Advertisement

Optimal Siting of Shallow Subsurface Intake Technologies

  • Scott A. JenkinsEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Environmental Science and Engineering book series (ESE)

Abstract

Development of subsurface SWRO intake systems along the shoreline or in the nearshore environment requires careful evaluation before they can be successfully developed. These environments are zones of high energy and changes that impact the long-term viability of subsurface intake systems. A key aspect for evaluation is a detailed analysis of the sediment budget and transport system along the beach and nearshore environments. Erosion of the shoreline or rapid deposition could cause the failure of many subsurface intake systems, especially beach and offshore gallery intakes. Both the seasonal fluctuations in shoreline profiles and the long-term trends in sedimentation must be evaluated. Large capacity subsurface SWRO intake systems, such as that proposed at Huntington Beach, California, require an optimal siting and evaluation analysis to be conducted using modern modeling and analytical methods. A detailed summary of global littoral and nearshore processes as related to the design and construction of subsurface intake systems is presented with a detailed analysis showing how the natural system was evaluated to select a stable site for a seabed gallery (infiltration) system at Huntington Beach, California, which is a high energy shoreline that creates considerable challenges in siting and construction.

Keywords

Wave Height Submarine Canyon Radiation Stress Longshore Current Littoral Cell 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. CDIP. (2001). Coastal data information program. SIO Reference Series, 01–20 http://cdip.ucsd.edu.
  2. Coudrain-Ribstein, A., Gouze, P., & de Marsily, G. (1998). Temperature-carbon dioxide partial pressure trends in confined aquifers. Chemical Geology, 145, 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Davis, R. A. Jr., (1996). Coasts. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Dingler, J. R., & Inman, D. L. (1976). Wave-formed ripples in nearshore sands, In: Proceedings 15th Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE (pp. 2109–2126) Honolulu, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  5. Gadd, P. E., Leidersdorf, C. B., Hearon, G. E., Shak, A. T., & Ryan, J. (2006). Use of Statistical Depth of Closure to Resolve Historical Changes in Shoreline Position and Shorezone Volume in the Huntington Beach Littoral Cell, In: Proc. 30th Coastal Engineering Conference, San Diego (pp. 5302–5311), California, World Scientific, Singapore.Google Scholar
  6. Hodgman, C. D. (1947). Standard Mathematical Tables, Cleveland (358 pp), Ohio: Chemical Rubber Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  7. Inman, D. L. (1994). Types of coastal zones: Similarities and differences. In: Environmental science in the coastal zone (pp. 67–84). Ottawa: National Research Council.Google Scholar
  8. Inman, D. L. (1957), Wave-generated ripples in nearshore sands, Technical Memorandum (Vol.100, 65 pp.) U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Beach Erosion Board.Google Scholar
  9. Inman, D. L., & Dolan, R. (1989). The Outer Banks of North Carolina: Budget of sediment and inlet dynamics along a migrating barrier system. Journal of Coastal Research, 5, 193–237.Google Scholar
  10. Inman, D. L., & Jenkins, S. A. (1984). The Nile littoral cell and man’s impact on the coastal zone of the southeastern Mediterranean. In: Proceedings 19th Coastal Engineering Conference. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2, 1600–1617.Google Scholar
  11. Inman, D. L., & Nordstrom, C. E. (1971). On the tectonic and morphologic classification of coasts. Journal of Geology, 79, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Inman, D. L., & Brush, B. M. (1973). The coastal challenge. Science, 181, 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Inman, D. L., & Masters, P. M. (1991). Budget of sediment and prediction of the future state of the coast. In State of the Coast Report, San Diego Region, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 5, 43.Google Scholar
  14. Inman, D. L., Elwany, M. H. S., Khafagy, A. A., & Golik, A. (1992). Nile Delta profiles and migrating sand blankets. In: Proceedings 23rd Coastal Engineering Conference. American Society of Civil Engineers 3, pp. 3273–3284.Google Scholar
  15. Inman, D. L., Elwany, M. H. S., & Jenkins, S. A., (1993). Shorerise and bar-berm profiles on ocean beaches. Journal of Geophysical Research, 98(C10), 18, 181–199.Google Scholar
  16. Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, (1999). Climate change and the episodicity of sediment flux of small California rivers. Journal. of Geology, 107, 251–270.Google Scholar
  17. Inman, D. L., Gayman, W. R., & Cox, D. C. (1963). Littoral sedimentary processes on Kauai, a subtropical high island. Pacific Science, 17, 106–130.Google Scholar
  18. Inman, D. L. & Jenkins, S. A. (2004), Accretion and erosion waves on beaches (pp. 1–4), In M. Schwartz, (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Coastal Science, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  19. Jenkins, S. A., & Inman, D. L. (2006). Thermodynamic solutions for equilibrium beach profiles. Journal of Geophysical Research, 3(C02003), 21. doi: 10.1029/2005JC002899.Google Scholar
  20. Jenkins, S. A., Inman, D. L., Richardson, M. D., Wever, T. F., & Wasyl, J. (2007). Scour and burial mechanics of objects in the nearshore. IEEE Journal of Ocean Engineering, 32(1), 78–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kraus, N. C., & Harikai S. (1983). Numerical-model of the shoreline change at Oarai Beach. Coastal Engineering 7(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
  22. Komar P. D. & Inman D. L. (1970). Longshore sand transport on beaches. Journal of Geophyscial Research,75(30), 5914–5927.Google Scholar
  23. Kessler, T. J., & Harvey, C. F. (2001). The global flux of carbon dioxide into groundwater. Geophysical Research Letters, 28(2), 279–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Longuet-Higgins, M. S., (1970). Longshore currents generated by obliquely incident waves. Journal of Geophyscial Research,75(33), 6778–6789.Google Scholar
  25. Murray, S., Coleman, J. M., Roberts, H. H., & Salama, M., (1981). Accelerated currents and sediment transport off the Damietta Nile promontory. Nature, 293, 51–54.Google Scholar
  26. Macpherson, G. L. (2009). CO2 distribution in groundwater and the impact of groundwater extraction on the global C-cycle. Chemical Geology, 264, 328–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shak, A. T., & Ryan, J. (1996). San Gabriel River to Newport Bay Erosion Control Project Orange County, California, 30 Years of periodic beach replenishment. In: Proceedings of Coastal Engeering, Chapter 362, 4650–4664.Google Scholar
  28. Short, A. D. (Ed.) (1999). Handbook of Beach and Shoreface Morphodynamics, (379 pp), Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  29. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (1994). Existing State of Orange County Coast US. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, Technical Report 93-1, 335pp.Google Scholar
  30. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2001). Orange County Beach Erosion Control Project, San Gabriel River to Newport Bay, Orange County, California, Stage 11, Design Documentation Report. US Army Corps of Engineers, August 2001.Google Scholar
  31. US Geological Survey (USGS). (2001). USGS Digital Data Series DDS-37 at INTERNET URL http://wwwrvares.er.usgs.gov/wgn96cd/wgn/wq/region18/hydrologicunitcode.
  32. Wiegel, R. (2009). History of the San Gabriel River to newport bay erosion control project. Shore and Beach, American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, Awards Committee Presentation, August 13, 2009, 13 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Scripps Institution of OceanographyUniversity of California San DiegoSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations