See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257211170

Modelling morphological processes in the

vicinity of shore-parallel breakwaters

Article in Coastal Engineering May 2002

DOI: 10.1016/S0378-3839(02)00037-6

CITATIONS READS

52 67

2 authors, including:

Julio A. Zyserman
DHI Water & Environment, Inc. (DHI)
27 PUBLICATIONS 571 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Julio A. Zyserman on 08 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Coastal Engineering 45 (2002) 261 284
www.elsevier.com/locate/coastaleng

Modelling morphological processes in the vicinity

of shore-parallel breakwaters
Julio A. Zyserman a,*, Hakeem K. Johnson b
a
Coastal Engineering Department, DHI Water & Environment, Agern Alle 11, DK-2970 Hrsholm, Denmark
b
Marine Software Department, DHI Water & Environment, Agern Alle 11, DK-2970 Hrsholm, Denmark

Abstract

A coastal area morphological modelling system is used to investigate the planform development (tombolo or salient) behind
a single surface-piercing detached breakwater. A quasi three-dimensional (Q3D) description of the flow and the sediment
transport, together with a revised bed level update scheme, were incorporated recently in the morphological modelling suite
applied in the present investigation. The Q3D sediment transport formulation used allows simulating beach profile evolution
and planform development simultaneously. Several breakwater layouts were investigated in a series of tests, in which the
incident wave condition was taken as constant in time. The investigation was done for surface-piercing, shore-parallel
breakwaters in a non-tidal environment. The morphological simulation results for the planform shape agree qualitatively with
field observations and predictions from empirical rules. Using the simulation results, simple design curves for surface-piercing
breakwaters are derived. The importance of properly accounting for the influence of wave diffraction when modelling sediment
transport and morphology in the vicinity of shore-parallel structures is also investigated. The present paper summarises much of
the work performed at DHI Water & Environment over the past 10 years within the field of coastal area morphological
modelling. D 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Detached breakwaters; Surface-piercing structures; Q3D sediment transport modelling; Morphological response; Coastal area
morphological modelling; Design curves; Comparison to field data; Comparison to empirical formulations

1. Introduction such that it always emerges from the water, or sub-

Detached breakwaters are widely used in coastal
engineering practice in connection with coastal pro-
tection and restoration schemes, e.g. to shelter the
coast from incoming waves, to sustain artificial or
nourished beaches with a curved planform, to reduce
maintenance dredging, etc. The breakwaters may be
surface-piercing, i.e. the crest level of the structure is
*
Corresponding author. Fax: +45-4516-9292.
E-mail address: jaz@dhi.dk (J.A. Zyserman).
merged, when the crest level is below the water surface
or becomes so, e.g. during part of the tidal cycle.
Regardless of their dimension, degree of submer-
gence of the crest and location with respect to the
coastline, these structures interact with the hydrody-
namic and sediment transport processes in a very
complex fashion. This interaction leads in turn to
changes in coastal morphology. If the (initially
detached) breakwater becomes connected to the coast
as a consequence of the morphological response
following its construction, then the resulting planform
is called a tombolo. If the shoreline within the shel-

0378-3839/02/$ - see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 7 8 - 3 8 3 9 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 3 7 - 6
262 J.A. Zyserman, H.K. Johnson / Coastal Engineering 45 (2002) 261284
tered area behind the structure advances without
reaching the structure, the planform is termed a sa-
lient.
Prediction of the planform shape (tombolo or
salient) that will develop behind shore-parallel break-
waters has largely relied on practical rules, supple-
mented in some cases by physical model tests. A
number of practical rules and methods to predict the
type of morphological response and planform shape
produced by detached breakwaters are available from
the literature. Examples can be seen from, e.g. Her-
bich (1989), Dally and Pope (1986), Suh and Dal-
rymple (1987), Hsu et al. (1989a,b) and Hsu and
Evans (1989), among others. Most of these methods
are applicable to a single breakwater.
With the continuing development experienced by
numerical models in recent years (see e.g. de Vriend et
al., 1993 or Nicholson et al., 1997), use of coastal area
morphological modelling tools for the design of
coastal structures has become a promising alternative.
For example, OConnor et al. (1995) used a morpho-
logical model consisting of a wave and current sub-
model, a sediment transport sub-model and a bed level
change sub-model to simulate tombolo formation
behind a single offshore breakwater. Constant wave
conditions and normal wave incidence were used in
the simulations. Both the hydrodynamic and morpho-
logical results obtained from the model were checked
against available laboratory and field data. Johnson et
al. (1995) performed a series of tests in which the
morphological changes behind a single detached
breakwater subject to constant wave action were
simulated for different combinations of breakwater
length, distance to shoreline and incident wave height
and direction.
Over the past years, DHI Water & Environment
(formerly Danish Hydraulic Institute) has made exten-
sive use of a coastal area morphological modelling
system to investigate planform development behind a
single detached breakwater. Surface-piercing and sub-
merged structures were investigated, see Zyserman et
al. (1998, 1999) for details. The simulation results
were used to develop simple design curves for sur-
face-piercing breakwaters.
Previous applications of DHIs coastal area mor-
phological system were based on a two-dimensional
(2DH) description of the hydrodynamics and sediment
transport, as described in de Vriend et al. (1993) (see
also Johnson et al., 1994). In the 2DH case, sediment
transport always takes place in the direction of the
depth-averaged current, even within the surf zone.
Within the framework of the EU-financed Surf And
Swash zone MEchanics (SASME) research project,
the bed level update scheme used in the morpholog-
ical system was revised and the coastal area morpho-
logical model was enhanced by including a quasi
three-dimensional (Q3D) description of the mean flow
and the sediment transport. This description of the
sediment transport makes it possible to calculate both
longshore and cross-shore sediment transport rates in
coastal zone applications of the model and to simulta-
neously investigate beach profile evolution and plan-
form development. The improved bed level update
scheme suppresses high wave number oscillations in
the bed levels, making it easier to analyse large-scale
features.
The present paper summarises the results obtained
from the application of the new modelling system to a
series of tests in which several breakwater layouts are
used. As in Zyserman et al. (1998), the tests are aimed
at investigating the planform development behind a
single surface-piercing detached breakwater. Further-
more, the influence of modelling sediment transport in
a Q3D fashion on the modelled morphology is
assessed. The ability of the modelling system to
produce the correct type of morphological response
(tombolo/salient) is checked by comparing the pre-
dicted planform to field observations and predictions
from empirical rules. The simulation results are then
used to derive simple design curves for surface-pierc-
ing shore-parallel breakwaters. The analysis of a
single breakwater presented here is seen as the first
step in the development a reliable modelling tool that
can be used to predict the morphological response
behind complex arrays of shore protection structures.
Modelling results could then be summarised in design
curves to optimise the dimensions of the individual
structures, i.e. length and distance to coast.
A description of the coastal area morphological
modelling system applied in the investigations is
presented in what follows. The results obtained from
the application of the morphological modelling sys-
tem to a series of breakwater layouts are presented and
discussed. The discussion is based on the two new
features of the morphological modelling system,
namely the Q3D description of the sediment transport
 J.A. Zyserman, H.K. Johnson / Coastal Engineering 45 (2002) 261284
and the revised bed level update scheme. Finally, the
importance of properly accounting for wave diffrac-
tion when modelling sediment transport and morpho-
logical evolution in the vicinity of shore-parallel
structures is discussed.
2. Description of morphological modelling system
2.1. Model components
DHIs Coastal Area Morphological modelling Sys-
tem MIKE 21 CAMS is built around standard mod-
ules of the MIKE 21 model suite and is based on an
explicit forward-time integration scheme for the evo-
lution of the bathymetry. An earlier version of this
system has been presented in detail in Johnson et al.
(1994, 1995). Therefore, only a brief description of
the main characteristics of the modules together with
relevant references is given in what follows. More
specific details regarding model set-up, calibration
parameters, etc., are left for the section describing
the tests performed and the analysis of the results
obtained.
MIKE 21 CAMS consists of a number of modules
that are executed sequentially. Execution is controlled
by a shell, which also ensures the flow of information
among the components of the modelling system. The
evolution of the model bathymetry under a number of
forcing processes can be simulated as the wave,
current and sediment transport fields are calculated
on the updated bathymetry. The block diagram in Fig.
1 shows the sequence in which the modules of the
system are run.
The morphological modelling system consists of
the following elements:
A wave module, which may be chosen among a
variety of wave models available at DHI. The two
wave modules most commonly used are (i) MIKE 21
PMS and (ii) MIKE 21 NSW.
(i) MIKE 21 PMS (DHI, 1996a) is based on the
parabolic approximation to the mild-slope equation
(Kirby, 1986) and accounts for the effects of shoaling,
refraction, diffraction, breaking, directional spreading,
forward scattering and bed friction on the incident
waves.
(ii) MIKE 21 NSW (DHI, 1996b) is a spectral
wind-wave model, which describes the propagation,
263
growth and decay of short-period waves in nearshore
areas by solving the equations for conservation of
wave action (Holthuijsen et al., 1989). The model
includes the effects of refraction and shoaling, wave
generation due to wind and energy dissipation due to
bottom friction and wave breaking. The effects of
current on these phenomena may be included.
In both wave modules, the dissipation of wave
energy due to breaking is calculated according to the
model of Battjes and Janssen (1978). Incident wave
conditions are imposed at the models offshore boun-
dary, whereas symmetrical or absorbing boundary
conditions are prescribed for the lateral boundaries,
depending on the actual set-up.
A hydrodynamic module, MIKE 21 HD (DHI,
1997a), which calculates the flow field from the
solution of the depth-integrated continuity and mo-
mentum equations (Abbott et al., 1973; Abbott, 1979).
In addition to wind and tide, the forcing terms may
include the gradients in the radiation stress field as
calculated by the wave module of the morphological
modelling system. The currents and the mean water
level are calculated on a bed evolving at a constant rate
equal to Dz/Dt as calculated by the sediment transport
module.
A non-cohesive sediment transport module,
MIKE 21 ST (DHI, 1997b), used to calculate the
transport rates of graded sediment and the initial rates
of bed level change Dz/Dt under the combined action
of waves and current. MIKE 21 ST uses DHIs
deterministic intra-wave sediment transport model
STP to calculate the total (bed load+suspended load)
transport rates of non-cohesive sediment.
STP is an advanced sediment transport model that
accounts for the effects of waves propagating at an
arbitrary angle to the current, breaking/unbroken
waves, uniform/graded bed sediment, plane/ripple
covered bed when calculating the local rates of total
load transport. The model has been described in detail
in a series of papers, see e.g. Fredse et al. (1985) and
Deigaard et al. (1986a,b). In the original version of
STP, which was included in the former version of
MIKE 21 CAMS, local transport rates were calculated
exclusively in the direction of the mean current, even
within the surf zone. The effect of breaking waves
was simply included as enhanced turbulence close to
the free surface, which resulted in larger amounts of
sediment in suspension and transport rates compared
264 J.A. Zyserman, H.K. Johnson / Coastal Engineering 45 (2002) 261284

Fig. 1. Structure of the morphological modelling system.

 J.A. Zyserman, H.K. Johnson / Coastal Engineering 45 (2002) 261284 265

to the situation with unbroken waves (see Deigaard et
al., 1986a). No net sediment transport was calculated
in the direction of wave propagation.
STP was later extended to include a Q3D descrip-
tion of the flow and the sediment transport, as
described in Elfrink et al. (1996, 1999). In the Q3D
version of STP, the time-mean (over a wave period)
velocity profiles are found by using the three-dimen-
sional shear stress distribution derived by Deigaard
(1993). Use of this approach allows calculation of net
sediment transport rates both in the direction of wave
propagation and in the direction of the mean current.
The Q3D version of STP was incorporated into MIKE
21 ST as part of DHIs involvement in the SASME
project, so Q3D sediment transport rates can be
calculated at every node of a 2D model grid.
To illustrate the capabilities of the Q3D version of
MIKE 21 ST, Fig. 2 below shows the application of
the model to compute the sediment transport rates
along a plane uniform beach under the action of
oblique incident waves that drive a longshore current.
The upper panel in Fig. 2 is a close-up of the transport
field shown in Fig. 5. Fig. 2 shows how the transport
vectors point onshore outside the surf zone (the
breaker line is parallel to the coast and located at
xc550 m on the horizontal axis) and offshore within
the surf zone. To facilitate interpretation, the bottom
panel of Fig. 2 shows the cross-shore variation of the

Fig. 2. Q3D sediment transport rates calculated under oblique waves and longshore current on a straight uniform beach. Top: sediment transport
pattern. Bottom: cross-shore variation of cross-shore transport rates.
266 J.A. Zyserman, H.K. Johnson / Coastal Engineering 45 (2002) 261284
cross-shore transport component calculated by the
model. It should be noticed that longshore transport
rates are much larger than cross-shore ones and that
offshore sediment transport is a factor 3 4 larger than
onshore transport for the present example.
A bed-level update scheme using an improved
second-order Lax Wendroff scheme (Abbott, 1979),
which also defines the length of the morphological
time step Dtsedi between consecutive updates of the
calculated sediment transport field.
The bed level update scheme was recently revised
(Johnson and Zyserman, 2001) to dissipate high
wave-number spatial oscillations in the bed level
evolution. The revised scheme is based on the analysis
of the conservation equation for sediment mass,
expressed as a propagation equation for bed level
evolution. Inspection of the transformed equation
shows that the nonlinear celerity of bed level evolu-
tion leads to the generation of higher spatial harmon-
ics of the bed level oscillations with time. If the finite
difference scheme keeps the generated harmonics in
the solution, then these harmonics will eventually
destroy (after a long enough time) the morphological
solution once the grid spacing becomes too coarse to
properly resolve the harmonics.
A filtering procedure is therefore used to dissipate
the high wave-number oscillations. The method used
is inspired by the procedure suggested in Jensen et al.
(1999), with some significant differences in details.
Analysis of the amplification portraits of the revised
bed level update scheme shows that the filtering
procedure, applied in combination with a Lax
Wendroff scheme, dissipates the high wave-number
oscillations without affecting bed forms with lower
wave numbers (large-scale features resolved with
seven or more grid points). More details about the
analysis of spatial oscillations and the bed level
update scheme are presented in Johnson and Zyser-
man (2001).
Several tools form part of the morphological
modelling system. This includes wavrgh, a tool used
to calculate the enhanced resistance experienced by
the steady current in combined wave-current flow
using the wave boundary layer model of Fredse
(1984). The enhanced flow resistance is expressed
as an apparent bed roughness that can be used as input
for the flow model. Another tool, wavcur, generates
boundary conditions for the hydrodynamic model.
Wave-driven currents are incorporated in the boun-
dary conditions by converting the radiation stresses
calculated by the wave module into water levels and
fluxes along the boundaries of the flow model that
intersect the coast. In doing so, longshore uniformity
of the bathymetry and the wave conditions outside the
model area is assumed.
2.2. Operation of the CAMS system
Prior to performing the morphological simulation
proper, the initial wave- and current fields correspond-
ing to the forcing and boundary conditions (which
may be constant or time-varying) acting on the initial
bathymetry have to be calculated, cf. Fig. 1. In case of
stationary boundary conditions, the initial wave field
needs only to include one time step, namely t = 0. For
time-varying conditions, wave fields at t = 0 and
t = Dtwave have to be calculated. Dtwave is defined by
the user and is typically of the order of a couple of
hours. The initial flow field is obtained after having
run the flow model for a period of time long enough
as to reach stationary conditions or to eliminate
transients in the solution, depending on whether the
simulation considers a steady or time-varying situa-
tion, respectively.
The morphological modelling looplinking the
calculation of waves, currents and sediment transport
in Fig. 1is entered by calculating the sediment
transport field at t = 0. The initial wave and flow fields
constitute the input for this calculation. Gradients in
sediment transport are then used by the bed-level
update scheme to calculate the initial rates of bed
level change Dz/Dt and the morphological time step
Dtsedi. The updated bathymetry after one morpholog-
ical time step is also calculated. The morphological
time step Dtsedi is variable and may be interpreted as
the maximum time elapsed before a new sediment
transport field has to be computed.
Once the bathymetry has been updated, a new
wave field is calculated by propagating the waves
on it. Wave parameters applied at the offshore boun-
dary of the wave model are updated if necessary. The
wave field is usually re-calculated less frequently than
the currents, the sediment transport and the morphol-
ogy. Typically, the wave module is executed every kth
morphological loop (with kz1, usually 2 or 3),
whereas the hydrodynamic and sediment transport
 J.A. Zyserman, H.K. Johnson / Coastal Engineering 45 (2002) 261284 267

modules and the tools are run for every single loop, as of the surf zone as an additional parameter. Secondly,
shown in Fig. 1. dimensional analysis performed by Johnson et al.
Depending on the set-up used, a new bed rough- (1995) shows that, for given incident wave conditions
ness map may be calculated with the wavrgh tool prior and bed sediment characteristics, the equilibrium
to computing a new flow field with MIKE 21 HD. planform that will develop behind a single detached
The boundary conditions for the hydrodynamic model breakwater is mainly governed by its length and the
are updated using the wavcur tool at every morpho- distance to the initial shoreline.
logical loop, prior to simulating changes in the flow The conditions used in the tests are summarised in
field between time t and t + Dtsedi with MIKE 21 HD. Table 1 below. X80 is the distance measured from the
The time step used in MIKE 21 HD, DtHD, is user- coastline within which 80% of the total littoral trans-
defined and typically of the order of a few seconds for port takes place along the open coast and may be
coastal area applications involving relatively fine therefore interpreted as a measure of the width of the
mesh sizes. The flow field is computed over a surf zone. It is interesting to mention that even though
bathymetry that changes at the rate of Dz/Dt, in order a Q3D sediment transport model is used in the present
to ensure that the flow field is always compatible with test series and a 2DH approach in Zyserman et al.
the evolving bathymetry. (1998), the same value of X80c240 m has been
Finally, a new sediment transport field is calculated obtained in both cases.
using the updated wave and current fields, and a new
morphological cycle is initiated. 3.2. Model set-up and simulation results
This morphological loop is repeated either a user-
defined number of times, or until the selected simu- Constant wave conditions are used in all tests. For a
lation period has been covered. real-life case, either a representative constant wave,
time series of wave parameters or a schematised (time-
varying) wave climate representative of the yearly
3. Systematic analysis of the response induced by littoral drift at the particular site should be used instead.
detached, surface-piercing breakwaters The concept of a single representative wave is pre-
sented in Chesher and Miles (1992), an example of
3.1. Test matrix how to schematise the time-varying wave conditions
for a field site can be seen in Johnson et al. (2001).
The MIKE 21 CAMS modelling system including No calibration of the modules of the modelling
a Q3D description of the flow and the sediment system was undertaken, but default values of these
transport is used to investigate the planform develop- parameters were used instead in the wave and the flow
ment behind a single surface piercing, shore-parallel modules. The deterministic approach used to calculate
breakwater through a series of tests. The same model the Q3D sediment transport rates in MIKE 21 ST does
set-up and test matrix as used in Zyserman et al. not include any calibration or tuning parameters. Use
(1998) is adopted, in order to allow comparison of the of calibration parameters other than the ones selected
results to findings from the analysis performed with
an earlier (2DH) version of the CAMS system. In the
tests, the length L of the breakwater and its distance to Table 1
Test matrix for surface-piercing breakwaters
the initial shoreline X are systematically varied.
Test X (m) L (m) X/X80 L/X80 L/X
There were two main reasons for placing the focus
of the tests on varying the dimensions of the structure KM1 120 312 0.50 1.30 2.60
KM2 240 312 1.00 1.30 1.30
(L and X). Firstly, one of the goals of the present
KM3 360 312 1.50 1.30 0.87
investigation is to compare the planform shape gen- KM4 480 312 2.00 1.30 0.65
erated by the morphological model to predictions KM5 600 312 2.50 1.30 0.52
from empirical rules, most of which predict the type KM6 360 192 1.50 0.80 0.53
of planform that will develop based on the geometry KM7 360 432 1.50 1.80 1.20
KM8 360 552 1.50 2.30 1.53
of the breakwater. Few of them also include the width
268 J.A. Zyserman, H.K. Johnson / Coastal Engineering 45 (2002) 261284
would mainly change the calculated rates of sediment
transport and thus affect the time scale for planform
development. Since the focus of the analysis is placed
on the morphological (equilibrium) response rather
than on the transition from an initial to a final con-
figuration, use of default calibration coefficients can
be deemed as a sensible choice.
An initial bathymetry consisting of a plane bed
with a slope 1:50 up to a water depth of 14 m and 1:20
between water depths of 14 and 20 m is used in all
tests (see Figs. 6 and 7 for details). This approach was
selected to avoid wave breaking at the offshore
boundary of the model without unnecessarily extend-
ing the model area. The model covered 2700 m in
longshore ( y-) direction and 840 m in cross-shore (x-)
direction. Grid spacings of Dx= Dy = 5 m were used
for the wave modelling, while a square mesh size of
Dx = Dy = 10 m was selected for modelling the hydro-
dynamics, the sediment transport and the morpholog-
ical evolution.
In order to limit the time required for the initial
bathymetry to adjust to the changes induced by the
breakwater, i.e. to reach the final morphological con-
figuration, rather severe constant wave conditions
were chosen. The root-mean-square wave height Hrms,
the peak period Tp and the mean direction of wave
propagation hm at a water depth of 10 m were kept
constant and equal to 2 m, 8 s and 10j (measured
relative to the beach normal), respectively. Irregular
directional waves were applied in all tests. The di-
rectional distribution of wave energy was defined
through a cosnAh hmA function, with h = the direction
of wave propagation. A value of n =8 was used in the
eight tests.
Johnson et al. (1994) compared the sediment trans-
port fields computed behind a detached breakwater by
use of three different wave models: MIKE 21 PMS,
MIKE 21 NSW and MIKE 21 EMS. MIKE 21 EMS is
based on the numerical solution of the Elliptic Mild-
Slope equation formulated by Berkhoff (1976) and is
capable of reproducing the combined effects of shoal-
ing, refraction, diffraction and back-scattering (see
also Madsen and Larsen, 1987). Energy dissipation
due to wave breaking and bed friction is included, as
well as partial reflection and transmission through, for
instance, pier structures and breakwaters. It was con-
cluded that the sediment transport rates calculated by
use of MIKE 21 PMS in the area sheltered by the
breakwater were in satisfactory agreement with those
obtained when MIKE 21 EMS was chosen as wave
module, and at a much lower computational expense
than MIKE 21 EMS. Therefore, all results presented
hereafter have been obtained using the parabolic mild-
slope module MIKE 21 PMS.
No wave overtopping over or transmission through
the breakwater, dissipation of wave energy due to
bottom friction or current refraction of the waves was
included in the simulation of wave propagation and
transformation using MIKE 21 PMS. Default values
were used for the parameters controlling the dissipa-
tion of wave energy due to breaking in the model of
Battjes and Janssen (1978), i.e. a = 1.0, c1 = 1.0 and
c2 = 0.8.
An example of the wave heights and directions
calculated by MIKE 21 PMS on the initial bathymetry
for tests KM3, KM5 and KM8 can be seen from Fig.
3. Contours of calculated root-mean-square wave
height have been plotted together with vectors that
indicate the direction of wave propagation; the length
of the vectors has been scaled according to the local
wave height. It should be noted that the whole long-
shore extension of the model area has not been shown
in this figure and the following ones. Fig. 3 clearly
shows how the structure blocks the incident waves,
creating a shadow area behind it where the wave
height at breaking is lower than along the open coast
on either side of the breakwater.
The apparent roughness arising from the presence
of the wave boundary layer was included in the
simulation of wave-driven currents with MIKE 21
HD. The wavrgh tool was used to compute a bed
resistance map, using a geometrical roughness
kN = 2.5d50 = 0.5 mm together with the wave parame-
ters calculated by MIKE 21 PMS and the wave-driven
current field calculated by MIKE 21 HD as input. The
driving force for the flow was obtained from the
gradients in the radiation stress tensor calculated by
MIKE 21 PMS. A constant value of e=1 m2/s was used
for the momentum exchange coefficient due to turbu-
lent fluctuations (the eddy viscosity).
Current fields calculated on the initial bathymetry
for tests KM3, KM5 and KM8 are shown in Fig. 4 in
the form of vector plots of depth-averaged current
velocity and contours of depth-averaged current
speed. Note that not every vector has been plotted
in longshore direction.
 J.A. Zyserman, H.K. Johnson / Coastal Engineering 45 (2002) 261284
Fig. 3. Influence of geometry of breakwater on calculated wave fields. Results are shown for tests KM3 (left), KM5 (centre) and KM8 (right).

269
 270
J.A. Zyserman, H.K. Johnson / Coastal Engineering 45 (2002) 261284
Fig. 4. Influence of geometry of breakwater on calculated flow patterns. Results are shown for tests KM3 (left), KM5 (centre) and KM8 (right).
 J.A. Zyserman, H.K. Johnson / Coastal Engineering 45 (2002) 261284
The figure shows how the longshore current is
accelerated towards the lee area behind the breakwater
due to the longshore gradients in wave set-up arising
from the differences in wave height at breaking. Flow
reversal downstream of the structure, caused by
opposing gradients in mean water level encountered
by the current as it flows away from the sheltered area
may also be seen for the three test cases. A region of
high current velocities can also be seen close to the
downstream tip of the structure, where the current
behind the breakwater and the return flow driven by
opposing gradients in mean water level merge and
flow downstream. As Fig. 4 shows, a tendency for
high current velocities in the lee (sheltered) area of
surface-piercing breakwaters exists. This should be
kept in mind if the intended use of these structures is
to create calm areas for swimmers. Inexperienced
swimmers could be attracted to the area immediately
behind the breakwater, where wave activity is low, but
where the strong tip currents could drag them offshore
with the risk of drowning.
Transport rates of non-cohesive sediment and ini-
tial rates of bed level change were calculated using the
Q3D version of MIKE 21 ST with the wave and
current fields calculated by MIKE 21 PMS and HD,
respectively, as input. In all the tests, the bed material
consisted of sand with d50 = 0.20 mm and rg = (d84/
d16)0.5 = 1.40. As already mentioned, a value of
X80 = 240 m was obtained for the selected model
set-up and parameters.
Fig. 5 shows the sediment transport patterns calcu-
lated on the initial bathymetry by MIKE 21 ST for
tests KM3, KM5 and KM8. Results are shown in the
form of vector plots of sediment transport magnitude
and direction and contours of transport capacity.
The figure shows how the transport capacity
increases in the area just updrift of the structure,
where the current is accelerated towards the lee of
the breakwater, and decreases behind it, due to the
limited penetration of wave energy. Downdrift of the
structure, the transport capacity increases again to
values that are even larger than along the open coast.
This behaviour of the sediment transport rates will
result in deposition behind the structure and erosion
on both sides of it, as it is frequently observed in the
field.
It is interesting to see from Figs. 4 and 5 that the
influence of the breakwater on the current and sedi-
271
ment transport patterns extends far beyond the length
of the structure in downstream direction. This applies
especially to test KM5. It must be stressed that only
part of the total model extension (2100 m out of 2700
m) in longshore direction is shown in Figs. 3, 4 and 5.
The uniform flow and transport conditions existing
upstream of the breakwater are fully recovered at the
downstream boundary of the model bathymetry.
In general terms, it can be said that Figs. 3 5 show
the ability of the modelling system to produce rea-
sonably looking results of the main processes that take
place in the vicinity of detached breakwaters. These
processes include wave blocking by the structure,
longshore gradients in current speed and sediment
transport capacity, flow acceleration and reversal close
to the breakwater, etc.
Starting from the initial conditions shown in Figs.
3 5, the morphological modelling systemcf. Fig.
1 is run for a simulation period long enough as to
reach quasi-equilibrium conditions, i.e. a situation in
which changes in bed morphology are small. The
morphological simulation covered thus a period of
14 days, after which the evolved bathymetry was
assumed to be in equilibrium with the incident (con-
stant) wave conditions. The simulation period used in
this series of tests is 4 days longer than the one in the
former tests reported by Zyserman et al. (1998).
Once a test was completed, the resulting planform
was analysed and classified as tombolo, salient or
unstable tombolo. Fig. 6 shows the final bathymetry
obtained for tests KM3, KM5 and KM8 and illustrates
the influence of varying the length L of the breakwater
and its distance to the coast X on the morphological
response obtained. All water depths smaller than 2 m
have been shown in black in order to facilitate
identification of areas of deposition (behind the struc-
ture) and erosion.
As already discussed, use of a Q3D formulation for
the mean flow (steady current) and the sediment
transport allows simultaneous calculation of the long-
shore and cross-shore sediment transport rates.
Changes in bathymetry will be due to gradients in
both transport components, with changes of the beach
profile being related mainly to gradients in cross-shore
transport. Fig. 7 below shows the simulated changes
of a beach profile parallel to and located 120 m away
from the inflow (bottom) boundary of the model. This
line was chosen in order to avoidas much as possi-
 272
J.A. Zyserman, H.K. Johnson / Coastal Engineering 45 (2002) 261284
Fig. 5. Influence of geometry of breakwater on calculated sediment transport rates. Results are shown for tests KM3 (left), KM5 (centre) and KM8 (right).
 J.A. Zyserman, H.K. Johnson / Coastal Engineering 45 (2002) 261284
Fig. 6. Influence of geometry of breakwater on calculated morphological response after 14 days. Results are shown for tests KM3 (left), KM5 (centre) and KM8 (right).

273
274 J.A. Zyserman, H.K. Johnson / Coastal Engineering 45 (2002) 261284

Fig. 7. Simulated beach profile evolution for a profile located 120 m from the models upstream boundary for tests KM3 (left), KM5 (centre)
and KM8 (right). Dotted line: initial bathymetry. Full line: after 14 days.
 J.A. Zyserman, H.K. Johnson / Coastal Engineering 45 (2002) 261284
blethe influence of longshore gradients in sediment
transport on the calculated profile evolution.
The initial and final (i.e. after 14 days of morpho-
logical evolution) profiles are shown in Fig. 7 for tests
KM3, KM5 and KM8. The figure shows the adjust-
ment of the profile to the incident wave conditions,
from an initially plane bed to a submerged bar and
erosion of the upper foreshore. The bar is formed by
the material eroded from the foreshore and transported
in an offshore direction and by the sediment trans-
ported in an onshore direction at the deeper part of the
profile; see the distribution of the cross-shore sedi-
ment transport in Fig. 2 for more details. The bar
profile predicted by the model is in qualitative agree-
ment with the criterion for classifying bar and berm
profiles of Larson (1988).
The results obtained from the eight test cases of
Table 1 cannot be directly compared to those reported
in Zyserman et al. (1998) to investigate the influence
of using a Q3D or a 2DH description of the sediment
Fig. 8. Influence of sediment transport modelling approach on calculated bed evolution after 14 days of simulation. Left: Q3D approach. Right:
2DH approach.
275
transport on the simulated planform development. The
reason for this is that both the sediment transport
model and the bed level update scheme used are
different in the two test series. Therefore, test KM3
was repeated using the same 2DH sediment transport
model as in Zyserman et al. (1998) with the revised
bed level update scheme. The results obtained from
the application of the two sediment transport models
are compared in Fig. 8.
As the figure shows, the general characteristics of
the planform that develops behind the breakwater
after 14 days of simulation are similar. The details of
the morphological changes of the bathymetry close
to the structure are quite different though. First of all,
significant migration of the depth contours in the
area upstream of the structure (the first 600 m along
the coast) may be seen for the Q3D case; changes
are moderate and concentrated in the area immedi-
ately upstream of the breakwater for the 2DH results.
The observed difference is clearly due to the inclu-
276 J.A. Zyserman, H.K. Johnson / Coastal Engineering 45 (2002) 261284

sion of the cross-shore transport component (and the
associated gradients) in the Q3D description of sedi-
ment transport. The erosion close to the downstream
tip of the breakwater is also larger in the case of the
Q3D transport description, which can be seen by the
fact that the 8 m contour crosses the structure in
the left panel of Fig. 8. In addition, use of a Q3D
transport formulation allows the beach profile to be
eroded close to model land, as it can be seen
between co-ordinates 1000 and 1200 m along the
beach. This erosion cannot be reproduced by a 2DH
description of the sediment transport patterns, as the
gradients in longshore transport are of limited mag-
nitude in the area close to land, where both the wave
height and the wave-driven current are small, cf.
Figs. 3, 4 and 5.
In the present model set-up, which was adopted
identical to that in Zyserman et al. (1998), land is
represent as a immobile boundary for levels z0 m. It
could be interesting to extend the sloping bed above
this level in future applications of the morphological
modelling system with the Q3D sediment transport
model in order to investigate how the shoreline
responds to changes in bed morphology.
3.3. Comparison of model results to empirical rules
and field observations
The ability of the morphological modelling system
to predict the type of planform is qualitatively
checked by comparison of the results obtained to
empirical formulas available from the literature. The
results have been summarised in Table 2 below. It can
be seen that the predictions from MIKE 21 CAMS
are in general good agreement with the empirical
rules.
It is interesting to note that the type of planform
predicted by the morphological modelling system in
which a Q3D description of the sediment transport has
been included are in full agreement with those
obtained by Zyserman et al. (1998) using a 2DH
sediment transport model. This result seems to indi-
cate that the overall type of response (salient/tombolo)
that will be generated by the model is mainly gov-
erned by the 2DH wave and current patterns. On the
other hand, the details of the predicted morphological
response close to the structure is quite different
depending on the type of sediment transport model
used, as shown by Fig. 8.
In Fig. 9, the type of planform predicted by the
model is compared to observations from the field.
Results are presented in terms of predicted/observed
morphological response as a function of structure
length L and distance to initial shoreline X. As the
figure shows, the model results are also in good
agreement with the morphological response observed
in nature.
The results shown in Fig. 9 indicate that the type of
planform that will develop behind a surface-piercing
shore-parallel breakwater depends mainly on the
dimensions of the structure (X and L). The local
characteristics of the wave climate and the bed sedi-
ments do not seem to be determinant, provided that
enough sediment is available. In the light of this
result, use of a constant wave condition to investigate
the development of the equilibrium planform through
morphological modelling techniques appears as a
sensible choice.

Table 2
Comparison of calculated type of response to predictions from empirical formulas
Test Herbich Ahrens and Cox Dally and Pope Suh and Mangor et al. Morphological
(1989) (in Mohr and (1986) Dalrymple (1991) modelling
Ippolito, 1991) (1987)
KM1 Tombolo Periodic tombolo Tombolo Tombolo Salient/tombolo Tombolo
KM2 Tombolo Well-developed salient Tombolo Salient/tombolo Tombolo
KM3 Salient Subdued salient Salient Salient/
tombolo
KM4 Salient Subdued salient Salient Salient Salient
KM5 Salient Limited accretion Salient Salient Salient
KM6 Salient Subdued salient Salient Salient Salient
KM7 Tombolo Well-developed salient Tombolo Salient/tombolo Tombolo
KM8 Tombolo Well-developed salient Tombolo Tombolo Tombolo Tombolo
 J.A. Zyserman, H.K. Johnson / Coastal Engineering 45 (2002) 261284 277

Fig. 9. Comparison of predicted planform to field observations. Circles: tombolo. Triangles: salient. Squares: unstable tombolo. Open symbols:
field data. Filled symbols: model predictions. Field data sources: N=Noble (1978), D&P=Dally and Pope (1986), M&S=Murray and Sayao
(1990), T=Toyoshima (1974, 1976), Nr =Nir (1982), G=Gonzalez and Medina (1999).

3.4. Derivation of simple design curves
Following the approach used by Zyserman et al.
(1998), the results obtained from the modelling have
been analysed in terms of the magnitude of the
morphological changes induced by the breakwaters
and summarised in simple design curves. The main
idea is to apply these design curves to optimise the
dimensions of the structure (X and/or L) while at the
same time achieving the desired type of planform
(tombolo/salient). The morphological changes in-
duced by the surface-piercing breakwaters used in
the tests are quantified through the total volume of
sediment that deposited on the initial (plane) bathy-
metry after 14 days of uninterrupted wave action.
The calculated volume changes are not only related
to the formation of a given type of planform, but also
to the adjustment of the initially plane beach profile to
the incident wave conditions. Separation of both
effects is not a simple, if at all possible, task. In order
to make the new results comparable to those in
Zyserman et al. (1998), the deposition on the initially
plane beach related to beach profile evolution was
calculated for the case of an uniform (i.e. without
breakwater) beach and extracted from the computed
volume changes. The same wave and sediment char-
acteristics as used in the eight tests with the surface-
piercing breakwaters were applied in this calculation.
The results so obtained are used to analyse:
1. the influence of the length L of the structure on
the amount of sediment deposited and the type
of planform induced for constant distance to
the shoreline X and
2. the volume of sediment trapped by the break-
water and the type of morphological response
as a function of the distance to the coastline X
for given length of the structure L.
The results obtained have been summarised in
Figs. 10 and 11 below. Similar curves obtained by
Zyserman et al. (1998) have also been included for the
sake of comparison.
Fig. 10 shows that the predicted morphological
response changes from salient to unstable tombolo
and then to tombolo as the length of the breakwater
increases while keeping its distance to the coast
unchanged. Furthermore, the amount of sediment
trapped does not increase indefinitely as the length
L of the structure does beyond c2X80 for the wave
and sediment characteristics used in the present series
of tests. This behaviour can be seen both for the
278 J.A. Zyserman, H.K. Johnson / Coastal Engineering 45 (2002) 261284

Fig. 10. Influence of structure length on type of morphological response and volume of sediment trapped for constant distance to shoreline.
Open circles: salient. Filled circles: tombolo. Partially filled circles: unstable tombolo. Circles: calculated volume changes, including profile
evolution. Squares: calculated volume changes, profile changes removed from results. Triangles: results by Zyserman et al. (1998).

present results (using a Q3D approach in the model-
ling of sediment transport rates) and for the results
obtained using a 2DH modelling approach.
The fact that the volume of sediment trapped by the
breakwater does not increase indefinitely as the length
L of the structure does is due to the fact that the
processes that take place close to the tips of the
structure become independent of each other. A region
of almost negligible wave action and sediment trans-
port arises behind the central part of the structure, as it
can also be seen from Figs. 2 and 4. Considerations
about beach quality should also be kept in mind when
using long breakwaters for beach stabilisation purpo-
ses.
Fig. 11 shows that the morphological response
predicted by the modelling system changes from
tombolo to salient as the detached breakwater is
moved away from the shore while keeping its length
unchanged. The magnitude of the morphological
changes induced by the structure increases initially
with the distance X to the coastline, as the extension of
the shadow area and its impact on the nearshore

Fig. 11. Influence of distance to coast on type of morphological response and volume of sediment trapped for constant structure length. Open
circles: salient. Filled circles: tombolo. Partially filled circles: unstable tombolo. Circles: calculated volume changes, including profile evolution.
Squares: calculated volume changes, profile changes removed from results. Triangles: results by Zyserman et al. (1998).
 J.A. Zyserman, H.K. Johnson / Coastal Engineering 45 (2002) 261284
hydrodynamics and sediment transport does. Beyond
a critical distance from the coast, penetration of wave
energy into the lee area of the structure starts to
increase again, meaning that the gradients in both
water levels and in transport rates will decrease. As a
result of this, the amount of sediment trapped by the
shore-parallel breakwater decreases as X increases
beyond a critical value which depends on the charac-
teristics of the waves, the beach profile and the bed
material.
Again, similar behaviours are observed for the
Q3D and 2DH model results. The volumes obtained
from the 2DH analysis agree rather well with the total
deposition calculated in the present series of tests,
once the volume changes due to beach profile adjust-
ment have been removed from the results.
The design curves shown in Figs. 10 and 11 were
derived from the results from tests KM1 to KM8 and
are therefore specific to the conditions used in these
tests. While these curves cannot be used for general
design purposes, the methodology used and the
approach followed could be applied to optimise the
design of shore-parallel breakwaters at any specific
site. The morphological modelling system should
firstly be used to construct curves similar to those in
Figs. 10 and 11 using the schematised wave climate
and the sediment characteristics for the particular
location as input. If the distance between the structure
and the coast is fixed by design constraints, then
curves like the ones in Fig. 10 could be used together
with Fig. 9 to optimise the length of the breakwater.
This could be either the minimum length required to
obtain a tombolo, or the length of the structure beyond
which the amount of sediment trapped will not
increase significantly.
4. Analysis of the influence of diffraction on the
calculated sediment transport rates in the vicinity
of detached breakwaters
Wave diffraction is sometimes mimicked by
prescribing a high degree of directional spreading
of the waves in absence of a more detailed wave
model capable of adequately describing the diffrac-
tion of the incident waves by the presence of the
detached breakwater with an acceptable computa-
tional effort.
279
The significance of adequately modelling wave
diffraction for the calculated sediment transport rates
and morphological evolution in the vicinity of a
surface-piercing breakwater is investigated by per-
forming two sets of simulations with exactly the same
model set-up. The only difference between the two
set-ups is the wave module used, i.e. MIKE 21 PMS
or MIKE 21 NSW.
In Johnson et al. (1994), the sediment transport
fields behind a surface-piercing shore-parallel break-
water were computed for the case of normally inci-
dent waves using three different wave models; two of
them were MIKE 21 NSW and PMS, respectively.
These wave models have already been described in a
previous section of this paper. Basically, the main
difference between them is that MIKE 21 PMS
accounts for the effect of diffractionthrough a para-
bolic approximation to the mild-slope equation
while MIKE 21 NSW does not. Both models account
for directional spreading, shoaling, refraction and
breaking.
In the comparison presented in Johnson et al.
(1994), directional spreading of wave energy was
used in MIKE 21 NSW but not in MIKE 21 PMS.
A more detailed analysis is therefore presented in
what follows. MIKE 21 NSW and MIKE 21 PMS are
used to calculate the wave fields and the radiation
stresses on the initial bathymetry for different values
of the spreading index that defines the directional
distribution of wave energy in the models. Output
from both wave models were used as input to the
simulation of the wave-driven currents with MIKE 21
HD and the non-cohesive sediment transport rates
with MIKE 21 ST.
The test conditions consist of irregular, directional
waves approaching the coast at 10j to the beach normal
and having a significant wave height Hm0= 2.8 m and
peak period Tp=8 s at 20 m of water depth. As for the
eight breakwater tests of Table 1, the directional dis-
tribution of wave energy is given by a cosnAh hmA
function. Only the value of the directional spreading
index n changes from test to test. Values of n=2, 4, 8,
16, 32 and 64 are used, thus yielding a total of 12 runs.
The smaller values of n correspond to larger directional
distribution of wave energy.
The model bathymetry consists of a flat sloping
(1:50) bottom with a surface-piercing breakwater of
length L=300 m placed X=280 m away from the coast.
280 J.A. Zyserman, H.K. Johnson / Coastal Engineering 45 (2002) 261284
The bed material is sand with d50=0.20 mm and
rg=1.40.
To complement the tests described above, the bed
evolution for the case of n=16 is calculated by running
the morphological modelling system shown in Fig. 1
using a 2DH description of the calculated sediment
transport rates. Constant wave conditions are applied
over a simulation period of 10 days.
Fig. 12 shows the calculated bathymetries at the
end of the simulation period; results obtained using
MIKE 21 PMS are shown to the left and using NSW
to the right. A close-up of the area adjacent to the
breakwater is shown in the figure in order to facilitate
analysis of the results. Although in principle the
results look similar, differences in the erosion holes
at the tips of the breakwater and in the deposition area
behind the structure may be seen after closer inspec-
tion.
The observed differences become easier to interpret
if the longshore variation in total sediment transport
i.e. the transport rates integrated across a line that
extends between the structure and the coastline is
calculated on the initial bathymetry. Fig. 13 shows the
Fig. 12. Influence of selection of wave model on calculated morphological response after 10 days of simulation. Wave model applied is MIKE
21 PMS (left) and MIKE 21 NSW (right), in both cases for n=16.
results obtained using both wave models. It can be
clearly seen that in the area behind the structure
(x = 900 to 1200 m), the transport rates calculated when
the effect of diffraction is taken into accounti.e.
using MIKE 21 PMS as wave model are independ-
ent of the directional spreading index used. This
behaviour may be related to the calculated wave fields,
as wave diffraction allows for significant amounts of
wave energy to penetrate in the shadow area behind the
breakwater, independently of the degree of direction-
ality of the incident waves. From the results obtained
using MIKE 21 NSW, which only includes directional
spreading, it can be seen that the penetration of wave
energy into the shadow area behind the breakwater is
directly related to the degree of wave directionality. In
this case, similar results are obtained for n V 16, i.e.
when directional spreading is significant. The larger
the directional spreading, the larger the penetration of
wave energy behind the structure. The observed influ-
ence of diffraction and directional spreading on the
waves is reflected in turn by the calculated wave-
driven currents and sediment transport rates. It is
interesting to note that the total sediment transport
 J.A. Zyserman, H.K. Johnson / Coastal Engineering 45 (2002) 261284 281

Fig. 13. Influence of diffraction on total sediment transport between the structure and the coast. Top: MIKE 21 PMS. Bottom: MIKE 21 NSW.
282 J.A. Zyserman, H.K. Johnson / Coastal Engineering 45 (2002) 261284
directed towards the breakwater from downstream (the
negative transport rates at xc1200 m in Fig. 13) is
smaller for the case when MIKE 21 NSW is used as
wave model than for the case when MIKE 21 PMS is
applied. This behaviour occurs regardless of the value
of the directional spreading index used in the simu-
lations.
It can reasonably be expected that the observed
differences in the transport rates will result in different
erosion/deposition patterns for the two wave models
and, consequently, in different morphological evolu-
tion of the bed, as Fig. 12 effectively shows.
Based on the above results and discussion, it is
concluded that an adequate representation of wave
diffraction is important in connection with simulation
of sediment transport and morphological evolution in
the vicinity of diffracting structures. A proper repre-
sentation cannot be achieved by prescribing a high
degree of directional spreading for the waves.
5. Conclusions and recommendations for future
work
A coastal area morphological modelling system
including a quasi three-dimensional description of
the mean flow and the sediment transport has been
applied to investigate the development of equilibrium
planforms behind a single surface-piercing shore-par-
allel breakwater in a non-tidal environment under
constant wave action. The analysis is based on a
series of tests in which the dimensions of the structure
(length L and distance to coast X) are systematically
varied.
The modelling system produces reasonable looking
results with regards to the main characteristics of the
wave, current and sediment transport fields. This
includes blocking of the incident waves by the break-
water, wave-driven currents along the open coast and
circulations induced in the lee zone of the structure,
longshore gradients of mean water level and sediment
transport, etc.
Comparison of the predicted morphological re-
sponse to both empirical rules and observations from
the field shows satisfactory agreement.
Simple design curves are derived from the results
obtained. These curves illustrate the influence of the
dimensions of the structure on the final planform
predicted for specific environmental conditions, both
with regards to the type of response and to the amount
of sediment trapped by the breakwater. Suggestions as
how to use the method presented here in the case of
real-life conditions, with e.g. variable wave condi-
tions, have been included in the paper.
The importance of adequately simulating wave
diffraction when modelling sediment transport rates
and morphological response in the vicinity of de-
tached breakwaters was investigated by applying
two different wave models to compute the rates of
total longshore sediment transport for different values
of the directional spreading index n. Both MIKE 21
NSW and PMS include the effects of directional
spreading, wave shoaling, refraction and breaking on
the calculated wave fields, but only MIKE 21 PMS
accounts for wave diffraction. The morphological
evolution over 10 days was calculated using the two
wave models and an otherwise identical set-up for the
case of n = 16. The results obtained indicate that an
adequate representation of wave diffraction by pre-
scribing a high degree of wave directionality is not
possible.
Possibilities for additional research are many. At
the moment of writing, enhancement of the sediment
transport program STP to also include the effect of
helical flow on the transport rates is underway at DHI.
It could be interesting to investigate how the predicted
morphological changes are influenced by this effect,
especially in the vicinity of the tips of the structure,
where curvature of the flow is significant.
The analysis presented here could be extended to
submerged breakwaters. The details of wave propa-
gation, transformation and breaking over submerged
breakwaters and the associated mass flux and over-
topping cannot be dealt with wave and hydrodynamic
models like the ones used in the present analysis.
Detailed 3D models, based on the solution of the
Navier Stokes equations, and capable of simulating
the complex hydrodynamic and sediment transport
processes that take place in the vicinity of structures,
have recently become available, see Christensen et al.
(2000) and Christensen and Deigaard (2001) as an
example. These advanced models include a descrip-
tion of the free surface, which makes them well suited
to simulate the processes of overtopping, etc. The
drawback of these models is that they are very
demanding, computationally speaking, which makes
 J.A. Zyserman, H.K. Johnson / Coastal Engineering 45 (2002) 261284
them unsuitable for morphological simulations (at the
present time). Instead, the 3D models could be used to
obtain a parameterised description of the complex
processes taking place in the vicinity of the structures
and this description, in turn, used as input to less
advanced 2DH or Q3D models.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported financially by the Com-
mission of the European Communities, Directorate
General for Science, Research and Development un-
der contract nos. MAS3-CT97-0018 (SASME) and
EVK3-CT-2000-00041 (DELOS), and by the Danish
Technical Research Council (STVF) under the Project
Coasts and Tidal Inlets which is part of the Frame-
work Programme Utilisation and Protection of the
Coastal Zone.
References
Abbott, M.B., 1979. Computational HydraulicsElements of the
Theory of Free Surface Flows. Pitman, London.
Abbott, M.B., Damsgaard, A., Rodenhuis, G.S., 1973. System 21,
Jupiter. A design system for two-dimensional nearly-horizontal
flows. J. Hydraul. Res. 1.
Battjes, J.A., Janssen, J.P.F.M., 1978. Energy loss and set-up due to
breaking of random waves. Proceedings of the 16th Int. Conf.
Coast. Eng., Hamburg, Germany, pp. 569 587.
Berkhoff, J.C.W., 1976. Mathematical Models for Simple Harmonic
Linear Water Waves. Wave Diffraction and Refraction. Delft
Hyd. Lab. Publication No. 163.
Chesher, T.J., Miles, G.V., 1992. The concept of a single represen-
tative wave. In: Falconer, R.A., Chandler-Wilde, S.N., Liu, S.Q.
(Eds.), Hydraulic and Environmental Modelling; Coastal Wa-
ters. Ashgate, Brookfield, VT, pp. 371 380.
Christensen, E.D., Deigaard, R., 2001. Large eddy simulation of
breaking waves. Coastal Eng. 42 (1), 53 86.
Christensen, E.D., Jensen, J.H., Mayer, S., 2000. Sediment transport
under breaking waves. Proceedings of the 27th Intl. Conference
on Coastal Eng., ASCE, Sydney, Australia, 2467 2480.
Dally, W.R., Pope, J. 1986. Detached breakwaters for shore protec-
tion. Technical Report CERC-86-1, Coastal Eng. Res. Center,
USACE.
Danish Hydraulic Institute, 1996a. MIKE 21 Parabolic Mild-Slope
Module, Release 2.6. User Guide and Reference Manual.
Danish Hydraulic Institute, 1996b. MIKE 21 Nearshore Spectral
Wind-Wave Module, Release 2.6. User Guide and Reference
Manual.
Danish Hydraulic Institute, 1997a. MIKE 21 Hydrodynamic Module,
Release 2.7. User Guide and Reference Manual.
283
Danish Hydraulic Institute, 1997b. MIKE 21 Sand Transport Module,
Release 2.7. User Guide and Reference Manual.
Deigaard, R., 1993. A note on the three-dimensional shear stress
distribution in the surf zone. Coastal Eng. 20, 47 59.
Deigaard, R., Fredse, J., Hedegaard, I.B., 1986a. Suspended sedi-
ment in the surf zone. J. Waterw., Port, Coastal Ocean Eng.,
ASCE 112 (1), 115 128.
Deigaard, R., Fredse, J., Hedegaard, I.B., 1986b. Mathematical
model for littoral drift. J. Waterw., Port, Coastal Ocean Eng.,
ASCE 112 (3), 351 369.
De Vriend, H.J., Zyserman, J.A., Nicholson, J., Roelvink, J.A.,
Pechon, P., Southgate, H.N., 1993. Medium-term 2DH coastal
area modelling. Coastal Eng. 21, 193 224.
Elfrink, B., Brker, I., Deigaard, R., Asp Hansen, E., Justesen, P.,
1996. Modelling of 3D sediment transport in the surf zone. Pro-
ceedings of the 25th Intl. Conference on Coastal Eng., ASCE,
Orlando, FL, USA, pp. 3805 3817.
Elfrink, B., Rakha, K.A., Deigaard, R., Brker, I., 1999. Effect of
near-bed velocity skewness on cross shore sediment transport-
Proc. Coastal Sediments 99, Hauppage, Long Island, NY, vol.
1, pp. 33 47.
Fredse, J., 1984. Turbulent boundary layer in wave-current motion.
J. Hydraul. Eng., ASCE 110 (8), 1103 1120.
Fredse, J., Andersen, O.H., Silberg, S., 1985. Distribution of sus-
pended sediment in large waves. J. Waterw., Port, Coastal Ocean
Eng., ASCE 111 (6), 1041 1059.
Gonzalez, M., Medina, R., 1999. Equilibrium shoreline response
behind a single offshore breakwater. Proc. Coastal Sediments
99, Hauppage, Long Island, NY, vol. 2, pp. 844 859.
Herbich, J.B., 1989. Shoreline changes due to offshore breakwaters.
Proceedings XXIII Congress, IAHR, Ottawa, Canada..
Holthuijsen, L.H., Booij, N., Herbers, T.H.C., 1989. A prediction
model for stationary, short-crested waves in shallow water with
ambient currents. Coastal Eng. 13, 23 54.
Hsu, J.R.C., Evans, C., 1989. Parabolic bay shapes and applications.
Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Part 2 (87), 557 570.
Hsu, J.R.C., Sylvester, R., Xia, Y.M., 1989a. Generality on static
equilibrium bays. Coastal Eng. 12, 353 369.
Hsu, J.R.C., Sylvester, R., Xia, Y.M., 1989b. Static equilibrium bays:
new relationships. J. Waterw., Port, Coast Ocean Eng., ASCE
115 (3), 285 298.
Jensen, J.H., Madsen, E.., Fredse, J., 1999. Oblique flow over
dredged channels: II. Sediment transport and morphology. J.
Hydraul. Eng., ASCE 125 (11), 1190 1198.
Johnson, H.K., Zyserman, J.A., 2001. Spatial oscillations in bed
level update schemes. Coast. Eng. in preparation.
Johnson, H.K., Brker, I., Zyserman, J.A., 1994. Identification of
some relevant processes in coastal morphological modelling.
Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Coastal
Engineering, Kobe, Japan.
Johnson, H.K., Brker, I., Zyserman, J.A., Mangor, K., 1995. Mor-
phological response in the vicinity of offshore breakwaters. Pro-
ceedings of the IV COPEDEC Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Johnson, H.K., Appendini, C.M., Soldati, M., Elfrink, B., Srensen,
P., 2001. Numerical modelling of morphological changes due to
shoreface nourishment. Proceedings of Coastal Dynamics 01,
Lund, Sweden.
284 J.A. Zyserman, H.K. Johnson / Coastal Engineering 45 (2002) 261284
Kirby, J.T., 1986. Rational approximations in the parabolic equation
method for water waves. Coastal Eng. 10, 355 378.
Larson, M., 1988. Quantification of beach profile change. Report
No. 1008, Department of Water Resources Engineering, Lund
University, Sweden.
Madsen, P.A., Larsen, J., 1987. An efficient finite-difference ap-
proach to the mild-slope equation. Coastal Eng. 11, 329 351.
Mangor, K., Godage, D., Amarasinghe, S., Anderskou, U., 1991.
Coast conservation scheme combining beach nourishment and
offshore breakwaterstesting, design and performance. Pro-
ceedings of the III COPEDEC Conference, Mombasa, Kenya.
Mohr, M.C., Ippolito, M., 1991. Initial shoreline response at the
Presque Isle erosion control project. Proceedings of Coastal
Sediments 91, pp. 1740 1754.
Murray, M., Sayao, O.J., 1990. Offshore breakwater for the Sergipe
Marine Terminal, Brazil. Proceedings of the 23th International
Conference on Coastal Engineering, Delft, The Netherlands.
Nicholson, J., Brker, I., Roelvink, J.A., Price, D., Tanguy, J.M.,
Moreno, L., 1997. Intercomparison of coastal area morphody-
namic models. Coastal Eng. 31, 97 123.
Nir, Y., 1982. Offshore artificial structures and their influence on the
Israel and Sinai Mediterranean beaches. Proceedings of the 18th
International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Cape Town,
South Africa.
Noble, R.M., 1978. Coastal structures effects on shorelines. Pro-
View publication stats
ceedings of the 16th International Conference on Coastal Engi-
neering, Hamburg, Germany.
OConnor, B.A., Nicholson, J., MacDonald, N.J., 1995. Modelling
morphological changes associated with an offshore breakwater.
In: Brebbia, C.A., Traversoni, L., Wrobel, L.C. (Eds.), Com-
puter Modelling of Seas and Coastal Regions II. Computational
Mechanics Publications, Southampton.
Suh, K., Dalrymple, R.A., 1987. Offshore breakwaters in laboratory
and field. J. Waterw., Port, Coastal Ocean Eng., ASCE 113 (2),
105 121.
Toyoshima, O., 1974. Design of a detached breakwater system.
Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Coastal
Engineering, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 1419 1431.
Toyoshima, O., 1976. Changes of sea bed due to detached break-
waters. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on
Coastal Engineering, Honolulu, HI, USA, pp. 1572 1589.
Zyserman, J.A., Brker, I., Johnson, H.K., Mangor, K., Jrgensen,
K., 1998. On the design of shore-parallel breakwaters. Proceed-
ings of the 26th International Conference on Coastal Engineer-
ing, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Zyserman, J.A., Jrgensen, K., Christensen, E.D., 1999. Sediment
transport and morphology in the vicinity of shore parallel
breakwaters. Proceedings Coastal Structures 99, Santander,
Spain.