Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/11681/34756
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPriestas, Anthony M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMcFall, Brian C.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBrutsche, Katherine E.en_US
dc.creatorCoastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (U.S.)en_US
dc.creatorCoastal Inlets Research Program (U.S.)en_US
dc.date.accessioned2019-12-03T20:30:21Zen_US
dc.date.available2019-12-03T20:30:21Zen_US
dc.date.issued2019-12en_US
dc.identifier.govdocERDC/CHL TR-19-19en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11681/34756en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.21079/11681/34756en_US
dc.descriptionTechnical Reporten_US
dc.description.abstractThe 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.sponsorshipPrepared for Coastal Inlets Research Program, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 under Funding Acct Code U4362900, AMSCO Code 060000en_US
dc.description.tableofcontentsAbstract .................................................................................................................................... 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 Pageen_US
dc.format.extent63 pages/3.769 Mben_US
dc.format.mediumPDF/Aen_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherEngineer Research and Development Center (U.S.)en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesTechnical Report (Engineer Research and Development Center (U.S.)) ; no. ERDC/CHL TR-19-19en_US
dc.rightsApproved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimiteden_US
dc.sourceThis Digital Resource was created in Microsoft Word and Adobe Acrobaten_US
dc.subjectBeach nourishmenten_US
dc.subjectCoastal sedimentsen_US
dc.subjectHydraulic modelsen_US
dc.subjectHydrodynamicsen_US
dc.subjectLittoral driften_US
dc.subjectSedimentation and depositionen_US
dc.subjectSediment transporten_US
dc.subjectShore protectionen_US
dc.subjectWater currentsen_US
dc.subjectWater wavesen_US
dc.subject.otherCoastal Inlets Research Program (U.S.)en_US
dc.titlePerformance of nearshore berms from dredged sediments : validation of the Sediment Mobility Toolen_US
dc.typeReporten_US
Appears in Collections:Technical Report
Technical Report

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
ERDC-CHL TR-19-19.pdfERDC/CHL TR-19-193.86 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open