Click for next page ( R2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Measuring and Understanding Coastal Processes for Engineering Purposes Committee on Coasts Engineering e~urement System One Board Compulsion on Englneerlug and ~cbnlc~ Systems Natlona1 Research Council N~~N^L ACADEMY PRESS Sshlugton, D.C. lg8g

OCR for page R1
National Academy Press 2101 Constitution Avenue. N.W. . Washington, D.C. 20418 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the panel responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors, according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Frank Press is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White ~ president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Samuel O. Thier is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing servicer to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Frank Press and Dr. Robert M. White are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. The program described in this report is supported by Cooperative Agreement No. 14-12-0001-30416 and 14-35-0001-30475 between the Minerals Management Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior and the National Academy of Sciences. International Standard Book Number 0-309-04129-5 Additional copies of this report are available from: National Academy Press 2101 Constitution Avenue Washington, DC 20418 Printed in the United States of America First Printing, Novemberl989 Second Printing, November 1990

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON COASTAL ENGINEERING MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS WARREN W. DENNER, Chairman, Science Applications International Corporation, Monterey, California DAVID G. AUBREY, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts OGDEN BEEMAN, Ogden Beeman and Associates, Inc., Portland, Oregon EUGENE E. HARLOW, Soros Associates, New York, New York EDWARD B. THORNTON, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California ROBERT O. RElD, NAE, Texas A&M University, College Station NOLAN C. RHODES, Port of Corpus Chianti Authority, Corpus Christi, Texas RICHARD W. STERNBERG, University of Washington, Seattle WILLIAM L. WOOD, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana Government Liaison THOMAS W. RICHARDSON, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi ASBURY H. SALLENGER, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia JOSEPH R. VADUS, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, Maryland JAMES A. BAlLARD, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, California Stag DONALD W. PERKINS, Staff Officer G LO RIA B . G REEN, Proj ect Secretary . . 111

OCR for page R1
MARINE BOARD SIDNEY WALLACE, Chairman, Hill, Betts & Nash, Washington, D.C. BRIAN J. WATT, ~tce-Chairman, TECHSAVANT, Inc., Kingwood, Texas ROGER D. ANDERSON, Cox's Wholesale Seafood, Inc., Thmpa, Florida ROBERT G. BEA, NAE, University of California, Berkeley JAMES M. BROADUS III, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts F. PAT DUNN, Shell Oil Company, Houston, Texas LARRY L. GENTRY, Lockheed Advanced Marine Systems, Sunnyvale, California DANA R. KESTER' Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island JUDITH KILDOW, Department of Ocean Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts WARREN G. LEBACK, Consultant, Princeton, New Jersey BERNARD LE MEHAUTE, University of Miamia, Flonda WILLIAM R. MURDEN, Murden Marine, Ltd., Alexandria, Virginia EUGENE K. PENTIMONTI, American President Lines, Ltd., Oakland, California JOSEPH D. PORRICELLI, ECO, Inc., Annapolis, Maryland JERRY R. SCHUBEL, State University of New York, Stony Brook RICHARD J. SEYMOUR, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, IN Jolla California ROBERT N. STEINER, Operations, Atlantic Container Line, South Plainfield, New Jersey EDWARD WENK, JR., Seattle, Washington Stab CHARLES A. BOOKMAN, Director DONALD W. PERKINS, Associate Director ALEXANDER STAVOVY, Staff Officer SUSAN GARBINI, Staff Officer PAUL SCHOLZ, Research Fellow DORIS C. HOLMES, Staff Associate DELPHINE GLAZE, Administrative Secretary AURORE BLECK, Administrative Secretary GLORIA B. GREEN, Project Secretary CARLA D. MOORE, Project Secretary 1V

OCR for page R1
Preface Understanding the effects of the sea's forces in the rapidly chang- ing, high-energy environment of the surf zone is a difficult task for both the scientist and the engineer. But this knowledge is fundamen- tal to planning and managing coastal development and protection. Our understanding of nearshore ocean environmental forces and their relation to the movement of sediment and beaches directly affects many of the 125 mention citizens living within 50 miles of the U.S. coast who rely on the coastal resources and beaches for their living and recreation. Over a third of the coastline of the contiguous states is rapidly changing mostly eroding. This change places an increasing pressure on public administrators, who must make judgments about coastal land use, as well as on developers and engineers, who must gauge the economic and physical risks to homes, structures, harbor entrances, and to the rapidly duninishing public lands. What makes the development of shoreline and coastal environ- mental measurement capability a matter of immediate concern, and even of national interest, is the present emphasis on cost sharing be- tween the federal and local governments or public authorities for de- velopment and maintenance of coastal and port facilities and projects (such as deeper shipping channels, beach nourishment and protec- tion schemes, and wave barriers). The adverse effects resulting from v

