Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Oceanside Harbor, California design for harbor improvements : coastal model investigation|
|Authors:||United States. Army. Corps of Engineers. Los Angeles District.|
Bottin, Robert R.
Oceanside Harbor, California
|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-92-14.|
Abstract: A 1:75 scale, three-dimensional hydraulic model was used to investigate the design of a proposed harbor structure and channel modifications at Oceanside Harbor, California, with respect to wave and shoaling conditions in the harbor entrance and wave conditions in the inner harbor. The model reproduced approximately 9,000 ft of the California shoreline and included portions of the existing harbor and offshore bathymetry in the Pacific Ocean to a depth of 36 ft mean lower low water (mllw). Improvement plans consisted of a seaward extension of the existing north breakwater, the installation of a spur on the south jetty, and modifications to the entrance channel. An 80-ft-long unidirectional, spectral wave generator, an automated data acquisition system, and crushed coal tracer material were utilized in model operation. It was concluded from the test results that: (a.) For the existing harbor configuration, wave heights in the inner harbor were more severe during periods when the shoal in the entrance channel was not present. With the shoaled entrance, waves broke and expended some of their energy, while with the dredged entrance (authorized depths), more wave energy propagated into the harbor. (b.) The originally proposed improvement plan (Plan 1, 180-ft-long jetty spur (el +14 ft) and 300-ft-long breakwater extension (el +18 ft)) will result in wave conditions in the inner harbor in excess of the established criteria (0.2, 0.4, and 0.6 ft for weekly, annual, and 20-yr wave conditions, respectively). (c.) Of the improvement plans tested with the jetty spur on its original alignment (Plans 1-13), only the 230-ft-long jetty spur and the 450-ft-long breakwater extension of Plan 7 met the established wave height criteria. (d.) Of the improvement plans tested with the reoriented jetty spur (Plans 14-22), only the 280-ft-long jetty spur and the 300-ft-long breakwater extension of Plan 22 met the established wave height criteria. (e.) Of all the improvement plans tested from 235 deg, and considering wave protection afforded versus volume of construction materials, the 180-ft-long jetty spur and the 250-ft-long breakwater extension of Plan 17 were considered optimal. The wave height criteria will be exceeded by 0.1 ft at only one gage location in the inner harbor for weekly and annual wave conditions. (f.) The Plan 17 harbor configuration will result in wave heights in the inner harbor that are 60 percent less, on the average, than those obtained for existing conditions (with authorized channel depths) for test waves from the more predominant 235-deg direction. (g.) Wave heights in the outer entrance will be reduced as a result of the installation of Plan 17 for test waves from the more predominant 235-deg direction. (h.) Considering test waves from the 250- and 210-deg directions, the wave height criteria in the inner harbor will be exceeded by only 0.1 ft at one gage location for weekly, annual, and/or 20-yr wave conditions when Plan 17 is in place. (i.) The installation of the Plan 17 structures should not impact sediment-patterns on a regional basis. Sediment will continue to move into the expanded entrance, but it will deposit more seaward in the entrance and will not penetrate as deeply into the entrance channel. (j·) Model results indicate that installation of Plan 17 will not have any impact on long-period wave conditions in the inner harbor basins.
|Appears in Collections:||Technical Report|