave

illmax maximum level of free surface seaward of reef

1llmin minimum level of free surface seaward of reef

Tl2max maximum level of free surface landward of reef

rl2min minimum level of free surface landward of reef

Tr surface elevation

Tr ponding elevation

K 0.8

KT transmission coefficient

KR reflection coefficient

v kinematic viscosity

7t pi

p density (0.35)

o wave angular frequency, phase angle (=2x/T)

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering



Michael Jonathan Bootcheck

August 1996

Chairperson: Dr. Robert G. Dean
Major Department: Coastal & Oceanographic Engineering

As coastal erosion currently affects many of the world's shorelines, there is great

demand for stabilization methods. One area of continued interest is the use of submerged

breakwaters to attenuate incoming waves in order to reduce the sediment transport in its


A submerged breakwater is a structure placed below the surface of the water,

which will still have an impact on the approaching waves. When waves interact with a

submerged breakwater, wave energy is dissipated, reflected back offshore, and

transmitted toward the beach. These actions lead to the three central characteristics of

submerged breakwaters: 1) wave height reduction which leads to reduced sediment

transport (sediment transport potential is proportional to an exponent of the square of the

incoming wave height); 2) wave height diffraction which results in transport behind and

deposition near the breakwater end; and 3) ponding between the breakwater and the

shoreline, resulting from the waves passing over the structure. This ponding induces a

longshore flow behind the breakwater and therefore, sediment transport.

To assess the effect of a submerged breakwater, an analytical and a numerical

model were created to simulate both field and laboratory experiments. The purpose of

these models was to verify and quantify the wave attenuation characteristics, as well as

the ponding associated with submerged breakwaters.

The analytical model was based on simple linear wave theory and linearized flow

equations which relate the incoming wave characteristics to ponding elevation, as well as

the cross-shore and longshore transport attributed to the breakwater. The numerical

model uses standard hydraulic weir equations and simple linear wave theory to model

breakwater configurations and physical conditions to those of available field and

laboratory conditions. An additional feature of the numerical model was the addition of

vents in the breakwater.

The numerical models wave attenuation results are compared with published data

from several sources and authors. There is reasonable correlation with all three studies,

except for the crest elevations upper limit imposed by linear theory. The model estimates

for ponding are also compared with a laboratory study.

Given the nature of the models presented, the results clearly indicate that ponding

impacts for submerged breakwaters can be significant, and in some cases may outweigh

the benefits due to wave height reduction. Therefore, careful planning and analysis

should be exercised in the design of submerged breakwaters as coastal erosion



Recent trends in the coastal areas of the world have created a desire for long-term

solutions to beach erosion. In many cases, unfortunately, the solutions have proven to be

either ineffective or costly to maintain.

1.1 Objectives and Rationale

The purpose of this thesis is to present two models for wave transmission over a

submerged breakwater and to compare model results with data from other researchers.

For clarification, submerged breakwaters will be defined as rubble-mound (permeable) or

solid (impermeable) structures whose crest is at or below the Mean Water Level (MWL)

and are usually placed parallel to shore. These structures are used to provide partial

protection against incident wave attack, primarily for large storm waves.

The two models presented here will be compared and contrasted to other models

associated with the performance of submerged breakwaters. The results will also be

compared with field data from an installation at Palm Beach, Florida, conducted by the

University of Florida Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Laboratory. The data that

will be compared include wave height measurements, current measurements, and

sediment transport quantities. Comparisons will also be made with several researcher's

estimates of ponding elevation and the free-surface elevation of the water above MWL,

located landward of the breakwater (discussed in depth in Chapter 4).


1.2 Report Organization

This report is arranged in the following manner. An overview of coastal erosion

countermeasures follows this chapter and will detail such solutions as beach nourishment,

groins, beach dewatering and artificial seaweed. Chapter 3 discusses the objectives

associated with submerged breakwaters and Chapter 4 follows with some of the

interactions that they can have on the environment in the vicinity of the structure. A

literature review of relevant works will be presented in Chapter 5 chronicling some of the

major contributions by authors such as Goda, Takeda, and Moriya(1967), Diskin, Vajda,

and Amir(1970), Seelig and Walton(1980) and Dalrymple(1978). These demonstrate

some of the attempts to estimate wave height transmission and reflection, as well as

current velocity estimates and ponding elevations. Chapter 6 presents the development of

an analytical model that describes the hydrodynamic interaction of a submerged

breakwater with the incident waves and the resulting ponding and currents. It also

describes a numerical model that was developed to estimate current velocities and

sediment transport volumes, as well as wave height transmission and reflection estimates.

Chapter 7 presents results and comparisons with other studies of transmission and

reflection coefficients, as well as sediment transport quantities obtained from a field study

conducted in Palm Beach, Florida. Chapter 8 contains the summary and conclusions.


2.1 Overview

Most coastlines at least occasionally experience erosional tendencies that could

lead to the destruction of life and property. The costs associated with protecting the areas

behind the shoreline must be compared with the associated benefits. Some of the

purposes for coastal development include protection of multi-million dollar

condominiums and public infrastructure, recreational/tourist beach areas (often supplying

tremendous income to the local economy), shoaling of harbors, and navigational

channels. Another popular reason for preserving, or armoring, the coastlines is to protect

existing roads and highways, including evacuation routes. In some cases, the costs of a

beach protection system are small compared to the value of an existing highway or other

structures. Other times, it may be more cost effective to let nature act and to relocate the

thoroughfare, for example. Several approaches have been utilized in the ongoing battle

with mother nature, including permeable/impermeable breakwaters, seawalls, beach

nourishments, etc. Many innovative methods have either been tried or suggested for

future efforts, including artificial seaweed, beach dewatering, as well as numerous

methods of "wave energy absorbers." The following sections describe some of the more

widely accepted methods of shoreline protection, as well as presenting some of the more

novel approaches.

2.2 Construction Alternatives

When building in a coastal setting, physical parameters can be limiting when

choosing a construction method. The local wave climate, including wave heights and

directions, as well as frequency of occurrence and period, weigh heavily in evaluating the

local impacts. Some structures, such as submerged or emergent breakwaters and jetties,

have a significant impact on the hydrodynamics of the nearshore area, while others, such

as beach nourishment projects, primarily augment the sediment budget with a minimal

effect on hydraulics. A second factor that can affect the selection of design alternatives is

the visual appeal of the countermeasure. For example, a submerged breakwater or beach

nourishment will be less intrusive to the natural beauty of the surroundings, compared to

an emergent quarry-stone or concrete structure. However, there could be detrimental

impacts associated with these choices; for example, a submerged structure will allow

higher transmitted waves than an emergent structure, and, therefore, potential for

increased shoreline erosion. Some cost/benefit analyses of the desired effects of the

structure must be established before any design can take place. Some of the criteria

include: the financial resources available for the project, the time frame desired before a

future project should begin (how long do you want it to last, ie., if beach nourishment is

the selected construction technique, how long before re-nourishment), what impacts will

the various methods have on local boat traffic, as well as human traffic (high current

velocities must be avoided to prevent formation of rip currents). An assessment of the

sediment impacts of the available structures as well as the hydraulic/hydrodynamic effects

will help in deciding which method to choose. A table presented by Sawaragi(1995)

describes the functions of various coastal structures.

Table 2.1 Hydraulic function of various coastal structures (Sawaragi, 1995)

Structures Hydraulic Function Function to Control Results
Sediment Movement

Groins Spur Dike for Direct Trapping of Saw-tooth Shape
Longshore Current Longshore Current Shoreline

Offshore Detached Reduction and Control Control of Longshore Concave-Convex
Breakwaters of Wave Height and and Cross-Shore Shoreline, Obstacle
Direction by Sediment Transport to Natural Coastal
Diffraction View

Headland Control of Wave Re-distribution of
Height and Direction Incident Wave
by Diffraction and Energy Evenly

Artificial Beach Reduction of Wave Control of Longshore
Energy by Breaking and Cross-Shore
and Energy Loss in Sediment Transport
Permeable Layer

Sea Dike Control of Landward Prevention of Local Scouring, Loss
Limit of Wave Shoreline to Retreat, of Foreshore Due to
Penetration Control of Longshore Return Flow or
Sediment Transport Reflected Waves

As any device placed in the nearshore system will interact with the longshore

current and sediment systems, the following discussions will present some of the effects

of the different options available.

2.2.1 Traditional Solutions

Some of the more traditional structures placed in the nearshore zone, each with

different characteristics and traits, are breakwaters, groins and beach nourishment. Since

each coastal method will be accompanied by particular time and spatial scales, it is

important to the success of a project, that it be coupled with appropriate understanding

and planning. The following sections will discuss the merits and drawbacks of the more

common traditional beach erosion technologies. Beach nourishment

This method involves the placement of sand on the existing beach, or in the

location desired, with the understanding that it is only a temporary solution. There are

two main types of beach nourishment to be considered: dynamic and static (Sawaragi p.

295). A dynamic nourishment project is one that is designed such that the sand is placed

upstream from an erosional area so that the sand placed will be carried by natural currents

to supply the area desired. Such projects are sometimes referred to as "feeder beaches."

A static nourishment is one in which the sand is placed directly in the erosional location.

These somewhat unique countermeasures can be quite effective in providing a beach,

although much time and effort must be put into its design as would any other coastal

engineering project. Dean (1995) and Bruun (1989), among others have established

simple methods in order to provide competent design with little background in coastal

engineering. Some important variables must be studied in order to effectively design

such a nourishment.

When considering beach nourishment as a possible solution to an eroding beach,

it is important to obtain accurate estimates for relevant environmental factors, ie.

incoming wave heights and directions, variability of wave heights and storm frequencies.

Other parameters vital to the success of a nourishment are: 1) determining the sediment

sizes on the native beach, 2) determining the proximity to hard structures or relevant

geologic influences (hard bottom, submarine canyons, presence of submerged obstacles,

etc.), and 3) estimating the impacts on the surrounding areas. Also, since beach

nourishment success rates are dependent on such a large variety of independent variables,

it will probably be best if a background search is done to identify previous attempts for

similar conditions (ie., if a project is to be conducted on Lake Michigan, it would be

relevant to study other nourishment projects in comparable conditions such as Wood

(1984), whereas a nourishment in Florida could be compared to numerous projects

completed in virtually every area of the state, as described by Dean (1994)). Insight

gained from previous projects will far outweigh the minimal effort spent in locating such

articles and could provide additional insight into some of the intricacies of design. An

additional characteristic of beach nourishments is that since they are "temporary"

solutions, there can be no guarantees as to project longevity. The process of sea level rise

is an example of environmental forcing that can be predicted, but only the future will

reveal the extent, therefore, if additional rise occurs it will provide an increased adverse

impact and reduce the project longevity. Changing wave conditions and frequencies can

also influence the longevity (although all effort should be put into finding the conditions

that can be expected and then aligning a risk analysis procedure for a margin of safety).

It is also important to note that the lifespan of a beach nourishment can often be

significantly extended when used in conjunction with one of the other techniques, such as

stabilization structures. Results of two studies, Imperial Beach, California (Curren and

Chatham (1977)), and West Palm Beach, Florida, will be discussed in Chapter 7-Results

and Comparisons. Attached structures

The choices involved in shore-perpendicular structures include jetties and groins.

The jetties associated with navigational channels are at one extreme in the attached

breakwater spectrum, while groins are at the other. Jetties are structures extending into

the water to direct and confine tidal or river flow into a channel and to prevent, or

minimize, the shoaling of the channel by littoral material. A jetty or breakwater can be

effective in dissipating much of the incident wave energy, and is therefore useful in

protecting harbors and marinas from high storm waves. One side effect that a jetty can

have is the reduction or interference with the longshore transport so that areas downdrift

will encounter increased erosion rates. Therefore, this option would not be suitable in

areas where this effect is to be avoided (in areas where there are long stretches of beach

front and no rivers to supply new sand, or areas with large littoral transport rates. This

impact can be offset through the use of sand bypassing plants (which can pump sand from

the updrift side to the downdrift) so that the littoral transport may be continued. This

benefit can be two-fold: (1) nourishment of the downdrift beach and (2) reduction of the

shoaling of the entrance channel (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1984)).

