Coastal Engineering 121 (2017) 14–25

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

EOF analysis of shoreline and beach slope variability at a feeder beach MARK
constructed within a groin field at Long Branch, New Jersey
⁎
Laura Lemke, Jon K. Miller
Davidson Laboratory, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: The morphologic evolution of a beach nourishment project constructed in Long Branch, New Jersey, USA is
EOF analysis investigated using the method of empirical orthogonal functions (EOF). Most applications of EOFs on beach fill
Beach nourishment projects have focused on traditional linear fills on relatively long, straight, uninterrupted coastlines. The Long
Groin Branch project was unique in that it was designed as a feeder beach and was constructed within a groin field.
The method of EOF analysis is applied to help identify patterns representing distinct physical processes in data
sets of shoreline position and shoreline slope at the site. The first three modes, determined from the shoreline
position data set, explain more than 90% of the variation from the mean shoreline. The first and third modes
represent variations of the fill's spreading as material moved to the north in the direction of the net littoral drift.
Several shore-perpendicular structures interrupt the longshore transport and regulate the spreading. One of
these structures is a large outfall pipe that was identified during the beach profile surveys to have a dominant
influence over the shoreline evolution. The second mode identified in the shoreline data set is related to seasonal
or storm impacts, and represents the transition between a reflective summer condition and a dissipative winter
state. Several of the modes derived from the beach slope data set, represent processes similar to those identified
in the shoreline data set. The first mode explains 43.1% of the variation in the beach slope data, and represents
the seasonal transition between reflective and dissipative beach states. The second mode represents the
equilibration of slopes within the beach fill and the initial spreading of the fill. Derivatives of the temporal
coefficients of both the shoreline and beach slope data sets are consistent with a reduction in the rate of changes
as equilibrium is approached, and an acceleration of changes during storms.

1. Introduction
In February 2009, a 535,000 m3, $9 million beach nourishment
project was completed in Long Branch, New Jersey. This project was
part of the New York District of the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, Beach Erosion Control
Project. Since the completion of the project, the Davidson Laboratory
at Stevens Institute of Technology has been conducting combined
topographic and bathymetric surveys of the site using their DUCKS
system [6]. While beach nourishment projects have been extensively
studied, much of this research has focused on traditional linear fills
located on relatively straight and uninterrupted coastlines. The typical
behavior of these fills including, their half-life, characteristics of their
morphologic evolution, and the influence of background erosion, has
been well established. The beach fill template used at Long Branch
however, was non-traditional in that it included a feeder beach and was
constructed within an existing groin field. The groin field significantly
influenced the spreading of the fill material. While, the influence of
groins and shore perpendicular structures has been well studied; their
influence on the evolution of beach fill projects has not. The primary
objective of this research was to analyze how the interacting groin field
and material spreading contributed to the observed morphological
evolution at Long Branch. In order to achieve this objective, the
method of empirical orthogonal function (EOF) analysis was chosen
due to its documented ability to objectively identify patterns within
complex data sets, and to determine the relative significance of these
patterns. The rate of change of the different processes represented by
the identified patterns can also be evaluated by examining the
derivatives of the temporal coefficients determined through the EOF
analysis.
2. Site description
The city of Long Branch lies along the northern New Jersey
coastline, approximately 20 km south of the entrance to New York
Harbor (Fig. 1). Unlike the majority of the New Jersey coast which

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: llemke@stevens.edu (L. Lemke), jmiller@stevens.edu (J.K. Miller).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2016.11.001
Received 22 February 2015; Received in revised form 1 November 2016; Accepted 5 November 2016
Available online 25 December 2016
0378-3839/ © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
L. Lemke, J.K. Miller
Fig. 1. Site location map.
consists of barrier islands, Long Branch sits on a coastal bluff
approximately 8 m above sea level. The site is micro-tidal with a mean
tidal range of 1.3 m, and is partially sheltered from waves from the
north by Long Island. The majority of the waves (~80%) approach from
the southeast quadrant, and are typically less than 1.5 m in height
(87.5%). The net littoral transport in the area is to north, and has been
estimated at between 245,000 and 375,000 m3/yr [7]. A total of 38
groins of various types currently exist in the city of Long Branch, with
many of them having been constructed in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries. In addition to the groins, a variety of other approaches have
been used to try to reduce erosion and protect the bluff, ranging from
sand dunes, to bulkheads, to seawalls, to revetments. Between nour-
ishment projects, the beach in Long Branch typically takes on the
erosion/accretion fillet pattern associated with littoral barriers.
Construction of the beach nourishment project took place between
November 2008 and February 2009 under dredging contractor Weeks
Marine, Inc. The project included a central trapezoidal feeder beach
designed to nourish adjacent areas as it eroded. The feeder beach was
designed with the berm extending 152 m from the existing seawall,
with the toe of the fill extending an additional 122 m. In the area
outside the feeder beach, the berm was extended 91 m from the seawall
as a traditional linear fill. During construction the contractor encoun-
tered difficulties achieving the design template within the feeder region
once offshore depths reached approximately 8 m. These difficulties
were due to the fill material spreading faster than it could be placed. As
a result, the final construction template was modified such that the toe
of the fill was placed 90 m closer to the shoreline than originally
intended, reducing the extent of the fill from that which was called for
in the original design. A plan view of the completed project is provided
in Fig. 2. As indicated in the figure, the fill buried many of the existing
structures within the groin field. These groins, as well as two long
outfall pipes just north of the project site, significantly influence
sediment transport. Each reinforced concrete pipe is pile supported
and extends approximately 150 m across the beach face and into the
surfzone. The offshore end of the smaller (~1 m diameter) pipe was
15
Coastal Engineering 121 (2017) 14–25
often elevated above the bed throughout the monitoring period
reducing its impact on the sediment transport, while the larger (~2 m
diameter) pipe typically sat on the bottom creating a more significant
obstruction. As the fill equilibrated, several notched groins north of the
fill placement were found to be effective in allowing sediment to move
along the shoreline.
At the request of the State of New Jersey, the Davidson Laboratory
at Stevens Institute of Technology developed a monitoring plan
designed to capture the morphologic changes of the beach as the fill
spread. The original monitoring plan [6] consisted of 54 profiles spaced
38 m apart. These profiles were to be surveyed weekly during the first
month, biweekly during the second month, and monthly thereafter.
Within the first month of surveying it became necessary to add profile
lines to the north and remove some to the south, as observations
indicated that sediment was being transported north outside of the
original monitoring area. The lines added to the north were spaced up
to 122 m apart. This change resulted in a final monitoring plan
consisting of 64 profiles lines, covering a shoreline length of 2.8 km
(Fig. 2). Due to the rapid pace of the changes that were observed during
the initial monitoring, surveys were performed weekly for the first two
months, biweekly for the third month, monthly for the remainder of the
first year, and less frequently thereafter.
Surveys were conducted using the Dynamic Underwater and
Coastal Kinematic Surveying (DUCKS) system [4]. Topographic data
was collected using a backpack mounted GPS unit, while bathymetric
data was collected through use of a jet-ski mounted unit. To maximize
the likelihood of achieving a good overlap between the terrestrial and
subaqueous data sets, the topographic data was collected near low tide,
while the bathymetric data was collected near high tide. Data was
collected along profile lines which extended perpendicular to the
shoreline from the dune or seawall offshore to the approximate depth
of closure (approximately −9 m NGVD29 [National Geodetic Vertical
Datum of 1929]). In addition, shoreline positon data was collected
during the topographic survey by walking along the 0.91 m NGVD29
contour line, which is approximately mean high water (MHW) at the
L. Lemke, J.K. Miller
Fig. 2. Long Branch nourishment project plan and monitoring lines.
site. The results presented here predominantly utilize the topographic
portion of the survey data, for which [4] reported root mean square
errors of 14.7 cm horizontally and 6.9 cm vertically. The decision to
only utilize the topographic portion of the data was based on its higher
accuracy and greater resolution at the shoreline. Additionally, for some
of the surveys only the topographic portion could be completed due to
weather conditions. Utilizing all available land data, regardless of
whether a complementary bathymetric portion was completed, im-
proved the temporal resolution of the EOF analysis results.
Monitoring of the site indicated that the feeder beach eroded as
expected with the majority of the material being transported north in
the direction of the net littoral drift. Between Surveys 1 (2/10/2009)
and 31 (6/28/2011), the project site experienced a net loss of
280,000 m3, with 182,000 m3 transported north to downdrift beaches.
16
Coastal Engineering 121 (2017) 14–25
Of the 535,000 m3 placed in February 2009, 88,000 m3 were unac-
counted for in June 2011. It is likely that a significant portion of this
material was transported north, out of the monitoring area. This
observation is based on the fact that only minimal spreading to the
south was observed, and that little to no change was measured in the
deeper depths (beyond the depth of closure) throughout the survey
period. During surveys, qualitative observations suggested morpholo-
gical changes appeared to occur in several stages [5]. The first stage
included the initial spreading of the fill. During this stage, slopes
remained stable within the feeder section of the project, while the
shoreline eroded up to 61 m. Changes north of the large outfall pipe
located near Profile 6 were minimal. The second stage corresponded to
the bypassing of the large outfall pipe as the fill material spread north
of Profile 6. This resulted in an increase in elevation and widening of
L. Lemke, J.K. Miller Coastal Engineering 121 (2017) 14–25

Fig. 3. Wave height and direction. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

the beaches in the northern part of the monitoring area. Stage three Since these earliest applications, the method has been utilized in
commenced when the groins, which were initially buried during the studies of longshore variability. In Australia, during the 1980s, the
project's construction, reemerged and began exerting an influence over variability in sediment volume in the berm, swash, and inter-tidal zone
nearshore changes. Stage four was related to the onset of the first full was analyzed by Clarke et al. [1]. It was found that the first mode
winter storm season, during which major changes were observed. explained more than half of the variation in the data and was related to
These included a significant reduction in the berm height as the beach cross-shore sediment transport. Subsequent modes with identifiable
transitioned to a winter profile. Offshore bars formed and connected to nodal points were found to be associated with longshore processes.
the exposed groins, and the shoreline within the feeder feature eroded EOF analysis has also been applied to the study of nourished
up to 119 m from its post construction position. beaches. Specifically, Larson et al. [3] applied the technique to data
Over the duration of this study, several major storms impacted the collected at Ocean City, Maryland, Sylt, Germany, and Silver Strand,
project site. These included Hurricane Bill (August 22, 2009), the California. Each site had different sediment properties, wave climates,
October 15, 2009 Nor’easter, the November 14, 2009 Veteran's Day and beach nourishment designs. Generally, it was found that the lowest
storm, and the March 12, 2010 Nor’easter. The wave heights and modes were related to the long-shore and cross-shore spreading of the
directions measured at NOAA NDBC buoy 44025 just offshore of the fill material, while higher modes related to seasonal and storm-induced
site are shown in Fig. 3. Here, the above-mentioned major storms have changes. By studying the temporal eigenfunctions Larson et al. deter-
been identified using red vertical lines. mined that it took approximately one year for the nourished beach to
return to equilibrium if the fill material was placed in the active profile.
However, if the fill material was placed higher on the beach, such as in
3. Methodology
the subaerial zone, the time to reach equilibrium was greater.
In this study, EOF analysis was used to examine specific beach
To understand the impact both the beach nourishment and groin
characteristics including shoreline position and beach slope. Time
field had on the morphology of the project site at Long Branch,
series of shoreline positions and slopes, extracted from data collected
empirical orthogonal function (EOF) analysis was used. EOF analysis,
during seventeen surveys ranging from February 10, 2009 to June 28,
also commonly referred to as principle component analysis (PCA), is a
2011 were analyzed. A complete list of the surveys used in this analysis
data reduction method used to describe a data set by the least number
is given in Table 1. A continuous 0.91 m NGVD29 contour line was
of independent functions. These functions, also referred to as modes of
generated for each survey, representing the MHW shoreline. Cross-
variability, are comprised of a spatial and a temporal component. The
shore distances were measured every 30 m from a landward base line
percentage of variance explained by each mode can be determined,
parallel to the shoreline. Additional measurements were made near
allowing a ranking of modes by their contribution to the total
shore-perpendicular structures to better represent the shoreline shape.
variability in the data set. The first mode explains the greatest
At each profile line average shore-face beach slopes were calculated
percentage of the variation within the data set, the second explains
over a vertical change of approximately 0.6 m centered about 0 m
the greatest percentage of the remaining variability, and so on.
NGVD29.
Although this method is strictly a mathematical data analysis technique
EOF analyses can either be performed on raw or demeaned data
with no built in knowledge of the underlying physics, it is often possible
sets. When performed on a raw data set, the first mode represents a
to relate the results to physical processes. For this reason, EOFs have
time varying version of the mean beach, as found by Winant [9].
been widely used, including in coastal studies.
The EOF technique was originally developed in the early 1900s, by
Pearson [8] and Hotelling [2], as a method to determine underlying Table 1
patterns in seemingly random data. Initial uses of EOF analysis for Long Branch topographical surveys.
coastal studies were concentrated on cross-shore variability. In the
Survey Date Survey Date Survey Date
1970s, beach profile data collected at Torrey Pines Beach, California
was analyzed using EOFs by Winant et al. [9]. In their results, most of 1 02/10/2009 13 06/24/2009 21 12/09/2009
the variation in the beach profiles was explained by the lowest three 3 02/24/2009 14 07/20/2009 23 03/18/2010
modes. The first mode was determined to be the mean beach function, 8 04/09/2009 16 08/26/2009 25 07/22/2010
9 04/23/2009 17 09/15/2009 27 09/08/2010
explaining the majority of the variation contained within the data set.
10 05/13/2009 18 10/06/2009 31 06/28/2011
Once this mean was removed, subsequent functions represented 11 06/04/2009 20 11/17/2009
variations about the mean beach.

17
L. Lemke, J.K. Miller
Oftentimes, this can mask important underlying patterns which are
often of more interest. In the present work, EOF analyses are
performed on both the raw and demeaned (temporal mean for each
location was subtracted from the location's measurements) data sets, to
capture information about both the mean beach and variations about
the mean.
4. Results and discussion
When the raw data sets are analyzed, it is found that the dominance
of the mean beach/slope functions obscures many of the underlying
patterns of interest. For this reason, the majority of the subsequent
discussion is focused on the analysis of the demeaned data, where the
individual modes represent variations from the mean. The derivatives
of the temporal coefficients are also analyzed to provide information
about the rates at which the changes described by each mode are taking
place. To do this, the slope between two adjacent points was calculated
and plotted at the end of each respective time period. These analyses
were used to evaluate both the shoreline position and nearshore slope
data sets.
4.1. Shoreline position
4.1.1. Spatial and temporal eigenfunctions
The first mode derived from the EOF analysis of the original
shoreline data represents the mean beach and describes the general
shape of the shoreline. Higher modes resulting from the EOF analysis
of the original data are obscured because the first mode describes such
an overwhelming proportion (99%) of the total variance.
To highlight the underlying patterns associated with the spreading
of the beachfill and the influence of the groins, the analysis was
performed a second time on the demeaned data. When performed in
this manner, the lowest modes represent the most significant variations
about the mean shoreline. The first four spatial and temporal eigen-
functions calculated following the removal of the mean are displayed in
Figs. 4 and 5, along with a summary of the results (Table 2). The
horizontal zero in the plots of spatial coefficients represents zero
variation from the mean, or simply the mean beach. Green vertical
Fig. 4. First four spatial eigenfunctions following analysis of shoreline position. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.).
18
Coastal Engineering 121 (2017) 14–25
lines are used to represent the location of the groins and the two long
outfall pipes in the spatial eigenfunction plot, while red lines are used
to identify the major storms in the temporal coefficient plot. These lines
are used consistently throughout the figures to help identify important
events and beach responses.
The first mode, which explains 58.1% of the total variation in the
demeaned data set, identifies a nodal point 762 m north of the center of
the fill and an extreme located at the center of the fill. The nodal point
is located at the location of the large outfall pipe, discussed above,
which is located between Profiles 5 and 6 (Fig. 2). During the field
surveys, this structure was noted to have a significant influence on the
sediment transport by restricting the spread of the fill to the northern
portion of the survey area. The temporal coefficients associated with
the first mode consistently decrease with the exception of one
disturbance, associated with the 2009 Veteran's Day Storm.
To more clearly show the trend described by the first mode, the data
was reconstructed in Fig. 6 using the first mode's spatial eigenfunction
and selected temporal coefficients. The figure clearly illustrates the
consistent shoreline recession south of the large outfall pipe. The
recession is particularly evident at the center of the fill where the fill
material moves away from this area to the north and south. As the
shoreline recedes at this location, the beaches north of the large outfall
pipe accrete. This spreading was clearly observed by surveyors in the
field throughout the monitoring period. Between the first (02/10/2009)
and last (06/28/2011) survey considered in this analysis, 119 m of
shoreline recession was measured at the center of the fill. The
reconstruction of the data using the first mode shows that 103 m of
this change can be explained by this mode alone. Although secondary
to the spreading of the fill, small irregularities related to the presence of
the shore-perpendicular structures are also observable in the first
mode.
The second spatial eigenfunction illustrates the influence of shore-
perpendicular structures on the shoreline morphology. Near most of
the structures there is an abrupt change in the value of the spatial
eigenfunction, e2(x), across the structure. One of largest occurrences is
located 760 m north of the center of the fill at the large outfall pipe. The
second spatial eigenfunction has two sets of nodes located north of the
center of the fill near the large outfall pipe and approximately 75 m
L. Lemke, J.K. Miller Coastal Engineering 121 (2017) 14–25

Fig. 5. First four temporal eigenfunctions following analysis of shoreline position. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.).

Nor’easter in March 2010 and the Veteran's Day Storm in November

Table 2 2009. These two winter storms resulted in the two narrowest beaches
Shoreline variation explained by modes. as illustrated by the second mode. The seasonal trend described by the
second mode suggests that the typical summer berm/winter bar
Mode e1(x) e2(x) e3(x) e4(x) Remainder
explains a significant portion of the shoreline variation. This result is
Total variance explained (%) Raw Data 99.7 0.22 0.04 0.02 0.03 supported by observations made during the field surveys, where it was
Total variance explained (%) 58.1 23.4 10.2 3.49 4.78 observed that the onset of the first full winter storm season resulted in
Demeaned Data
major changes in shoreline position. During the winter of 2009, the
temporal coefficients, though negative, were relatively small. It was not
south of the center of the fill. Apart from the small section of beach until the winter of 2010 that the full seasonal trend was observed,
about these nodes, the second spatial eigenfunction is consistently corresponding to the fourth stage of morphological change observed
negative. This consistency indicates that the second mode represents during the surveys.
the entire beach either eroding or widening as a whole depending on The third mode displays a variation in how the field of shore-
the sign of the temporal coefficients, c2(t). A seasonal pattern can be perpendicular structures influences the longshore sediment transport.
identified from the temporal coefficients of the second mode. Although The third mode contains clear nodes which differentiate areas of
this pattern did not hold during the winter of 2011, survey data during accretion and erosion. One of these nodes occurs 1370 m north of
this time period was sparse. This pattern is associated with a winter the center of the fill, where the smaller of the two outfall pipes is
shoreline recession and summer advancement. Also identifiable in the located. The outfall is located half-way between Profiles 105 and 106.
second mode are several extremes associated with coastal storms The second node is located adjacent to a groin 305 m north of the
passing offshore of the project site. These storms included a powerful center of the fill, between Profiles 17 and 18 (Fig. 2), and within the
area of the initial fill placement. Other shore-perpendicular structures

Fig. 6. Reconstruction of shoreline position data from the first eigenfunction.

19
L. Lemke, J.K. Miller
Fig. 7. Reconstruction of shoreline position data from the third eigenfunction. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure, the reader is referred to the web version of this
article.)
also create disturbances in the spatial eigenfunction. To better depict
the relationship between the spatial eigenfunction and the calculated
temporal coefficients, the data was reconstructed using the third spatial
eigenfunction and select temporal coefficients (Fig. 7).
As shown in Fig. 7, initially, in the area between the nodes the
beach is shorter than the mean beach. This is illustrated by the solid
blue line which represents the first survey. The temporal coefficients for
the third mode increase from negative to positive through May 2009,
and then level off and remain positive through November 2009. As
illustrated by Surveys 11 (6/4/2009) and 16 (8/27/2009) in Fig. 7, this
corresponds to periods of time when the section of beach between the
two nodes was wider than the mean beach while the area to the north
was narrower than the mean. After November 2009, the temporal
coefficients consistently decrease, as the section of beach between the
two nodes becomes narrower and the area to the north widens. The
final two surveys, Surveys 23 (3/18/2010) and 31 (6/28/2011),
included in Fig. 7, illustrate this trend.
Summarizing this behavior, the shoreline in the area just north of
the fill up to the smaller outfall pipe builds out immediately after the fill
and continues to do so until July when a somewhat stable position is
reached. After remaining stable for several months, the shoreline in
this area slowly erodes although passing storms disrupt this pattern.
The shoreline in the area north of the smaller outfall pipe widens as the
area south of the pipe erodes. This is consistent with sand accumulat-
ing on the updrift side of the pipe until bypassing is initiated, at which
time the material finally spreads to the northernmost section of the
monitoring area. This behavior is consistent with the first two stages of
morphologic changed identified during the field surveys. Fluctuations
in the shoreline position described by the third mode are on the order
of ± 20 m relative to the mean beach.
4.1.2. Rate of change of temporal coefficients
For each temporal function, the first derivative was calculated to
help identify patterns in the rate of change associated with each of the
characteristic behaviors identified in the EOF analysis. The results for
the first three modes are shown in Fig. 8. The rates associated with the
first and third modes (which relate to the spreading of the fill material),
decrease over time. This decrease reflects the reduction in the rate of
spreading as the project equilibrates. In general, the coefficients are
shown to stabilize between March and July of 2010, just greater than
one year after the placement of the fill.
To better illustrate how the spatial eigenfunctions and the rates of
change of the temporal coefficients are linked to one another, each
mode was reconstructed by multiplying the spatial eigenfunction
(Fig. 4) and respective set of temporal derivative coefficients (Fig. 8).
20
Coastal Engineering 121 (2017) 14–25
This reconstruction is depicted in Fig. 9. Fig. 9 shows how the rate of
shoreline change (units m/yr) changes in both time and space over the
length of the study.
During the initial stages of the project, the spreading at the center
of the fill represented by the first mode occurs at rates as high as
−189 m/yr. This is shown in Mode 1 of Fig. 9. Over time, as the project
equilibrates, this rate decreases significantly. Downdrift of the large
outfall pipe, the shoreline change rates represented by the first mode
are up to +70 m/yr, indicating accretion in these areas. The third mode
represents modifications to the spreading related to the presence of the
structures. As the fill material collects on the updrift side of the small
outfall pipe, the rate at which the northern beaches can respond to the
fill is limited. This is reflected in Fig. 9 where rates updrift of the small
outfall pipe are positive whereas downdrift they are negative or close to
zero. However, the rate at which the shoreline updrift of the pipe
accreted decreased until the location remained relatively stable for
several months, indicating an equilibrium sediment trapping efficiency
was reached. Following this point in time, rates were generally negative
for this portion of the beach, whereas they were positive to the north,
indicating a transport of sand from updrift of the small pipe to the
north (in the direction of the net littoral drift).
Storms were also found to have an influence on the changes
represented by the first and third modes. After each storm, the
coefficients increase either from a negative to a positive value or from
a negative to a smaller negative value (Fig. 8). One potential explana-
tion for this behavior which is consistent with field observations, is that
the predominant direction of sediment transport changes during storm
events. This is most evident when examining the first mode, where it
can be seen that immediately after the October 2009 and Veteran's Day
2009 Storms, the beach became wider towards the center of the fill and
narrower to the north. This suggests a southerly sediment transport.
The plot of wave heights and directions presented in Fig. 3 supports
this possibility as it shows that the dominant wave direction during
these periods was to the south. Even for storms where the change does
not flip from erosion to accretion or vice versa, generally the spreading
slows during storm periods as the natural northward sediment move-
ment is interrupted for brief periods.
Above, the second mode was found to represent changes in the
direction of shoreline change as the beach alternated between typical
summer and winter states (Fig. 4). While the direction of change is
consistent over the entire extent of the beach, the presence of the
structures amplifies the changes locally. Although, the temporal
eigenfunction for the second mode generally depicts how the beach is
wider than the mean beach during the summer and narrower in the
winter (Fig. 5), there are periods of erosion and accretion in both
L. Lemke, J.K. Miller
Fig. 8. First derivative of first three temporal eigenfunctions following analysis of shoreline position.
seasons. These periods are best highlighted in Fig. 8, where the rate of
change associated with the second mode alternates between positive
and negative values within each season. The second mode also high-
lights the influence of storms on shoreline position. After each major
storm, the value of the temporal coefficient changes from negative to
positive. Because the spatial eigenfunction is negative, this represents
an erosional condition where the shoreline width decreases after a
storm. This behavior is consistent with what is expected and is
observed for each of the major storms.
4.2. Beach slope
4.2.1. Spatial and temporal eigenfunctions
Similar to what was found for the shoreline position, the EOF
analysis of the raw beach slope data is dominated by a single dominant
mode representing the mean beach slope. The first mode explains more
than 92% of the total variation in the data set and obfuscates the
variations about the mean.
As was done with the shoreline position data, the mean beach slope
was removed and the EOF analysis of the time series of beach slopes
was performed again to highlight variations about the mean. The first
Fig. 9. Shoreline position rates of change.
21
Coastal Engineering 121 (2017) 14–25
four functions explained more than 70% of the total variation in the
beach slope data which is less than the 95% of the variation in shoreline
data described by its first four modes. This indicates that there are
more complex variations occurring within the beach slope data set. A
portion of this may also be explained by difficulties extracting the beach
slopes from the existing data. Each mode represents a variation about
the mean beach slope. When the mode (multiplication of temporal and
spatial coefficients) is negative, slopes are milder than the mean beach,
while positive values indicate slopes are steeper than the mean. The
spatial eigenfunctions and temporal coefficients for the first four modes
are shown in Figs. 10 and 11, and a summary of the results is given in
Table 3.
The first mode individually explains 43.1% of the total variation in
the data set, while the second mode explains just 11.7% of the
variability. The sign of the spatial coefficients associated with the first
mode is constant, indicating that the change in beach slope represented
by the first mode is consistent over the longshore extent of the project.
The temporal coefficients for the first mode tend to be positive during
the winter months and negative during the summer months. When
combined with the negative spatial coefficients, this represents the
beach becoming more dissipative during the winter, and more reflec-
L. Lemke, J.K. Miller Coastal Engineering 121 (2017) 14–25

Fig. 10. First four spatial eigenfunctions following analysis of beach slope.

Fig. 11. First four temporal eigenfunctions following analysis of beach slope.

tive during the spring and summer. The seasonal trend is not observed
during the winter of 2011 due to a lack of survey data for this time
period. The influence of storms on the beach slope is also represented
in Mode 1. Extremes occur following two major winter storms (the
Veteran's Day Storm in November 2009 and the March 2010 storm).
Because these extremes coincide with large positive values of the
temporal coefficient, they represent the beach flattening during these
storms. In terms of the qualitative observations made by the surveyors,
the first mode appears to be related to the changes observed in the
beginning of stage four, which is associated with the development of
the typical winter profile.
The second mode explains 11.7% of the total variation in the data
set and contains a node approximately 53 m south of the large outfall
pipe. The node separates areas where the changes in beach slope are
to negative, although variations occur related to storm events.
To more clearly illustrate the trend through time, surface plots were
created by combining the spatial eigenfunction with its respective set of
temporal coefficients. The results are recreated beach slopes (in m/m),
all relative to the mean beach (Fig. 12). For the second mode,
immediately after fill placement, the combination of the temporal
and spatial coefficients represents the beach being steeper than the
mean beach (having positive values) within the area of fill placement
and milder than the mean beach (having negative values) north of the
Table 3
Beach slope variation explained by modes.
Mode e1(x) e2(x) e3(x) e4(x) Remainder

out of phase. The spatial coefficients are negative north of the nodal Total variance explained (%) Raw Data 92.4 1.52 1.44 0.93 3.7
point and positive to the south in the area of fill placement. In general, Total variance explained (%) 43.1 11.7 9.9 7.2 28.0
the temporal coefficients for Mode 2 decrease over time, from positive Demeaned Data

22
L. Lemke, J.K. Miller
Fig. 12. Reconstructed slopes for the first four modes.
large outfall pipe. Through time, as the temporal coefficients decrease,
the beach within the fill placement area becomes milder while the
beach north of the nodal point becomes steeper. The pattern described
by the second mode is related to the longshore spreading of the fill as
the coarser fill sediments placed on an oversteep construction template
move to the north.
4.2.2. Rate of change of temporal coefficients
As for the analysis of shoreline positions, the first derivative of the
temporal coefficients was calculated for beach slopes as well. The
results for the first three modes are shown in Fig. 13. Oscillations
represent variations in how quickly the beach slope changes at different
locations along the beach. The results can be separated into those
describing the spreading of the fill material and those describing
seasonal or storm influences. It was previously shown that the first
mode represented the trend of an increase in beach slope during the
spring/summer and a decrease in beach slope during the fall/winter.
Derivatives of the temporal coefficients for this mode alternate between
positive and negative values (Fig. 13). This emphasizes that within each
season there are periods when the beach steepens and flattens. For the
above rate of change temporal coefficients, there was an increase
following each storm. The spatial eigenfunction for the first mode was
negative, meaning that this increase in rate of change corresponded to
the rapid flattening of the beach after each storm. This result is
Fig. 13. First derivative of the first three temporal eigenfunctions following analysis of beach slope.
23
Coastal Engineering 121 (2017) 14–25
consistent with the expected beach response to storm events.
Over time, the temporal derivative of the second mode for beach
slope, which was shown to be related to the spreading, becomes
smaller. As sand continues to move away from the center of the fill,
and the beach approaches equilibrium, the rate at which the beach
slopes adjust becomes smaller. Rates approach zero between March
and July 2010, suggesting the beach approaches equilibrium a little
after one year following the placement of the fill. After this, variations
in beach slope were the result of seasonal changes. This is best depicted
in Fig. 14 which show the reconstructed rates by multiplication of the
first four spatial eigenfunctions (Fig. 10) with their respective set of
rate of change temporal coefficients (Fig. 13). Beach slope change rates
are provided in (in m/m/yr) and are shown to vary in both time and
space. The magnitude of the maximum rates of change at the center of
the fill and along the area north of the large outfall pipe for the second
mode, were 0.83 and 0.93 m/m/yr respectively. These rates approach
0 m/m/yr approximately one year following the placement of the fill.
5. Conclusions
The 2009 beach nourishment project at Long Branch, NJ was
unique in that a non-traditional fill, which included both a linear,
rectangular fill and a feeder beach, was placed on a coastline with an
extensive groin field. While there are many examples of traditional
L. Lemke, J.K. Miller
Fig. 14. Beach slope rates of change.
linear beach fills placed within a groin field, and those of feeder
beaches, there are few studies documenting the evolution of a
combined linear/feeder beach construction within a groin field. An
important goal of this research was to understand how the feeder beach
and groin field influenced the evolution of the beach nourishment
project at this site. EOF analysis was used as a tool to help identify the
dominant patterns of variability associated with the shoreline and
beach slope changes observed during the equilibration process. While
EOF analysis is a purely mathematical (non-physical) data analysis
approach, identified patterns of variability could be linked to well-
known physical processes at Long Branch. These processes include the
spreading of the fill (longshore equilibration), slope adjustment (cross-
shore equilibration), seasonal changes, storm impacts, and groin
related impacts.
In addition to identifying characteristic patterns within a data set,
EOF analysis can be used to quantify the relative contribution of each
of these patterns to the total observed change. For the analysis of
shoreline positions, the spreading of the fill accounts for most of the
variation in the data set. The first mode describing the overall move-
ment of sand from the center of the fill to the north accounts for 58.1%
of the total variability. The third mode describing the delay in initial
spreading due to the presence of a small outfall pipe downdrift of the
fill accounts for an additional 10.2%. Seasonal variations account for a
smaller percentage of the total shoreline variability than spreading at
23.4%. However, for the analysis of beach slopes, seasonal changes
account for 43.1% of the variability in the data, while spreading
accounts for only 11.7%. This reflects the steep construction template
slopes did not markedly adjust until the onset of the first winter storm
season.
The first mode of shoreline position variability and the second mode
of beach slope variability represent longshore spreading of the fill
material to the north in the direction of the net littoral drift. In this
process, the beach becomes narrower and milder at the center of the
fill, while the northern beaches become wider and steeper. During
storms, the area at the center of the fill was seen to become wider and
steeper, opposite of the overall trend. It is hypothesized that this
behavior is related to temporary reversals in transport associated with
the predominantly northeast storms that impacted the site.
Seasonal changes were represented by the secondary mode of
shoreline variability and the primary mode of beach slope variability.
The seasonal functions represent the entire beach becoming wider and
steeper during the summer, and narrower and more dissipative during
24
Coastal Engineering 121 (2017) 14–25
the winter months. This is consistent with observations made during
the surveys and the typical summer berm/winter bar profile transition
experienced in New Jersey.
Within each mode, the influence of the groins on both beach slope
and shoreline position was apparent. Abrupt variations in the spatial
eigenfunctions corresponded to the locations of the groins. Some of the
structures act as dividers, separating areas of accretion and erosion. A
large outfall pipe located 762 m north of the center of the fill was found
to play a significant role in controlling the longshore processes,
represented by the first mode of shoreline position variability and the
second mode of beach slope variability. The outfall divided the portion
of the beach that became wider and steeper over time from the portion
that became narrower and more dissipative. The smaller outfall pipe
was found to delay the spreading of the fill as represented by the third
mode of shoreline position variability. No definitive conclusions can be
made on the effects, if any, of the notched groins from either set of
results.
The derivatives of the temporal coefficients associated with each
mode were calculated to determine the characteristic rate of change
associated with the identified patterns. Generally, for the modes
associated with longshore spreading, rates were found to decrease
with time, approaching zero between March and July 2010. This
suggests that the beach approached an equilibrium state a little more
than a year after the placement of the beach fill. This agrees with prior
research performed by [3] which concluded that nourished beaches
with fill material placed within the active profile returned to equili-
brium approximately one year following fill placement. Any further
changes are due to seasonal changes or other sources of variability.
Further, the presence of the groins generally influences longshore
changes by locally amplifying the rates of change associated with the
spreading.
Modes representing seasonal fluctuations are characterized by rates
which oscillate between positive and negative values. Unfortunately,
the temporal resolution of the surveys was not high enough over a long
enough period to determine whether the rate of change associated with
the seasonal fluctuations changes systematically. Storms were found to
influence the rate of change where those occurring during an erosional
period tended to result in a temporary increase in the rate of erosion,
while storms occurring during an accretional period temporarily
reversed (changed the sign of) the rate of change coefficients.
L. Lemke, J.K. Miller
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the NJ
Department of Environmental Protection through the New Jersey
Coastal Protection Technical Assistance Service for providing funding
for this project. The assistance of the many faculty, staff, and students
at Davidson Laboratory that participated in the data collection and
analysis that contributed to this manuscript is greatly appreciated. The
authors would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers whose
comments substantially improved this manuscript.
References
[1] D.J. Clarke, I.G. Eliot, Description of littoral alongshore sediment movement from
empirical eigenfunction analysis, J. Geol. Soc. Aust. 29 (1982) 327–341.
[2] H. Hotelling, Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principle components,
25
Coastal Engineering 121 (2017) 14–25
J. Educ. Psychol. 24 (417–441) (1933) 498–520.
[3] M. Larson, H. Hanson, N.C. Kraus, J. Newe, Short- and long-term responses of
beach fills determined by EOF analysis, J. Waterw. Port. Coast. Ocean Eng. 25 (6)
(1999) 285–293.
[4] J.K. Miller, A.M. Mahon T.O. Herrington, Development of the Stevens Dynamic
Underwater Coastal Surveying (DUCKS) System, Davidson Laboratory Technical
Report, Coastal Protection Technical Assistance Service, 2009.
[5] J.K. Miller, A.M. Mahon, T.O. Herrington, Assessment of Alternative Beach Fill
Placement on Surfing Resources, Coast. Eng. Proc. 1 (32) (2011).
[6] J.K. Miller, T.O. Herrington, Long Branch Alternate Fill Placement Monitoring Plan,
Long Branch, New Jersey, Davidson Laboratory Technical Report, Coastal Protection
Technical Assistance Service, 2008.
[7] New York District of The US Army Corps of Engineers, Atlantic Coast of New Jersey
Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet with Emphasis on Sea Bright to Monmouth Beach, US
Army Corps of Engineers, 73 pp
[8] K. Pearson, On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space, Philos.
Mag. 6 (2) (1901) 559–572.
[9] C.D. Winant, D.L. Inman, C.E. Nordstron, Description of seasonal beach changes
using empirical eigenfunctions, J. Geophys. Res. 80 (15) (1975) 1979–1986.