10.5 Beach Morphodynamics
AD Short, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
DWT Jackson, University of Ulster, Coleraine, UK
r 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
10.5.1
10.5.2
10.5.2.1
10.5.2.2
10.5.2.3
10.5.2.4
10.5.2.5
10.5.2.6
10.5.2.7
10.5.2.8
10.5.2.9
10.5.2.10
10.5.2.11
10.5.2.12
10.5.3
10.5.3.1
10.5.3.2
10.5.3.2.1
10.5.3.2.2
10.5.3.2.3
10.5.3.3
10.5.3.4
10.5.4
10.5.4.1
10.5.4.2
10.5.4.3
10.5.4.4
10.5.4.5
10.5.5
References
Introduction
Beach Morphodynamics
Beach Time Series
Empirical Relationships
Beach Experiments
Swash Morphodynamics
Geological Control on Beach Morphodynamics
Morphodynamics and High Magnitude Events
Wave–Beach–Dune Interactions
Engineering Impacts on Morphodynamics
Shoreface Morphodynamics
Beach Monitoring
Modeling
Beach Ecology
Beach Morphodynamics – Status
Instantaneous
Event
Beach experiments
Video and remote technology
Beach types and states
Large Scale Coastal Behavior (Engineering)
Geological
Beach Morphodynamics – the Way Forward
Impacts of Climate Change
Sediment Transport
Beach Erosion
Beach Type and Changes in Beach Type
Formation of Rhythmic Features
Discussion and Conclusion
Glossary
Bar A generally submerged raised area of sand, located
in the surf zone and lying adjacent to or seaward of a beach.
Beach A wave deposited accumulation of sediment,
generally sand, but ranging up to boulders, deposited
between the upper swash limit and wave base.
Beach cusp Regular undulation in the upper swash zone
produced by edge waves and swash.
Beach morphodynamics The mutual interaction of
waves, tides, and currents with the seabed and impact of the
seabed on those processes.
Beach type The form of a beach which is dependent on
the relative contribution of waves, tides, and sediment size.
Beaches may be wave-dominated, tide-modified or tidedominated.
107
109
110
110
110
111
112
113
114
114
114
115
116
117
117
117
118
118
118
119
120
122
122
122
122
123
123
123
123
124
Berm A near horizontal swash deposited accumulation of
sand on the upper beach face.
Dissipative beach A wide, low gradient, multi-bar, higher
energy wave-dominated beach across which waves break
several times thereby dissipating their energy.
Edge wave A low frequency wave trapped in the surf zone
between the shore and the bar may be stationary as a
standing edge wave or propagated alongshore as a
progressive edge wave.
Eulerian circulation Fluid motion that focuses on
specific fixed locations in space which fluid flows as time
passes.
Intragravity wave energy Surface gravity wave
with frequency lower (30–300 seconds) than wind
waves.
Short, A.D., Jackson, D.W.T., 2013. Beach morphodynamics. In: Shroder, J.
(Editor in Chief), Sherman, D.J. (Ed.), Treatise on Geomorphology.
Academic Press, San Diego, CA, vol. 10, Coastal Geomorphology,
pp. 106–129.
106
Treatise on Geomorphology, Volume 10
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374739-6.00275-X
Beach Morphodynamics
Langrangian circulation Fluid motion where the observer
follows the fluid particles as they move on a pathline of the
whole water mass through space and time.
Nearshore zone The area between wave base and the area
of wave breaking the area over which waves shoal prior to
breaking.
Reflective beach A steep, narrow beach fronted by deeper
water, with waves only breaking at the base of the beach and
being partially reflected back out to sea.
Rip current A narrow strong flow of water from the
shoreline seaward through the surf zone.
Sand Grains with diameters between 0.06 mm and 2 mm.
Sediment Material that has been eroded and transported
by gravity, wind, water or ice; includes silt, sand, gravel,
boulders, and organic debris.
Surf zone The area between the point of wave breaking
and the shoreline, also known as the breaker zone.
Contains surf zone currents that may move onshore,
alongshore and offshore.
107
Swash Occurs when a wave reaches the dry shoreline and
immediately collapses and run up the beach face as a thin
layer of water, known as swash and up rush.
Swash zone The area between the shoreline where waves
collapse and run up the beach as swash, and the landward
limit of that swash.
Tide-dominated beach A beach where the tide range
is more than 10 times the wave height. Typified by
a wide intertidal zone and daily migration of the surf
zone.
Tide-modified beach A beach where the tide range is
between 3-10 times the wave height. Typified by a steeper
high tide beach and wider low tide beach, which may have
rips.
Wave-dominated beach A beach where the tide range is
less than three times the wave height. Typified by surf, bars
and rips.
Abstract
The morphodynamic approach to the study of beaches had its origins at the Coastal Studies Institute at Louisiana State
University in the late 1960s and formed the basis of the Australian approach beginning in the mid-1970s where it was
formalized by Wright and Thom (1977). Unlike the previous fragmented approach to beach studies, the morphodynamic
approach provided a time–space framework within which all beach systems could be located at timescales from the
instantaneous to the Quaternary, and spatially across all coastal environments. Equally important was the interdependence
of processes and morphological response, so that beach systems could be studied in a state of dynamic equilibrium with
the prevailing processes and boundary conditions. This approach enabled the full spectrum of beach systems and types to
be identified and characterized and is utilized to examine beach response at scales from the instantaneous, to event, to long
term. This chapter covers the development of the morphodynamic approach; its application within and across the beach
environment; the present level of understanding; and areas requiring more research.
10.5.1
Introduction
Beach morphodynamics refers to the dynamic interactions
between wave shoaling and breaking processes and bed response across a range of time–space scales. This interaction
becomes more complex with additional processes, such as tide
and wind, and boundary conditions such as antecedent
morphology, geology, sediment characteristics, and biota. The
morphodynamic approach to beaches and coastal systems
involves the recognition of the range of interactions occurring
across the full beach system (wave base to swash limit). It
attempts to measure and model both salient processes and
morphological responses, together with the positive and
negative feedbacks between process and response, which,
through time, maintain a dynamic equilibrium across the
beach system.
The morphodynamic approach to coastal systems had its
origins at the Coastal Studies Institute (CSI) at Louisiana State
University (LSU) in the 1960s, led consecutively by Richard
Russell, William McIntire, and Jim Coleman. These intrepid
geoscientists, with Office of Naval Research (ONR) funding,
roamed the world’s coasts and in doing so developed a holistic
approach to the study and understanding of coastal systems.
This was first applied in a truly morphodynamic approach in
Wright and Coleman’s (1971) classic study of deltas (also
Wright, 1976). When the CSI moved into beaches in the late
1960s, it coincided with the arrival of Choule Sonu. Sonu
analyzed an 18-month time series of daily beach change collected at Nags Head, North Carolina, by then graduate student
Bob Dolan. He used these data to develop a two-dimensional
(2D) beach change model (Sonu and van Beek, 1971). Then,
he led the first truly morphodynamic beach experiment called
‘SALIS’ for sea–air–land–interactions. This experiment took
place at rip-dominated Destin Beach on the Florida panhandle
in the summer of 1971. The study included measurements of
sea breeze, which generated the waves, beach and surf
zone topography, wave breaking, and surf zone circulation
(Figure 1; Sonu, 1972; Sonu et al., 1973); and out of which
Sonu and James (1973) recognized the Markovian nature of
beach behavior and Sonu (1973) developed the first threedimensional (3D) beach model. CSI’s next field experiments
on the north Alaskan coast (Figure 2) resulted in Wiseman
et al. (1973) and Short et al. (1974) applying these models in
their study of the beaches along the north Alaska coast. Short
(1975) also used wave measurements and field surveys from
the multibarred, north Alaskan coast to corroborate the link
between standing waves and bar formation proposed by
Suhayda (1974) and Bowen (1975).
108
Beach Morphodynamics
Atmosphere and ocean
Fresh water
Beach system
Coastal flows
Energy
losses
Topography
Boundary layer
flows
Terrigenous
sediments
Sediment transport
Sediment
loss
Figure 1 Swash zone measurements at Destin, Florida during the
1971 SALIS experiments. Photo by A.D. Short.
Stratigraphy
Sediment balance
Autogenic
sediment
gains and
losses
Erosion/deposition
Δt
Environmental conditions
Figure 3 The morphodynamic relationships between boundary
conditions (topography), inputs, interactions (central boxes) and
resulting surface morphology (topography), and underlying stratigraphy
in the coastal environment. Reproduced from Cowell, P.J., Thom, B.G.,
1994. Morphodynamics of coastal evolution. In: Carter, R.W.G.,
Woodroffe, C.D. (Eds.), Coastal Evolution: Late Quaternary Shoreline
Morphodynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 33–86.
Wright and Thom (1977) defined the morphodynamic
approach as involving the analyses of:
Figure 2 Surveying a north Alaskan barrier island beach in 1972,
while waves break and ice grounds on the offshore bar. Photo by
A.D. Short.
Two CSI members of both the Destin and Alaskan field
teams, Don Wright and Andy Short, went on to form the
Coastal Studies Unit (CSU) at the University of Sydney in
1976 and in doing so took the morphodynamics approach
with them to Australia. It was in Australia, using the country’s
vast range of wave–beach–tide environments, that the CSU
team was able to rigorously apply the morphodynamic
approach across a wide range of coastal domains.
The breadth of their approach was detailed in Wright and
Thom (1977) wherein Wright teamed with another CSI–LSU
graduate, Bruce Thom, to write the first paper to review the
morphodynamic approach to what they called ‘coastal depositional landforms’. Although the paper had its foundations
in their experience at CSI–LSU, they also appreciated the recent advances in mathematical modeling of hydrodynamic
processes and the rapid advances being made in both computer technology and the instrumentation with which to
measure, record, store, and analyze the vast quantities of field
data becoming available. For the first time, it was possible to
accurately and simultaneously record waves and currents,
sediment transport, and bed changes, and to test these against
theories of nearshore wave behavior and bed response (e.g.,
Bowen and Inman, 1969, 1971).
1. the character and spatiotemporal variability of coastal environmental conditions;
2. the hydrodynamic and morphodynamic processes of
interaction and transformation which operate within the
coastal system to produce morphologic patterns and morphologic changes; and
3. the short- and long-term evolutionary sequences that ultimately yield preserved morphologies and stratigraphies,
and which progressively alter the dynamic environment
and process combinations.
These interactions, illustrated in Figure 3, show topographic
and process boundary conditions; interactions between dynamic process and morphology that produce sediment transport and change; and, finally, the topographic expression and
underlying stratigraphy, that partly records these events and that
forms the basis of coastal depositional landforms.
Wright and Thom (1977) clearly saw the approach being
applied at all timescales, from the instantaneous to the Quaternary, and in all manner of coastal depositional systems
from beaches to deltas and dunes. It is interesting that although the beach fraternity has grasped this approach, it has
not had the same reception in other fields of geomorphology.
This may be explained in part by the fact that Wright, Thom,
and colleagues in Australia were already applying it to beach
morphodynamics with a series of papers in the late 1970s to
the early 1980s establishing a firm foundation in the beach
environment, as well as presenting the now well-entrenched
Beach Morphodynamics
Time scale
109
Process
Geological
Large scale
(engineering)
Millennia
Net shoreline
Net shoreline
movement
(horizontal)
Centuries
Decades
Years
Events
Climate change
Tectonics
Sea level
Sediment supply
Large size beach cycles
Major storm erosion
Wave climate cycles
Beach position
Annual wave climate
tide regime
Seasonal wave
climate
Seasons
Seasonal beach cycles
Tide cycles storm
events
Months
Days
Hours
Instant- Beach migration
aneous
Beach face
Wave trains
Ripple migration
Tide
Ripples
Seconds
Waves
0.0001 0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
Length (feature) scale (km)
100
1000
Figure 4 The relationship between the scale of coastal sedimentary features and their temporal variability, together with the four major
time–space paradigms used in the study of coasts. Reproduced from Cowell, P.J., Thom, B.G., 1994. Morphodynamics of coastal evolution. In:
Carter, R.W.G., Woodroffe, C.D. (Eds.), Coastal Evolution: Late Quaternary Shoreline Morphodynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp. 33–86.
beach model. What followed was a series of morphodynamics
papers and reports from the CSU reporting on: time series of
beach change (Short, 1978, 1979; Wright et al., 1979; Thom and
Hall, 1991); beach experiments across a wide range of wave–tide
environments (e.g., Wright et al., 1982a, 1982b, 1982c); dune
environments (Short and Hesp, 1982; Hesp, 1983); regionalscale morphodynamics and its relation to coastal evolution
across contemporary to Quaternary timescales (Short and Hesp,
1984; Short and Fotheringham 1986; Short et al., 1986); and
across the shoreface (Cowell et al., 1992, 1999).