A groin is a structure constructed in the coastal area, connected to and usually

perpendicular to the shore and extending into the littoral zone, designed to accumulate or

retain sand by limiting the longshore transport. Groins are usually placed in areas where

a retreat of the coastline has been noted, indicating a longshore gradient of the total

longshore sediment transport. The gradient may be due to a structure interfering with the

sediment transport, or a net loss of sand due to natural physical conditions. By

constructing a series of groins, arrayed in a "field," the longshore gradient of the total

longshore transport may be reduced. However, the groin field does not "produce sand," it

only delays its journey in the longshore transport system. Multiple groins may be

arranged in order to increase the longevity of a beach nourishment project, via a decrease

in the local transport rates, while leaving the overall sediment balance unaffected. The

groin field will initially act as a "sand trap" (it will retain sediments). Eventually,

however, the holding capacity of the groin field will be met, and then the longshore

sediment transport system will approach its original characteristics. The action of the

groin field initially capturing sediments will adversely impact areas downstream of the

groin field, therefore, it is advised that construction of a groin field be coupled with a

beach nourishment project to minimize these effects, (Silvester(1990)). There are two

potential sedimentary impacts of groins, (a) trapping of sand -accretional, or (b) loss of

sand -erosional. Of course the nourishment should be designed such that the volume is

at least equal to the holding capacity of the groin field, in most cases a minimum volume

of remaining sediment is allotted and when this volume is reached, a re-nourishment is

constructed to "reset" the system to the same circumstances as the post construction. This

system of nourishment/groin construction can help to lessen the impact to the downdrift


Another option in groin construction is the use of T-type or L-type groins, so

named to reflect the shape of the groin. This design alternative is not intended to affect

the longshore transport as much as to control the sediment transport in the cross-shore

direction, which is not impacted by shore-normal groins. The longshore transport rates

will be affected by the design variables associated with the groins, such as length of

structure, height, depth, distance between groins, as well as the physical conditions, such

as incoming wave direction, wave climate, and perhaps most directly the net and gross

longshore transport rates.

Groins with crest elevations designed to provide a template to the beach profile

allow both fluid and sedimentary longshore flow over the crest, and result in less of a

disturbance to the beach because they do not force an abrupt end to longshore transport,

(although the impact may still be significant). However, groins provide little protection

from high energy storm waves. Future research involving coupling of submerged

breakwaters and groins could lead to dramatic improvements, as noted for the previously

mentioned experiments related to Imperial Beach, California, and West Palm Beach,

Florida. Detached emergent breakwater

These structures may be used to protect navigation channels, or other coastal

areas. As they may be considered unsightly, they would not be a first choice for

construction in front of a natural recreational beach. Also, it is usually not necessary to


prevent all wave energy from reaching the shore, as this could have detrimental effects on

the longshore transport in the vicinity. This interruption could adversely impact

downstream beaches and therefore must be accounted for. Chapters 6, 7, and 8, of the

U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers Shore Protection Manual (1984), present a set of design

criteria for these structures and should be consulted when designing such structures.

Some of the drawbacks to detached emergent structures are that: (1) they present a

strong effect on longshore currents, allowing for the formation of tombolos and

decreasing the sediment supply downstream, (2) there is no cross-shore transport (without

overtopping) and therefore water may stagnate in it's lee, and, perhaps most importantly,

(3) they are costly to construct.

2.2.2 Innovative Approaches

Some coastal erosion settings require solutions that must not affect the shoreline

in the manners previously discussed. Frequently, a new methodology will be developed

that will decrease the wave or current forcing in a particular area, while still allowing

longshore transport to remain continuous. Some of the more popular approaches that

have been gaining acclaim are beach dewatering, use of artificial seaweed, and

submerged breakwaters. All three of these countermeasures have shown promise in

reducing the amount of erosion at the shoreline for a given set of wave conditions. The

impact of beach dewatering is mostly in the foreshore zone in that its impact is to

decrease the water table to increase the stability of the shoreline. The uses of artificial

seaweed and submerged breakwaters have also been popular research topics and their

impacts are discussed in the following sections. Beach dewatering

A beach dewatering system involves pumping water from within the beach in

order to provide sufficient forcing (lowering the water table under the beach) to result in

increasing the volume of sediment above the mean lower water level. This method has

been employed in several countries with varying degrees of success. The first known

field installation took place in Denmark in 1981 (Lenz (1994)), although it's impact had

not been expected. (The drainage system had been installed as a means to supply water

for a beach front aquarium.) Several questions must be considered for coastal

countermeasure: is protection from storm surge desired, what will be the downstream

impact, how high and extensive can maintenance run and will effectiveness significantly

decrease with time, and are certain options more economically favorable than others (ie

is one much cheaper and therefore attractive) (beach nourishment, submerged

breakwaters, groins, etc...)? Some of the attractions of beach dewatering are that: (1) it is

invisible, that is, the piping and pumps (if necessary) are below ground and therefore

aesthetically pleasing (the water removed may be routed to an existing storm water

system, offshore, or to a filtration system); (2) it should not have any significant negative

impacts on upstream/downstream beaches; and (3) laboratory studies have shown

promise in profile recovery time after storms, although only field installations can

demonstrate whether or not they can significantly impact the shoreline position. Some of

the questions regarding beach dewatering are as follows: (1) can the initial and

maintenance costs be controlled ( it has been estimated by Bruun (1989) that initial

construction costs can reach, and exceed, $250 / foot of shoreline), (2) what is the

efficiency of the pumping mechanism (both mechanically and due to corrosion/clogging),

(3) what is the accessibility to piping (it can be hard to maintain something that is buried

in the sand if fouling occurs, and (4) what are the possible impacts on animals that nest on

the beach (does the increased percolation affect the reproductive success of sea turtles?).

Several hypothesis have been proposed to explain the effect of beach dewatering

on a beach profile, for example: 1) increasing the sediment deposition rates on the shore

face by lowering the water table, creating a larger volume of uprush than downrush, 2)

creating an increase in the sediment fall velocity due to the net addition of a vertical

component in the velocity field, and 3) increasing the effective sand size through an

increase in the local pressure gradient (Dean and Dalrymple(1994)). Any of the

mechanisms may prove to be the theory that holds for all cases; however, it is more likely

that a combination of the proposed theories will explain the phenomenon most

adequately. Laboratory and construction projects have clearly shown that dewatering soil

can lead to a dramatic increase in stability, and therefore an equilibrium associated with

an increased angle of repose. The author has witnessed construction projects in sand that

demonstrated the value of dewatering in order to prevent slumping of the soil, therefore

allowing construction projects to be completed. It is, therefore, logical to assume that if a

watertable can be lowered near the beachface, that a higher angle of repose will result.

This has been shown in laboratory studies. For example, a set of experiments was


conducted at the Stevens Institute of Technology. The conclusion was that "In general, it

can be stated that a beach stabilized with a Stabeach erosion control system will undergo

significantly less transformation over time." (Lenz, 1994, p. 36). As of this writing the

author is unaware of field verification that firmly establishes the impacts and extent that

beach drains have even for simple installations (ie. plane and parallel bathymetry along

straight shorelines). Due to the variability in the coastal zone, it can be difficult to

separate effects due to natural fluctuations and those due to nearshore construction

modifications (Bruun 1989). Several field studies have been constructed in the U.S. and

two of these will be discussed in the following paragraphs.

Sailfish Point, Stuart, Florida, was the location of a beach dewatering system,

installed in the spring of 1988. The project location is situated at the southern end of

Hutchinson Island on the East Coast of Florida, about one mile north of the Saint Lucie

Inlet and immediately south of Martin County's Bathtub Reef Park. Even though there is

a natural reef -400 feet seaward of the beach, which dissipates some of the incoming

wave energy, the beach had been experiencing an average yearly erosion rate of

approximately 15 feet over a 10 year period, although several of the encompassed years

actually resulted in accretion (Lenz 1994). It was determined by Coastal Stabilization,

Inc. and the developer of Sailfish Point, Inc., that the conditions would be appropriate for

construction of a beach dewatering system (Lenz 1994). A dewatering system 600 feet

long was installed and through the subsequent 10 months, accretion was noted on the

shoreline. However, the same region had experienced accretion immediately before the

project. This is accepted and undisputed; however, it does not follow that accretion


occurred only because of the installation of the dewatering. This presents something of a

quandary: if the results are known, how do we determine the impact that the construction

actually had? One approach is a study of the beach profiles in the project location, as

well as several lines used as "controls" and located considerably up and downstream of

the project area. In this case, it appeared that accretion had occurred in locations other

than the area influenced by the dewatering, (Lenz 1994), therefore it is clear that not all

accretion can be credited to the system. The most direct way to assess the impact of the

dewatering is to evaluate the implications of the new gradient. The effect will be limited

by several characteristics, related to the designed piping/pumping systems along with the

sediment characteristics (the soil porosity will limit the flow rates), and the locations of

sources of fluid pollution (ie. are there aquifers or other sources of water in the area that

could inadvertently be pumped). The following list could help in assessing the value of a

beach dewatering system.

1. Conduct porosity tests, and collect sediment samples in the area of interest,

including boring and pumping tests

Is the soil suitable for draining? (A granular soil will be much better suited that of

clay or clayey soil mixtures)

2. How much money is to be invested in the pumping and piping mechanisms?

Clearly a larger pump should pull more waterthrough the soil and, therefore,

result in more accretion than a smaller pump. But, as the beach widens the impact of the

dewatering will be diminished, it is therefore suggested that the pumping and piping be

sized to result in the largest beach width desired.

3. Is this option really cheaper, in the long-term, than other countermeasures?

In addition to Sailfish Point, a second installation was installed at Englewood

Public Beach, Florida, in the Fall of 1993, although quantitative data has not been

published and the installation has been removed. Several other projects were planned

including four installations totaling 5800 lineal feet on Nantucket Island, Massachusetts,

with others in North Carolina (1,000 feet and in the proposal stage), Fort Pierce, Florida

(permitting has been approved and waiting on funding), as well as Longboat Key, Florida

(in the investigation phase) (Lenz 1994).

Until the results of field installations have been analyzed, and a significant

number studied, it will continue to be difficult, or impossible, to estimate the impacts of

this type of countermeasure. Artificial seaweed

According to Rogers (1987), the earliest known field installations of artificial

seaweed for erosion control took place in Denmark in 1963 on the North Sea. This

solution involves the placement of polypropylene "plants" or other energy absorbing

elements attached to the sea floor with an objective of dissipating some of the energy of

incoming waves, and a desired result of lengthening the lifespan of the beach.

Specifically, the plastic plants are theorized to reduce the sediment transport by

"absorbing part of the turbulent shear stress with the fronds (Rogers p. 21). A reduced

bedload would then follow from the reduced shear stress transferred to the bottom

sediments. A similar reduction would be expected for the suspended sediment transport

due to a reduction in vertical mixing within the boundary layer established by the

seaweed, Rogers (1987).


