Field Measurements of Sheet Flow Sediment Transport in The Swash Zone
Field Measurements of Sheet Flow Sediment Transport in The Swash Zone
Field Measurements of Sheet Flow Sediment Transport in The Swash Zone
INTRODUCTION
Sediment transport magnitudes in the swash zone are among the highest in the coastal area. One of
the main reasons for the high sediment loads is the frequent occurrence of sheet flow, a process in
which a sand-water slurry with a thickness on the order of tens to hundreds of grain diameters moves
across the beach face (Hughes et al. 1997). Sheet flow can easily be observed visually during the
backwash of many swash events, but due to its rapidly shallowing depth is much harder to measure in
detail and is therefore often neglected (by necessity) in field measurements. The collection of sheet
flow and bedload sediment transport data from the field was identified as a key element to improve the
understanding of swash zone sediment dynamics and morphology (Masselink and Puleo 2006).
Sediment is usually mobilized by shear stresses exerted by the fluid on the bed. The onset of sheet
flow and the thickness of the sheet layer are described using the Shields number :
(
(1)
where
is the shear stress exerted on the bottom,
is the fluid density,
is the sediment density, g
is gravitational acceleration and d is a representative grain diameter. Sheet flow occurs when the
Shields number exceeds a threshold of 1.0 (Nielsen 1992). The thickness of the sheet layer
is
parameterized as (Wilson 1987)
.
(2)
Sheet flow as a sediment transport process has been studied in detail in several scaled laboratory
studies (Dohmen-Janssen and Hanes 2005; Horikawa et al. 1982; ODonoghue and Wright 2004; Pugh
and Wilson 1999; Ribberink and Al-Salem 1995), as well as in numerical studies (Amoudry et al.
2008; Drake and Calantoni 2001). In most laboratory studies the sediment concentration in the sheet
layer is determined by measuring the electrical conductivity of the sand-water mixture. Many of these
studies, however, collect only one or a few point measurements of sediment concentration and
construct a concentration profile by performing each experiment multiple times under repeatable
conditions. This approach is not possible under field conditions with irregular waves. Only very limited
field measurements are available of sediment concentration in the sheet flow layer (Bakker et al. 1988;
Yu et al. 1990). Recently, a new Conductivity Concentration Profiler (CCP) instrument was developed
that is capable of rendering a real-time sediment concentration profile in the sheet flow layer under
large-scale laboratory and field conditions (Lanckriet et al., in review).
This paper presents initial field results using the CCP during a field deployment in Perranporth,
UK, in October 2011 (see also Puleo et al., this volume). The measurement characteristics of the CCP
will be reviewed first and this is followed by a description of the field study. Results of the
measurements using the CCP are then presented, followed by conclusions.
1
2
3
Center for Applied Coastal Research, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA
School of Marine Science and Engineering, Plymouth University, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK
Water Research Laboratory, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales,
Sydney NSW 2052, Australia
Since water has a high electric conductivity and non-cohesive sediments are essentially
nonconductive, the presence of sediment in a sediment-water mixture will obstruct electrical current
and reduce the bulk electrical conductivity. As a result, it is possible to determine the sediment
concentration by measuring the reduction in electrical conductivity with respect to the clear fluid. This
technique is particularly successful in high-concentration conditions such as the sheet flow layer
(Horikawa et al. 1982), where alternative measurement techniques (e.g., acoustic or optical methods)
do not yield an accurate concentration measurement.
The Conductivity Concentration Profiler (CCP) is the first instrument for measuring sediment
concentration using electrical conductivity that was specifically developed for large-scale laboratory
and field conditions (Lanckriet et al. in review). It measures conductivity using a 4-electrode approach
(Li and Meijer 2005) and obtains a 29-point concentration profile with 1 mm resolution by
multiplexing through an array of 32 measurement electrodes. Only a small part of the CCP, with a
cross section of 5.6 mm (width) by 1.6 mm (thickness) and a height above the bed on the order of 1040 mm (varying as the bed level changes), is exposed to the flow, minimizing flow disturbance and
scour effects.