OCR for page R1
inaccuracies in planning, often stemming from inaccurate measure- ment and poor understanding of environmental forces and changes, are likely to have more public impact ~ local responsibilities for un- dertaking coastal projects increasingly press the taxpayers and local economies. Over the past decacle, remarkable advances have been made in the general field of measurement system- sensing, processing data, and modeling. There is every reason to expect that such ~rnprove- ments would enable the engineer to respond more effectively to the pressures impinging on the use of coastal areas and on construction on and near the beach. However, the potential for such advances in coastal environmental measurement systems has not been fully realized. Accordingly, at the request of the U.S. Army Corps of En- gineers, the National Research Council appointed the Committee on Coastal Measurement Engineering Systems to: ~ assess the needs for coastal data for planning, design, con- struction, and maintenance; identify the areas where the theoretical underpinnings are inadequate to establish measurement needs; assess the availability and suitability of instrumentation to meet these needs; and provide recommended actions about where new or better instrumentation is needed, with a relative priority. Two questions asked of the committee were fundamental to the conduct of its assessments and development of its recommendations. In identifying the needs for coastal data, the key question is, What engineering requirements have significant influence on these data needs?n In regard to the role of modeling in analyzing and forecasting coastal changes and the relation between modeling and engineering measurement, the fundamental question posed to the committee was, "How does the capability and practice of modeling in the high-energy coastal waters influence the development of measurement systems?" The committee considered an evaluation of the development costs for specific measurement systems to be outside the scope of this study; however, the assessment of measurement alternatives does include an evaluation of the present state of development for various measurement systems and identifies the difficulties that must be surmounted in development. The comrn~ttee in its assessment of coastal data needs, instru- mentation, and analysesaddressed only the in-water aspects of V1

OCR for page R1
the measurement of noncohesive sediment in this report, but chose to exclude cohesive sediments (such as clays and muds) in its assessment. A committee of nine members provided expertise in coastal engineer- ing, physical oceanography, sedimentology, and engineering for coastal and harbor dredging. In addition, representatives of four agencies pro- vided much useful technical program and background information for the committee's consideration. The committee reviewed measurement system development and wit- nessed several tests conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during its 1986 SUPERDUCK Project at the Corps' Coastal Engineering Test Facility in Duck, North Carolina. In addition, the committee conducted a survey of over 30 coastal engineers and scientists from the United States, Canada, and Europe to obtain their views about measurement development needs and the associated engineering requirements and what new technol- ogy can be practically applied to improve present measurement practices. The questions and a summary of results are presented in the Appendix. The committee met six times over a two-year period, identified the salient engineering concerns, reviewed the physical oceanographic processes occurring near the shore that could affect engineering activities, and iden- tified measurements needed to understand these physical processes. The committee then determined how well those measurements meet design or modeling requirements and made recommendations regarding develop- ment. The organization of this report reflects this analytical process. . . V11

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION Previous Relevant Reports and Studies, 10 Coastal Engineering and Processes, 13 Measurement Complexities, 14 Analytical Methods in This Study, 16 2 COASTAL ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS. Engineering Application Areas, 20 19 3 PROCESSES AND MEASUREMENT REQUIREMENTS .. 26 High-Frequency Water Motions, 28 Low-Frequency Water Motions, 44 Fluid/Sediment Interactions, 49 Fluid/Structure Interactions, 56 4 MODELING COASTAL SYSTEMS Physical Models, 69 Mathematical Models, 70 Modeling Forces on Structures, 85 1X ........................... 66

OCR for page R1
5 D'[I71........................................................... A usJlty C ontrot 88 Standards and C abbrat10u, gl Data ~Lsst~ilatlon ~ d Syntbes~ g2 6 C O N C L u SIO N S A N D ltE C 0~4E NI)~[rIO N S a. A P P E N D Ill: Survey Fiadiags ~ ~~ ~~c 87 . gS % 105 .107