One installation was conducted with the New Jersey Department of Conservation

and Economic Development off the Atlantic Shoreline near Ocean City, NJ. The project

consisted of dense bundles of artificial seaweed placed in 15 feet of water, and

approximately 800 feet from the shoreline. The project was 900 feet long in the

alongshore dimension, 90 feet wide and constructed in rows oriented parallel to the

shoreline. A rope was used to attach the "fronds," a collection of the polypropylene

strips, to the sea floor. Each frond was attached to a rope grid, with each individual being

anchored with weights and concrete anchors. The original design called for 3,000 feet of

the shoreline to be monitored to note any shoreline changes. It was reported by Wicker

(1966), that the anchoring system failed just months after installation and therefore its

effectiveness can not be determined. It is not known whether the anchorage was cut by

commercial fishing gear or was lost due to natural causes.

A second U.S. installation took place along Wallops Island, VA. The length of

the fronds, as well as the depth of water, were approximately the same as the Ocean City

project. One major difference was that at this installation the anchoring was done with

steel frames, although it was still destroyed. For this project, however, the means of

destruction is known to have been northeast storms that impacted the area. The project

came to an end after only a few months. After these two failed attempts, there were no

more field projects in U.S. waters for the next decade, although research continued in


The main emphasis for the European interest in artificial seaweed centered around

two erosional conditions: excessive tidal scour in secondary inlet channels and localized


scour around man-made offshore structures (Angus 1982), which is significantly different

than the two early U.S. tests that were geared toward reducing shoreline erosion. Since

these early experiments, studies have been conducted in the Netherlands, Denmark,

England, Norway, etc. However, each countries studies were often intended to affect

only specific conditions. For example, in the Netherlands, research on artificial seaweeds

concentrated on the use of seaweed as a "low-cost alternative to rock mattress" to control

tidal scour in secondary channels of tidal inlets (Bakkerl972). A major development in

the construction of polypropylene came about in 1964 by Shell Plastics Laboratory,

Nicolon and the Dutch Ministry of Transport and Waterways. A method was developed

in which the plastic could be injected with air to significantly increase the buoyancy of

the seaweed. It allowed the specific gravity to be lowered from 0.9 to 0.2. The added air

allows the fronds to remain buoyant with a larger amount of fouling than previously

available. Fouling takes place when marine organisms and debris attach to the

polypropylene strands.

Two problems can be associated with the documentation of artificial seaweed

projects. The first problem in analyzing the efficiency and effectiveness of artificial

seaweed as a means of erosion control is the lack of significant numbers of field profiles

over long periods. Most of the field studies involve little, or no beach profiles, Rogers

(1987). It is very difficult to assess the impact of an erosion control measure if no control

is available. A second problem associated with these projects is a lack of data

quantifying wave attenuation and wave-induced currents for field projects, whereas these

quantities can be readily measured in laboratory tests. As wave height reduction is


supposed to be a major benefit ofartificial seaweed, it is important to establish a database

of field measurements in order to better design future projects.

There have, however, been a few field projects that have been well monitored,

including relatively detailed survey information. One such case occurred at the Cape

Hatteras Lighthouse in North Carolina. The shoreline erosion had previously been

documented as averaging 20 to 24 feet per year since 1823 (Rogers 1987). In order to

protect a U.S. Navy facility, a set of three groins was constructed in 1969 to stabilize the

shoreline. The project was successful in anchoring the shoreline position at the facility,

however, significant erosional increases were encountered downstream. This is due, at

least in part, to the net longshore transport rate of 1.5 million cubic yards per year (U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers 1984b). In the ensuing decades, numerous repairs were made

to the groins, and several beach nourishment projects took place to counteract the

erosional trends. In May of 1981, a manufacturer of artificial seaweed, Seascape, donated

and placed 500 units of the polypropylene fronds. These were placed in five parallel

rows, each 350 feet in length, and placed in 4 to 7 feet of water with fronds four feet in

length. It is noted by Terchunian (1981) that a profile taken August 1981 showed that an

offshore bar had moved shoreward and deposited up to 6 feet of sand in the area of the

artificial seaweed. This was accompanied by accretion at the beach as well, the mean

high water line had migrated 190 feet seaward of the preconstruction position. As it

appeared that the project was responsible for the dramatic changes in the coastal

configuration, a larger installation was designed. In November of 1984, five rows of

plants were placed 10 feet apart (length measured perpendicular to the shoreline), and


placed in 6 to 10 feet of water and extending for 5,000 feet. The initial distance from the

shoreline to the seaweed was roughly 500 feet. In is also important to note that this

project was constructed south of the most southerly groin, and that the net transport is to

the south. The project was also done in conjunction with a beach nourishment project.

After placement, the shoreline position was measured to be 245 feet seaward of its initial

position. The logical question to ask is "why did the shoreline position change?" Was it,

as the manufacturer claims, a result of the artificial seaweed placement, or was it due to

natural cyclic accretion patterns and the nourishment project. The manufacturer based his

claims on pre-construction and post-construction photographs showing the seaward


A group of scientists, including S. Rogers, studied the area and found that, upon

reviewing long-term shoreline position, through the use of aerial photographs, although

the average annual shoreline change may be 20 feet erosionall), there were wide ranging

results that could yield a large erosional trend, of many years, only to be followed by large

accretional trends. On the basis of this information, they concluded that it was possible

that this was due to natural shoreline fluctuations, although still not ruling out the

possible influences of the seaweed. As evidence, the researchers noted that the area north

of the groin (just north of the project), also encountered substantial accretion, and this

area could not have been influenced by the seaweed.

In addition to the pre/post comparisons, the National Park Service requested that

the area be monitored by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine the

effectiveness of the seaweed. It is important to note that these surveys did not begin until

the project had been installed and therefore no pre-construction survey was conducted.

The Army concluded that "the deposition behind the seaweed was part of a general

accretion" and "could not, in any way, be attributed to the seaweed" (Rogers p. 24).

There have been several other artificial seaweed projects in the U.S., but none

have been clearly and conclusively shown to be an effective means of stabilizing a

shoreline. In addition to the anchoring problems associated with this method, several

other problems require consideration when constructing an artificial seaweed bed: what

will the environmental impact be to the flora and fauna, will the introduction of

submerged "structures" be a hazard to beach users, and will the beach likely evolve in the

prescribed manner?

It is the author's opinion that there is insufficient data that conclusively

demonstrates the effectiveness of artificial seaweed as a means to control coastal erosion.

This could be due in part to a lack of field data, but I think that the reviewed projects

more likely demonstrate an ineffectiveness in this type of countermeasure. However, I do

feel that it could be effective as a countermeasure to scour in the vicinity of other

structures, via the effect of lowering the velocity near the bed. Submerged breakwaters

This has been an area of continuing interest to the coastal engineering community

for decades, however, only recently has the database of field surveys, wave heights,

current speeds, and bathymetry become large enough to cover a wide range of conditions

in order to test numerical and analytical models, although the addition of future surveys

and field experiments will only help to yield a more reliable base to begin competent


design of structures in the coastal environment. As it is visually appealing, while still

able to decrease the incoming wave energy, it can be a very attractive countermeasure to

beach erosion. However, there are several adverse impacts that must be considered in the

design: how to deal with the ponding of water, impacts on the currents in the vicinity,

scour, etc. The remainder of this thesis will be dedicated to the impacts and design

considerations associated with submerged breakwaters.


3.1 Reduction of Wave Height

A primary design objective of a submerged breakwater is to provide protection

from damage due to waves, while at the same time leaving the aesthetics of the areas

undisturbed. If serenity of surroundings is of no concern, an emergent structure, at a

significantly increased cost due to magnitude, will usually provide a greater degree of

protection for given wave characteristics and parameters.

Incoming wave energy is split into three components at a submerged breakwater:

a reflected wave, a transmitted wave and dissipated energy. The efficiency of a

submerged breakwater is measured by its ability to dissipate energy and reduce the size of

the transmitted wave. The wave height attenuation will be primarily dependent on the

freeboard and the incoming wave height (Goda 1969, Browder 1994, Seelig 1980), with

an apparent limit of 35 percent for submerged breakwaters, Browder (1994).

Wave attenuation will also vary with the porosity and wave length. Numerous

authors have published results describing wave transmission through a variety of rubble-

mound configurations, Shore Protection Manual (1984), and broad crested structures are

also well documented, Diskin (1970). However, little research has been collected on

wave attenuation for thin-walled vertical breakwaters. Some of the more prevalent

studies of transmitted wave heights have been conducted by: Goda, Seelig, Dean, etc.,

each will be discussed in detail in Chapter 5 (Literature Review).

3.2 Increase of the Sediment Retention Time in the Vicinity of Submerged Breakwaters

Due to the wave attenuation characteristic of submerged breakwaters, less energy

will be available, as transmitted waves, to move sediment in the breakwater lee.

Therefore, an increase in the amount of time that it takes for sediment to move in its

vicinity should result from a submerged breakwater. A second characteristic of

breakwaters that increases the retention time is the diffraction of waves around the ends

of the breakwater. Diffracted waves will act to transport sediment toward the breakwater

centerline, and therefore, impede sediment transport from behind the breakwater.

An additional factor that may contribute to an increase in the retention time is the

use of accessory structures, as demonstrated in studies conducted at the Hydraulics

Laboratory of the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. The change in the

sediment transport characteristics for multiple structure configurations has been studied,

at least qualitatively, by Markle (1977) and Curren (1977), who discussed some

interactions of submerged breakwaters and groins.

Due to the conservation of mass, an increase in the retention time will be greatest

during the initial profile equilibration, from the "pre-structure" to the "post-construction"

conditions. The construction of groins, as discussed in Chapter 2, will induce a gradient

in the sediment transport rate, and this could lead to a decrease in the sediment erosion

rate, at least locally and initially. This is due to the fact that sediment transport volume

change is proportional to the gradient of sediment transport, and not the magnitude.

However, once equilibrium is reached, a conservation of mass will ultimately be

reached. In this respect, an increase in retention time, while still very useful, must be

termed a "temporary" impact, although it could be a cyclic occurrence due to the nature of

longshore currents and influences of updrift areas (ie. sand waves passing down the beach

or future construction). The use of groins is well documented in the literature for their

ability to anchor beaches and to keep them from eroding, and coupling this with a

structure that can reduce the height of incoming waves, as submerged breakwaters do,

may provide dramatic benefits for shoreline protection. Only future studies will

determine whether these benefits outweigh the detrimental aspects of submerged

breakwaters, such as ponding and it's impact on sediment transport, as will be discussed

in the following chapters.

3.3 Trapping Sediments Up/Downdrift

The trapping ability of submerged breakwaters can be related to the increased

sediment retention time, as discussed above. A submerged breakwater study discussed by

Dean and Chen (1996), presents information on the trapping characteristics of a

submerged breakwater.

The submerged breakwater installation at Palm Beach, Florida, (Dean and Chen

1996), was studied in order to assess the impact it had on sediment transport, as well as

the existing conditions in the vicinity. Initially, the project experienced a large movement

of sand from behind the breakwater to the downstream area. The movement of this large

quantity did not continue immediately downstream, as might be expected. The bulk of

the sediment seemed to stay at the southern extreme of the breakwater, as if trapped by

the breakwater. This impact may be attributed to the diffraction of waves at the ends of

the breakwater, and possibly to a gradient in the sediment transport rate initiated by a

strong seaward flow at the ends, similar to a rip current located at the end of a sandbar,

causing a gradient in a natural setting (Dalrymple 1978).

As this impact of a submerged breakwater will depend on many local variables, ie.

sediment size, pre-construction beach profiles, wave attenuation characteristics, etc., at

this time it is impossible to predict, with any degree of certainty, the trapping

characteristics of submerged breakwaters.


4.1 Hydraulics/Hydrodynamics

The most obvious method to evaluate the effects of submerged breakwaters is to

compare a beach with a submerged breakwater to a beach without. In a beach without a

breakwater the oncoming waves will transport water towards the shore, and from there it

will move in two directions. Some of the mass transport, transport by waves = ,

will return to the offshore zone directly, while the other will travel along the shoreline in

a narrow zone. When this flow turns offshore, it may create a rip current as pictured in

Figure 4.1.

The percentage of water that moves in either direction will depend primarily on

two factors, the incoming wave energy (E=-pgH2), and the bottom bathymetry. For
normally incident waves and beaches in which the offshore bathymetry is "uniformly

planar with straight and parallel bottom contours (having no longshore variability)," most

of the mass transport will be in the onshore-offshore direction, with little being

transported along the shoreline (Dalrymple, 1978, p. 1415). On beaches with sand bars

however, much like a submerged breakwater, a higher percentage of the water may be


transported along the shoreline before it's return trip offshore, Dalrymple (1978). In this

case, the obstruction created in the water column by the sand bar has changed the

hydraulic balance of the "bar-less" beach.

Many models and theories exist to explain the generation of rip currents, for both

structurally induced, and for the plane parallel beach (wave interaction induced). Some of

the studies pertaining to the wave interaction models include: Bowen (1969), Bowen and

Inman (1969), Sasaki (1975), and Dalrymple (1975). Bowen (1969) and Noda (1974)

discuss the generation of rip currents due to bottom topography, and Dalrymple, Dean, and

Ster (1975) discuss the impact of barred shorelines on wave-induced currents. A model

from Liu and Mei (1976) pertains to the current generation from structural interaction, which

would be most applicable to a study of rip current generation in the vicinity of a submerged

breakwater. A brief discussion of current generation, and the associated velocities, will be

discussed in Chapter 7.

A second effect of the structure will be a set-up of water, ponding, inside of the

breakwater, in order to create the necessary head (volume of water necessary to drive a

flow), to reach equilibrium with the incoming transport.

The head will be a function of the incoming wave height, presence of other

currents, freeboard, etc. For submerged breakwaters and sand bars, however, the height

of ponding will be substantially larger due to the partial obstruction of the water column.

When studying submerged breakwaters, the height of ponding becomes an important

consideration because it can lead to substantial sediment erosion and may cause rip

currents, Figure 4.1. A detailed discussion of structure induced ponding will be presented

in Chapter 5.

Coast Bar/ < Hi
CoastTrough Breakwater

ht b

Wt Wb

os / /

SX \- _-


Figure 4.1 Sketch of Elevation and Plan View of Nearshore
Zone with Submerged Segmented Breakwater or Natural Bar

Ponding has not been well documented in the past in terms of field verification,

but several theories and estimates have been proposed as to the magnitude of this

phenomenon. Discussions of ponding may be found in Longuet-Higgins (1967), Diskin

et al. (1970), Gourlay (1971), Dalrymple and Dean (1971), Dalrymple (1978), among


A third impact of a submerged breakwater is the scour that may be induced

through the modification of the bottom shear stress. Scouring occurs in regions where the

flow velocities create a shear force on sediment particles that is sufficient to result in


movement of sediment. In the case of submerged breakwaters, a high velocity along the

structure/sediment line can result in particle motion at the base of the structure, and thus

undermine the breakwater. The local scour that results may affect the structural integrity,

and this can be vitally important in the placement and design of submerged breakwaters,

as they are heavily dependent on the freeboard for wave attenuation.

The structure induced scour can occur in three locations: seaward, shoreward, and

at the ends of the breakwater. The seaward side of the breakwater will be directly

impacted by the actions of the breaking waves (1), as indicated in Figure 4.2, cross-shore

Sea Floor

LWave Induced Scour Locations

Figure 4.2 Scour Locations, Cross-Sectional View

currents (2), and any longshore-offshore currents (3).

The resulting flow-field becomes very complex, even for the simplest of

structures. Analytical results are not available for most cases, therefore empirical


equations are utilized for cases of even the basic cylindrical pile arrangement. Due to the

intricacies of a submerged breakwater, possibly further complicated by the presence of

vents, an analytic solution relating structure height, water depth (thereby yielding the

freeboard), vent size (if applicable), current patterns, wave field, as well as sediment

characteristics is not in sight. Even an empirical relationship would require numerous

controlled laboratory and field experiments to derive, and would still only be applicable

for specific parameters and flow fields. Therefore, the alternatives must be followed at

this time, namely to rely on basic local scour equations for simple shapes (ie. Cylindrical

piles), and modified to model that of a simple breakwater (Sheppard 1990). It is

important to note that this methodology is only intended to give gross estimates of local

scour. Although scour is very important for the longevity of a submerged breakwater, for

the purposes of this thesis, it is assumed that a breakwater elevation is constant.

4.2 Sediment Transport

When building in a coastal setting, the sediment transport, both cross-shore and

longshore will be impacted by a submerged breakwater. This section will discuss briefly

the impact of a submerged breakwater on the resulting transport rate. The cross-shore

transport shall be delimited as the flow normal to the shoreline (and breakwater), for

definitional purposes, whereas the longshore transport is shore parallel. Figure 4.3 shows

the components of sediment transport in relation to the breakwater and beach.

As the incoming waves are transmitted over the breakwater, part of the wave

energy is dissipated by the breakwater and part is reflected back offshore. Thus, the wave

energy impacting the area landward of the breakwater is decreased. As a result, the

offshore sediment transport rate will be attenuated due to the presence of the structure.

Also, a breakwater acts as a barrier to cross-shore sand transport in the bottom of the

water column. Under storm wave conditions, this will prevent sand on the beach from

being transported to the seaward side of the breakwater, and during mild wave conditions,

the breakwater also blocks onshore directed movement of sediment from the seaward


Cross-Shore Transport

q |
Longshore Transport I

Figure 4.3 Definition Sketch for Cross-Shore and Longshore Sediment

According to the continuity equation, the sediment volume change at a particular

position is determined by the gradients in sediment transport, rather than the transport

itself. Since the cross-shore sediment transport rate is almost zero at the breakwater

position, the gradient of transport becomes very significant. During erosive wave

conditions, this discontinuity of the transport rate will cause scour on the seaward side of

the breakwater, while under milder waves, scour may occur on the shoreward side of the


Due to the existence of the breakwater, there is a water set-up inside of the

structure. The water ponding inside induces flow in the longshore direction toward the

ends of the structure and may cause rip currents to offshore (as shown in Figure 4.1). As

a result, sediment inside the breakwater is carried by longshore currents to the ends of the

structure and may be transported offshore, or continue downstream. Although the cross-

shore transport might be somewhat restricted at the breakwater, the longshore sediment

transport due to ponding induced currents could be quite significant, which can lead to

substantial sediment erosion landward of the breakwater.


This chapter summarizes some of the major hydrodynamic studies of submerged

breakwaters. A brief summary is presented in Table 5.1, where KT and KR are the wave

height transmission and reflection coefficients, respectively. Among the previous studies,

Curren and Chatham (1977), Dean, Browder, Goodrich, and Donaldson (1994), and Dean

and Chen (1996) pertain to current characteristics and sediment transport in the vicinity of

submerged breakwaters.

Table 5.1 Summary of Relevant Literature
Year Type of Study Sediment Ponding KT KR

Adams & Sonu 1986 Review of Tanaka _
Ahrens 1987 Laboratory Study
Baba 1986 Review of Averin /
and Sidorchuk

Curren & Chatham 1977 Model Study /
(Imperial Beach, CA)

Dattatri, Raman, & 1978 Labor y
Funke Laboratory Study

Dean, Browder, 1994 Lab y
Goodrich & Laboratory Study
GDonaldson (Vero Beach, FL)

Dean & Chen 1996 Field Study (Palm / / /
_Beach, FL)

Table 5.1 Continued
Year Type of Study Sediment Ponding KT KR

Diskin, Vajda, & 1970 Structure Induced /
Amir Ponding

Goda 1967 Laboratory Study / /

Hall 1939 Laboratory Study / /

Johnson, Fuchs, & 1951 Analytical Flux /
Morison Approach

Seelig & Walton 1980 / /

Van Der Meer & 1992 Review at Delft /
d'Angremond Netherlands

5.1 Wave Transmission/Reflection Studies

Utilizing artificial submerged breakwaters as shoreline protection was described

in the literature as early as 1939. Hall (1939) described a low artificial reef of precast

concrete, situated parallel to shore, in shallow water. The breakwater was intended to

cause sediment accretion for the beach near Hollywood, Florida, Hall (1939). Laboratory

experiments were conducted in conjunction with the design process to study the

breakwater impact on wave transmission of monochromatic waves of varying heights and

for various freeboard values (where freeboard is the depth from the top of the structure to

the water surface). The experiment led Hall to conclude that submerged breakwaters

placed parallel to the shore in shallow water could reduce the rate of littoral drift in the

lee of the breakwater. Hall also determined that vertical walled structures provided the

most effective means for attenuating wave height and that for protection from storm

waves, the structure height should be at least 80 percent of the water depth.

Johnson, Fuchs, and Morison (1951) applied an energy flux approach to evaluate

the transmission coefficient (KT, ratio of transmitted wave height to incident wave height).

Equation 5.1 represents the calculation of average energy flux above a submerged barrier

with crest at z=-R,

1 rT po 2 cosh2k(h +z) (5.1)
._ r- on2 dzdt (5.1)
T J -R cosh(kh)sinh(kh)

A transmission coefficient may be obtained by redistributing this portion of the

flux over the entire water column on the lee side of the breakwater, (Equation 5.2).

KT=1 sinh(2k(h+R)) +2k(h+R)
K = 1 (5.2)
sinh(2kh) +2kh

such that KT depends on the freeboard, R.

Goda (1969) and Goda, Takeda, and Moriya (1967) present laboratory

measurements of wave transmission over submerged and emergent breakwaters. The

relevant tests were first published in 1968, with a re-analysis in 1969. The tests were

conducted with a breakwater 50 cm high and waves of eight second period, with wave

steepness H/L=0.14. The incident wave height (H,) and freeboard (R) were varied in the

tests. One last note on the parameters of Goda's laboratory measurements is that his tests


were conducted with a minimum breakwater thickness of 0.9 cm, (0.03 feet), the closest

case to a "thin walled vertical breakwater." Goda applies Healy's method for separating

incident and reflected wave components, as described in the following paragraphs.

Healy represents the total wave system as the sum of incident and reflected


-T =aicos(kx-ot)+KRaicos(kx+ot) (5.3)

whereHmlxa=2ai(1 +KR) and Hn =2ai(l -KR). Therefore, KR may be defined as:

H -H
max min
max m+H

The amplitude, IllI may be expressed as a function of distance, x.

Ill=a/((1 +KR)2+2KRcos(2kx)) (5.5)

It should be noted that Healy's method provides only an approximation of the

wave heights due to it's basis in linear wave theory. Healy's method assumes a

sinusoidal wave profile, whereas the actual wave profile contains many higher order

harmonics and associated non-linear effects, Dean (1991). This is noted by Goda and

therefore gives rise to the correction factors that he applies to "adjust for nonlinearities."

The paper published by Goda (1969), "Re-analysis of Laboratory Data on Wave

Transmission over Breakwaters," adds non-linear terms in an attempt to correct Healy's

method for Goda's experimental data set. According to Goda, the result of applying

Healy's method is that the incident wave height tends to be overestimated and the

reflected wave height underestimated. Based on his reanalysis, Goda presented the

following empirical formula for transmission coefficient, KT

fr R R
K =0.5 1 -sin- p--) for a-P-RP-a (5.6)
HI 2a H, H,

where a=2.0 and
0.1 for high mound breakwaters,
P =0.3 for medium mound breakwaters
The wave amplitude was expressed as 0.5 for low mound breakwaters
1 2 1 2
Ti=H, coskxcosot+-b22kH2 cos2kxcos2at+-b02kH2 cos2kx (5.7)
2 4

b02 =(cothkh +tanhkh) (5.8)

b 22=(3coth3kh -cothkh) (5.9)

The maximum and minimum wave heights were given by

Hm =2H, Hii=b 2kH2

1 1
Hi=-(Hmax +Hin) =H(1 +-b22kH,) (5.10)
2 2

1 1
HR =-(Hmx -Hmin) =H,(1 --b22kH,) (5.11)
2 2

where,H, and HR designate apparent incident wave height and apparent reflected wave

height, respectively. Therefore, KR was determined by the ratio of HR' to H,'. Figure 5.1

illustrates the influence of freeboard on both KT and KR, according to Equation 5.6 from

Goda (1969).

1 +

Upper Limit of
Transmission ,
SCoefficient _____/___
0.4- +
V + / -

S*Upp Lower Limit of
a* Transmission

-2.5 -1.5 -0.5 0.5 1.5

Transmission Coeff. + Reflection Coeff.

Figure 5.1 Graph of Transmission and Reflection Coefficients (Goda 1969)

Also of relevance in Goda's article is his use of the following wave energy

conservation relationship:

2 2

where KE represents the proportion of the incident wave energy contained in the reflected

and transmitted waves. Figure 5.2 demonstrates the energy dependence on freeboard,

(Goda's Equation 5.12).


Figure 5.2 Plot of Experimental Data Set for Goda's Energy Equation

Goda (1969) also suggests that the following formula be utilized for the

calculation of the transmission coefficients of composite breakwaters, "based on the

principle of summation of the wave energies due to overtopping of the crest and passing

through the rubble mound:"

P R d2
0.25[1 -sint(P 1R2+0.1(1- R)
HT- a H, h

T I 0.1(1--)

for a->- R>-a

for - H,





) 0.2

* = ~ -


____ U __ _U _
~- -I


1.5 2

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5



Another related study was conducted by Diskin, Vajda, and Amir (1970). It

focused on the ponding effect associated with the presence of low or submerged

breakwaters. According to Diskin, the main advantage of such structures is the low cost.

Two problems associated with this design: the efficiency of the breakwater in wave

height attenuation, and the "piling-up of water inside the protected area," Diskin, et al.

(1970). The article further states that much attention has surrounded the reduction in

wave height, whereas little is known about the piling-up phenomenon.

As Diskin noted, ponding appears to be dependent on the wave climate and also

on the local bathymetry (including breakwaters or other obstructions). Two instances

where ponding will be most noticeable are locations in which restrictions are placed on

longshore and/or crosshore flows, such as areas completely enclosed by breakwaters, for

example protected swimming areas, and locations where a breakwater of sufficient length

exists such that conditions at the center may be considered as two dimensional, as

modeled in this thesis.

According to Diskin, the piling-up phenomenon is an expression of the quasi-

equilibrium reached between the mean rate of water flowing into the protected zone by

waves breaking over the low or submerged breakwater, and that of water flowing out of

the protected zone as a result of the difference in mean water levels inside and outside.

The two flows are unsteady and periodic, having a period, T, equal to that of the wave


Also, note that Diskin's study was for permeable breakwaters. Diskin

approximated his results by the curve plotted in Figure 5.3, which defines a bell shaped

curve being symmetrical about the maximum ordinate at R/Ho=-0.7.

0.8 I
Emergent Submerged

S0.5 --- -/ ---- ----
o /

0 0.3

-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

Figure 5.3 Ponding Level as a Function of R/Ho, Diskin, et al. (1970)

Therefore, by fitting a Gaussian-type equation to the data points, the following
relationship was formulated:

l=0.6e -(0.7R H which is valid for the range -2.0 < < +1.5 (5.14)
Ho H0

Figure 5.4, on the next page, represents several values for ponding as estimated
with Equation 5.14.
The variance associated with the tests was reported to be in the range of 4% to
28%, with a "mean error of 10%," depending on magnitudes of the experimental


0 ....................... .... ..

_J1 .


0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Ho (meters)

R=0.0 R=0.5 R=1.0 R=2.0

Figure 5.4 Ponding Level as a Function of Incoming Deep Water Wave Height

variables, Diskin (1970). After trying to determine the influence of various parameters,

including deep water wave steepness (H0/Lo), non-dimensional depth (h/Ho), etc., it was

concluded that "none of these parameters had a significant effect in reducing the scatter of

values of the relative height of piling-up." In fact they concluded that the term (Ho/h),

only became relevant when larger than 1.0. The relative depth of the experimental data
was: 0.10 < -H < 0.83
One significant difference between the experimental set-up for the laboratory

experiments was that it was 2-dimensional, limiting flow to above and through the

breakwater. Chapter 7, the results section of this thesis will elaborate on this subject.

Diskin concludes that maximum piling-up will occur when significant overtopping takes

place such that flow fails to return seaward over the breakwater and only flows through

the breakwater.

Dattatri, Raman, and Funke (1978) conducted experiments over a range of

breakwater configurations and freeboard values to determine transmission coefficients.

The conclusion of the authors was that the relative depth of submergence was the most

important parameter in the performance of submerged breakwaters. Quantitative data for

the experiments involving thin-walled barrier tests were not presented for analysis.

Seelig and Walton (1980), present a method for estimating the hydrodynamics in

the vicinity of offshore segmented breakwaters, including the seaward flow through the

gaps. Factors investigated which affect the flow rate include: breakwater freeboard, wave

height and period, breakwater length and spacing, number of breakwaters, distance

offshore, water depth, and shore attachment.

Volumetric rate of overtopping for an impermeable breakwater is given as:

qg"- H3) (p a (5.15)
R -R a

where Ho is the deep water wave height, Rup is the vertical height of run up on the

structure if the breakwater were high enough that no overtopping occurred, and Qo* and a

are empirical coefficients found in the Shore Protection Manual (U.S. Army, Corps of

Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, 1977, Ch. 7).

Due to the buildup of water landward of the breakwater, additional return flow

will occur through the gap openings. The method presented by Seelig and Walton

represents the exit flow rate through the breakwater gaps via "a combined continuity-

energy equation for discharge."

Q=VAc=Cd,2ghb A, (5.16)

whereV is the average velocity, A, is the cross-sectional flow area, hb is the wave

breaking depth, Cd is an empirical coefficient that is influenced by many factors (a value

of 0.8 is suggested when analyzing the flow through the gaps).

At equilibrium, for existing wave conditions, and assuming incoming waves

orthogonal to the shoreline, the resulting condition is:

q 1- h N 2= (CdBds(N-1)+2CdAce) (5.17)

where N is the number of breakwaters, Ace is the cross-sectional flow area between the

breakwaters and shoreline at the end of the system, and B is the gap width between


Equation 5.17 can be represented in dimensionless form as:

V=-C2 (5.18)

It is also noted that values of V should be kept below 0.5 ft/sec for "extreme

design conditions," as higher values could transport significant amounts of sediment out

of the breakwater system, could also cause scour around the structure and be hazardous to

swimmers. This preceding methodology was intended as a "first approximation" of the

water velocity and flow rate through the breakwater gaps caused by overtopping, Seelig

and Walton (1980).

The study of wave transmission values for a submerged breakwater were analyzed

and presented by Adams and Sonu (1986) for a model study of an existing structure at

Santa Monica, California. A model study was conducted to assess the design

applicability of the Tanaka (1976), method for predicting transmission coefficients as a

function of freeboard and deep water wave height. The Adams-Sonu article presents a

three-dimensional model study that was used to establish transmission coefficients,

Adams & Sonu (1986).

The Santa Monica breakwater is approximately 610 meters long and positioned

approximately 610 meters from the shoreline, as of 1983 (considered as appropriate at the

time of the measurements and model study). The freeboard was estimated to be 1.6

meters below mean lower low water (MLLW) with a crest width of 13.4 meters. These

conditions vary considerably from the initial construction of the breakwater due to the

impact of many decades of attack from incoming waves, tides, storms, etc..., in which the

structure was transformed from an emergent structure with an elevation of 3 meters above

MLLW. The slope of the breakwater has also been accordingly altered, from initial

conditions of side slopes 1.25:1 to an "equilibrium" side slope of 2 horizontal to 1

vertical (2:1).

The hydraulic model study, conducted by Offshore Technology Corporation, was

three-dimensional and designed to test various breakwater configurations. The freeboard


in the study was varied from 1.8 meters to an emergent extreme of -1.8 meters (recall that

freeboard is positive if the structure is submerged), with significant wave heights varying

from 1.9 meters to 4.1 meters.

The following figure demonstrates the impact of freeboard on KT for Tanaka's

study. Tanaka (1976) determined that the wave transmission was most dependent on the

depth of submergence, freeboard, and the breakwater crest width (Figure 5.5).

-- B/Lo=0.025 - B/Lo=0.050 - B/Lo=0.075 ---- B/Lo=0.100

Figure 5.5 Plot of Transmission Coefficients for Tanaka Study (1976)

Baba (1986) reviewed results of Averin and Sidorchuk (1967). Figure 5.6

displays the effect of freeboard to incident wave height ratio on the transmission





0.7 -

0.6 -




0.2 -

0.1 -


-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Figure 5.6 Plot of Values for Averin and Sidorchuk

Over 200 laboratory test were conducted by Ahrens (1987) in order to establish

stability, damage, and wave attenuation characteristics for various submerged rubble-

mound breakwater configurations. The following expression for wave height

transmission was based on an analysis of the wave data:

K1T( A 3/2
1.0+ h exp[C3 (_p R )C4( At ) (5.19)
h h Lmo d520 p

where C1=1.19, C2=0.26, C3=0.53, C4=0.0051, h=total water depth, h. =critical depth over

structure, At =cross sectional area, L, = wavelength of incident wave, dso = median stone

diameter, Hmo=deep water significant wave height, and R/Hmo = freeboard ratio (where


Van Der Meer and d'Angremond (1992) reviewed numerous studies of rubble

mound submerged breakwaters, and several experiments conducted at Delft Hydraulics in

the Netherlands. The barrier freeboard is cited as the dominant design parameter for


0 0.6

I- -

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8

submerged structures. A counter-intuitive result proposed by Van Der Meer and
d'Angremond is that KT remains constant for 1.0 < < 2.0. As the structure height
decreases, and therefore R/Hi increases, it is expected that the transmission coefficient

would approach unity. Therefore, an asymptotic behavior of KT is expected as the relative

freeboard increases, (as R/Hi --, KT -1.0). Van Der Meer and d'Angremond presented

results for tests of both emergent and submerged breakwaters, but did not present findings

for the range of submerged breakwaters noted above, ie. where ,. is constant.

Most of the literature surveyed indicated that the amount of freeboard over the

structure was the most important variable in the performance of a submerged breakwater.

In most cases it is compared with the incident wave height, thereby defining the "relative

freeboard." The comparisons of the present model with the aforementioned authors are

presented in Chapter 7.

5.2 Sediment Transport and Current Velocity Studies

As discussed in Chapter 3, Curren and Chatham (1977) conducted literally

hundreds of tests comprising a model study for Imperial Beach, California. The study

was site specific in Southern California, but also extended to studies of multiple

breakwater configurations, groin fields and numerous other combinations of coastal

erosion countermeasures. However, only qualitative results were published for the

studies of single breakwater configurations.

Dean, Browder, Goodrich, and Donaldson (1994) conducted a model study of

various submerged breakwater configurations pertaining to a P.E.P. Reef installation at

Vero Beach, Florida. The model tests demonstrated significant current velocities in the

vicinity of a submerged breakwater. Breakwater configuration was also studied and

documented in this study, with the conclusion that breakwaters should be segmented, as

long uninterrupted breakwaters can lead to production of substantial longshore currents.

