2011
DOI: 10.3989/scimar.03417.15a
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Optimization of beach profile spacing: an applicable tool for coastal monitoring

Abstract: SUMMARY: This paper presents a simplified and straightforward method for determining optimal beach profile spacing from an economic point of view with an admissible error. This error can be computed theoretically by comparing different profile spacings from two consecutive bathymetries. When a beach sediment budget (from previous monitoring surveys) or the volume density of a beach nourishment project is known, a virtual bathymetry can be designed; therefore, a unique real bathymetry would be needed. The metho… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, only 25 beaches had a reef flat and were, therefore, selected for analysis. A beach profile spacing of 800 m was decided and, thus, 39 profiles were chosen in total [24]. From NW to SE, the tidal range decreases from 3.8 to 1.4 m and the wave energy, Hs, 12 (wave height exceeded 12 hours a year), varies from 3.5 to 5 m [25].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, only 25 beaches had a reef flat and were, therefore, selected for analysis. A beach profile spacing of 800 m was decided and, thus, 39 profiles were chosen in total [24]. From NW to SE, the tidal range decreases from 3.8 to 1.4 m and the wave energy, Hs, 12 (wave height exceeded 12 hours a year), varies from 3.5 to 5 m [25].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although increasing the number of profiles measured decreases the error associated with discretizing the domain, it also increases the survey budget. Therefore, in order to find a compromise between a 5% allowable error of estimation and the available monitoring budget, the methodology developed in [35] was used to determine a 50 m profile spacing at VB [39,40]. Optimizing profile spacing is important for cost savings, however, while techniques exist for sandy beaches, it is not clear how reef variability influences the spacing required to capture key changes with sufficient alongshore variability.…”
Section: Post-nourishment Monitoringmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A discrete number of transects was needed in order to analyse the shoreline changes and present the results. The separation between transects ranges from 300 m [29] in large beaches to 50 m for smaller ones [30]. The average value set by USACE [31] is 100 m and was thus used in this research, although with the GIS tool measurements can be obtained throughout the whole study area extension.…”
Section: Shoreline Evolution and Land-use Changementioning
confidence: 99%