The relationship between sediment concentration and conductivity was established by a laboratory
experiment where sediment was suspended neutrally in a Lithium Metatungstate (LMT) solution with a
density approximately equal to the density of the sediment. For two sediment samples, a fine sand (d50
= 0.12 mm) and a coarse sand (d50 = 0.44 mm), the sensor response was well described (r2 > 0.98) by a
power law known as Archies law (Archie 1942):
(
(3)
where
is the conductivity of the sand-fluid mixture,
is the conductivity of the fluid, c is the
sediment volume fraction and m is a calibration factor.
The measurement volume of the CCP was determined by modeling the electric current and voltage
field around the sensor using a finite differences model. In the two principal horizontal axes, the
representative measurement volume extends 8.7 mm and 8.4 mm away from the center of the probe
axis (roughly 1.5 times the probe width). In the vertical direction, the finite extent of the measurement
volume causes smoothing of the measured concentration profile. The impact of this smoothing was
assessed by running the finite differences model for a simulated sheet layer with varying thickness. The
difference between the sheet layer thickness as prescribed in the model geometry and the thickness
perceived by the simulated CCP was used to determine that the minimum sheet thickness that can
reliably be resolved by the CCP is 3.5 mm. For sheet thicknesses larger than 3.5 mm, a correction
formula was developed to account for the smoothing effect (Lanckriet et al., in review).
FIELD STUDY
The BeST (Beach Sand Transport) field study was conducted from 9 to 15 October 2011 in
Perranporth, UK, with the aim of rendering a complete dataset of swash zone hydrodynamics and
sediment transport under field conditions. Measurements were taken around high tide during 10 tidal
cycles around spring tide (mean tidal range is 5.43 m). The study site is a macrotidal dissipative beach
with a median grain size d50 of 0.33 mm and a mean slope of 1:45 around the measurement rig. Only
results from the evening high tide of October 14 are discussed here; further details on the field study,
the study site and the entire suite of instruments deployed are described in Puleo et al. (this volume).
During the high tide discussed in this contribution, three CCPs were deployed at a single crossshore location, spaced by approximately 0.2 m in the alongshore and offset in the vertical to account
for bed-level changes (Figure 1). One of the three sensors remained buried under the mobile-bed layer
during the entire high tide and will not be discussed here. Additionally, velocities were measured using
2 Valeport electromagnetic current meters that were positioned 0.03 m and 0.06 m above the bed, and
water levels were measured using an ultrasonic distance meter (Massa M300/95). The CCPs,
electromagnetic current meters and ultrasonic distance meters were all sampled at 4 Hz. The offshore
significant wave height and spectral peak period recorded by a Waverider buoy located in 10 m water
depth at less than 2 km from the study site were 0.55 m and 9.1 s respectively.
(c)
(a)
(b)
Figure 1. Deployment of the main swash rig with 3 buried CCPs (a), 2 electromagnetic current meters (b) and
an ultrasonic distance meter (c), behind the pole.
RESULTS
Figure 2 displays an example swash event in which a single bore impinges on the sensor location,
resulting in a swash duration of 26 s and a maximum water depth of 0.11 m. The maximum uprush
velocity is 1.7 m s-1 (as measured using the current meter deployed 0.03 m above the bed) and the
backwash velocity reached -1.4 m s-1 shortly before the water level fell below the sensor elevation.
Figure 2d displays the sediment concentration measurements taken by one CCP. A cut-off volume
fraction of 0.08 was chosen to define the top of the sheet layer and 0.51 for the bottom (Bagnold 1966),
which are displayed as a dashed and solid line in Figure 2d respectively. The section of the profile with
volume fractions less than 0.08 is then considered to be in the suspension layer and the section with
volume fractions over 0.51 to be in the stable bed. The elevation difference between the top and bottom
of the sheet layer is then taken as the thickness of the sheet layer and is corrected for the smoothing
effect using the correction formula derived from the numerical experiments with the finite differences
model (Lanckriet et al., in review).
