Falmouth Marine School

Measuring Beach
face Erosion and
Accretion With
Respect To real Time
Wave Data
Fd.Sc. Marine Science, CORF 208
Ben Lowe

Page 1

ABSTRACT
This study set out to explore the relationships between sediment transport
at a beach face and real time wave data with particular attention to wave
steepness. Point elevation, wave and meteorological data were collected
on consecutive days during the highest tides of each month during the
winter of 2014/15. The results were analysed using Pearsons product
moment correlation coefficient and multiple regression. Although some
interesting patterns were implied only week correlations were verified. It
was concluded that this was due to: the loss of detail through the use of
mean values, the necessity of making assumptions and simplifications
about a complex and fluctuating environment and a low volume of data
due to the study period. The critical value for wave steepness, the point
above which a wave shall result in erosion, was found to be much more
fluid than expected. This has been attributed to its dependence upon the
existing beach morphology that rarely reaches a state of equilibrium with
the continuously changing wave and tidal conditions. Recommendations
for further study include: A survey carried out after each tide would be
necessary to avoid the loss of detail. Data collection over a longer period
would allow sub sets to be analysed separately. An additional variable,
such as beach steepness, to express the relationship between the existing
beach profile and the transforming wave.

Page 2

CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT

1.

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

3.

INTRODUCTION

4.

METHOD

7.

RESULTS

12.

DISCUSSION

18.

CONCLUSIONS

20.

RECOMMENDATIONS

23.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

22.

REFERENCES

24.

APPENDICES

26.

LIST OF FIGURES

Page 3
Figure

Page

1. Incident angle

5.

2. Calculating the beach point location

8.

3. Calculating the beach point elevation

8.

4. Calculating the shore normal component

11.

5. Table showing the dependent and independent

12.

variables
6. Wave Steepness to volume change

13.

7. Wave steepness to Volume change absolute value

13.

8. Shore normal wave power to Volume change

14.

absolute value
9. Adjusted Tidal height to Volume change absolute

14.

value
10a. The p values for each of the regression variables

15.

10b. Values for the regression equation

15.

11. Shore normal wave power to Volume change

15.

absolute value
with tidal height as a scaling factor
12. Correlation coefficients

16.

13. Wave steepness to total volume grouped by wave

16.

power
14. Correlation coefficients separated for accretion

17.

and erosion

INTRODUCTION

Page 4
The power of the sea shall ultimately destroy any rigid structure designed
to oppose its force. Yet beaches manage to endure because of the mobility
of the sediment. The energy within waves is dissipated by the movement
of the grains. A beach adjusts its shape in order to adapt to changing
wave conditions, always in a state of dynamic equilibrium. In this way,
beaches protect the land from the force of the ocean.
Sediment erosion and accretion are driven principally by wave induced
currents. Wave conditions can be recorded and predicted. If a quantifiable
link can be established between sediment movement and wave data then
it should be possible to assess the vulnerability of some beaches using
known or predicted meteorological conditions.
Calculating forces acting on the sediment is possible for linear flow and
consistent sediment size. However within the surf zone the flow is
oscillatory both in direction and magnitude. Calculating the bed shear
stress and the effect on sediment transport over a period of time in
changing wave and tidal conditions has been the subject of many
mathematical models and ongoing studies. In real world situations the
complexity of the interactions requires different models for different
situations and so far the accuracy has been limited (de Leeuw, 2005).
This study has attempted to find correlation between real time wave data
and the volume of sediment at the beach face, with particular interest in
how wave steepness affects the degree of accretion or erosion.
Sediment changes to the beach face at Fistral, Newquay were measured
and compared to wave and meteorological data recorded by the
Waverider buoy at Perranporth, 10 km away. The large number of factors
involved in sediment transport at the beach face shall firstly require
individual assessment of correlation followed by multiple regression and
correlation analysis (Hill and Lewicki, 2007). According to Cohen et al.
(2002) Basic MRC [multiple regression correlation] may be used
whenever a quantitative variable, the dependent variable (Y), is to be
studied as a function of, or in relationship to, any factors of interest, the
independent variables (IVs). An equation to predict the dependent or
response variable from the independent or predictor variables is
generated in the form of:
Y = 0 + 1X1 + 2X2 + 3X3 + . . .

Page 5
Where Y is the response variable, 0 is a constant and y axis intercept, 1
is the coefficient or gradient for the predictor variable X1 and 2 is the
coefficient for variable X2 , etc.

Defining the Dependent and Independent Variables

The change in the volume of the beach face shall be the dependent
variable (Y). The change in volume is defined as the volume from the
surface to the mean low water (ODN, Ordnance datum Newlyn) for a
defined, constant area. The beach face is defined as the area from the
dune base to the low tide platform.
The independent variables shall be developed from the following factors:
The principle factor governing accretion and erosion is wave steepness.
This is calculated as the wave height divided by the wavelength (Pethick,
2001) and is a ratio without units. It has long been established that storms
produce steep waves that rapidly erode beaches and that longer period
swell waves and summer conditions produce shallow waves that deposit
sand on the beach face (Schwartz, 2006).
The more energy that is in a wave, the more energy is available for
sediment transport. The energy in a wave depends on the height of that
wave. Power is the rate at which this energy is delivered to the beach
(Pethick, 2001).

Page 6
The angle (x) at which the incident wave (i) approaches the beach must
be taken into account. The power in a wave train may be considered in
two parts: the shore normal component and the longshore component.
The shore normal component (n) can be measured as i cos(x). The
longshore component as i sin(x). Longshore drift may be considered
separately from the shore normal movement of
Fig. (1)

sediment (King, 1959; Pethick, 2001). As a wave train

Incident angle

approaches a beach at a shallow angle it is

(Lowe, 2015)

transformed to a more shore normal direction by

refraction due to shoaling. The wave power is then
dispersed along a longer wave face. It is the original

shore normal component of power per unit of wave face that determines
the shore normal component of wave power after refraction (Pethick,
2001).
Longshore drift may be responsible for the addition or erosion of sediment
from a system, as can fluvial impacts and human activities such as beach
enrichment or dredging.
The tidal height is important in determining how much of the beach face
may be affected by wave action. The predicted height of the tide shall also
be influenced by atmospheric pressure. For each deviation of 1
hectopascal from 1013.25 hPa, the sea level shall be depressed or
elevated by 1 cm (Ackerman and Knox, 2003).
Sediment size must be considered with larger sizes requiring more energy
to move. Wind may be significant in raising sea level if blowing onshore
with strength for longer periods or it may move sediment itself. Torrential
rain could also wash sediment seawards (Pethick, 2001).
From these factors the principle independent variables affecting the rate
of sediment erosion or accretion have been determined as: wave
steepness, wave power and tidal height. Some of the other factors have
been reduced by choice of site.
Fistral beach was chosen as the study site. The topography creates an
enclosed cell within the two prominent headlands, ensuring a beach face
that remains mostly swash aligned (see appendix 1). This negates any
significant longshore drift, allowing the study to focus upon shore normal
sediment transport. By surveying only the central section of the beech
that is backed by sand dunes, problems involving wave reflection were

Page 7
avoided. Having the dunes at the back meant there was never a limit on
possible erosion due to lack of sediment as there may be at the base of a
rock face. There are two georeferenced survey points maintained and
made available by Plymouth Coastal Observatory (see appendix 2). The
parent company also provide orthorectified aerial imagery (Channel
Coastal Observatory, 2014).
It has been necessary to make two assumptions regarding Fistral beach:
that the sediment grain size remains constant and that the effect of the
low tide platform on the waves remains constant.
Fistral beach suffered substantial erosion during the winter storms of
2013-2014 losing 91,000 m3 and only regaining half of that by June 2014
(Wiggins, 2014). Damage to commercial property occurred at North Fistral
where the shoreline management plan (S.M.P.) is for hold the line.
Construction of see defences with rock filled gabion cages is underway.
The S.M.P. for the rock and clay cliffs at south Fistral is also hold the line.
The S.M.P. for the sand dune backed, central Fistral that is the focus of this
study, is do nothing with managed realignment. The importance of an
active dune system is recognised as essential in order to maintain
sediment transport patterns as the first choice of sea defence (Royal
Haskoning, 2011).
The location of the Waverider buoy at Perranporth has a water depth of 10
metres. For the wavelengths involved in this study this is considered an
intermediate depth where the Airy wave theory cannot be simplified
(Pethick, 2001). For some of the factors it has been necessary to calculate
the value for a deep water wave and then transform it back to the value at
10 metres depth. All of the factors were compared at the 10 metre depth
value.
The Hypothesis
Wave steepness and shore normal wave power have a significant
correlation with the rate of sediment transport at the beach face.
This gives a null hypothesis of: Wave steepness and wave power have no
significant correlation with sediment transport at the beach face.

Page 8

METHOD
Survey
The two georeferenced survey points provided by Plymouth Coastal
Observatory are given as a GPS location using the ETRS89 projection and
also the geographic coordinates using OSGB36 (see appendix 2). The
geographic coordinates using OSGB36 have been used here throughout,
as they are more accurate in calculating distances at this scale (MacLeod,
2013).
The two known georeferenced points were used to calculate a third point
of known location to use as a more convenient survey point. This was
achieved through basic triangulation.
This method of surveying requires two people, one with the theodolite at
the georeferenced survey point and another to locate the prism at the
point to be surveyed.
A theodolite total station (Top Con, model: GTS 3B) was used to measure
angles and distances between points. This model has an accuracy of 5
and was the most suitable device available for volume calculation
(Schwartz, 2006; Lee, Park and Choi, 2013).

Page 9
Using one of the
georeferenced survey points
(known point) and the newly
calculated survey point (new
point)
measurements

Ho

and B can be
known and
consequently

angle

(a). The
theodolite was

used
o

to measure angle H and

distance F. From these values distances D and E were calculated.
e = Ho 90 a
Fig. (2)
Calculating the beach point location
(Lowe, 2015)

D = F cos (e)
E = F sin (e)
With measurements D and E
the geographic locations of all
beach survey points were
located.

The elevation of the new

Vo

point, K was measured against

the elevation of the known
point. The theodolite was used
to measure the angle Vo and
the distance, S. Care was
taken to ensure that the
height of the theodolite was
exactly the same as the prism

used at the beach points.

Fig. (3)
Calculating the beach point elevation
(Lowe, 2015)

The elevation of the beach

point v was calculated as:
v = K S cos (Vo)

Page 10
The geographic locations and elevations above mean sea level (ODN)
were calculated for each of 24 points on the beach face between the dune
base and the low tide platform for the central section of Fistral beach (see
appendix 1). This was completed at low tide and then repeated the
following day after two successive high tides had acted upon the area
being surveyed.
The area was surveyed only during the highest tides of each month, when
the predicted tide height was greater than 6.9 metres. Lower tides shall
have a lesser impact on the beach face. In this way the impact that
different tidal heights had on the volumes was lessened. The survey dates
can be seen in appendix 3.

GIS
Each set of data points was used in ArcGIS to generate a triangulated
irregular network surface (TIN), This can be seen as the striped area in
appendix 1. Once all the surfaces had been generated a polygon covering
the area common to all dates was produced. The volume for the area of
this polygon, between the surface TIN and mean low water (ODN), was
then calculated using ArcGIS 3D Analyst (Andrews, Gares and Colby, 2002;
MacLeod, 2013). The data can be found in appendix 3 and the volumes in
the table (figure 5).

Wave and Meteorological Data

Real time wave and meteorological data recorded at the Perranporth wave
buoy is available from the Channel Coastal Observatory website:
http://www.channelcoast.org/data_management/real_time_data/charts/?
chart=76
The elements recorded:

High tide time and predicted height in metres.

Significant wave height in metres. The mean of the highest third of

the complete wave spectrum.

Maximum wave height in metres. In case of anomalies and in order
to interpret spread of significant wave height.

Page 11

Peak period and zero period in seconds. The mean time period of
the highest third of waves (peak period) is used in all of the

calculations.
Wave direction and spread in degrees bearing.
Atmospheric pressure in hectopascals. In order to calculate the

actual tide height.

Wind speed and direction in metres per second and degrees
bearing.

The mean of each element was compiled for the 2 hours covering the high
tide (see appendix 4).

Wave Steepness
Wave steepness is the wave height divided by wave length. In this case
the significant wave height at the wave buoy. The wave length (L) was
first calculated as the wave length in deep water (Lo) from the time peak
period (T) that remains constant at all depths.
Lo = gT/2
Where g is the acceleration due to gravity.
The wavelength at depth (d) is then calculated using the equation

L = Lo

tanh

([

( ) ] )]

d 2
g T

2 3
4

2
3

(Fenton and McKee, 1990)

The results for wave steepness can

be found in the table (figure 5).

Wave Energy and Power

Wave power (P) is the rate at which work can be done or the rate of
energy transfer. This is expressed as the equation:
P = ECn
Where (E) is the energy on a particular wave, (C) is the celerity of a
particular wave and (n) is the group velocity in relative to wave velocity.

Page 12
For deep water n = 0.5, for a water depth of 10 metres n = 0.7 for
wavelengths of 100 150 metres (Pethick, 2001).
The energy (E) in an individual wave was calculated as:

E=

1
g H 2
8

Where is the density of water.

The results for the mean energy per metre width of wave can be found in
(figure 5).
The mean celerity of the waves was calculated as L / T.
The mean Power per metre width of wave at the wave buoy for each high
tide period can be found in (figure 5).
Wave Direction

The direction of the wave shall determine how much of the wave power is
able to act on the beach. The closer to perpendicular the wave direction is
to the beach, the greater the
shore normal component of the
wave power shall be. It follows
that the closer to parallel the
wave direction is to the beach,
the closer to zero the shore
normal component shall become.
The wave direction at the buoy is
given as a bearing (B) in degrees
from North.
The shore normal component of
the wave power has been
calculated as
n = P cos (k)
Where k = 360 B 64.5
Fig. (4) Calculating the shore normal
component (Lowe, 2015)

n = P cos (295.5 B)
(See figure 5).

Page 13
Tidal Height
The tidal height was adjusted for atmospheric pressure.
Adjusted tidal height (ath) = pressure deviation from normal/100 +
Predicted tidal height (t)
ath =

1013.25 atmos . press .

+t
100

The results can be found in the table (figure 5).

Statistical Analysis
Minitab and Microsoft Xcel was used for the analysis the results.
The independent variables were individually tested for correlation with the
dependent variable (change in volume) using Pearsons product-moment
correlation coefficient and visual assessment of the scatter plots.
Multivariate regression analysis was used to further explore the
relationships between the variables.

RESULTS
Fig. (5) Table showing the dependent and independent variables
Date

Volume
3

(m )

Volume

Wave

Power

Tidal

Change

Steepne

(shore

Height

ss

normal)

(adjuste

(m )

-1

(Js )
22.nov.14
23.nov.14
24.nov.14
25.nov.14
26.nov.14
21.dec.14
22.dec.14
23.dec.14

d) (m)

52748.38
54502.29

1753.91

53715.54

-786.75

50748.01

-2967.53

48429.42

-2318.59

0.013891

23454.8127

145
0.013303

3
25736.0115

6.91

099
0.011686

3
19249.6526

6.93

765
0.012309

8
24213.4058

6.87

6.82

82

57186.9
59397.74

2210.84

55655.59

-3742.15

0.034695

37332.5384

104
0.027153

3
64714.0788

6.72

6.96

648

Page 14

24.dec.14
25.dec.14
26.dec.14
17.feb.15
18.feb.15
19.feb.15
20.feb.15
21.feb.15
18.march.1
5
19.march.1
5
20.march.1
5
21.march.1
5
22.march.1
5
23.march.1
5
24.march.1
5

52881.67

-2773.92

55079.55

2197.88

53263.08

-1816.47

0.023954

48414.5408

409
0.016512

5
28828.5924

7.09

492
0.011687

9
11668.4227

6.93

6.69

434

59847.75
62542.59

2694.84

63896.72

1354.13

61769.18

-2127.54

76390.76

14621.58

0.015915

37853.8649

714
0.020452

6.56

816
0.018985

36676.8188

7.18

945
0.024175

54212.642
34665.4744

7.59

7.71

459

65547.54
61707.94

-3839.6

64021.92

2313.98

61434.32

-2587.6

62215.98

781.66

61636.87

-579.11

59898.9

-1737.97

0.010306

8360.61373

153
0.009477

8
11180.5286

6.64

541
0.011878

1
18881.1625

7.15

54
0.007532

7.46

45
0.008009

8918.39682
10523.4482

7.53

472
0.017172

4
21772.1669

7.41

7.12

775

Fig. (6) Wave Steepness to volume change

Page 15

Correlatio

P value

n
coefficient
0.257713

0.286781

Wave steepness (x axis) - Volume change m3 (y-axis)

15000
13000
11000
9000
7000
5000
3000
1000
0.01
-1000

0.01

0.02

0.02

0.03

0.03

0.04

0.04

Fig. (7) Wave steepness to Volume change absolute value

Page 16

Wave Steepness (x axis) - Volume Change m3 ABS (y axis)

4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0.01

0.01

0.02

0.02

0.03

0.03

0.04

0.04

With one outlying point

removed.
Correlation

P value

coefficient
0.29997251

0.22650

Page 17

Correlation

P value

coefficient
0.346816

0.1585
42

Wave Power Js-1 (x axis) - Volume Change m3 (y axis)

4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0

10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000

Fig. (8) Shore normal

wave power to Volume change absolute value

Page 18

Tidal Height (x axis) - Volume Change m3 (y axis)

4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
6.5

6.7

6.9

7.1

7.3

7.5

7.7

Fig. (9) Adjusted

Tidal height to Volume change absolute value

Correlation

P value

coefficient
-0.43972

0.067858

Page 19
Multiple regression with volume (absolute value) as the response
variable and wave steepness, shore normal wave power and
adjusted tidal height as the predictor variables
Vol [abs] = 11835 25677(steepness) + 0.0284(power) 1431(tide)

Fig. (10a) The p values for each of the regression variables

P value

Steepness
0.606

Power
0.192

Tide
0.057

Fig. (10b) Values for the regression equation

P value

Standard error

R2

R2 (adjusted)

0.123

(S)
826.978

32.9 %

18.5 %

Fig. (11) Shore normal wave power to Volume change absolute

value grouped by tidal

height

4000

3000

Volume change (m3) 2000

1000

20000 40000 60000 80000

Wave power (Js-1)

Tidal height:
Series 1 (6.5m 6.74m)

Page 20
Series 2 (6.75m 6.99m)
Series 3 (7m 7.24m)
Series 4 (7.25m +)

Fig. (12) Shows the correlation coefficient followed by the p value between
each potential independent variable measured or calculated and the
potential dependent variables, total volume, volume change and absolute
value of volume change.
Total

L
-0.052

Hs
-0.155

Hs2
-0.116

Hs/L
-0.062

(Hs/L)2
-0.021

E
-0.116

Volume
Volume

0.548
0.000

0.539
-0.038

0.648
-0.094

0.808
0.062

0.933
0.096

0.648
-0.094

Change
Vol.

1
-0.341

0.882
0.303

0.711
0.344

0.807
0.3

0.704
0.261

0.711
0.344

Change

0.166

0.222

0.163

0.227

0.295

0.163

P(shore

Adj Tide

PxHs/L

Ts

Total

-0.12

normal)
-0.107

Height
0.413

-0.071

-0.051

-0.077

Volume
Volume

0.634
-0.107

0.674
-0.114

0.089
-0.077

0.78
-0.087

0.841
0.005

0.76
-0.118

Change
Vol.

0.672
0.343

0.652
0.347

0.762
-0.44

0.732
0.371

0.984
-0.346

0.642
-0.212

Change

0.164

0.159

0.068

0.130

0.159

0.398

ABS

ABS

Page 21
Fig. (13) Wave steepness to total volume grouped by wave power
65000
63000
61000
59000

Total volume (m3)

57000
55000
53000
51000
49000
47000
0.01

0.02

0.02

0.03

0.03

0.04

0.04

Wave steepness
8 - 13 J/s

19 - 34 J/s

35 - 70 J/s

Fig. (14) Shows the relationships between the dependant beach volume
variables and various functions of the independent variables. The
Data has been separated into accretion and erosion and the values
recalculated. The correlation coefficient is followed by the p value.
Erosion

Hs

Hs2

Hs/L

(Hs/L)2

Total

-0.15

-0.169

-0.112

-0.113

-0.1

-0.112

Volume
Volume

0.661
0.452

0.619
-0.283

0.742
-0.331

0.741
-0.407

0.77
-0.428

0.742
-0.331

Change

0.163

0.4

0.319

0.214

0.189

0.319

Erosion

P(shore

Adj Tide

PxHs/L

Ts

Total

-0.112

normal)
-0.09

Height
0.581

-0.07

-0.147

-0.192

Volume
Volume

0.742
-0.325

0.793
-0.321

0.061
0.344

0.838
-0.405

0.667
0.452

0.571
0.434

Change

0.321

0.336

0.3

0.216

0.163

0.183

Accreti

Hs

Hs2

Hs/L

(Hs/L)2

on

Page 22
Total

0.133

0.488

0.602

0.171

0.128

0.602

Volume
Volume

0.754
0.012

0.22
0.707

0.114
0.799

0.686
0.331

0.762
0.247

0.114
0.799

Change

0.977

0.05

0.017

0.424

0.556

0.017

Accreti

P(shore

Adj Tide

PxHs/L

Ts

on
Total

0.111

normal)
0.151

Height
0.669

0.194

0.794

-0.811

Volume
Volume

0.793
0.263

0.721
0.306

0.07
0.554

0.645
0.316

0.019
0.876

0.015
-0.979

Change

0.529

0.462

0.155

0.446

0.004

0.000

DISCUSSION
As can be seen from the first scatter plot (figure 6) the results from this
study show no, or very little correlation between wave steepness and
sediment loss. This was unexpected as all the literature is clear on this
point. Such waves [steep storm waves] tend to produce beach face
erosion with the sediment being moved to the nearshore. Lower, lesssteep waves (swell waves) produce accretion by moving nearshore sand
onto the beach face. (Schwartz, 2006, page 164). Not only is the
correlation coefficient extremely low, showing very weak to no correlation,
but there is no distinction between steepness ratios that cause accretion
and those that cause erosion. The p value shows no significance between
the value of the volume and that of steepness.
Within the data there existed an outlier that was not recorded by the usual
colleague. The presence of this data point altered considerably all
combinations of data analysis and was frequently flagged up by Minitab as
having a disproportionate influence. The date that the data was recorded
was 21 February 2015. The calculations shown above, from (figure 7)
onwards, were executed with the anomalous point removed.

Page 23
Analysis was carried out using all predictor variables on the volume
change and on the absolute value of volume change to determine where
correlation lay.
(Figure 7) shows wave steepness against the absolute value of volume
change with the outlier removed. There is only very week correlation and
the p value shows any correlation is not statistically significant. The week
correlation shown is positive, implying that a rise in wave steepness may
result in a rise in sediment transport.
(Figure 8) shows a week positive correlation between the shore normal
component of wave power and the absolute value of volume change. A
week, positive correlation is shown implying that greater wave power
reaching the beach increases the quantity of sediment transport as would
be expected. The p value, however, shows that this correlation is not
statistically significant.
(Figure 9) shows a moderate negative correlation between the adjusted
tidal height and the absolute value of volume change. Although still quite
low, the higher correlation coefficient shows a stronger link. Although
closer to the value of 0.05, the p value of 0.068 does not show statistical
significance. The negative moderate correlation would imply that, within
this study, sediment transport was greater on days with a lower high tide.
The low correlation coefficients showed that there may be problems with a
multiple regression equation and the results confirmed this (figures 10a
and 10b). None of the

p values for the predictor variables within the

equation showed significance. The p value for the equation itself of 0.123
is also above the level of significance. The mean standard error of 826.978
m3 shows the mean distance of the actual data points from the regression
line. With values from 0 4000 m3, 827 m3 is a considerable range. The R2
and R2 (adjusted for the number of data points) show the percentage of
the error accounted for by the regression line. 32.9% and 18.5% confirm
that the regression equation generated is close to useless.
Correlation analysis was conducted between each of the independent
variables in order to detect multicollinearity that would cause problems
with multivariate regression analysis (Hill and Lewicki, 2007). There is a
strong correlation between wave steepness and wave power as both are
dependent on the wave height. This may account for some of the failure of
the multiple regression. Wave steepness was replaced with wave length in

Page 24
one multivariate regression analysis and with time period in another with
no substantial change in R2 or p values for the regression.
The negative correlation between the adjusted tidal height and the
absolute volume change would appear at odds with what we would expect
to see. When the tidal height is greater the waves in question have a
larger area of beach on which to act, suggesting a positive correlation
would be more appropriate. The data was grouped in order of tidal height
and the graphs in Figures 7 and 8 re-examined. The graph in figure 10
shows the shore normal component of wave power against the absolute
value of volume change, grouped using tidal height as a scaling factor. As
can be seen from the arrangement of the different series, no pattern was
found. Although the negative, moderate correlation may hold true, it runs
counter to expectations and could be the result of chance. By definition,
coefficients calculated for random samples to a significant level of 0.05,
shall have 1 in 20 chance of showing significance (Hill and Lewicki, 2007).
The only way to test this is to repeat the analysis with new data.
Correlation analysis was then conducted between all independent
variables that had been measured or calculated and the three potential
dependent variables of total volume, volume change and absolute value
of volume change. The results can be seen in the table in figure 12. There
appears very little correlation between any of the wave data and the
volume data. The strongest correlations are week with p values that are
not significant. Just to be sure, regression equations were generated for
absolute volume change using different combinations of the variables with
the strongest correlations and the lowest p values. R2 and R2 (adjusted)
continued to be below 20% and 10% respectively, indicating how useful
the equations were in predicting the dependent variable.
The low level of correlation between the absolute volume change and any
of the variables suggests a flaw in the experiment design.
The graph in figure 13 shows how the results may be grouped by subset,
in this case wave power. Although there are not enough data points to
draw any conclusions it appears that the gradient of a possible line of best
fit would become less steep as the wave power increases. This would
imply that the relationship between wave steepness and total beach
volume becomes stronger as the wave power increases.

Page 25
When the data was divided into separate sets for accretion and erosion
some of the correlations became much stronger as can be seen in the
table (figure 14). The corresponding p values also showed greater
significance. Unfortunately the data set is too small to divide into subsets
and be sure of any significance (Hill and Lewicki, 2007).
The independent variables showing greater correlation within the
accretion subset were used in various combinations to generate multiple
regression equations. No useful outcomes were attained. This could be
down to the low number of data points.

CONCLUSIONS
For this study the null hypothesis has been accepted. Wave steepness and
wave power were found to have no significant correlation with the rate of
sediment transport at the beach face within the parameters of this study
The very low rate of correlation found may be attributed to several
factors: the time between surveys obliged the mean wave data to be
employed, assumptions were made in order to simplify several relevant
contributing variables, the duration of the conditions were not taken into
account and an assumption was made that the beach face had reached a
state of equilibrium.
Due to the method and equipment employed it was only possible to
survey the site once a day. Consequently two high tides had passed and
acted upon the beach face in between each survey. It was necessary to
amalgamate the wave and meteorological data for both of these high
tides to find the mean of this data. In this way the extremes were reduced
and sometimes quite different events were recorded as one set of
moderate conditions.
The mean sediment size was assumed to remain constant. The study was
conducted over the winter period and the beach had not been completely
replenished after the storms of the previous year (Royal Haskoning, 2011).
Consequently, on the occasions that the volume of sediment was at the

Page 26
lowest, the usual sand uncovered a layer of shingle. This would require far
greater power to transport and so affect the volume data.
The shore normal component of the wave power in 10 metres of water at
Perranporth was taken as the amount of power reaching Fistral beach.
Whilst this may be comparative for most of the conditions within this
study, the wave in 10 metres has already undergone some refraction and
waves of different bearing may not undergo the same refraction at a
different stretch of coast. As a wave approaches the bay from a heading
other than shore normal it shall be refracted to a shore normal direction.
The gradual refraction is not the same as taking the shore normal
component. In this study the waves were mostly approaching from a
similar direction and so having a minor effect on the results. However,
when the approach bearing has a large variation there may be
inconsistencies.
The wind direction was monitored but no weighting was given to its effect
on tidal height or wave steepness. There were no extreme occasions and
the wind was assumed to have negligible effect.
These assumptions may have only small consequence on their own but
the cumulative effect is unquantified.
Aside from very weak correlation, the most notable observation was the
apparent irrelevance of wave steepness to whether particular conditions
result in accretion or erosion. Prior to the study it was anticipated that at
some point between a steep and a shallow wave the volume change
would turn from positive to negative, that those waves that caused
erosion would mostly be steeper than those that resulted in accretion. As
can be seen in graph (a) there was no such distinction. Waves with a
certain steepness were on one occasion causing erosion and on another,
accretion. In the influential work Beaches and Coasts it is stated The
critical steepness at which the waves change in character from
constructive to destructive is clearly important. It is not possible to give
one value for this figure as it varies from beach to beach according to the
size of the material and probably with other factors, such as the wind.
(King, 1959, pg 250). He goes on to give values for critical steepness for
different sediment sizes and water depths derived from wave tank
experiments. Other studies have also been confounded in their attempts
to fixing this ratio (Wiegel, 2006). The lack of a critical steepness within

Page 27
this study can be explained by the last two factors mentioned earlier: the
duration of the conditions were not taken into account and an assumption
was made that the beach face had actually reached a state of equilibrium.
In a wave tank the wave conditions are set and the results observed. If a
wave of certain characteristics were to continue indefinitely then the
beach would reach a state of equilibrium. If a steeper wave is introduced
then sediment shall be transported offshore until a new state of
equilibrium is reached (King, 1959). Likewise with a flatter wave, sediment
shall be transported shoreward until equilibrium is reached and the beach
profile becomes steep enough for the onshore deposition to equal the
offshore transport. In this way the beach profile becomes an important
factor in determining the critical steepness. Consider a wave of median
steepness for a beach, first acting on that beach with a summer profile
and then the beach with a winter profile. The wave shall be steeper than
the waves that produced the summer profile and so cause sediment to be
moved offshore. However this wave shall be flatter than the waves that
produced the winter profile so causing sediment to be moved onshore.
The same wave may cause accretion or erosion depending on the beach
profile that in turn depends upon the wave conditions preceding. This may
explain the results in the graph (figure 6).
In this study it was wrongly assumed that the beach face had reached that
state of equilibrium designated by the wave conditions on the preceding
high tides (Fenneman, 1902). In reality the wave conditions may well be
changing more rapidly than the beach face is able to respond, leaving the
beach morphology in a permanent state of flux. This situation is described
by Kemp (1960) as the equilibrium form seldom attained in nature. No
provision was made in this study to determine the duration of the wave
conditions or how far the beach face had adapted to those conditions.
In summary
The wave and meteorological data showed only a weak correlation with
sediment transport. This can be put down to: the wavebuoy data being
gathered on too broad a scale, some assumptions that could well do with
being quantified and the critical value for wave steepness being
dependent upon variable topographic conditions.

Page 28

RECOMMENDATIONS
The weak correlation rates did show some hope for a stronger link with
some further development of the method, particularly once the data was
divided into sub sets. This would require a larger quantity of data.
In order to achieve a higher degree of accuracy with regards to the
correlations, it would be necessary to gather elevation data after each
tide. In order to survey the beach face every 12 to 13 hours it would
sometimes be necessary to operate in the dark or at low light levels. The
theodolite total station proved difficult to operate in low light levels but
could be adequate with further planning although the process would take
a little longer. Alternative surveying equipment such as an RTK GPS
system would require only one person and allow for a greater number of
data points to be recorded in the same time providing greater accuracy.
The 24 points used were adequate for this study but may not be so
accurate on a more concave or convex profile (Schwartz, 2006; Lee, Park
and Choi, 2013). Surveys were carried out up to 3 4 hours either side of
the low tide, providing flexibility.
A study of the relationship between wave steepness and beach volume
would be required in order to approach any predictive capacity of
sediment transport from wave data. In order to overcome the continuous
flux of conditions and equilibrium rarely being attained, a large enough
data set that could then be grouped into a range of stepped subsets, as
with the graph in figure 13, may well provide some meaningful data.
In order to achieve this a further variable would be necessary in this study.
This variable is an expression of the existing beach profile before the
action of the transforming wave and its relationship to the transforming
wave. Kemp (1960) proposed the phase difference. That is the time
taken from the break point of the wave until it reaches its furthest point
up the beach, expressed as a proportion of the waves time period. More
recently, a model for storm induced beach change was developed by the

Page 29
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers that works with the sand fall speed (Larson,
Kraus and Byrnes, 1990). There are other models that work to varying
degrees in different situations and all have their limitations (de Leeuw,
2005). These models all involve a far higher degree of involvement in the
active measurement of sediment transport. As such they are moving away
from the sphere of this study and require additional personnel and
equipment.
In 1963, Iwagaki incorporated the beach slope tangent with moderate
success (Schwartz, 2006). This data is calculable from the kind of survey
employed in this study if data points were gathered further seaward of the
beach face. This may be worth exploring in addition to the other
recommendations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank Duncan Jones for the inspiration behind this
study and many enthusiastic conversations regarding wave theory, GIS
and statistics.
Without the assistance and advice of Frank Johns concerning theory,
logistics, and equipment and for all the surveys this work would never
have been completed, thank you.

REFERENCES
Ackerman, S. A. and Knox, J. A. (2003) Meteorology: Understanding the
Atmosphere, Boston, U.S.A: Brooks Cole.
Andrews, B. D., Gares, P. A. and Colby, J. D. (2002) Techniques for GIS
modelling of coastal dunes Geomorphology, Volume 48 (1-3), pp 289-308.
Channel Coastal Observatory (2014) Map Viewer and Data Search [online],
available:
http://www.channelcoast.org/data_management/online_data_catalogue/m
etadata/search/index2.php

Page 30
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G. and Aiken, L. S. (2002) Applied Multiple
Regression Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences, 3rd ed., Abingdon, U.K:
Routledge.
Fenneman, N. M. (1902) Development of the Profile of Equilibrium of the
Subaqueous Shore Terrace The Journal of Geology, Volume 10 (1), pp 132.
Fenton, J. D. and McKee, W. D. (1990) On calculating the lengths of water
waves, Coastal Engineering, Volume 14, pp 499-513.
Garrison, T. (2002) Oceanography: An Invitation to Marine science, 4th ed.,
Boston, U.S.A: Brooks Cole.
Hill, T. and Lewicki, P. (2007) STATISTICS: Methods and Applications, Tulsa,
U.S.A: Statsoft.
King, C. A. M. (1959) Beaches and Coasts, London, England: Edward
Arnold.
Kemp, P. H. (1960) The Relationship Between Wave Action and Beach
Profile Characteristics Coastal Engineering Proceedings, 7, pp 262-277
Larson, M., Kraus, N. C. and Byrnes, M. R. (1990) SBEACH: Numerical
Model for Simulating Storm Induced Beach Change U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers Technical Report CERC-89-9, available:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a222824.pdf [accessed 13/04/2015]
Lee, J-M., Park, J-Y. and Choi, J-Y. (2013) Evaluation of Sub-aerial
Topographic Surveying Techniques Using Total Station and RTK-GPS for
Applications in Macrotidal Sand Beach Environment. Journal of Coastal
Research, Special Issue No. 65, pg 535-540
de Leeuw, C. J. (2005) Model predictions of wave-induced sediment
transport on the shoreface, unpublished thesis (M.Sc.), University of
Twente.
MacLeod, C. D. (2013) An Introduction to Using GIS in Marine Biology, 2nd
ed., Glasgow, U.K: Pictish Beast Publications.
Pethick, J. (2001) An Introduction to Coastal Geomorphology, London,
England: Edward Arnold.
Royal Haskoning (2011) Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Shoreline Management
Plan Review: Final Report [online], available:

Page 31
http://www.ciscag.org/finalsmp/Chapter4_PDZ/PDZ12_Final_report_31.pdf
accessed 28/12/2014
Schwartz, M. (2006) Encyclopedia of Coastal Science, New York, U.S.A:
Springer.
Wiegel, R. L. (2006) Oceanographical Engineering, New York, U.S.A: Dover
Publications Inc.
Wiggins, M. (2014) Post Storm Report 2014, Plymouth: Plymouth Coastal
Observatory.

Figures
Channel Coastal Observatory
http://www.channelcoast.org/data_management/online_data_catalogue/co
ntrol_points/7a7A3-15_E1_01.pdf
Channel Coastal Observatory
http://www.channelcoast.org/data_management/online_data_catalogue/
Lowe, B (2015)

APPENDIX 1
Fistral beach, showing the survey points and survey area
Adapted from Channel Coastal Observatory

APPENDIX 2

Page 32

Channel Coastal observatory

Page 33

APPENDIX 3
An example of one days survey data.
Date

Bearin

Vertic

Hz.

Vet.

al

Dist.

Dist

Eastings

Northing

Elev

Angle
25.12.20

122.51

91.92

582.7

19.5

179934.0

62116.42

72

1
582.4

716
179956.5

057
62104.64

2.02

6
583.2

18.6
15.9

97
179981.1

809
62091.62

7
583.7

7
14.5

227
179988.7

245
62087.58

5.63

14
25.12.20

1a

78
125.01

14
25.12.20

1b

75
127.74

14
25.12.20

1c

64
128.58

14
25.12.20

1d

86
121.88

06
92.20

6
19.7

074
179899.3

502
62057.54

7.04

14
25.12.20

2a

31
124.82

03
92.10

514.6
511.5

5
18.8

03
179921.4

011
62043.00

1.85

14
25.12.20

2b

56
127.46

89
91.91

4
508.9

3
16.9

87
179940.7

173
62029.21

2.77

14
25.12.20

2c

78
129.23

53

8
509.9

9
14.6

27
179954.6

885
62021.79

4.61

14
25.12.20

2d

47
122.34

3
443.7

8
19.5

037
179872.4

286
61991.88

6.92

92.52

14
25.12.20

3a

22
125.86

31
92.40

6
442.2

5
18.5

15
179895.9

948
61978.06

2.05

14
25.12.20

3b

64
129.30

44
92.05

9
443.6

6
15.9

361
179919.4

042
61965.59

3.04

14
25.12.20

3c

06
130.18

64
91.89

3
14.6

088
179925.2

108
61962.02

5.67

14
25.12.20

3d

19
121.24

47
93.00

443.8
375.1

6
19.6

305
179836.2

461
61933.04

6.94

14
25.12.20

4a

17
125.25

69
92.91

2
371.9

9
18.9

252
179858.2

09
61918.54

1.91

14
25.12.20

4b

64
129.52

94
92.58

7
372.0

371
179882.0

29
61904.49

2.64

14
25.12.20

4c

17
131.61

61
92.26

5
372.5

16.8
14.7

97
179893.7

648
61897.34

4.8

14
25.12.20

4d

92
122.10

69
93.63

7
308.1

4
19.5

076
179812.6

028
61870.14

6.86

14
25.12.20

5a

97
127.03

72
93.49

6
306.6

9
18.7

867
179835.3

329
61856.49

2.01

14
25.12.20

5b
5c

89
131.76

19
93.01

9
309.1

2
16.2

813
179858.0

862
61844.85

2.88
5.34

91.83
91.57
91.43

91.65

Page 34
14
25.12.20

36
133.40

22
92.75

3
310.2

6
14.9

664
179865.9

153
61840.54

14
25.12.20

5d

97
119.92

92
94.65

4
19.6

339
179775.9

877
61814.16

6.66

14
25.12.20

6a

08
126.59

25
94.51

242
239.3

9
18.8

108
179799.7

553
61799.26

1.91

14
25.12.20

6b

64
133.24

44
94.00

3
242.0

9
16.9

96
179824.6

717
61786.27

2.71

14
25.12.20

6c

81
136.43

31
93.54

7
244.4

4
15.1

667
179836.7

05
61779.78

4.66

14

6d

83

06

914

518

6.47

Appendix 4
An example of Wave and Meteorological data

Max
Tim

Signific

wav

e of

Predict

ant

Time

Zero

high

ed tide

wave

heig

perio

perio

Beari

Spre

Date
21.12.20

tide
16:3

height

height

ht

ng

ad

14
22.12.20

2
04:5

6.7

2.17

3.28

7.2

5.13

267

37

14
22.12.20

3
17:1

6.9

2.45

3.99

7.9

5.3

273

37

14
23.12.20

5
05:3

6.9
7.1

2.74
2.94

4.21
4.08

9.9
12.1

5.9
6.5

277
279

34
34

Page 35
14
23.12.20

6
17:5

14
24.12.20

9
06:2

2.54

3.61

10.7

279

36

14
24.12.20

0
18:4

7.2

2.41

3.19

11.1

5.7

270

43

14
25.12.20

3
07:0

2.03

3.18

12.5

5.2

269

34

14
25.12.20

5
19:3

7.1

1.78

2.92

11.6

278

37

14
26.12.20

0
07:5

6.8

1.42

2.09

10.9

4.8

273

39

6.9

1.42

10.9

5.7

280

41

14

Date
21.12.2014
22.12.2014
22.12.2014
23.12.2014
23.12.2014
24.12.2014
24.12.2014
25.12.2014
25.12.2014
26.12.2014

Atmos.

Wind

Wind

Pressure

Adjusted

Pressure

spee

direction

deviation

tide

d
1023.8
1019.4
1017
1016.8
1012.7
1015.1
1022.5
1027.6
1031.6
1026

11.9
17.4
18.6
9.6
8.9
9.7
11.8
9.4
6.6
1.2

247
239
241
240
227
327
290
291
310
191

-10.55
-6.15
-3.75
-3.55
0.55
-1.85
-9.25
-14.35
-18.35
-12.75

6.5945
6.8385
6.8625
7.0645
7.0055
7.1815
6.9075
6.9565
6.6165
6.7725