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.
14 N. McCoy et al. / Coastal Engineering 105 (2015) 13–20

of the two designs. The laboratory testing was used to support mathe-
matical analyses of these devices. Mathematical modeling was used to
determine the most sensitive variables governing sediment collection.

2. Experiment and equipment setup

2.1. Wave tank and device setup

All laboratory tests were conducted in a 3.81 m long, 1.83 m wide,

Fig. 1. Wave Robber™ mechanism in wave reduction and sediment collection.
and 0.508 m deep wave tank with a smooth floor. Fig. 3. shows the
wave tank setup and details the test unit and wave sensor locations,
International Patent Publication number of W02011/044556a. Fig. 1. all dimensions are in SI units. A sealed 0.15 m wide, 0.15 m tall weir
shows the sediment collection and wave energy suppression mecha- was used behind a 0.305 m tall sheet pile on the side of the unit (only
nisms of the structure. 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. As the wave hits the device, any waves away from the weir. This kept the sediment transfer over
a majority of the wave is reflected, while the remaining energy forces the weir to a minimum. The laboratory units were sealed with
water through the pipes. A check valve prevents backflow through the Plumbers' Putty™ to prevent water and sediment from infiltrating
pipe. Suspended sediments trapped behind the unit tend to settle in between the unit and the wave tank's floor. This step was taken to
the more shallow water when provided sufficient retention time. insure that the reduced wave energy, 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. The back of the
occasionally between units. units were placed 0.60 m away from the back of the wave tank.
Pre-fabricated, self-contained, floatable modular construction of the Two different laboratory-scale units used for the experiments are
units allows for easy delivery and installation, even in remote shallow- shown in Figs. 4 and 5. The laboratory-scale units have a different
water environments, as well as potential removal and re-use. One way diameter and number of pipes, but with similar cross-sectional pipe
the structure reduces or eliminates the need for heavy equipment, area of 0.02 m2; Unit 1 contains 72, 1.91 cm diameter pipes while the
which can destroy natural habitat in shallow water, is the hollow cavity, Unit 2 contains 10, 5.08 cm diameter pipes. All pipes are on a 1° slope
which is used to help stabilize and reduce the weight, inside the struc- from the front to the back of the unit.
ture, which enables the device to be filled with water. Along with the Wave heights were measured using the Sea Gauge Wave and Tide
water, an engineered anchoring system can be installed to ensure stabil- Recorder (SBE 26plus, Sea-Bird Electronics, Inc.). The Sea Gauge Wave
ity. The units within the structure are joined together with an occasional and Tide Recorder measured the wave pressure above the sensor,
weir to allow trapped water to return, maintaining ecological and which was then converted to wave height using Hrms ≅ 2 √ 2var{γ}.
hydrologic connectivity, while capturing suspended sediment from Soil used in the sediment collection study is an organic silty-clay
tidal wave action, serving as shoreline protection along navigation material from Cut Off, Louisiana with a specific gravity of 2.68; liquid
channels and canals, and being used in lieu of earthen dikes for limit of 47.53; and a plasticity index of 1.95, which is classified as A-7-
sediment retention. These features make this system unique. If proven 5 by ASSHTO and OH by USCS (Das, 2009).
successful, this device could work with or replace breakwaters and
jetties in many different soil conditions. Fig. 2. shows the marsh 2.2. Wave reduction
protection structure with units and weir.
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 [0.15, 0.19, and 0.23 m]. Experiments at each
along shorelines. Extensive additional tests are necessary to support water depth were conducted twice for the two different units. Each
its implementation. The primary goals of this study were to quantify experiment was operated continuously for 90 min. The wave and tide
the structure's performance in terms of wave height reduction and sed- recorder measured wave properties of the area front of the unit for
iment collection. One important aspect is to optimize the number and the first 45 min, and was then moved behind the unit for the last
diameter of pipes that allow for optimum wave height reduction and 45 min. Experiments for each of the three different water depths were
sediment collection. In this study, two units with different pipe numbers completed before changing the unit. The same sequence was then
and diameters were selected. The two units have relatively the same repeated for the second unit. 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.

2.3. Validation of velocity

Velocity measurements were taken using an Acoustic Doppler

Velocimeter (SonTek). This ADV takes 3-D velocity measurements at a
sample volume 10 cm in front of the sensor. Experimental procedure
used was similar to that described by other authors (Das et al., 2015;
Precht and Hauttel, 2004). The sensor was installed above the wave
tank on an adjustable wooden and metal stand, allowing for stability
and reliable placement. Sample times up to 7 min were used in this ex-
periment at a sampling frequency of 25 Hz. Velocity measurements
were taken at a water depth of 19.1 cm. Sampling location was located
in the center of the tank, 177.8 cm from the paddle, which was very
close to the unit. The velocities were measured at two heights (7.6,
and 11.4 cm), corresponding to the heights of the two rows of pipes of
the unit. Three velocity tests were run at each height. After data acqui-
sition, data were filtered for correlation of over 70% and Sound to Noise
Fig. 2. The marsh protection structure with weirs (Pierce Industries, LLC). Ratio (SNR) over 15. Mean velocity at each height was then determined.
 N. McCoy et al. / Coastal Engineering 105 (2015) 13–20 15

Fig. 3. Wave tank setup for wave reduction and sediment collection experiments.

2.4. Sediment collection collection efficiency of the units, 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. The water depth in the tank was 0.19 m. Miller and McKee (2004) the unit. α was determined by a nonlinear regression software (Sigma
found that the average TSS concentration in Louisiana coastal waters is Plot Version 11.0). Flow directions and variables are shown in Fig. 6.
about 50 mg/L. 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.
approximately 50 mg/L TSS in the wave tank on both sides of the unit.
1. Water volume and sediment mass in the whole tank are constant
The slurry, consisting of soil and water from the tank, was added to
during the experiments.
each side of the unit proportionally. The wave tank was allowed to
2. The TSS concentration flowing through the pipes is the same as the
run for one hour to evenly distribute the suspended sediment. Every
average TSS concentration in front of the unit.
eight hours, samples were collected from locations in front of the unit.
3. Water transfers to the back of the unit only through the pipes and
Before collecting the samples, the water within the area was mixed for
returns to the front only over the weir.
three minutes using mechanical stirrers. A standard method provided
4. TSS movement follows the Longuet–Higgins theory from Fredsoe
by Clesceri et al. (1998) was used to determine the TSS concentration
and Deigaard (1993).
by collecting five (5) water samples. To calculate the sediment accumu-
lated an average TSS concentration of the five samples from the back Applying these assumptions, a mass balance equation can be written
was taken. for the sediment in front of the unit as:

dm f
¼ Q out C f ð1−α Þ−Q in C f ð1Þ
2.5. Mathematical model development dt

The laboratory units reflected the majority of the wave energy, while where mf (grams) is the mass of sediment located in front of the unit; Cf
the remaining energy propagated water with the suspended sediment (mg/L) is the sediment concentration in front of the device; Q in (m3/s)
through the pipes. A weir allows trapped water to return to the front is the flow rate of water entering the pipes; Q out (m3/s) is the flow rate
of the tank. The wave tank was divided into two parts — the area in of water that returns to the front of the tank following assumption 3; α
front of the unit and the area behind the unit. Part of the sediment set- is the mass ratio of the TSS concentration remaining behind the unit to
tles behind the units, while the remaining returns to the area in front of the total TSS concentration flowing into the back of the unit.
the unit by flowing over the weir. The TSS concentration (Cc) flowing Knowing that:
over the weir is assumed to be less than the sediment flowing through
the pipes. A variable α, ranging from 0 to 1 representing the sediment V f C f ¼ mf ð2Þ

Fig. 4. Unit 1 [1.91 cm diameter pipe unit].

16 N. McCoy et al. / Coastal Engineering 105 (2015) 13–20

Fig. 5. Unit 2 [5.08 cm diameter pipe unit].

and Fig. 7. shows the mechanism of fluid particle movement (Fredsoe

and Deigaard, 1993).
Q in ¼ Q out ð3Þ Following assumption 4, the overall horizontal velocity of the fluid
particle (Δu) (m/s) will be (Fredsoe and Deigaard, 1993):
simplified Eq. (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. Sep- where H is the wave height (m), T is the wave period (s), D is the water
arating the variables and integrating Eq. (4) with mf = mf0 at t = 0 depth (m), k is the wave number (1/m), c is the velocity of the wave (m/
yields: s), and z is the sediment location within the water depth (m). 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. 4  tanhðkDÞ
From Eq. (1):
where Q is the water flow rate moving to the unit (m3/s), w is the width
mb þ m f ¼ mb0 þ m f 0 ¼ m0 ð6Þ of the wave tank (m), H is the wave height (m), f is the frequency of the
waves (1/s), D is the water depth (m), k is the wave number (1/m), and
where mb (grams) is the mass of sediment behind the unit, mb0 (grams) π is a constant.
is the initial mass of the sediment behind the unit we get, 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. 6. Overhead view of wave tank showing flow directions and variables used.
 N. McCoy et al. / Coastal Engineering 105 (2015) 13–20 17

Fig. 7. Schematic diagram of fluid particle movement.

where Af is the water column cross section area (m2) and Af = wD. 3. Results and discussion
L and Eq. (10) into Eq. (11), the final equation for
Substituting k ¼ 2π
Q in will be: 3.1. Wave reduction

The experiment was conducted in a 3.66 m long, 1.83 m wide, and

πH 2 f  Ap 0.31 m deep wave tank with a smooth floor with the back of the units
Q in ¼
: ð11Þ
2πD placed 0.60 m away from the back of the wave tank. Three different
4D  tanh
L water depths [0.15, 0.19, and 0.23 m] were used during the experiment.
Visual observations during the laboratory experiments showed that the
device reflects the majority of each wave; the remaining wave energy
Substituting Eq. (11) into Eq. (7), the final equation for predicting travels through the pipes into the quiescent pool behind the unit.
sediment accumulation behind is obtained. Fig. 8. shows the SBR Wave Sensor data information on the wave reduc-
tion of Unit 1 for a water depth of 0.19 m. The y-axis from Fig. 8 shows

 the wave height data reading in front and behind Unit 1. 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 0.15 m. The sensor was then
placed behind Unit 1 from the time 600 until 2000 s recording approx-
imately 0.0025 m in wave height. Fig. 9. shows measured wave height
reductions during the laboratory experiments. The x-axis shows H*,
2.6. Sensitivity study the dimensionless values that represent the wave height plus the
water depth divided by the height of the unit. The y-axis shows wave
In order to determine the most important variables that affect the height reduction in percentage. H1*, H2*, and H3* values for the three
performance of the device in sediment collection, sensitivity studies
were conducted with the following variables: wave height (H), water
depth (D), total pipe area (Ap), initial TSS concentration (mfo/Vf), and 100

wave frequency (f). These variables were changed by certain percent-

Wave Height Reduction (percentage)

ages (0%, ±20%, +50%, and +100%) to determine how these variables
80
are affecting sediment collection of the unit.

Front Back 60

Unit 1
Unit 2
40

20

0
0..53 0.63
33 0.733
3
W
Water De
epth + W ave Height/ Unit He
eight

Fig. 8. SBR wave sensor data in 0.19 m water depth. Fig. 9. Wave reduction by the two different units at three different water depths.
18 N. McCoy et al. / Coastal Engineering 105 (2015) 13–20

200 75
Table 1
TSS Concentration
Experiment conditions water depth and dimensionless units. Sediment Collection
175
D1 (m) D2 (m) D3 (m) H1* H2* H3* 60

TSS Concentration (mg/L)

Sediment Collection (g)

150
0.15 0.19 0.23 0.530 0.633 0.733
125
45
Table 2 100
Velocity validation results.
30
75
D (cm) Z (cm) Mean velocity (cm/s)

19.1 7.6 1.79 50

11.4 1.80 15
25

0 0
laboratory tests were 0.530, 0.633, and 0.733, respectively. Table 1 0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56
shows the water depth and dimensionless units. Time (hour)
Units 1 and 2 both showed about 90% wave height reduction for H1*.
This wave height reduction occurred in a depth of 0.15 m of water. The Fig. 11. TSS concentration and computed sediment accumulation for Unit 2.
main reason for the large reduction in wave height at H1* is most likely
from the limited amount of water going through the pipes, which was
observed during the experiment. Because the water depth partly theoretical particle velocity range (1.20–2.98 cm/s) was calculated
reached the bottom row of pipes this allowed only a limited amount using Eq. 8. The measured velocity is within the range of the theoretical
of water to go through the device causing the higher wave reduction. calculation. The validation results show that the assumption of the
For H2*, Unit 1 had a wave height reduction of 90.2%; Unit 2 showed Longuet–Higgins theory in the mathematical model is reasonable.
a reduction of 84.6%. The water depth during the H2* experiments was
0.19 m. The difference in wave height reduction between the units
may be from the differences of the pipe diameters of the two units. 3.3. Sediment collection results
Unit 1, with 0.019 m diameter pipes, has more wall friction than Unit
2 with 0.05 m diameter pipes. The experiment was conducted in a 3.66 m long, 1.83 m wide, and
With H3*, the wave height reduction (about 80%) is lower than that 0.31 m deep wave tank with a smooth floor, with the back of the units
of H1* and H2*. This is due to more pipes being available to transfer the placed 0.60 m away from the back of the wave tank. A depth of
water through the units with the water depth of 0.23 m. The pipe area 0.19 m with a wave height of 0.05 m was used for the two sediment
under water in H3* is 50% larger than that in H1*. Another possible collection experiments. The pipe area for both units is 0.02 m2. Soil
reason for lower wave height reduction at H3* from observation of the used is an organic silty-clay material from Cut Off, Louisiana with a
laboratory experiment could be that more water was going over the top specific gravity of 2.68. The average initial TSS concentration of 5
of the unit causing more waves behind the unit than that of H1* and H2*. samples taken from the tank was 48 mg/L in front of Unit 1. Fig. 10.
Wave diffraction from the experiment conducted by Briggs et al. 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.
60%. Huang and Chao (1992), Yu (1995), and Makris and Memos The TSS concentration and mass observed behind the unit shows
(2007) reported 40% and 80% wave reduction through breakwaters. that the unit is collecting and retaining sediment. The initial sediment
The 80% or better reduction in wave heights was observed in these mass behind Unit 1 was 12.8 g; increasing to 30.7 g over the 48-hour ex-
experiments is as good as most breakwaters currently in use at wave periment, for a net sediment mass collected of 17.9 g and a sediment
height reduction. collection rate of 0.37 g/h. Fredsoe and Deigaard (1993), McCormick
(1993), and Ming and Chiew (2000) reported sand collection but no
3.2. Velocity validation results silt clay collection through breakwaters.

Table 2 lists the mean velocity values near the units at different Z
45
values. It can be seen that the velocity is around 1.80 cm/s. The Unit 1
Unit 2
40
200 75
Model : 0.147 R2: 0.80
Model : 0.131 R2: 0.94
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. 10. TSS concentrations and computed sediment accumulation for Unit 1. Fig. 12. Sediment collection data fitted to the model of the 2 units.
 N. McCoy et al. / Coastal Engineering 105 (2015) 13–20 19

Table 3 3.4. Mathematical modeling results

Summary of results from experiments.

Structure Wave reduction by depth Sediment collection Model results Sediment accumulation data shown in Figs. 10 and 11. were fit to
0.15 m 0.19 m 0.23 m TSS concentration Mass R2 α
Eq. 12. The results are shown in Fig. 12. It can be seen that the model
(mg/L) (g) fits the data well with R2 value above 0.80. The α values, obtained
from nonlinear regression software (Sigma Plot Version 11.0) in
Unit 1 90% 90.2% 80% 170 30.7 0.80 0.147
Unit 2 90% 84.6% 80% 175 35.7 0.94 0.131 Fig. 12 for Unit 1 and Unit 2 are 0.147 and 0.131, respectively. The α
value for Unit 1 is slightly larger than that of Unit 2. Statistically, there
is no significant difference between the α values of the two units
because the two data points overlapped within the 99% confidence
Fig. 11 shows the TSS concentrations and sediment mass collected interval of each other. 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 0.0001 meaning there is no significant
of the unit. The results are similar to those for Unit 1, i.e. the device col- difference between the data and the model. Therefore, the difference
lected and retained sediment. The highest average TSS concentration of α can be ignored. It can be concluded that the two units have similar
behind unit 2 was 182 mg/L. The initial sediment mass of 15.5 g sediment collection efficiency (13% to 15%). The difference in pipe num-
increased to 35.7 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-
20.2 g. Fig. 11. shows that the mass of the sediment collected behind lection if the total open areas are the same. Total area of flow through
the unit increasing at a steady rate of approximately 0.42 g/h over the the pipes was found to be more important than how that area is distrib-
course of the experiment. uted among the number and size of pipes. Suh and Dalrymple (1987)

100
0.05 meters 100
90 0.04 meters
0.06 meters Wave Height (H) 90 0.010 meter2
0.07 meters 0.008 meter2
80
0.10 meters 80 0.012 meter2 Pipe Area (Ap)
Mass of Sediment (gram)

Mass of Sediment (gram)

70 0. 015 meter2
70 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 11.5 min-1

56.0 mg/L 90 9.2 min-1
90 44.8 mg/L 13.8 min-1 Wave Frequency (f)
67.2 mg/L Initial Concentration (mfo/Vf) 80 17.25 min-1
84.0 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
0.19 meters
90 0.15 meters
0.23 meters Water Depth (D)
80 0.26 meters
Mass of Sediment (gram)

0.38 meters
70

60

50

40

30

20

10 e
0
0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80
Time (hour)

Fig. 13. a. Sediment accumulation sensitive to wave height. b. Sediment accumulation sensitive to pipe area. c. Sediment accumulation sensitive to intial concentration. d. Sediment accu-
mulation sensitive to wave frequency. e. Sediment accumulation sensitive to water depth.
20 N. McCoy et al. / Coastal Engineering 105 (2015) 13–20

modeled breakwaters for sand collection, but the collection efficiency to 15%). The model fits the experimental data reasonably well, yielding
was not reported. Table 3 shows the results of the laboratory and an average correlation coefficient of about 0.87. This model could
modeling conducted on the units. These results summarize the best become useful for evaluating this device and existing devices. 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. for the two units. The sensitivity study showed that wave height and
ambient TSS concentration were the most important factors effecting
3.5. Sensitivity study of the model results sediment accumulation. As wave height and initial TSS concentrations
doubled, sediment collection increased by 45% and 50% respectively.
A sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the model's re- Water depth also plays an important role in that it reduced the sediment
sponse with respect to changes in the input parameters. This involved collection as the water became deeper. The sediment collection de-
changing each model parameter in turn while keeping all other param- creased by 34% when water depth was doubled.
eters constant and observing the effect of this change on the model out-
put. The average open pipe area beneath the water surface of the two
Acknowledgments
units (Ap = 0.01 m2) was used in this sensitivity study because these
areas are almost the same. The average α value of the two units (α =
This work was supported by the University of Louisiana, Pierce
0.139) was used for all analyses as well. Fig. 13. shows the results of
Industries, and Louisiana Board of Regents under LEQSF (2011-14)-
these studies that examined changes in wave height (H), pipe area
RD-B-07.
(Ap), initial TSS concentration (mfo/vf), wave frequency (f), and water
depth (D), labeled in Fig. 13 as a, b, c, d, and e respectively. Each variable
was changed by ± 20, + 50, and + 100% to see the effect on model References
outputs.
Briggs, M.J., Thompson, E.F., Vincent, C.L., 1995. Wave diffraction around breakwaters.
Fig. 13a shows that sediment accumulation increases by 45% when J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng. 121, 23–35.
doubling the wave height (2H). Decreasing the wave height by 20% Clesceri, L.S., Greenberg, A.E., Eaton, A.D., 1998. Standard methods for the examination of
(0.8H) decreased sediment accumulation by about 23%. As wave height water and wastewater. In: Clesceri, L.S., Greenberg, A.E., Eaton, A.D. (Eds.), Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. United Book Press,
increases with constant water depth, more energy is transferred to the Baltimore, pp. 2–57 (2-58).
sediment bed, causing more sediment to suspend and move through Das, B.M., 2009. Soil mechanics laboratory manual. Oxford University Press, Inc., Oxford.
the pipes. At the same time, more water is able to flow through the de- Das, S., Das, R., Mazumdar, A., 2015. Velocity profile measurement technique for scour
using ADV. 2015 International Conference on Testing and Measurement
vice (Fredsoe and Deigaard, 1993). As wave height decreases, less ener- TechniquesPhuket Island: Thailand Testing and Measurement: Techniques and
gy transfers to the sediment bed causing less sediment to suspend and Applications pp. 249–252.
flow through the units. Similarly, in Fig. 13b, the percentage of sediment Dickson, W.S., Herbers, T.H.C., Thornton, E.B., 1995. Wave reflection from breakwater.
J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng. 121, 262–268.
gain is increased 30% by doubling the pipe area (2Ap) which allows
Fredsoe, J., Deigaard, R., 1993. Mechanics of coastal sediment transport. In: Fredsoe, J.,
more water to flow through the device. Fig. 13c shows the sediment ac- Deigaard, R. (Eds.), Mechanics of Coastal Sediment Transport. World Scientific
cumulation relative to the change in initial TSS concentration. Doubling Publishing, Singapore, pp. 6–7.
the ambient TSS concentration (2*mf0/vf) increases sediment gain by Huang, L.H., Chao, H.I., 1992. Reflection and transmission of water wave by porous
breakwater. J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng. 118, 437–452.
50%. Makris, C.V., Memos, C.D., 2007. Wave transmission over submerged breakwaters:
Fig. 13d shows that by doubling the wave frequency (2f), the per- performance of formulae and models. International Offshore and Polar Engineering
centage of sediment gain is increased by 30%. The higher the frequency Conference. The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, Lisbon,
Portugal, pp. 2613–2620.
of waves, the more likely the sediment will be suspended and moved McCormick, M.E., 1993. Equilibrium shoreline response to breakwaters. J. Waterw. Port
along the bed (Nielsen, 1992). Fig. 13e shows sediment accumulation Coast. Ocean Eng. 119, 657–670.
relative to the change in water depth. As the water depth increases, Miller, R.L., McKee, B.A., 2004. Using MODIS terra 250 m imagery to map concentrations
of total suspended matter in coastal waters. Remote Sens. Environ. 93, 259–266.
less water (with TSS) is able to flow into the unit (see Eq. 12) Ming, D., Chiew, Y.-M., 2000. Shoreline changes behind detached breakwater. J. Waterw.
(Fredsoe and Deigaard, 1993). The study showed that the percentage Port Coast. Ocean Eng. 126, 63–70.
of sediment gain decreases by 34% when doubling the water depth Nielsen, P., 1992. Coastal bottom boundary layers and sediment transport. World
Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd, River Edge, New Jersey.
(2D).
Pilarczyk, K., 2003. Design of low-crested (submerged) structures — an overview. 6th
International Conference on Coastal and Port Engineering in Developing Countries.
4. Conclusions COPEDEC, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Precht, E., Hauttel, M., 2004. Rapid wave-driven advective pore water exchange in a
permeable coastal sediment. J. Sea Res. 51, 93–107.
Laboratory-scale tests of the units provided useful data for design Suh, K., Dalrymple, R.A., 1987. Offshore breakwaters in laboratory and field. J. Waterw.
and evaluation of the technology. Unit 1 reduces incoming wave heights Port Coast. Ocean Eng. 113, 102–121.
by 90% at different water depths while Unit 2 reduced wave height 84% Turner, I.L., 2006. Discrimination modes of shoreline response to offshore-detached
structures. J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng. 132, 180–191.
under the experimental conditions. Both units collected and retained Yu, X., 1995. Diffraction of water waves by porous breakwaters. J. Waterw. Port Coast.
fine-grained sediment with similar sediment collection efficiency (13% Ocean Eng. 121, 275–282.