Around flow reversal (t = 9.1 s), the cut-off concentrations 0.08 and 0.51 are separated by 5 mm in
the CCP measurements. As there is no hydrodynamic forcing during flow reversal, there is no sheet
layer present and the perceived distance between the top and bottom cut-off concentration is due to
sensor smoothing. The numerical simulations that were used to study the sensor smoothing effect
similarly show a smoothing effect on the order of 4 to 5 mm for a case with no sheet flow layer
(Lanckriet et al., in review). During both the uprush and backwash, however, the distance between the
top and bottom cut-off concentration becomes larger, indicating the presence of a sheet flow layer.
During the uprush, a short-lived sheet flow occurs with a maximum thickness of 19 mm (0 s t 4 s).
During the backwash, the sheet flow has a smaller maximum thickness of 8 mm but a longer duration
(12.5 s t 25 s).
The resulting sheet thickness was calculated for two CCPs which were located in the same crossshore position and separated by approximately 0.2 m in the alongshore (Figure 2c). The time series of
corrected sheet thickness agree well between the two sensors, indicating repeatability of the
measurements.
Figure 3 displays instanteneous vertical sediment concentration profiles, measured at two instances
during the example swash event (indicated by dash-dotted lines in Figure 2d), one during the uprush
and one during the backwash. Again, the agreement between the measurements by the two collocated
sensors demonstrates repeatibility. The concentration profile in the sheet layer appears to be mostly
linear, with a power-law tail at the top of the sheet layer where the sheet flow transitions into the
suspended load regime. This profile shape is in agreement with previous experiments on unidirectional
sheet flow (Pugh and Wilson 1999; Sumer et al. 1996).
h (m)
0.1
a)
0.05
u,v (m/s)
0
2
b)
0
-2
s (mm)
20
c)
10
0
d)
0.6
0.4
c (-)
z (mm)
10
0.2
0
-10
0
10
15
t (s)
20
25
30
Figure 2. An example swash event. a) Water depth measured by an ultrasonic distance meter. b) Cross-shore
(solid line) and along-shore (dashed line) velocity measured by an electromagnetic current meter deployed
0.03 m above the bed level. c) Sheet thickness measured by two collocated CCP sensors, one displayed as
circles, one as squares. d) Sediment concentration time series measured using a CCP. Solid black line
displays top of the sheet layer (c = 0.08), white line displays bottom of sheet layer (c = 0.51). Dash-dotted
vertical lines indicate the times of the instantaneous concentration profiles displayed in Figure 3.
a)
15
b)
10
z (mm)
-5
-10
0
0.2
0.4
c (-)
0.6
0.2
0.4
c (-)
0.6
Figure 3. Instantaneous sediment concentration profiles measured by two collocated CCP sensors,
displayed as gray squares and black circles respectively. a) During the uprush (t = 1.9 s). b) During the
backwash (t = 19.0 s). Cut-off concentration values for top (c = 0.08) and bottom (c = 0.51) are given by
dashed vertical lines.
In addition to bed shear stress, pressure gradients and bore-advected turbulence are additional
potential mechanisms for mobilizing sediment. Sediment motion purely by pressure gradients is
referred to as plug flow (Sleath 1999). In the inner surf zone, flow reversal from offshore- to onshoredirected motion is accompanied by a strong onshore-directed pressure gradient and fluid acceleration as
a result of wave skewness and asymmetry. A similar effect may occur in the swash zone when a bore
arrives at the sensor location, changing the hydrodynamic forcing nearly instantaneously from a nearly
dry bed to a bore with a finite water depth and a large onshore-directed velocity. In both cases,
significant bore-generated turbulence will affect the bed at roughly the same time as the onshoredirected pressure gradients and the two mechanisms are difficult to separate (Puleo et al. 2000). The
large fluid velocities also generate large shear stresses during these events, and pressure gradients,
bore-generated turbulence and bed shear stresses will thus act together to mobilize sediment.
Pressure gradients were not measured directly in the present field study, but can be related to the
local acceleration using the Euler equation if convective accelerations are neglected.
Foster et al. (2006) defined the Sleath number as
(
where
(4)
is the time derivative of the free-stream velocity. Sleath (1999) predicted that plug flow
will occur for S 0.29; Foster et al. (2006) observed in the outer surf zone that plug flow occurs when
the Sleath number exceeds 0.1. To account for the combined effect of shear stress and pressure
gradients, Foster et al. (2006) proposed a combined criterion of the form:
|
(5)
where is a dimensionless constant and h is the height of the plug flow layer.
Figure 4 displays a time series of measurements located at the edge of the inner surf and swash
zone, where the water depth only sporadically reaches zero. The Shields number was calculated using
equation (1) and by estimating the bed shear stress, , using a quadratic drag law and a friction factor
of 0.02, within the range of previously estimated friction coefficients in the swash zone of a sandy
beach (Puleo and Holland 2001; Raubenheimer et al. 2004). Sheet flow events during onshore-directed
flow are indicated by light grey bands and occur when a bore arrives at the sensor location. These
events display a large onshore acceleration, with the Sleath number occasionally exceeding the
threshold value of 0.1 (at t = 5 s and t = 49 s), meaning that according to the criterion of Foster et al.
(2006) the pressure gradient at these specific moments in time was capable of mobilizing sediment. The
Shields number , however, exceeds its threshold for sheet flow (
) by a factor of 24, meaning
that while pressure gradients may contribute to the mobilization of sediment, shear stress is clearly the
dominant forcing mechanism (Calantoni and Puleo 2006). This Shields number estimate, however, is
dependent on the choice of friction factor used in the quadratic drag law.
A second indication that pressure gradients contribute to sediment mobilization is that sheet flow
events associated with onshore-directed flow (uprush; indicated in light grey in Figure 4), which
typically have a large pressure gradient, have a larger maximum sheet thickness than events associated
with offshore-directed flows of similar velocity (backwash; indicated by dark grey rectangles in Figure
4). This is notable, for example, when comparing the uprush event at 14 s t 21 s with the backwash
event at 34 s t 47 s. The uprush event has a larger maximum sheet thickness, even though the
maximum Shields number is comparable for both events. A clear peak in the Sleath number is visible
during the uprush event, indicating an onshore-directed pressure gradient, which may explain the larger
sheet thickness. Bore-generated turbulence may be an alternative explanation for the larger sheet
thickness and further analysis is needed to distinguish both effects.
CONCLUSIONS
Preliminary results from a field study on swash-zone sediment transport were presented, focusing
on measurements of sheet flow using a novel Conductivity Concentration Profiler. An example swash
event shows the occurrence of sheet flow during the uprush and the backwash phases of the swash
cycle. Instantaneous sediment concentration profiles in the sheet flow layer appear to be roughly linear
with a power-law tail at the top of the sheet layer, as in previous studies. Although shear stress is the
dominant sediment mobilization mechanism, pressure gradients form a secondary forcing to mobilize
Figure 4. Time series at the edge of the inner surf and swash zone of a) water depth, b) cross-shore (thick
line) and alongshore (thin line) velocity, c) Shields number, d) Sleath number, e) sheet thickness. Sheet flow
events during onshore-directed flow are indicated by light grey bands, events during offshore-directed
motion by dark grey bands. Horizontal lines in c) and d) indicate threshold values for sheet flow and plug
flow respectively.
sediment, acting in concurrence with the shear stress. A combined criterion, accounting for both shear
stress and pressure gradients, may be better suited to describe sediment mobilization.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.
OCE-0845004. Additional support for this work was provided by the University of Delaware, the
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, the Award for Global
Research, Internships, and Performances for Graduate Students at the University of Delaware, the
Natural Environmental Research Council, the US-UK Fulbright Commission and the Australian
Research Council (DP110101176).
REFERENCES
Amoudry, L., T.-J. Hsu, and P.L.-F. Liu. 2008. Two-phase model for sand transport in sheet flow
regime, Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, C03011.
Archie, G. 1942. The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir
characteristics, Transactions of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum
Engineers, 146, 54-62.