Dean and Chen (1996) summarize a 36 month field study of a submerged

breakwater installation of a P.E.P. Reef installation at Palm Beach, Florida. The study is

very thorough and presents data on wave heights in the vicinity of the breakwater, as well

as bathymetric changes in the vicinity of the structure. Chapter 7 will compare the results

of this study with a numerical model, developed in the following chapter.


6.1 Hydrodynamics and Hydraulics

This chapter will present the simple linear theory representing the interaction of

an incident wave train with a submerged breakwater system, including the ponding and

longshore flows that result from the structure. The adopted coordinate system is

described in Figure 6.1, where the y-axis is directed seaward, and the x-axis alongshore.

S x Shoreline

Figure 6.1 Definition Sketch Including
Coordinate Frame


6.1.1 Analytical Model

As this thesis is concerned only with normally incident waves, the incoming,

landward directed mass transport will cause return flow over and around the breakwater.

Both of these variables will be expressed as a function of the wave setup, or ponding

elevation, landward of the breakwater, Ti. From linear wave theory we can determine that

the landward volumetric transport, qy, by the waves will be:

y -- (6.1)

where p is the density of water, C is the wave celerity, and E the wave energy density. As

demonstrated in Figure 6.1, due to the coordinate system, q, will be negative, ie., toward

the shore. Also, due to the ponding phenomenon, a wave setup will result. The net

seaward flow at the breakwater is expressed in linearized form as:

E +
p =- + (6.2)
9C Ry

In this case, R, is considered a constant.

The total longshore flow, Qx, over the cross-section area inside of the breakwater

can be linearized as a function of the water surface elevation, rl, in the x-direction:

Qx- A (6.3)
Rx a

in which, Rx, similar to Ry, is considered a constant associated with the shore-parallel

flow, and AY is the distance from the shoreline to the breakwater. Considering mass

conservation and combining Equations 6.2 and 6.3, we arrive at a linear second order

inhomogeneous partial differential equation:

R. ax (__ E =o (6.4)
ax pC Ry

Which can be simplified to yield:

a2- Rx ERx
S=- (6.5)
ax2 AY R pC AY(6.5)

where the right hand term is equivalent to the forcing term.

The boundary conditions associated with this model are:(1) rj = 0 at the

breakwater ends and (2) n is symmetric about the breakwater centerline.

The solution of this equation is

1r =-- +a cosh k(x-Xo) (6.6)

in which k= Rx According to the two boundary conditions listed above, a E ,
A\ Ayy pC
and xo=0. Therefore,
ERr coshkx
S=- [ C- (6.7)
pC cosh kX/2

ER AY sinhkx
p C sinh( X) (6.8)

ERy[ coshkx
E pC cosh kX/2
pC Ry (6.9)

E coshkx
pCE cosh kX/2.

Equations 6.7, 6.8, and 6.9 may be normalized as:

-/= cosh kx
cosh (6.10)
cosh k

S_ cosh kx
ch X (6.11)
cosh k

Qx_ sinh kx
sinh X (6.12)
sinh k-

Figure 6.2 illustrates the levels for ponding, qy, and Qx, as a function of position

along the breakwater. The breakwater is symmetric, so the total length would be 1000. It

is also important to note that rI is a maximum at the breakwater centerline, and that this


0.5 ................... ............................-.....

|. 0-----0...---.......------------------............

-1 I I II II
0 100 200 300 400 500
x, Position Along Breakwater

-Eta qy Qx

Figure 6.2 Plot of Normalized Values for Analytical Model

corresponds with zero longshore flow, Qx. Also, q, is negative due to the orientation of

the coordinate frame, but, note that the net flow increases (Iql),with increasing distance

from the centerline due to the associated reduced set-up.

6.1.2 Numerical Model

The numerical model utilizes standard hydraulic expressions for the weir

equations and simple linear wave theory to model breakwater configurations and physical

conditions to that of field and laboratory installations. The following section will

describe some features of the numerical model.
-1 --II---I----------- I --- 1 -- I --- 1 --

describe some features of the numerical model.

The form of the incoming wave form is:

rl,=- 2cos(ot+ky) (6.13)

The instantaneous flow over the crest of a fully submerged impermeable

breakwater may be represented by the following weir equation

(Z1 u+Z2 u) 2glZu-Z2u sign (6.14)

where, g = acceleration due to gravity, and

Z ,=I +R- (6.15)

where rll=surface elevation seaward of breakwater

Z2u=2+R+ (6.16)

where rl2=surface elevation landward of breakwater

sign (6.17)
Zlu -Z2u

and qnew is a function of the previous estimate of q and the present iteration. Therefore,

the longshore transport of water may be represented by equation 6.18.

g(ht)(AY)(At)Tr(1) -T(I-1) Q,(I)(qy(1) +qy(I-1))At
Ax- 2(ht)(AY)
x( ) IQx()I 2(h)( (6.18)
1+f(At) 8h2
8 hAy

which must be solved explicitly through the following system, and where AY= cross-

shore distance from the coast to the breakwater, At = time increment, r(I) is the ponding

value,fis the Darcy-Weisbach friction factor, and h, = total depth including ponding

landward of the breakwater.

The flow over the crest, in addition to any flow through the vents, is calculated for

1/100 of a wave cycle, and this value is then transferred into a ponding elevation for each

segment of the breakwater, and this in turn will then be subjected to the long wave

equation where Qx will result.

For cases in which the flow over the crest is critical, ie. the breakwater is

emergent for some portions of the wave cycle, and submerged for others, the flow over

the crest of the breakwater will be:

qyc=0.5484 n12 sign (6.19)

where rl, is the free surface elevation, varying with the wave profile.

One significant feature of the numerical model is the ability to include vents into

the breakwater configuration, modeling the P.E.P. Reef installation in Palm Beach, FL.

The vents introduce a supplemental flow that must be considered in the continuity

condition. Therefore, it is useful to consider the four possible flow regimes: 1) Flow over


the crest of the breakwater, such that the breakwater is submerged for all portions of the

wave cycle, 2) critical flow over the structure, ie. the breakwater alternates between

emergent and submergent, 3) full flow through the vents, ie. the vents are submerged for

all portions of the wave cycle, and 4) critical flow through the vents. These four flows

must then be combined to yield net cross-shore flow, and therefore yield six possible

[ 2


q =0 __


S =0 -
_^ D


Figure 6.3 Definition Sketch of Various Flow Possibilities


S=0 ---B
q7 O2

~T q 2

combinations, as shown in Figure 6.3, where qi is flow over the crest of the breakwater

and q2 is flow through the vents.

For the case of complete submergence for the entire wave profile, the flow

through the vents is expressed as:

q v() =(XL,)(Dc)(DE)F/ (sign) (6.20)

where XLv = the longshore proportion of the structure occupied by the vents, Dc= a

constant, and DEp=height of vent, and ZZ is a function of the incoming

wave profile and the present free surface elevation.

For critical flow through the vents, the unit discharge is:

qy=(rlTX)(XLv)(sign) (6.21)

where rc is the water surface elevation above the vent sill.

Therefore, the flow rates for the six combinations may be summarized as

described in Table 6.1

6.2 Sediment Transport

In order to estimate the additional sediment transport resulting from the ponding,

two simplified sediment models were developed to quantify the effects of the submerged

breakwater on the sediment budget. The following sections present a bedload transport

model and a suspended sediment transport model.

Table 6.1 Summary of Various Flow Rates
Flow q, q2 Total q,
A (6.14) (6.20) (Zu+Z2u) 2glZ -| Z2ulsign
+ XLVCDEp 2g Zsign

B (6.19) (6.20) 3
0.5484g1 sign + XLvDDEPZ2g ign

C 0 (6.20) XLvDcD sign

D 0 (6.21) 3
g(r c2 )XLvsign
E 0 (6.14) XLV(Zlu+Z2u) 2glZlu-Z2uign


F 0 (6.19) 3
0.5484X LVtl2sign

*Note: ric, above, is the water elevation above the vent sill.

6.2.1 Suspended Load

Transport via suspended load mechanics encompasses sediment flow throughout

the water column. This model assumes that the suspended sediment concentration within

the surf zone will be unchanged from the case of a beach without a breakwater, and

therefore the additional sediment transport will be in accordance with the increase in the

water transport over that which would occur with normally oblique waves. The

additional sediment transport is defined as:

Qsus(i)=2Qx(Ima)K Y, t



where Qx (I,) is the flow rate at the end of the breakwater, Kpp is:

K =3KK- f- (6.23)
p 20(s -1)(I -p) r

where, K=0.8, K=0.77, f-Darcy Weisbach friction factor (=0.16), s=2.65, p=density of

sediment (=0.35), and Yr,, is a term relating the existing beach profile to an equilibrium


Hi 3/2
S A(0.78) (6.24)
rt (AY)

where, H, = incoming wave height, A=Moore's sediment parameter, and AY=cross-shore


6.2.2 Bed Load

This bed load model takes into account the additional transport which is

considered proportional to the additional bed shear stress resulting form the wave

ponding behind the breakwater.

The average wave introduced shear stress inside the breakwater is:

T- (6.25)

The shear stress resulting from current is:

f= 2





pf2 W
I,=K" c AY=K" pfQ
8 (AY)2 (h 2)


And since It=p g(s-1)(1 -p)Qbed' we can write an expression for the sediment transport



Qbed save- x Q max 2K "

K"=2.63 f Bz
8(s-1)(1 -p)g(AY*h)2

where WBZ is the width of the wave breaking zone, and





The numerical model presented in Chapter 6 may be adapted to simulate

laboratory and field conditions, and, therefore its results may be compared with those of

other researchers. This chapter will compare and contrast published field, laboratory, and

empirical relationships with data generated from the model.

7.1 Hydrodynamic Results of Submerged Breakwaters

7.1.1 Studies of Wave Attenuation

The wave attenuation due to a submerged breakwater depends primarily on the

freeboard and the incoming wave height. As Figure 7.1 illustrates, there is a reasonable

correlation between both the estimate of KT and KR for the model and the values of Goda

(1969). The model data follow the lower limit as established in Equation 5.6, for which

a=2.2 and P=0.8. The model results in Figure 7.1 are for the same conditions as the study

of Goda, Takeda, and Moriya (1967), ie. freeboard elevation (R), water depth (h), and

incoming wave height (Hi), were all consistent. It is also important to note that for a case

with R=-Hi, (an emergent breakwater with an elevation equal to the incoming wave

height), there will be no transmitted wave, due to the model basis on simple linear wave


theory, and therefore iC must be zero. The lab study of Goda, et al., includes the higher

order harmonics and non-linear effects of real waves, and therefore cannot be duplicated

with the model in its present form (a possible future advancement is the addition of non-

linear terms to the model to account for nonlinear effects).

Transmission Coeff. + Reflection Coeff. X Model kt A Model kr

Figure 7.1 Comparison of Goda (1967) Laboratory Data and Model Results

Figure 7.2 compares the conserved wave energy, KE (Equation 5.12), for Goda

experimental values, and predicted model estimates. .Note that for a breakwater elevation

equal to the incoming wave height (R=-Hi), the reflected wave height will be equal to the

incoming wave height and therefore,

KE=K +KR=02+1l =
E t



0.6 -


0.2 -


-1.5 -0.5 0.5 1.5




' 0.6


0 ^

-2.5 -2

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5

A Goda Value

* Model Predictioni

Figure 7.2 Comparison of Conserved Energy Measurements by Goda with Predictions by
Numerical Model

Similar results for wave attenuation were found when model output was

compared with published data from Averin and Sidorchuk (1967), as well as Tanaka

(1976), as shown in Figure 7.3 and 7.4, respectively.

