You are on page 1of 8

Coastal Engineering 105 (2015) 13–20

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Coastal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/coastaleng

Laboratory study of a novel marsh shoreline protection structure: Wave
reduction, silt-clay soil collection, and mathematical modeling
N. McCoy a, B. Tang b, G. Besse a, D. Gang a,⁎, D. Hayes c
a
Civil Engineering Department, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, 104 E University Ave, Lafayette, LA 70504, United States
b
Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, 104 E University Ave, Lafayette, LA 70504, United States
c
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Construction, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 4505 S Maryland Pkwy, Las Vegas, NV 89154, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Shoreline erosion along open water bodies and waterways is a major cause in the conversion of wetlands and
Received 24 February 2015 uplands to open water habitat. Conventional shoreline protective structures are expensive to construct in
Received in revised form 5 August 2015 these environments, and may impede environmental exchanges essential for connectivity and functionality.
Accepted 6 August 2015
The structure, Wave Suppression and Sediment Collection (WSSC) System that contains multiple Wave Robber™
Available online xxxx
units, is an alternative for shoreline protection that maintains environmental connectivity. The primary goals of
Keywords:
this study are to evaluate the wave reduction and sediment collection performance of the unit as well as optimize
Shoreline protection its design. This study showed that the unit reduces 84 to 90% of the wave energy while collecting and retaining
Silt-clay sediment collection fine-grained sediment. A mathematical model fits the sediment collection data reasonably well with average
Modeling correlation coefficients of about 0.87. Modeling results show that the sediment collection efficiency of the unit
Wave diffraction for fine-grained sediment is about 14%. Total area of flow through the unit was determined to be more important
than the area distributed among the number and size of pipes. The sensitivity study shows that wave height and
initial concentration are the most important factors effecting sediment collection.
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction the hydraulic loading to a desired level that maintains the dynamic
equilibrium of the shoreline.
Natural and induced waves cause land loss along edges of wetlands, Mild-type structures lessen wave energy that arrives at the coast,
watercourses, and shorelines. The resulting conversion of wetlands and and improve sediment deposition at the shoreline caused by locally in-
uplands to open water habitat in coastal areas is an issue of major duced wave diffraction and near shore movement behind the structure
international and national significance. This conversion has many inter- (Turner, 2006). McCormick (1993) identified the need for a predictive
related sources, but shoreline erosion along open water bodies (bays method for determining the effectiveness of different structures
and estuaries) and waterways (bayous, rivers, canals, and navigation on shoreline recession. Without a reliable method of predicting
channels) is one of the major causes. Numerous structures have been shoreline-response, an incorrectly designed or placed shoreline protec-
proposed and used to reduce shoreline erosion, but most are very tion device for the wave and site conditions can result in the configura-
expensive and restrict the flow of water into shallow-water areas. tion of an unnecessary tombolo or eroding down drift. Sediment
The latest shoreline protection designs are mild-type structures transport after a mild-type structure is affected by many causes,
(Makris and Memos, 2007) where waves are partly transmitted through including sediment supply, sediment properties, wave characteristics,
or above these permeable structures. The waves are moderately dissi- coastal region topography, and breakwater configurations (Ming and
pated by breaking on the coarse slopes and/or by turbulent abrasion Chiew, 2000). Further, conventional shoreline protective structures
within those structures (Dickson et al., 1995). There are extensive (e.g., terraces, sediment fences, breakwaters, and rip-rap) are expensive
examples of permeable structures such as porous breakwaters and to construct in these environments, and may impede environmental
shoreline protection devices. A porous structure allows waves to broad- exchanges that are essential for connectivity and functionality.
cast through it by means of energy dissipation (Huang and Chao, 1992). A need exists for structural measures that reduce shoreline and water
Pilarczyk (2003) showed that mild-type structure's purpose is to reduce bottom erosion as well as promote increased sedimentation so that im-
pacts to coastal shorelines are controlled. Pierce Industries, LLC, of Cut
Off, LA, invented a structure called modular shoreline protection/
⁎ Corresponding author. sediment retention system (Wave Robber™) as an alternative
E-mail address: Gang@louisiana.edu (D. Gang). to conventional measures. This device is patent pending with the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2015.08.003
0378-3839/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Wave heights in front and behind the area of pipe openings allowing for direct comparison of the performance unit were compared to calculate the wave reduction. and a plasticity index of 1.305 m tall sheet pile on the side of the unit (only nisms of the structure. Ratio (SNR) over 15. serving as shoreline protection along navigation material from Cut Off. Unit 1 contains 72. any waves away from the weir.23 m]. Unit 2 contains 10. shows the wave tank setup and details the test unit and wave sensor locations. The same sequence was then and diameters were selected. allowing for stability and reliable placement. This step was taken to the more shallow water when provided sufficient retention time. was used behind a 0. The back of the occasionally between units. Mathematical modeling was used to determine the most sensitive variables governing sediment collection. which enables the device to be filled with water. Wave reduction protection structure with units and weir.19.1 cm. 3. Fig. In this study. One important aspect is to optimize the number and the first 45 min. 5. After data acqui- sition. Fig. floatable modular construction of the Two different laboratory-scale units used for the experiments are units allows for easy delivery and installation. The wave and tide the structure's performance in terms of wave height reduction and sed. Three velocity tests were run at each height. Sample times up to 7 min were used in this ex- periment at a sampling frequency of 25 Hz. weir to allow trapped water to return. 2009). 2. 1. Experiments at each along shorelines. area of 0. The units within the structure are joined together with an occasional and Tide Recorder measured the wave pressure above the sensor. insure that the reduced wave energy. The velocities were measured at two heights (7. recorder measured wave properties of the area front of the unit for iment collection. and sediment collected behind Trapped water is allowed to return to the water body over weirs spaced the unit is transferred through the pipes of the unit. Each its implementation. As the wave hits the device. corresponding to the heights of the two rows of pipes of the unit. successful. Validation of velocity Velocity measurements were taken using an Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter (SonTek).53. All pipes are on a 1° slope which is used to help stabilize and reduce the weight. The two units have relatively the same repeated for the second unit. maintaining ecological and which was then converted to wave height using Hrms ≅ 2 √ 2var{γ}.91 cm diameter pipes while the which can destroy natural habitat in shallow water.68. Extensive additional tests are necessary to support water depth were conducted twice for the two different units. Experiment and equipment setup 2. Recorder (SBE 26plus. / Coastal Engineering 105 (2015) 13–20 of the two designs. Wave Robber™ mechanism in wave reduction and sediment collection.95. even in remote shallow.15 m wide. Along with the Wave heights were measured using the Sea Gauge Wave and Tide water. and 11. The laboratory testing was used to support mathe- matical analyses of these devices. 2. ture. The initial test showed the system has extraordinary potential for Wave height reduction experiments were conducted using three increasing sedimentation and reducing erosion in open water areas or different water depths [0. 1. The marsh protection structure with weirs (Pierce Industries. This kept the sediment transfer over a majority of the wave is reflected. The primary goals of this study were to quantify experiment was operated continuously for 90 min. Mean velocity at each height was then determined. and was then moved behind the unit for the last diameter of pipes that allow for optimum wave height reduction and 45 min. and being used in lieu of earthen dikes for limit of 47. A check valve prevents backflow through the Plumbers' Putty™ to prevent water and sediment from infiltrating pipe. 0. as well as potential removal and re-use. is the hollow cavity. The laboratory-scale units have a different water environments. Inc. but with similar cross-sectional pipe the structure reduces or eliminates the need for heavy equipment.. Wave tank and device setup All laboratory tests were conducted in a 3. self-contained. LLC).1. units were placed 0. and 0. 2015.2. 0.81 m long. an engineered anchoring system can be installed to ensure stabil.8 cm from the paddle. two units with different pipe numbers completed before changing the unit.508 m deep wave tank with a smooth floor. Experimental procedure used was similar to that described by other authors (Das et al. hydrologic connectivity.02 m2.3. Sea-Bird Electronics. data were filtered for correlation of over 70% and Sound to Noise Fig. Experiments for each of the three different water depths were sediment collection. 2004).83 m wide.14 N. this device could work with or replace breakwaters and jetties in many different soil conditions. and 0. If proven 5 by ASSHTO and OH by USCS (Das. Louisiana with a specific gravity of 2. The sensor was installed above the wave tank on an adjustable wooden and metal stand. This ADV takes 3-D velocity measurements at a sample volume 10 cm in front of the sensor.15 m tall weir shows the sediment collection and wave energy suppression mecha. One way diameter and number of pipes. which is classified as A-7- sediment retention. 177. liquid channels and canals. while the remaining energy forces the weir to a minimum.60 m away from the back of the wave tank. Sampling location was located in the center of the tank. Velocity measurements were taken at a water depth of 19.08 cm diameter pipes. while capturing suspended sediment from Soil used in the sediment collection study is an organic silty-clay tidal wave action. A sealed 0. The laboratory units were sealed with water through the pipes. shows the marsh 2. 2.6. The pipe openings within the unit provide a used during sediment experiments) angled toward the unit to deflect path for the water and sediment to travel. which was very close to the unit. 2. 1.15. all dimensions are in SI units. inside the struc. . shown in Figs. The Sea Gauge Wave ity. International Patent Publication number of W02011/044556a. McCoy et al. Fig. Fig.).4 cm). These features make this system unique. Suspended sediments trapped behind the unit tend to settle in between the unit and the wave tank's floor. 4 and 5. Precht and Hauttel. Pre-fabricated. from the front to the back of the unit. 1.

Miller and McKee (2004) the unit. A weir allows trapped water to return to the front is the flow rate of water entering the pipes. was added to during the experiments. N. Flow directions and variables are shown in Fig.4. The wave tank was allowed to 2. 6. about 50 mg/L. / Coastal Engineering 105 (2015) 13–20 15 Fig. 3. consisting of soil and water from the tank. Mathematical model development dt The laboratory units reflected the majority of the wave energy. Cf the remaining energy propagated water with the suspended sediment (mg/L) is the sediment concentration in front of the device. A standard method provided 4. McCoy et al. three minutes using mechanical stirrers. Sediment collection collection efficiency of the units. Part of the sediment set. approximately 50 mg/L TSS in the wave tank on both sides of the unit. Q in (m3/s) through the pipes. for the sediment in front of the unit as: dm f ¼ Q out C f ð1−α Þ−Q in C f ð1Þ 2. Unit 1 [1.19 m. the water within the area was mixed for returns to the front only over the weir. α was determined by a nonlinear regression software (Sigma found that the average TSS concentration in Louisiana coastal waters is Plot Version 11. Wave tank setup for wave reduction and sediment collection experiments. The wave tank was divided into two parts — the area in of water that returns to the front of the tank following assumption 3. 4. The water depth in the tank was 0. 1. Preliminary total suspended solids (TSS) experiments The following assumptions are needed to simplify and develop the conducted determined the total mass of soil needed (550 g) to achieve mass balance model. Water volume and sediment mass in the whole tank are constant The slurry. α front of the unit and the area behind the unit. Water transfers to the back of the unit only through the pipes and Before collecting the samples. ranging from 0 to 1 representing the sediment V f C f ¼ mf ð2Þ Fig. a mass balance equation can be written was taken. To calculate the sediment accumu- lated an average TSS concentration of the five samples from the back Applying these assumptions. (1998) was used to determine the TSS concentration and Deigaard (1993). Q out (m3/s) is the flow rate of the tank. A variable α. samples were collected from locations in front of the unit. was introduced into this model. . The definition of α is the mass ratio of the TSS concentration remaining The sediment collection experiment consisted of a 48 h run for each behind the unit to the total TSS concentration flowing into the back of unit.0). 3. while the remaining returns to the area in front of the total TSS concentration flowing into the back of the unit.5. the unit by flowing over the weir. The TSS concentration flowing through the pipes is the same as the run for one hour to evenly distribute the suspended sediment. The TSS concentration (Cc) flowing Knowing that: over the weir is assumed to be less than the sediment flowing through the pipes.91 cm diameter pipe unit]. by collecting five (5) water samples. is the mass ratio of the TSS concentration remaining behind the unit to tles behind the units. TSS movement follows the Longuet–Higgins theory from Fredsoe by Clesceri et al. 2. while where mf (grams) is the mass of sediment located in front of the unit. eight hours. each side of the unit proportionally. Every average TSS concentration in front of the unit.

Unit 2 [5. Overhead view of wave tank showing flow directions and variables used. f is the frequency of the waves (1/s). is the initial mass of the sediment behind the unit we get. 5. H is the wave height (m). 6. 1993): simplified Eq. (1): where Q is the water flow rate moving to the unit (m3/s). 1993). D is the water depth (m). mo (grams) is Assuming water flow through the pipes is proportional to the cross- the initial mass inside the tank. sectional area (Ap) of the pipes below the water surface gives Ap − αQ in Vf t Q in ¼ Q ð10Þ mb ¼ m0 −m f 0  e : ð7Þ Af Fig. and where mb (grams) is the mass of sediment behind the unit. and z is the sediment location within the water depth (m).16 N. where H is the wave height (m). 7. mb0 (grams) π is a constant. .08 cm diameter pipe unit]. T is the wave period (s). 4  tanhðkDÞ From Eq. k is the wave number (1/m). the overall horizontal velocity of the fluid particle (Δu) (m/s) will be (Fredsoe and Deigaard. (4) with mf = mf0 at t = 0 depth (m). w is the width mb þ m f ¼ mb0 þ m f 0 ¼ m0 ð6Þ of the wave tank (m). (1) to   " # dm f mf 1 πH 2 coshð2kzÞ ¼ −α ðQ in Þ ð4Þ Δu ¼ 2 ð8Þ dt Vf 2c T sinh ðkDÞ where Vf (m3) is the volume of water in the front area of the tank. shows the mechanism of fluid particle movement (Fredsoe and Deigaard. k is the wave number (1/m). D is the water arating the variables and integrating Eq. The over- all mass flow rate approaching the unit will be: αQ in −Vf t mf ¼ mf0  e ð5Þ wπH2 f Q¼ ð9Þ where mf 0 (grams) is the initial mass of the sediment in front of the unit. Q in ¼ Q out ð3Þ Following assumption 4. / Coastal Engineering 105 (2015) 13–20 Fig. Sep. McCoy et al. and Fig. c is the velocity of the wave (m/ yields: s).

Fig. 7. Fig. +50%. Schematic diagram of fluid particle movement.0025 m in wave height.83 m wide. 2. shows the SBR Wave Sensor data information on the wave reduc- tion of Unit 1 for a water depth of 0.60 m away from the back of the wave tank.66 m long. The time −α πH 2 f Ap t between 0 and 500 s is when the sensor was placed in front of Unit 1 mb ¼ m0 −m f 0 e ð Þ 4V f D tanh 2πD L ð12Þ showing a wave height of approximately 0. Fig. McCoy et al. 8. H1*. 8 shows   the wave height data reading in front and behind Unit 1.53 0. (11) into Eq. total pipe area (Ap). Sensitivity study the dimensionless values that represent the wave height plus the water depth divided by the height of the unit. Front Back 60 Unit 1 Unit 2 40 20 0 0. (7). The sensor was then placed behind Unit 1 from the time 600 until 2000 s recording approx- imately 0.19.6. Visual observations during the laboratory experiments showed that the device reflects the majority of each wave. and +100%) to determine how these variables 80 are affecting sediment collection of the unit.19 m.. These variables were changed by certain percent- Wave Height Reduction (percentage) ages (0%. Three different 4D  tanh L water depths [0. ±20%. (11). 9. water depth (D). The y-axis shows wave In order to determine the most important variables that affect the height reduction in percentage. and 0.19 m water depth.63 33 0. / Coastal Engineering 105 (2015) 13–20 17 Fig. 3. 0.23 m] were used during the experiment. and πH 2 f  Ap 0.1. . where Af is the water column cross section area (m2) and Af = wD. SBR wave sensor data in 0. Results and discussion L and Eq. N. 1. the final equation for Substituting k ¼ 2π Q in will be: 3. H2*. Wave reduction The experiment was conducted in a 3.15 m. the final equation for predicting travels through the pipes into the quiescent pool behind the unit. the remaining wave energy Substituting Eq. shows measured wave height reductions during the laboratory experiments. and H3* values for the three performance of the device in sediment collection. sensitivity studies were conducted with the following variables: wave height (H). The y-axis from Fig. Wave reduction by the two different units at three different water depths.733 3 W Water De epth + W ave Height/ Unit He eight Fig.15. 9. (10) into Eq. The x-axis shows H*. and 100 wave frequency (f).31 m deep wave tank with a smooth floor with the back of the units Q in ¼  : ð11Þ 2πD placed 0. 8. initial TSS concentration (mfo/Vf). sediment accumulation behind is obtained.

Wave diffraction from the experiment conducted by Briggs et al. 11.3. calculation.94 35 175 TSS Concentration Sediment Collection 60 30 TSS Concentration (mg/L) 150 Mass (grams) Sediment Collection (g) 25 125 45 20 100 30 15 75 50 10 15 25 5 0 0 0 0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 0 8 16 24 32 40 48 Time (hour) Time (hour) Fig. main reason for the large reduction in wave height at H1* is most likely from the limited amount of water going through the pipes. with 0.19 0.2. The pipe area 0. and 0. a reduction of 84.98 cm/s) was calculated reached the bottom row of pipes this allowed only a limited amount using Eq. Table 2 lists the mean velocity values near the units at different Z 45 values. and With H3*.633. TSS concentration and computed sediment accumulation for Unit 2.131 R2: 0. The initial sediment The 80% or better reduction in wave heights was observed in these mass behind Unit 1 was 12. and Ming and Chiew (2000) reported sand collection but no 3. . has more wall friction than Unit 2 with 0. Yu (1995). 10.733.019 m diameter pipes.2%.68. Sediment Collection 175 D1 (m) D2 (m) D3 (m) H1* H2* H3* 60 TSS Concentration (mg/L) Sediment Collection (g) 150 0.15 0. A depth of water through the units with the water depth of 0. Sediment collection results Unit 1.19 m. The experiment was conducted in a 3. collection rate of 0.19 m with a wave height of 0.20–2. Fredsoe and Deigaard (1993). McCoy et al. for a net sediment mass collected of 17.15 m of water. Velocity validation results silt clay collection through breakwaters. The difference in wave height reduction between the units may be from the differences of the pipe diameters of the two units.8 g. The Unit 1 Unit 2 40 200 75 Model : 0. The Fig. 8.05 m diameter pipes.02 m2.31 m deep wave tank with a smooth floor. This wave height reduction occurred in a depth of 0.7 g over the 48-hour ex- experiments is as good as most breakwaters currently in use at wave periment. which was observed during the experiment.18 N. that the unit is collecting and retaining sediment. The pipe area for both units is 0.80 cm/s. and Makris and Memos The TSS concentration and mass observed behind the unit shows (2007) reported 40% and 80% wave reduction through breakwaters.4 1. Louisiana with a laboratory experiment could be that more water was going over the top specific gravity of 2. Fig. 60%.79 50 11. Unit 1 had a wave height reduction of 90. 30 75 D (cm) Z (cm) Mean velocity (cm/s) 19.37 g/h.80 Model : 0.80 15 25 0 0 laboratory tests were 0. The water depth during the H2* experiments was 0. 10.733 125 45 Table 2 100 Velocity validation results. Huang and Chao (1992). Because the water depth partly theoretical particle velocity range (1. / Coastal Engineering 105 (2015) 13–20 200 75 Table 1 TSS Concentration Experiment conditions water depth and dimensionless units.1 7.6%. Another possible collection experiments. 1.05 m was used for the two sediment under water in H3* is 50% larger than that in H1*. 3. Fig.23 m. 0. Table 1 0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 shows the water depth and dimensionless units.633 0.66 m long.530 0. samples taken from the tank was 48 mg/L in front of Unit 1.83 m wide. Unit 2 showed Longuet–Higgins theory in the mathematical model is reasonable.147 R2: 0. Sediment collection data fitted to the model of the 2 units.6 1. TSS concentrations and computed sediment accumulation for Unit 1. The validation results show that the assumption of the For H2*. This is due to more pipes being available to transfer the placed 0. Soil reason for lower wave height reduction at H3* from observation of the used is an organic silty-clay material from Cut Off. The measured velocity is within the range of the theoretical of water to go through the device causing the higher wave reduction. 12.23 0.530. increasing to 30. McCormick (1993). with the back of the units of H1* and H2*. shows average TSS concentrations behind Unit 1 during a 48-hour (1995) showed the breakwater reduced wave heights by about 20 to period and TSS mass collected. The average initial TSS concentration of 5 of the unit causing more waves behind the unit than that of H1* and H2*. the wave height reduction (about 80%) is lower than that 0.60 m away from the back of the wave tank. It can be seen that the velocity is around 1. Time (hour) Units 1 and 2 both showed about 90% wave height reduction for H1*. respectively.9 g and a sediment height reduction.

11 shows the TSS concentrations and sediment mass collected interval of each other. . Statistically. The initial sediment mass of 15. the difference lected and retained sediment. 12.0 mg/L Mass of Sediment (gram) 80 23 min-1 Mass of Sediment (gram) 112 mg/L 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 c 10 d 10 0 0 0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 Time (hour) Time (hour) 100 0.010 meter2 0.04 meters 0. Total area of flow through the unit increasing at a steady rate of approximately 0.6% 80% 175 35.0) in Unit 1 90% 90.8 mg/L 13.06 meters Wave Height (H) 90 0. It can be concluded that the two units have similar behind unit 2 was 182 mg/L.80. The difference in pipe num- increased to 35. The results are shown in Fig. The α values.e.23 m TSS concentration Mass R2 α Eq. 015 meter2 70 0.10 meters 80 0. 10 and 11. e.2% 80% 170 30. McCoy et al.38 meters 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 e 0 0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80 Time (hour) Fig.7 0. were fit to 0. The t-test provided by sigma plot showed a behind Unit 2 for an initial TSS concentration of 79 mg/L on back side P value of the test was less than 0.020 meter2 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 a b 10 0 0 0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 Time (hour) 100 Time (hour) 100 11. Mathematical modeling results Summary of results from experiments.19 m 0.23 meters Water Depth (D) 80 0. Sediment accu- mulation sensitive to wave frequency. N.0001 meaning there is no significant of the unit.15 m 0. Therefore. uted among the number and size of pipes.2 mg/L Initial Concentration (mfo/Vf) 80 17.008 meter2 80 0.19 meters 90 0. The results are similar to those for Unit 1. b. / Coastal Engineering 105 (2015) 13–20 19 Table 3 3.26 meters Mass of Sediment (gram) 0. respectively. Sediment accumulation sensitive to pipe area. c.8 min-1 Wave Frequency (f) 67.131. 13.012 meter2 Pipe Area (Ap) Mass of Sediment (gram) Mass of Sediment (gram) 70 0.42 g/h over the the pipes was found to be more important than how that area is distrib- course of the experiment. d.4.15 meters 0.05 meters 100 90 0. Sediment accumulation sensitive to water depth. the device col. difference between the data and the model. Structure Wave reduction by depth Sediment collection Model results Sediment accumulation data shown in Figs.5 min-1 56. obtained from nonlinear regression software (Sigma Plot Version 11.2 g. Sediment accumulation sensitive to intial concentration. It can be seen that the model (mg/L) (g) fits the data well with R2 value above 0.25 min-1 84. 11.94 0. shows that the mass of the sediment collected behind lection if the total open areas are the same.7 g over 48 h for a total sediment mass collection of ber or pipe diameter of the two units does not affect the sediment col- 20.0 mg/L 90 9. a. The highest average TSS concentration of α can be ignored. i. Sediment accumulation sensitive to wave height.147 Unit 2 90% 84.5 g sediment collection efficiency (13% to 15%).7 0.147 and 0.131 Fig. 12. Fig.07 meters 0. there is no significant difference between the α values of the two units because the two data points overlapped within the 99% confidence Fig. Suh and Dalrymple (1987) 100 0.80 0.2 min-1 90 44. The α value for Unit 1 is slightly larger than that of Unit 2. 12 for Unit 1 and Unit 2 are 0.

K. This model could modeling conducted on the units.I. Thornton. pipe area RD-B-07. World Scientific cumulation relative to the change in initial TSS concentration. Offshore breakwaters in laboratory and field. Wave diffraction around breakwaters. J. Water depth also plays an important role in that it reduced the sediment sponse with respect to changes in the input parameters. C.20 N. 13e shows sediment accumulation Coast. M. 50%. H. 119. Waterw. Rapid wave-driven advective pore water exchange in a permeable coastal sediment. Eaton..D. C. the pipes.J. McKee. World Scientific Publishing Co. Remote Sens. in Fig. Reflection and transmission of water wave by porous breakwater.. and e respectively. R. c.. Ocean Eng. Vincent. The average open pipe area beneath the water surface of the two Acknowledgments units (Ap = 0.H.. initial TSS concentration (mfo/vf). In: Clesceri.87. Thompson. 2–57 (2-58).5. 102–121... This involved collection as the water became deeper. The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers. Chao. 121. Makris. Wave reflection from breakwater. 4. gain is increased 30% by doubling the pipe area (2Ap) which allows Fredsoe. The model fits the experimental data reasonably well. Using MODIS terra 250 m imagery to map concentrations of total suspended matter in coastal waters. Oxford. 1992. Ltd. Design of low-crested (submerged) structures — an overview. Colombo.S. 657–670. 1995. Laboratory-scale tests of the units provided useful data for design Suh. Ocean Eng. E. TechniquesPhuket Island: Thailand Testing and Measurement: Techniques and gy transfers to the sediment bed causing less sediment to suspend and Applications pp. 118. As wave height and initial TSS concentrations doubled. Lisbon. A. B. labeled in Fig..8H) decreased sediment accumulation by about 23%. and water depth (D).S. Both units collected and retained Yu.. Mazumdar. The average α value of the two units (α = This work was supported by the University of Louisiana. R. Environ. 2009. 1995. 2015. Table 3 shows the results of the laboratory and an average correlation coefficient of about 0. Each variable was changed by ± 20. 23–35.. Herbers. Waterw. increases with constant water depth. 1993).V. Model re- qualities of the two units tested which will help to optimize the design sults show that fine-grained sediment collection efficiency is about 14% in the future. Port Coast.01 m2) was used in this sensitivity study because these areas are almost the same. C.M. .-M. L. Greenberg. sediment bed. D. less water (with TSS) is able to flow into the unit (see Eq. M. Conclusions COPEDEC.. L. 2006.. A. + 50. J. 1987. Pierce 0. Ocean Eng. P. Decreasing the wave height by 20% Clesceri..139) was used for all analyses as well. Portugal.L. M.. by 90% at different water depths while Unit 2 reduced wave height 84% Turner. Ocean Eng. At the same time. 6–7. J. Port Coast. 132.L. Sri Lanka. Briggs. but the collection efficiency to 15%). 2007. T. Ocean Eng. Soil mechanics laboratory manual. Port Coast. 249–252. 1993... L.E. Oxford University Press.. Eaton. Waterw..). yielding was not reported. the per. Sea Res.. 1998. 2000. creased by 34% when water depth was doubled. shows the results of Industries. A. pp. 2015 International Conference on Testing and Measurement vice (Fredsoe and Deigaard. 121. (2D). 13a shows that sediment accumulation increases by 45% when J. Standard methods for the examination of (0. 12) Ming.F.. Mechanics of Coastal Sediment Transport. Shoreline changes behind detached breakwater. more energy is transferred to the Baltimore. A.E. New Jersey. eters constant and observing the effect of this change on the model out- put. 93–107. relative to the change in water depth. Chiew. Hauttel. 51. Precht. K. pp. W.. As the water depth increases. Waterw. Mechanics of coastal sediment transport.D. J. 93. A. Y. of waves. J. Port Coast. Inc. J. Pte. The sensitivity study showed that wave height and ambient TSS concentration were the most important factors effecting 3. Ocean Eng. (Ap). 13b. J. 63–70. Pilarczyk. of sediment gain decreases by 34% when doubling the water depth Nielsen. doubling the wave height (2H). 13. Fig. R. 1993). Similarly. Das. 180–191. Fig. (Fredsoe and Deigaard. The sediment collection de- changing each model parameter in turn while keeping all other param. flow through the units. Discrimination modes of shoreline response to offshore-detached structures. The study showed that the percentage Port Coast. the ambient TSS concentration (2*mf0/vf) increases sediment gain by Huang. more water is able to flow through the de. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. Das. Equilibrium shoreline response to breakwaters. (Eds.. These results summarize the best become useful for evaluating this device and existing devices. Singapore. J. Velocity profile measurement technique for scour using ADV..C. pp. Fig.. 275–282.E. the percentage of sediment Dickson.. Greenberg.L. and evaluation of the technology. As wave height water and wastewater.H. J. Diffraction of water waves by porous breakwaters. R. for the two units. 2004. the more likely the sediment will be suspended and moved McCormick. 13d shows that by doubling the wave frequency (2f). Waterw. 113.. Memos.. River Edge. Waterw. less ener. Unit 1 reduces incoming wave heights Port Coast. As wave height decreases. Fig. Waterw. 2003. 126. In: Fredsoe. sediment collection increased by 45% and 50% respectively. more water to flow through the device. Dalrymple. fine-grained sediment with similar sediment collection efficiency (13% Ocean Eng. and + 100% to see the effect on model References outputs. 13c shows the sediment ac. Miller. and Louisiana Board of Regents under LEQSF (2011-14)- these studies that examined changes in wave height (H). E. I.. Doubling Publishing.. 437–452. 13 as a. causing more sediment to suspend and move through Das. 259–266.. 1993. S.. McCoy et al.. performance of formulae and models. X.. 1992. wave frequency (f). Ocean Eng. 2004.A.. 1995. Wave transmission over submerged breakwaters: Fig.. A sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the model's re. Sensitivity study of the model results sediment accumulation. (Eds. B. Deigaard.). b. International Offshore and Polar Engineering centage of sediment gain is increased by 30%. 2613–2620.D. 6th International Conference on Coastal and Port Engineering in Developing Countries. Waterw. E.. 1992). under the experimental conditions. / Coastal Engineering 105 (2015) 13–20 modeled breakwaters for sand collection. Coastal bottom boundary layers and sediment transport.B.A.. Deigaard. United Book Press.S. J. The higher the frequency Conference. d. Port along the bed (Nielsen. Port Coast. 121. R. 262–268.