Bagnold, R.A. 1966. The shearing and dilatation of dry sand and the singing mechanism,
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 295, 219232.
Bakker, W.T., W.G.M. Van Kesteren, and Z.H. Yu. 1988. Grain-grain interaction in oscillating
sheetflow. Proceedings of 21st International Conference on Coastal Engineering, ASCE, 718-731.
Calantoni, J., and J.A. Puleo. 2006. Role of pressure gradients in sheet flow of coarse sediments
under sawtooth waves, Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, C01010.
Dohmen-Janssen, C. M., and D. M. Hanes. 2005. Sheet flow and suspended sediment due to wave
groups in a large wave flume, Continental Shelf Research, 25, 333-347.
Drake, T.G., and J. Calantoni. 2001. Discrete particle model for sheet flow sediment transport in
the nearshore, Journal of Geophysical Research, 106, 19859-19868.
Foster, D. L., A. J. Bowen, R. A. Holman, and P. Natoo. 2006. Field evidence of pressure gradient
induced incipient motion, Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, C05004.
Horikawa, K., A. Watanabe, and S. Katori. 1982. Sediment transport under sheet flow conditions,
Proceedings of 18th International Conference on Coastal Engineering, ASCE, 1335-1352.
Hughes, M. G., G. Masselink, and R. W. Brander. 1997. Flow velocity and sediment transport in
the swash zone of a steep beach, Marine Geology, 138, 91-103.
Lanckriet, T., J.A. Puleo, and N. Waite. In review. A conductivity concentration profiler for sheet
flow sediment transport, IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering.
Li, X., and G.C.M. Meijer. 2005. A low-cost and accurate interface for four-electrode conductivity
sensors, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 54, 2433-2437.
Masselink, G., and J.A. Puleo. 2006. Swash-zone morphodynamics. Continental Shelf Research,
26, 661-680.
Nielsen, P. 1992. Coastal bottom boundary layers and sediment transport. Advanced Series on
Ocean Engineering, World Scientific, Singapore, 324 pp.
ODonoghue, T., and S. Wright. 2004. Flow tunnel measurements of velocities and sand flux in
oscillatory sheet flow for well-sorted and graded sands, Coastal Engineering, 51, 1163-1184.
Pugh, F.J., and K.C. Wilson. 1999. Velocity and concentration distributions in sheet flow above
plane beds, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 125, 117-125.
Puleo, J. A., R.A. Beach, R.A. Holman and J.S. Allen. 2000. Swash zone sediment suspension and
transport and the importance of bore-generated turbulence, Journal of Geophysical Research, 105,
17021-17044.
Puleo, J.A., and K.T. Holland. 2001. Estimating swash zone friction coefficients on a sandy beach,
Coastal Engineering, 43, 25-40.
Puleo, J. A., G. Masselink, P. Russell, I.L. Turner, C.E. Blenkinsopp, D. Buscombe, T. Lanckriet,
R. McCall and T. Poate. 2012. Comprehensive study of swash-zone hydrodynamics and sediment
transport, Proceedings of 33rd International Conference on Coastal Engineering, ASCE, this volume.
Raubenheimer, B., S. Elgar, and R.T. Guza. 2004. Observations of swash zone velocities: A note
on friction coefficients, Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, C01027.
Ribberink, J.S., and A.A. Al-Salem. 1995. Sheet flow and suspension of sand in oscillatory
boundary layers, Coastal Engineering, 25, 205-225.
Sleath, J.F.A. 1999. Conditions for plug formation in oscillatory flow, Continental Shelf Research,
1643-1664.
Sumer, B. M., A. Kozakiewicz, J. Fredsoe, and R. Deigaard. 1996. Velocity and concentration
profiles in sheet-flow layer of movable bed, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 122, 549-558.
Yu, Z., H.D. Niemeyer, and W.T. Bakker. 1990. Site investigation on sand concentration in the
sheet-flow layer. Proceedings of 22nd International Conference on Coastal Engineering, ASCE, 23612371.
Wilson, K.C. 1987. Analysis of Bed-Load Motion at High Shear Stress, Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, 113, 97-103.
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: