Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/11681/34756Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Priestas, Anthony M. | - |
| dc.contributor.author | McFall, Brian C. | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Brutsche, Katherine E. | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2019-12-03T20:30:21Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2019-12-03T20:30:21Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2019-12 | - |
| dc.identifier.govdoc | ERDC/CHL TR-19-19 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/11681/34756 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://dx.doi.org/10.21079/11681/34756 | - |
| dc.description | Technical Report | - |
| dc.description.abstract | The construction of artificial berms in the nearshore environment using dredged material has been in practice since the 1930s. While considerable progress has been achieved from both theoretical and practical considerations, placement decisions were often heuristic, based on experience, or required tedious calculations. For that reason, the Sediment Mobility Tool (SMT) was developed to make rapid, preliminary assessments of nearshore placement areas and berm migration. This technical report provides a comparative analysis between SMT results and historical field observations for nine nearshore placement projects with diverse berm geometries, sediment characteristics, and wave climates. The SMT correctly predicted nearshore berm sediment mobility and migration directions for eight of the nine historical berms studied. These sites were typically associated with shallow placement depths and energetic wave conditions. Likewise, the SMT correctly predicted stable berms for two of three sites. For one case in particular, the SMT correctly predicted a stable berm in contrast to the expectation that the berm would mobilize, which underscores the value of SMT to make informed decisions during project planning. The few discrepancies between SMT predictions and observations may be partly explained by berm geometry (mound versus linear berm), whereby application of the tool to mounded geometries may not be suitable. | en_US |
| dc.description.sponsorship | Coastal Inlets Research Program (U.S.) | en_US |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | Abstract .................................................................................................................................... ii Figures and Tables ................................................................................................................... v Preface ...................................................................................................................................viii 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Methods to Predict Berm Migration ................................................................. 3 1.3 The Sediment Mobility Tool (SMT) .................................................................... 4 1.3.1 Bed shear stress from linear wave theory ................................................................. 5 1.3.2 Near-bed velocity from non-linear stream function theory ....................................... 6 1.4 Previous applications of the SMT ..................................................................... 7 1.5 Objective............................................................................................................. 9 1.6 Study Approach .................................................................................................. 9 2 Results ............................................................................................................................. 11 2.1 Site 1: Dam Neck, Virginia (1982) ..................................................................11 2.1.1 Site description and berm construction .................................................................. 11 2.1.2 Hydrographic description.......................................................................................... 12 2.1.3 Monitoring and berm evolution ................................................................................ 13 2.1.4 SMT results ................................................................................................................ 13 2.2 Site 2: Mobile Outer Mound (MOM), Alabama (1988) ..................................15 2.2.1 Site description and berm construction .................................................................. 15 2.2.2 Hydrographic description.......................................................................................... 16 2.2.3 Monitoring and berm evolution ................................................................................ 17 2.2.4 SMT results ................................................................................................................ 17 2.3 Site 3: Silver Strand, California (1988) ..........................................................19 2.3.1 Site description and berm construction .................................................................. 19 2.3.2 Hydrographic description.......................................................................................... 20 2.3.3 Monitoring and berm evolution ................................................................................ 20 2.3.4 SMT results ................................................................................................................ 21 2.4 Site 4: Port Canaveral, Florida (1992) .......................................................... 23 2.4.1 Site description and berm construction .................................................................. 23 2.4.2 Hydrographic description.......................................................................................... 24 2.4.3 Monitoring and berm evolution ................................................................................ 24 2.4.4 SMT results ................................................................................................................ 25 2.5 Site 5: Perdido Key, Florida (1991) ................................................................. 27 2.5.1 Site description and berm construction .................................................................. 27 2.5.2 Hydrographic description.......................................................................................... 28 2.5.3 Monitoring and berm evolution ................................................................................ 28 2.5.4 SMT results ................................................................................................................ 29 2.6 Site 6: Newport Beach, California (1992) ...................................................... 31 2.6.1 Site description and berm construction .................................................................. 31 2.6.2 Hydrographic description.......................................................................................... 32 2.6.3 Monitoring and berm evolution ................................................................................ 32 2.6.4 SMT results ................................................................................................................ 33 2.7 Site 7: Brunswick, Georgia “Mound C” (2003) ............................................. 35 2.7.1 Hydrographic description.......................................................................................... 35 2.7.2 Monitoring and berm evolution ................................................................................ 36 2.7.3 SMT results ................................................................................................................ 37 2.8 Site 8: Ocean Beach, California (2005) ........................................................ 39 2.8.1 Site descriptions and berm monitoring ................................................................... 39 2.8.2 Hydrographic description.......................................................................................... 40 2.8.3 Monitoring and berm evolution ................................................................................ 40 2.8.4 SMT results ................................................................................................................ 40 2.9 Site 9: Fort Meyers Beach, Florida (2009) .................................................... 42 2.9.1 Site description and berm construction .................................................................. 42 2.9.2 Hydrographic description.......................................................................................... 43 2.9.3 Monitoring and berm evolution ................................................................................ 43 2.9.4 SMT results ................................................................................................................ 44 3 Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................... 46 References ............................................................................................................................. 48 Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................... 52 Report Documentation Page | - |
| dc.format.extent | 63 pages / 3.769 Mb | - |
| dc.format.medium | PDF/A | - |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (U.S.) | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Engineer Research and Development Center (U.S.) | - |
| dc.relation.ispartofseries | Technical Report (Engineer Research and Development Center (U.S.)) ; no. ERDC/CHL TR-19-19 | - |
| dc.rights | Approved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited | - |
| dc.source | This Digital Resource was created in Microsoft Word and Adobe Acrobat | - |
| dc.subject | Beach nourishment | en_US |
| dc.subject | Coastal sediments | en_US |
| dc.subject | Hydraulic models | en_US |
| dc.subject | Hydrodynamics | en_US |
| dc.subject | Littoral drift | en_US |
| dc.subject | Sedimentation and deposition | en_US |
| dc.subject | Sediment transport | en_US |
| dc.subject | Shore protection | en_US |
| dc.subject | Water currents | en_US |
| dc.subject | Water waves | en_US |
| dc.title | Performance of nearshore berms from dredged sediments : validation of the Sediment Mobility Tool | en_US |
| dc.type | Report | en_US |
| Appears in Collections: | Technical Report Technical Report | |
Files in This Item:
| File | Description | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ERDC-CHL TR-19-19.pdf | 3.86 MB | Adobe PDF |  View/Open |