The comparison of model predictions with the nomograph of Averin and

Sidorchuk correlate fairly well for the more submerged breakwaters, but diverge in

_ ---- -- _---_-_-- -------------------



1.5 2

c" 0.4


-0.6 -0.2 0.2 0.6 1 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6

Averin & Sidorchuk--Model

Figure 7.3 Comparison of Model and Averin and Sidorchuk (1967)

estimates when the breakwater becomes subaerial. For emergent breakwaters, Averin and

Sidorchuk predict KT to stabilize at approximately 20% of the incoming wave height,

whereas the model predicts K,= 0, for R < Hi. As both methods are applied to

impermeable breakwaters, the numerical model predictions would seem more realistic for

this range.

The study conducted by Tanaka was for wide crested breakwaters, and therefore,

in addition to R/Ho, the transmission coefficient is defined in terms of the breakwater

crest width, B, to deep water wave length, Lo, ratio (B/Lo). Therefore, the case of B/Lo =

0.025 is the most applicable to the assumption of the numerical model, ie. a relatively

narrow crested breakwater. Therefore, it is clear that due to the aforementioned

Figure 7.4 Comparison Between Numerical Model and Tanaka (1976)

contribution of crest width to reduced transmission, the numerical model should tend to

overestimate the transmission coefficient for the entire range of freeboard to wave height

values, which is not represented in the results. It is also important to note that for

emergent breakwaters with a surface elevation larger than the incoming wave height,

Tanaka predicts a slight rise in rr as the breakwater becomes more emergent. This result

is not expected, even for permeable structures in which transmission through the structure

may be the primary mode of wave transmission.

7.1.2 Studies of Ponding Elevation

Ponding elevation estimates are compared with those of Diskin, et al. (1970), as

shown in Figure 7.5. Because this study was conducted on rubble-mound (permeable)

structures, there will be a finite level of ponding/wave set-up associated with emergent

breakwaters that exceed the incoming wave height. It is also important to note that the

tests were conducted on breakwaters of trapezoidal cross-section, compared with the

computer simulation, where a finite crested impermeable vertical breakwater is modeled

(Diskin points out that the breakwater "acted as a broad crested weir," which clearly does

not equate with the numerical model being based in part on a sharp crested weir).

The numerical model results show only qualitative agreement with the

experimental results of Diskin, et al.. A major difference is that for the impermeable

barrier considered in the numerical model, the non-dimensional set-up rises to unity at

R/H and then is zero for smaller values of R/Hi. By contrast, for values of R/Hi smaller

than -1, wave induced set-up occurs through the permeable breakwater. As shown in


6 -.
0 *
0.6 --
O /


-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
R/HI (R/Ho, Diskin)
MODEL- Diskin

Figure 7.5 Comparison of Model Values with Diskin, et al. (1970)

Figure 7.5, Diskin, et al. estimate the maximum ponding to be 60 % of the incoming

wave height. This maximum occurs for R/Hi = 0.7. Since the numerical model is based

on an impermeable structure, and simulated as 2-dimensional, the predicted ponding

elevation will be greater than freeboard for emergent structures, where the incoming wave

height is larger than the top of the breakwater.

It is also important to note that no data of ponding elevations are known for any

field installations of breakwaters, so it is impossible to verify the model with full-scale

installation elevations.

7.2 Studies of Sediment Transport

The introduction of a submerged breakwater may lead to an erosional tendency as

noted previously in this thesis. A study of a submerged breakwater installation at Palm

Beach, Florida, measured beach profiles and shoreline positions for a period of 35 months

(Dean and Chen 1996).

Evidence of the impact of the breakwater can be found in Figure 7.6, which

illustrates the average change in water depth for the regions near the submerged

breakwater, as shown in Figure 7.7. Dean and Chen (1996) noted that the net longshore

transport in the vicinity is north to south. The area north of the breakwater, Zone 1 and

Zone 2, encountered very little erosion, whereas the area influenced by the breakwater

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480
Distance From Shoreline (feet)

North of Reef -*- Within Reef -. South of Reef

Figure 7.6 Plot of Longshore Average Profile Changes for July 1992 to June 1995 for
Palm Beach, Fl, PEP Reef Installation

was accompanied with severe erosion. The area landward of the breakwater, Zone 3,

experienced an average erosion of approximately 3.2 feet in depth. The region south of

the breakwater also experienced substantial erosion and this is attributed to the

interference of the longshore transport by the breakwater. It is equally important to note

that in the region seaward of the breakwater, zones 2 and 4 specifically, no erosion was

found, these patterns strongly suggest that the reef adversely impacted the shoreline.

The numerical hydrodynamic and sediment transport models were used to

simulate these conditions, and estimates of erosional volumes made. The actual erosion

rates were measured as -40,000 yd3/yr, Dean and Chen (1996), and the model estimates


4- 0
aO -2

0 -4

o -8



Zone 1 Zone 2


Zone 3

Zone 5


Zone 4

Zone 6





240' 240'
Figure 7.7 Diagram of Zones in Vicinity of Breakwater

were for ~ 160,000 yd3/yr via the bedload transport model, 3,100 yd3/yr via suspended

load, and 100,000 yd3/yr for a factor known as Qsand (Qsand ccx, where C, is a constant).



00 II
S500000 - - -

0 100 200 300
Cross-Shore Distance (meters)

400 500

Figure 7.8 Numerical Model Sediment Erosion Volume
Estimates for P.E.P. Reef


It is important to note that the cross-shore distance is an important parameter in

estimating the sediment erosion volume, as shown in Figure 7.8. The figure demonstrates

that a relatively small change in cross-shore distance can result in dramatically different

estimates of erosion volumes. It is also important to note that the numerical model

includes no calibration factors, that the model estimate is within an order of magnitude of

the actual erosion, and that this erosion is a result of ponding landward of the submerged

breakwater. Figure 7.9 and 7.10 demonstrate the dependence of ponding elevation and

normalized model estimates of ponding elevation and sediment transport, respectively, as

a function of cross-shore distance, while maintaining constant values for all other


Figure 7.9 Numerical Model Estimation of Ponding Elevation for P.E.P. Reef

Figure 7.10 Normalized Plot of Sediment Transport and Ponding Elevations for
P.E.P. Reef Simulations

A final note relating the numerical simulations of the P.E.P. Reef is the estimate

of ponding elevations. Although no field data are available to compare, the estimate of

-2.2 millimeters seems reasonable. In summary, although the gross estimates of erosion

volumes are significantly different than documented in the field experiment, the

additional erosion due to the presence of the structure is supported.


E 0.4



100 200 300
Cross-Shore Distance (meters)

-w- Sediment Transport I

S-w Ponding


. . . . - . - -..

',n i



8.1 Summary and Conclusions

As many of the world's coastlines are currently experiencing shoreline erosion,

researchers have been seeking better ways to protect the beaches. Some of the more

innovative research efforts have been directed toward use of artificial seaweed, beach

dewatering, and submerged breakwaters.

With the goal of modeling hydrodynamics and sediment transport near a

submerged breakwater, analytical and numerical models were developed and compared to

published data. The numerical model presents estimates for wave attenuation, ponding

elevations and sediment transport in response to interactions of submerged breakwaters

and waves.

The numerical model yields reasonable correlation with published empirical

wave height data from Goda (1969), Averin and Sidorchuk (1967), and Tanaka (1976).

Differences in the results are primarily attributed to the model being based on linear wave

theory. One drawback of linear wave theory is that for the case of an emergent

breakwater with crest at the same elevation as the incoming wave height, the transmission

coefficient must be zero.


The comparison of model data for ponding elevations is in qualitative agreement

with the laboratory investigation of Diskin, Vajda, and Amir (1970), for R/Hi > 0.5. For

emergent structures, (R/Hi < 0), calculated ponding elevations will be somewhat higher

than the breakwater crest.

The sediment transport estimates are only within an order of magnitude and

require the most improvement. The numerical model overestimates the erosion. In the

future, the use of a calibration coefficient, or an improved model for bedload/suspended

load transport may lead to better estimations.

8.2 Recommendations

The numerical model's results indicate that certain aspects of the model may

benefit from future effort. Removal of the linear wave restriction would improve

transmission coefficient and ponding elevations, especially for R < 0.

A second area that should be addressed is breakwater induced sediment transport.

The model developed here was based on preliminary concepts and could be improved

possibly by use of more complex relationships. Additionally, availability of more field

data would be useful.


Adams, C., and C. Sonu, (1986), "Wave Transmission across Submerged Near-Surface
Breakwaters," Proceedings of 20th International Conference on Coastal
Engineering, ASCE, Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 1729-1738.

Ahrens, J., (1987), "Characteristics of Reef Breakwaters," Technical Report CERC-87-
17, U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, Miss.

Aminti, P., A. Lamberti, and G. Liberatore, (1983), "Experimental Studies on Submerged
Barriers as Shore Protection Structures," International Conference on Coastal
and Port Engineering in Developing Countries, Colombo, Sri Lanka, March 20-

Angus, N., and R. Moore, (1982), "Scour Repair Methods in the Southern North Sea,"
OTC 4410, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 1982.

Averin, V., and V. Sidorchuk, (1967), "On the Effect of Permeability of Breakwaters on
Wave Damping" (in Russian), Dynamics of Wave and Circulatory Motions, Vol.
1, pp. 49-52.

Baba, M., (1986), "Computation of Wave Transmission over a Shore Protecting
Submerged Breakwater," Ocean Engineering, pp. 227-237.

Bakker, W., (1972), "Artificial Seaweed: Coastal and Submarine Pipeline Protection
Studies with Stretched Polypropylene Foam Strands," Koninklyke/Shell Plastic
Laboratory, Delft, Netherlands.

Bowen, A., (1969), "Rip Currents, I. Theoretical Investigations," Journal of Geophysical
Research, Vol. 74, pp. 5467-5478.

Bowen, A., and D. Inman, (1969), "Rip Currents, II. Laboratory and Field Observations,"
Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 74, 5479-5490.

Brashears, R., and J. Dartnell, (1967), "Development of the Artificial Seaweed Concept,"
Shore & Beach, ASBPA, Vol. 35 No. 2, 1967, pp. 35-41.

Browder, A., (1994), "Wave Transmission and Current Patterns Associated With Narrow-
Crested Submerged Breakwaters," M.S. Thesis, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL.

Bruun, P., (1989), "The Coastal Drain: What Can it Do or Not Do?," Journal of Coastal
Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 123-126.

Chapell, J., I. Elliot, M. Bradshaw, and E. Lonsdale, (1979), "Experimental Control of
Beach Face Dynamics By Watertable Pumping," Engineering Geology, Vol. 14,
pp. 29-41.

Curren, C. and C. Chatham Jr., (1977), "Imperial Beach, California, Design of Structures
for Beach Erosion Control," Technical Report H-77-15, U. S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Dalrymple, R., (1975), "A Mechanism for Rip Current Generation on an Open Coast,"
Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 80, pp. 3485-3487.

Dalrymple, R., (1978), "Rip Currents and Their Causes," Proceedings of 16th Coastal
Engineering Conference, ASCE, Hamburg, Germany, Vol. 2, pp. 1414-1427.

Dalrymple, R., and R.G. Dean, (1971), A Discussion of "Piling-Up Behind Low and
Submerged Permeable Breakwaters," Journal of Waterways and Harbors
Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, WW2, pp. 423-427.

Dalrymple, R., R.G. Dean, and R. Stern, (1976), "Wave-Induced Currents on Barred
Coastlines (abs.), EOS, Vol. 57.

Dattatri, J. H. Raman, and E. Funke,, (1978), "Performance Characteristics of Submerged
Breakwaters," Proceedings of the 16th Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE,
New York, NY, Volume 3, Ch. 130, pp 2153-2171.

Davis, G., D. Hanslow, K. Hibbert, and P. Nielsen, (1992), "Gravity Drainage: A New
Method of Beach Stabilization Through Drainage of the Watertable," Proceedings
of 23rd Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE, Venice, Italy, pp.1129-1141.

Dean, R.G., (1979), "Recommended Procedure for Calculating Wave Damping Due to
Vegetation Effects and Wave Instability," Research Report CD-82-30,
Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Dean, R. G., and M. Bootcheck, (1996), "Submerged Breakwaters: Hydrodynamics and
Sedimentary Mechanisms," Unpublished.

Dean, R.G., and A. Browder, M. Goodrich, and D. Donaldson, (1994), "Model Tests of
the Proposed P.E.P. Reef Installation at Vero Beach, Florida," University of
Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Dean, R.G., and R. Chen, (1995), "Performance of the Midtown Palm Beach P.E.P. Reef
Installation-Seventeen Months Results August 1993 to December 1994,"
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Dean, R.G., and R. Dalrymple, (1991), Water Wave Mechanics for Engineers and
Scientists, Advanced Series on Ocean Engineering, Vol.2.

Dean, R.G., and R. Dalrymple, (1995), Coastal Processes with Engineering
Applications, Class Notes-EOC 6196, Littoral Processes, Gainesville, FL.

Diskin, M., M. Vajda, and I. Amir, (1970), "Piling-Up Behind Low and Submerged
Permeable Breakwaters," Journal of the Waterways and Harbors Division, No.
WW 2, pp. 359-372.

Duncan, J.R., (1964), "The Effect of Watertable and Tide Cycle on Swash-Backswash
Sediment Distribution and Beach Profile Development," Marine Geology, Vol. 2,
pp. 186-197.

Elwany, H.M.S., W. O'Reilly, T. Guza, and R. Flick, (1995), "Effects of Southern
California Kelp Beds on Waves," Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean
Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 121 No. 2, pp. 143-150.

Franco, L., M. De Gerloni, and J.W. Van der Meer, (1995), "Wave Overtopping on
Vertical and Composite Breakwaters," Publication No. 487, Delft Hydraulics, pp.

Funakoshi, H., T. Siozawa, T. Tadokoro, and S. Tsuda, (1994), "Drifting Characteristics
of Littoral Sand Around Submerged Breakwaters (Field Study on Niigata West
Coast)," Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydro-Technical
Engineering for Port and Harbor Construction, Yoluska, Japan, pp. 1157-1178.

Goda, Y., (1969), "Re-analysis of Laboratory Data On Wave Transmission Over
Breakwaters," 18 pp., Report No. 8(3), Port and Harbour Research Institute,

Goda, Y., H. Takeda, and Y. Moriya, (1967), "Laboratory Investigation on Wave
Transmission over Breakwaters," Report of Port and Harbour Research Institute,
Report No. 13, Port and Harbour Research Institute, Ministry of Transport.

Gourlay, M. R., (1971), "Piling-Up Behind Low and Submerged Breakwaters," Journal
of Waterways and Harbors Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol.
97, WW1, pp. 219-222.

Graf, W., (1984), Hydraulics of Sediment Transport, Water Resources Publications,
Littleton, Colorado.

Grant, U.S., (1948), "Influence of the Water Table on Beach Aggradation and
Degradation," Journal of Marine Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 655-660.

Hall, W.C., (1939), "A Model Study of the Effect of Submerged Breakwaters on Wave
Action," War Department, Beach Erosion Board, Corps of Engineers, Technical
Memorandum No. 1, Washington DC.

Iwatani, F., T. Miyamoto, M. Matsushita, S. Yoshinaga, R. Kawatama, and Y. Adachi
(1989), "Prediction of Waves, Currents and Topographical Change Around
Submerged Offshore Breakwater," Coastal Engineering in Japan, Vol. 32 No. 2,
December 1989, JSCE.

Johnson, J.W.R.A. Fuchs, and J.R. Morison, (1951), "The Damping Action of
Submerged Breakwaters," Transactions of the American Geophysical Union,
Volume 32, No. 5, pp 704-718.

Kawata, Y., and Y. Tsuchiya, (1986), "Applicability of Sub-Sand System to Beach
Erosion Control," Proceedings of the 20th Coastal Engineering Conference,
ASCE, Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 1255-1267.

Kobayashi, N., and A. Wurjanto, (1989), "Wave Transmission over Submerged
Breakwaters," Journal of the Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115 No. 1, pp. 662-680.

Kriebel, D., (1992), "Vertical Wave Barriers: Wave Transmission and Wave Forces,"
Proceedings of the 23rd Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE, Venice, Italy,
pp. 1313-1326.

Leadon, M.E., (1991), "Performance Monitoring Report of the P.E.P. Reef,"
State of Florida Division of Beaches and Shores Bureau of Coastal Engineering,
and Regulation.

Lenz, R., (1994), "Beachface Drainage A Tool for Coastal Stabilization," Proceedings
of the 1994 National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology, Tampa
Florida, pp. 27-52.

Lin, N.K., (1986), "Research Report on the Performance of Prefabricated Erosion
Prevention Reefs for Beach Erosion Control," Florida Atlantic University-
Department of Ocean Engineering.

Lin, N.K., (1988), "Feasibility Study of PEP Reefs for Beach Erosion Control," Florida
Atlantic University-Department of Ocean Engineering.

Liu, P., and C. Mei, (1976), "Water Motion on a Beach in the Presence of a Breakwater,"
I and II, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 81, 3079-3094.

Longuet-Higgins, M.S., (1967), "On the Wave-Induced Difference in Mean Sea Level
Between the Two Sides of a Submerged Breakwater," Journal of Marine
Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 148-153.

Machemehl, J.L., and G. Abad, (1975), "Scour Around Marine Foundations," Offshore
Technology Conference, Paper Number OTC 2313.

Machemehl, J.L., T. French, and N. Huang, (1975), "New Method for Beach Erosion
Control," Proceedings of Civil Engineering in the Oceans/3, ASCE, Newark,
Delaware, pp. 142-160.

Markle, D. and R. Carver, (1977), "Breakwater Stability Study Imperial Beach,
California," Technical Report H-77-22, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Mei, C., and D. Angelides, (1977), "Longshore Circulation Around a Conical Island,"
Coastal Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 31-42.

Nakamura, M., H. Shiraishi, and Y. Sasaki, (1966), "Wave Damping Effect of
Submerged Dike," Proceedings of the 10th Coastal Engineering Conference,
ASCE, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 254-267.

Noda, E., (1974), "Wave-Induced Nearshore Circulation," Journal of Geophysical
Research, Vol. 79, pp. 4097-4106.

Noda, E., C. Sonu, V. Rupert, and J. Collins, (1974), "Nearshore Circulation Under Sea
Breeze Conditions and Wave-Current Interaction in the Surf Zone, TETRA-72-
149-4, Tetra Tech, Inc., 216 pp..

Price, W., K. Tomlinson and J. Hunt, (1968), "The Effect of Artificial Seaweed in
Promoting the Build-up of Beaches,"Proceedings of the 11th Coastal Engineering
Conference, ASCE, New York, NY, Ch. 36, pp. 570-578, 1968.

Rogers, S., (1987), "Artificial Seaweed for Erosion Control," Shore & Beach, ASBPA,
Vol. 55 No. 1, January 1987, pp. 19-29.

Sasaki, T., (1975), "Simulation on Shoreline and Nearshore Current," Proceedings of
Civil Engineering in the Oceans, Vol. II, ASCE, Newark, Delaware, pp. 179-196.

Sawaragi, T., (1995), Coastal Engineering-Waves, Beaches, Wave-Structure Interactions,
Developments in Geotechnical Engineering, 78, Elsevier Science B.V.,

Seelig, W., and T. Jr. Walton, (1980), "Estimation of Flow Through Offshore Breakwater
Gaps Generated by Wave Overtopping," Coastal Engineering Technical Aid NO.
80-8, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center,
December 1980.

Sharma, J., and R. G. Dean, (1981), "Second-Order Directional Seas and Associated
Wave Forces," 1979 Offshore Technology Conference.

Sheppard, D. M., and A. Niedoroda, (1990), "Local Structure Induced Sediment Scour,"
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Sheppard, D.M., and J. Heam, (1989), "Performance and Stability of Low-Crested
Breakwaters," University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Silvester, R., (1990a), "Scour Around Breakwaters and Submerged Structures,"
Handbook of Coastal and Ocean Engineering Volume 2: Offshore Structures,
Marine Foundations, Sediment Processes and Modeling, Gulf Publishing
Company, Houston, pp. 959-996.

Silvester, R., (1990b), "Design of Seawalls and Groins," Handbook of Coastal and Ocean
Engineering Volume 1: Wave Phenomenon and Coastal Structures, Gulf
Publishing Company, Houston, pp. 1059-1080..

Sonu, C., and J. Warwar, (1987), "Evolution of Sediment Budgets in the Lee of a
Detached Breakwater," Coastal Sediments '87, American Society of Civil
Engineers, pp. 1361-1368.

Sumer, B. M., J. Fredsoe and P. Roll, (1989), "Scour Around a Vertical Pile in Waves,"
Prog. Rep. 69, pp. 21-30, Institute of Hydrodynamic and Hydraulic Engineering,
Technical University of Denmark.

Tanaka, N., (1976), "Effects of Submerged Rubble-Mound Breakwater on Wave
Attenuation and Shoreline Stabilization," Proceedings of 23rd Japanese Coastal
Engineering Conference, Japan, pp. 152-157.

Terchunian, A., (1981), Seascape at Cape Hatteras, Interim Observations, Er Con,
Westhampton Beach, New York, 1981.

Terchunian, A., (1990), "Performance of Beachface Dewatering: The Stabeach System at
Sailfish Point (Stuart), Florida," Proceedings of 3rd National Beach Preservation
Technology Conference, St. Petersburg, Florida, pp. 185-201.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (1984a), Coastal Engineering Research Center, Shore
Protection Manual, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (1984b), Report on Generalized Monitoring of Seascape
Installation at Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, North Carolina, Wilmington, North
Carolina, 1984.

Van Der Meer, J.W.,and K. D'Angremond, (1992), "Wave Transmission at Low-Crested
Structures," Coastal Structures and Breakwaters, Thomas Telford, ed., London,
England, pp. 25-41.

Van Gent, M.R.A., (1995), "Wave Interaction with Berm Breakwaters," Journal of
Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Vol. 121 No. 5, pp. 229-238

Vesterby, H., (1994), "Beach Face Dewatering The European Experience," Proceedings
of the 1994 National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology, Tampa,
Florida, pp. 53-68.

Wicker, C. (1966), "Report on Artificial Seaweed," Shore & Beach, ASBPA, Vol. 34 No.
2, October 1966, pp. 28-29.



The author was born in Michigan City, Indiana, on February 10, 1971.

Michigan City was a small rural community located at the intersection of Lake Michigan,

the Wolverine State and the Boilermaker State. Upon graduation from Michigan City

Rogers, he took his studies to Purdue University, where he spent three years studying

aero/astro engineering. Upon further reflection, he discovered that after growing up on

the water, he spent many weekends and most afternoons either fishing on Lake Michigan,

or on the creek behind his home, he would have to find a career involving coastal fluids,

rather than the gaseous variety associated with airfoils. In fact most of his childhood

activities revolved around the water, either fishing, waterskiing, swimming, or snorkeling,

and eventually scuba diving.

Therefore, in the fall of 1993, and under the tutelage of Professor William L.

Wood, he entered the School of Civil Engineering at Purdue. He earned a Bachelor of

Science in Civil Engineering in 1994, studying hydraulics and environmental engineering.

Upon graduation, he took his studies to the Department of Coastal and Oceanographic

Engineering at the University of Florida, under the guidance of Professor Robert G. Dean.

Upon graduation in August of 1996, he planned to enter law school and then enter

the fields of patent, coastal and environmental law, as long as he could be guaranteed

frequent trips to the Florida Keys to scuba dive.

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs