January 13, 2004
14:36
WSPC/101-CEJ
00094
557
Progress in Management of Sediment Bypassing at Coastal Inlets
(a)
(a())
a
(bb
)
(b())
Fig. 15. Currents deflected by Siuslaw River, Oregon, jetty spurs (from Pollock, et al. 1995).
Figure 15. Currents deflected by Siuslaw River, Oregon, jetty spurs (from Pollock, et al.
19gure 15. Currents deflected by Siuslaw River, Oregon, jetty spurs (from Pollock, et al.
Fi95).
1995).
In this simplified approach that may neglect other important parameters, such
as beach slope and wave height, a line was drawn at S/L = 0.4 to divide from full
shoreline response and a partial shoreline response. Typically, one would not want
the shoreline to reach the spur in order to keep the potential for sand transport to
the seaside of the spur minimal. If the wave climate is not too energetic or if the
spur is on the down-coast side of a jetty system where sediment is bypassed to, it
might be acceptable. On the other hand, a sufficiently long enough spur is required
to deflect the longshore current, as demon8trated in the physical model experiments
3s
38
discussed later.
Previous Page
