Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Barcelona Harbor, New York, design for harbor improvements : hydraulic model investigation|
|Authors:||United States. Army. Corps of Engineers. Buffalo District.|
Bottin, Robert R.
Barcelona, New York
|Publisher:||Coastal Engineering Research Center (U.S.)|
Engineer Research and Development Center (U.S.)
|Series/Report no.:||Technical report (U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station) ; CERC-84-3.|
Abstract: A 1:60-scale (undistorted) hydraulic model of Barcelona Harbor, New York, including approximately 7,000 ft of the New York shoreline and sufficient offshore bathymetry in Lake Erie to permit generation of the required test waves, was used to investigate the design of certain proposed improvements with respect to wave action. Proposed improvements consisted of rubble-mound breakwater extensions; rubble-mound absorbers installed along the harbor sides of the existing east and west breakwaters and the lakeward face of the city dock; rubble-mound spurs installed southerly of the lakeward heads of the existing breakwaters; and a parapet wall installed on the existing west breakwater. Two 60-ft-long wave generators and an Automated Data Acquisition and Control System were utilized in model operation. Initially, an optimum improvement plan was selected based on the results of wave-height tests using monochromatic waves. It was concluded from these test results that: (a.) For existing conditions, without the vertical-walled city dock (Base Test 1), rough and turbulent wave cvnditions existed in the harbor during periods of storm wave attack. Wave heights exceeding 3.0 ft in the mooring area and inner harbor for several test waves occurred during boating season. (b.) Installation of the vertical-walled city dock (Base Test 2), in general, increased wave heights in the harbor with values exceeding 4.0 ft in the mooring area and inner harbor for several test waves occurring during boating season. (c.) For existing conditions (Base Test 1 and Base Test 2) , excessive energy entered the harbor through the navigation entrance, through the opening between the east breakwater and the shore, and due to overtopping of the existing breakwaters. (d.) Initial wave-height measurements (Plans 1-6) indicated that absorbers inside the harbor and shoreward extensions of the east breakwater would not reduce wave heights in the harbor to acceptable levels, and that a breakwater extension at the entrance (Plan 6) would be required to prevent energy from entering the harbor. (e.) With the original west breakwater extension and absorber of Plan 6, test results indicated that the city dock absorber (Plan 8) or a 125-ft-long shoreward east breakwater extension (Plan 12) would yield similar wave conditions in the mooring area. (f.) Of the improvement plans tested with the initial west jetty extension (Plans 6- 21), Plan 12 (300-ft-long lakeward west breakwater extension, west breakwater absorber, and 125-ft-long shoreward east breakwater extension) appeared to be optimum with respect to wave protection and costs; however, the entrance would be somewhat restricted. (g.) For the Plan 12 harbor configuration, the 2.0-ft wave-height criterion in the mooring area will be exceeded by 0.4 ft for summer wave conditions from west with a 20-year recurrence interval. A 180-ft-long parapet wall installed on the west breakwater (Plan 15 or 16) will reduce wave heights to 2.0 ft for these incident wave conditions. (h.) The installation of breakwater spurs inside the breakwaters (Plan 24), as an alternate to lakeward breakwater extensions, will not reduce wave heights in the mooring area to acceptable levels. (i.) Parallel extensions of the east and west breakwaters (Plan 25) will provide adequate wave protection in the mooring area; however, cumulative lengths of these extensions exceed the length required for a curved west extension, resulting in a more costly structure. (j.) The crest elevation of the west breakwater extension can be reduced from +13 ft to +11 ft (Plan 31) and still provide adequate wave protection in the mooring area. (k.) Of the improvement plans tested with a west jetty extension oriented to provide a wider entrance, Plan 42 (250-ft-long lakeward west breakwater extension, west breakwater absorber, and 150-ft-long shoreward east breakwater extension) appeared to be optimum with respect to wave protection, ease of navigation, and construction costs. (l.) For the Plan 42 harbor configuration, the 2.0-ft wave-height criterion in the mooring area will be exceeded by 0.3 ft for summer wave conditions from west with a 20-year recurrence interval and 0.2 ft for fall wave conditions from unrefracted northeast with a 20-year recurrence interval. To reduce wave heights to 2.0 ft in the mooring area, a 180-ft-long parapet wall installed on the west breakwater (Plan 15 or 16) is required for test waves from west; and a 25- ft-long shoreward extension of the east breakwater (Plan 41) is required for test waves from the unrefracted northeast direction. (m.) The absorber installed adjacent to the west breakwater not only damps wave energy entering through the harbor openings, but also dissipates wave energy entering the harbor due to overtopping of the west breakwater. The removal of four 100-ft sections of this absorber (Plan 58), however, will have an insignificant impact on wave heights in the mooring area. (n.) With the vertical-walled city dock removed from the harbor, the 150- ft-long shoreward extension of the east breakwater (Plan 42) can be removed without sacrificing wave protection in the mooring area. Based on the results of the spectral wave tests (detailed in Appendix B), it was concluded that: (a.) For the optimum improvement plan (Plan 58), wave heights in the mooring area were well within the established wave-height criterion for the spectral wave conditions tested. (b.) A comparison of monochromatic and spectral wave condit ions indicated that monochromatic waves resulted in slightly larger wave heights throughout the harbor, and monochromatic wave test results may be considered slightly conservative. NOTE: This file is large. Allow your browser several minutes to download the file.
|Appears in Collections:||Technical Report|