The best review of the morphodynamic approach can be
found in Cowell and Thom (1994) where, following on from
Wright and Thom (1977), they emphasized the applicability
of the approach across a broad range of time and space scales
(Figure 4). The following year, Wright (1995) published his
book dealing with the morphodynamics of continental
shelves, thereby taking the approach into the larger time and
space scale (Figure 5). The morphodynamic approach can
therefore be applied to any geomorphic system across any
time and space scale. The remainder of this chapter focuses on
its application across the beach–shoreface environment, as
defined in Figure 5.
10.5.2
Beach Morphodynamics
Beach morphodynamics refers to the mutual interaction between hydrodynamic processes (principally shoaling-breaking
swash waves, tide, and wind), the sediment of the beach environment, and any ancillary boundaries, such that changes
in one lead to adjustment and changes in the other in an
attempt to maintain a dynamic equilibrium, minimizing the
need for further change. The development of a morphodynamics approach to beach studies in the 1970s provided
a major new paradigm that revolutionized the way beaches
were studied and accompanied an explosion in our understanding and study of beach systems. In theory, at least, it
enabled the study of beaches to be scaled up from the instantaneous to the Quaternary and vice versa. The fragmented
approach to beaches and beach systems was replaced with an
integrated approach that linked the full spectrum of beaches
in time and space. Within each beach system, the morphodynamics approach accommodated the 2D, cross-shore relationship between shoaling and breaking waves, the surf zone
and swash, and the underlying mobile topography, including
the nearshore slope, surf zone topography, and beach face
slope; as well as 3D beach responses to changing wave–tide
conditions. Between beach systems, the approach explains
the transition in processes and form across the spectrum from
high-energy, wave-dominated beaches to low-energy tidedominated systems. The level of interactions and explanation
can be scaled from the instantaneous as the boundary layer
interacts with sand gains and bedforms, through beach
erosion–accretion cycles, to large-scale coastal behavior, to
Holocene and Quaternary shoreline evolution and stratigraphy (Figure 4).
110
Beach Morphodynamics
y
x
Dunes and
backshore
Beach
berm
Upper shoreface
Surf zone
Lower shoreface
Offshore
Nearshore (wave shoaling zone)
Low tide
Limit of runup
Wave base?
Break
in slope?
(a) Johnson shoreface
(b) Niedoroda shoreface
Seasons
Years
Decades
(c) Time-scale dependent extent of shoreface
Centuries
Millennia
Figure 5 The shoreface is affected by shoaling waves, breaking waves and swash at scales from instantaneous to millennia. Each produces a
characteristic bed response and all are linked through time and space by morphodynamic couplings. Reproduced with permission from Cowell,
P.J., Hanslow, D.J., Meleo, J.F, 1999. The Shoreface. In: Short, A.D. (Ed.), Handbook of Beach and Shoreface Morphodynamics. Wiley,
Chichester, pp. 37–71.
10.5.2.1
Beach Time Series
The Australian approach to beach morphodynamics sparked
an immediate reaction as other coastal groups took on a more
morphodynamic approach to the beaches they were studying.
This was first manifest in a number of publications primarily
based on time series of beach change from a wide range of
micro- through macro-tidal regimes, as well as swell through
sea conditions (e.g., Aubrey, 1979; Willyams, 1980; Goldsmith
et al., 1982; Shaw, 1985; Short, 1992; Carter and Orford,
1993; Wijnberg and Wolf, 1994; Klein and Menezes, 2001;
Norcross et al., 2002). The most ambitious was at Duck, North
Carolina where Lippmann and Holman (1990) pioneered the
use of video technology to monitor long-term beach change
and classify beach states; whereas the regular Duck cross-shore
surveys were used by Larson and Kraus (1994) and Lee et al.
(1998) to monitor longer-term and storm-driven beach
change. It quickly became apparent that the wave-dominated
(micro-tidal) beach model of Wright and Short (1984) was
not directly applicable to meso- to macro-tidal situations and
to multibar (predominately sea) environments. This situation
has been remedied through fieldwork in higher-tide ranges
and sea environments.
10.5.2.2
Empirical Relationships
Because of the inherent complexity of the beach environment,
an empirical approach has been successfully used to predict a
range of beach conditions, including beach type (relative tide
range (RTR), Masselink and Short, 1993); beach state (O,
Wright and Short, 1984); changes between beach states (Oe,
Wright et al., 1985); bar number (B Short and Aagaard,
1993); and embaymentized circulation (d’, Short, 1999); all of
which are summarized in Table 1 to provide an overview of
the contribution of various environmental parameters to the
description and classification of beach type and state. The O
was modified by Klein and Menezes (2001) in their study of
Brazilian beaches; while McLachlan et al. (1993) also used O
in their examination of the relationship between beach ecology and morphodynamic state. In Australia, Hegge et al.
(1996) proposed a morphodynamic classification of sheltered
beaches; whereas more recently Short (2010a) has examined
the role of geological inheritance in influencing contemporary
beach behavior and linked barrier type and volume to
wave–beach morphodynamics (Short, 2010b).
10.5.2.3
Beach Experiments
The morphodynamic approach was also applied to beach experiments involving selection of type sites and measurements
of both processes and beach response across a wide range of
environments. Experiments continued in eastern Australia
(Masselink and Hegge, 1995; Turner, 1995); western Australia
(Masselink et al. 1997, Masselink and Pattiaratchi, 1998,
2001); New Zealand (Brander and Short, 2000); Canada
(Greenwood and Davidson-Arnott, 1979; Canadian Coastal
Sediment Study, Willis, 1987); Japan (Horikawa, 1988); and
in the USA, where the Field Research Facility at Duck has
been the focus of ongoing multifaceted experiments since
the 1980s. Bryan et al. (1998) used field observations from
the Duck DELILAH experiments to verify that bar-trapped
edge waves can be the dominant edge wave modes driving
Beach Morphodynamics
111
Table 1 Impact of environmental parameters on beach type, state, stability, circulation, and bar number
Tide range
Wave height
TR (m)
Hb (m)
Beach type
RTR ¼ TR/Hb
O ¼ Hb/WsT
Wave period
T (s)
Sediment size
–1
Ws (m s ) D50(mm)
Beach state
3–10
Tide-dominated
10–B50
(Gradient)
Sl (m) Cl (m)
tanb
Embayment impact
Bar number
B ¼ Xs=tanbTi 2
d0 ¼ Sl 2 =100 Cl Hb
x ¼ (as2)/(g tan2b)
Wave-dominated
o3
Oo1, xo2.5
O ¼ 2–5, x ¼ 2.5–20
O46, x420
Tide-modified
Embayment geometry
1 Reflectivea
2–5 intermediate
6 Dissipative
Circulation
d0 419 Normal
d0 ¼ 8–19 Sub
d0 o8 Cellular
Oo2
O ¼ 2–5
O45
7 Reflective þ LTT
8 Reflective þ LT bar and rips
9 Ultradissipative
d0 419 Normal
d0 ¼ 8–19 Sub
d0 o8 Cellular
Oo2
10
11
12
13
Bar number
o20 ¼ 0 Bar
20–50 ¼ 1
50–100 ¼ 2
100–400 ¼ 3
4400 ¼ 4 þ
Beach þ ridged sand flats
Beach þ sand flats
Beach þ tidal sand flats
Beach þ mud flats
Tidal flats
4B50
a
Numbers refer to beach state (see Figures 13 and 14).
Shaded areas indicate beach type.
Source: Modified from Short, A.D. (Ed.), 1999. Beach and Shoreface Morphodynamics. Wiley, Chichester, 379 pp.
longshore currents over the bar, a mechanism predicted by
Bryan and Bowen (1996).
On the USA west coast, Seymour (1989) coordinated the
ambitious Nearshore Sediment Transport experiments. More
recently MacMahan et al. (2004, 2006, 2009) have investigated
the rip-dominated Monterey Bay beaches, where they have
conducted some of the most advanced experiments monitoring
surf zone bathymetry and both Eulerian and Lagrangian circulation. This approach has also been successfully applied by
Austin et al. (2010) on macro-tidal English beaches.
In Europe, there has been a surge in beach studies since the
early 1990s, many in sea-driven and/or meso- to macro-tidal
environments, particularly in the United Kingdom (Jago and
Hardisty, 1984; Kroon and Masselink, 2002; Voulgaris et al.,
1998; Masselink and Puleo, 2006; Masselink et al., 2008b;
Jackson et al., 2007; Austin et al., 2009; Masselink et al., 2006,
2009, 2010); Spain (Guillen and Palanques, 1993); Denmark
(Aagaard et al., 1998a, 1998b, 2002; Vinther et al., 2004;
Greenwood et al., 2004; Hughes et al., 2007); and France
(Levoy et al., 2000, 2001; Anthony et al., 2004; Lafon et al.,
2005; Masselink et al., 2008a; Dehouck et al., 2009; Almar
et al., 2010).
10.5.2.4
Swash Morphodynamics
The swash zone represents an important wave-driven transport
zone in all beach systems and is the visible expression of both
beach erosion and accretion. It is defined as the section of the
beach profile where fluid coverage is intermittent, or that part
of the beach which stretches from the bore collapse point (on
the beachface) to the highest limitation of the uprush (see
Hughes and Turner, 1999, for review). Morphologically, the
swash zone is planar and seaward sloping, and expressed
sometimes as low-elevation swash bars associated with interstorm or post-storm recovery periods. Occupying a low vertical
structure, swash bars can, and frequently do, superimpose
themselves on top of the much more visually apparent intertidal bars at the beach. Swash bars usually move shoreward
and spill into the troughs of larger bars, helping to refill the
main beach volume and to accrete the back beach zone
(Jackson et al., 2007).
The wave conditions of the inner surf zone and the local
beach gradient will largely drive the hydrodynamics of the
swash zone. Within dissipative beaches, incident wave energy
dissipates and decays shoreward across the surf zone. There is
a simultaneous growth in infragravity energy, as energy is
transferred from one wave mode to the other. The latter
therefore generally dominates the inner surf zone where it is
manifest as wave setup and setdown. During larger wave
conditions, as the surf zone widens and dissipation increases,
the infragravity element increases even more. Conversely, on
more reflective steeper beaches, incident waves are dissipated
much less and wave energy propagates with little hindrance to
reach the beach, contributing higher-incident wave energy
levels at the swash zone (Ruessink et al., 1998).
Field studies have shown there to be a combination of
shoreward sediment transport in the uprush and seaward sediment transport in the backwash (Miles et al., 2006). This results
in a high, total sediment transport, but a sometimes small, net
transport (e.g., Butt and Russell, 1999; Osborne and Rooker,
1999). The overall direction of transport and therefore profile
change will be dictated by the subtle balance of two large sediment transport magnitudes (Osborne and Rooker, 1999).
112
Beach Morphodynamics
Resulting shear stresses from the overturning wave front plus local
turbulence creates ideal conditions for suspending and transporting sediment. Work has shown higher turbulence during
uprush events than during back rush phases and therefore overall
net transport is usually onshore within the swash environment
(Butt et al., 2004). Houser and Barrett (2010) found a strong
relationship between the behavior of the inner bar, the nature of
the swash, and whether the swash zone eroded or accreted.
Considering the swash in more detail, Guard and Baldock (2007)
examined the influence of the seaward boundary condition on
the internal swash hydrodynamics, which they found to be
dependent on the shape and wave length of the incident bore.
The swash zone is therefore an important element of the
coastal beach system, providing the conduit through which
bars attach to the shore and resupply the beach and ultimately
backshore (Jackson et al., 2007) and provide aeolian sand for
foredune construction (Aagaard et al., 2004). However, during
periods of high waves, the swash zone sediments become
saturated and sediment is eroded and transported into the
surf zone.
10.5.2.5
Geological Control on Beach Morphodynamics
All beaches exist within a particular 3D geological framework,
which determines the boundaries within which the beach
forms (accommodation space) and changes. The volume of
beach sediment fluctuates in time and space as it is worked
upon by dynamic forcing through the action of waves and
currents (Jackson et al., 2005; Jackson and Cooper, 2009).
Those forces are themselves mediated by certain geological and,
in places, biological parameters. These include rock and reef
boundaries and outcrops which change bed roughness, influence wave refraction, attenuation and breaking, and moderate
water flow through the beach (McNinch, 2004). Much of
our thinking on beach morphodynamics is dominated by
consideration of unconstrained beach environments, particularly in the profile dimension. This is exemplified by the 2D
shoreline profile of equilibrium concept and the Bruun rule.
Our understanding of the relationship between dynamic
forcing and beach response, expressed as combined indices
such as the surf-scaling parameter, O and relative tide range
(RTR), has evolved into a suite of conceptual models of beach
morphodynamics (Table 1). Although the identification of
beach states using this approach has been used widely, there
have been some noted differences between beach states predicted and beach states observed (Jackson et al., 2005; GómezPujol et al., 2007). This is partially a product of the lag
between changing processes and beach response. Furthermore,
where the volume of beach sediment is constrained in depth
(Figure 6) through the presence of an immobile substrate or
Figure 6 Example of subsurface geological control present on beaches along the Ards Peninsula, Northern Ireland. Here sandy beaches are
accommodated within the local geology which at times is seen protruding through the beach matrix. The volume of sand within the beaches is
likely to be finite, highly mobile with unstable beach states, driven by local wave events. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Northern Ireland.
Beach Morphodynamics
113
(a) 1977
Figure 7 An example of the influence of geology on the beach at
Point James, South Australia. The headlands define beach length, as
well as circulation with a single topographic (headland) rip draining
the surf zone. Photo by A.D. Short.
geological intrusion, the beach morphodynamic behavior may
be somewhat different than that within an unconstrained
(sediment abundant) setting (Browder and McNinch, 2006;
Schupp et al., 2006; Hapke et al., 2010).
Beaches that are constrained by a finite sediment supply are
likely to be more unstable, flipping from state to state within a
highly mobile envelope of change. Also, because of the presence of topographic and megarips, these beaches are exposed to
more rapid and more severe erosion than unconstrained beaches. Short (2010a) summarized the impact of geological control on Australian beaches as causing ‘‘y relatively short often
embayed beaches; greater wave attenuation and resulting lower
breaker waves and associated lower energy beach types; greater
wave refraction and thereby more crenulate beaches; induce
topographic and during high waves megarips (Figure 7); and
bi-directional wave climates to induce beach rotation.’’
10.5.2.6
Morphodynamics and High Magnitude Events
Observations of low-frequency but high-energy storm events
and their impacts on coasts have been made in a variety of
settings. In general, these events are believed to be important
drivers of coastal systems, accomplishing much more morphological change in single storms than during long periods
of fair weather conditions (Morton et al., 1995). Storms are
thus commonly regarded as key drivers of medium-term
coastal evolution. Recently, however, Zhang et al. (2002) have
questioned the significance of storms in shoreline recession in
the United States and concluded they are unimportant in the
medium-term (decadal scale) because of rapid, post-storm
recovery mechanisms. Sallenger (2000) examined storm impact on US barrier islands and found four regimes of impact:
swash, collision, overwash, and inundation. The dominant
regime depends on the coupling of forcing processes and
barrier morphology. Similarly, Cooper and Jackson (2003)
noted that the indented, embayed Atlantic-facing coastline of
western Ireland demonstrated only limited impact from major
storm events. They noted that for major storm impact on the
coastal morphology to take place, there must be a coincidence
(b) 2000
Figure 8 Five Finger Strand, NW Ireland. (a) In 1977 a series of
foredunes backed by a steep scarp (previous high-magnitude storm
event) cut into the high-vegetated dune. The same view (b) in 2000
illustrates the removal of foredunes and active erosion on the dune
scarp from more contemporary high-magnitude events. Reproduced
from Cooper, J.A.G., Jackson, D.W.T., 2003. Geomorphological and
dynamic constraints on mesoscale coastal response to storms,
Western Ireland. In: Davis, R.A., Howd, P.A., Kraus, N.C. (Eds.),
Coastal Sediments ’03. Proceedings 6th International Symposium on
Coastal Engineering and Science of Coastal Sediment Processes.
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, pp. 1–13.
of high tide, sufficient storm duration, and favorable coastline
orientation. Over a 170-year period, only two major storms
(evolved hurricanes from the Atlantic) produced any real signature along the Irish coastline. However, outside these highend events, other less powerful storms can, at particular sites
like Five Finger Strand, NW Ireland, drive local beach and
dune morphodynamics by bringing sediment on and off the
beach and dune systems in large quantities (Figure 8). Additionally, tidally influenced responses during storms were recorded by Etri and Mayerle (2006) along the Dithmarschen
Bight on the German North Sea coast. They found that when
storms occurred during neap tides they produced a more focused response (erosion) whereas spring tides helped smear
the storm energy across a wider spatial area, thus reducing the
seabed erosion. Houser and Greenwood (2005) monitored
the behavior of a multibarred system in Lake Huron during
storm events. They found a threshold existed between wave
conditions and bar decay and growth, and between onshore
114
Beach Morphodynamics
and offshore migration. They recognized the importance of
morphodynamic feedback between bars and local wave distribution in developing predictive models of bar behavior.
10.5.2.7
Wave–Beach–Dune Interactions
The beach is the primary source of sand for coastal dune
systems. As such, the supply of sand to dunes is intimately
linked to beach morphodynamics. The nature of foredune
morphodynamics was first examined by Hesp (1983), whereas
Short and Hesp (1982) examined the relationship between
beach state, beach stability, foredune type and stability, and
rate of aeolian sand supply to dunes, as well as the type of
backing dunes. Soon thereafter, Psuty (1987) edited the first
volume on beach–dune interactions.
In Denmark, Aagaard et al. (2004) examined onshore bar
migration, bar welding, and aeolian sand transport and found
a persistent link between sand transport across the surf zone
and into the dunes. Davidson-Arnott et al. (2005) then
measured aeolian sand transport across the same beach and
found that it responded instantly to wind velocity and was
very dependent on moisture content.
Sherman and Bauer (1993) commented that ‘‘Although the
important first steps of producing conceptual models of
beach–dune interaction related to nearshore morphodynamics y. have been made, it remains a daunting prospect to
develop the appropriately parameterized, process-based, numerical equivalent.’’ Houser (2009) added ‘‘in retrogressive
environments synchronization of transport and supply
suggests that dune evolution is quasi-periodic y and
predictable by considering the dune within the broader context of the beach-nearshore system.’’ He added at present ‘‘the
lack of information in this regard remains a central barrier to
the development of a theory of beach-dune interaction that
can be translated across scales and between field sites.’’
10.5.2.8
Engineering Impacts on Morphodynamics
Human habitation of many of the world’s coastlines has at
times introduced a conflict between natural processes and
human activities. The construction of structures such as groins,
seawalls, and breakwaters or attempts to modify local morphodynamics through engineering approaches can dramatically alter the natural functioning of the coastal system. The
conflict between engineers and scientists over how they solve
coastal issues has had a long and at times vitriolic history (e.g.,
Pilkey and Dixon, 1998). Differences in the appropriate
timescale over which the coastal system should be examined,
along with the perceived impact engineered structures have on
local morphodynamics, are just some of the traditional areas
of conflict.
Mass tourism to beaches developed over a relatively small
timescale (decades) such as that witnessed along the southern
Spanish and Italian coastlines of the Mediterranean during the
1970s, and can have enormous impacts on the natural behavior of beach systems (Figure 9). The need for the presence
of a beach of a particular size to attract and accommodate
large number of visitors becomes paramount. This, combined
with the building of marinas, promenades, large-scale sea
Figure 9 Breakwaters constructed at the popular Marina di Pisa
beach, Italy. Although the breakwaters shelter the coast, they are both
a hazard in themselves as well as resulting in strong topographic rips
flowing out between the gaps in the walls. Photo by A.D. Short.
defenses, and the damming of catchment areas for water demand, depletes net sediment supply, interrupts or stops
longshore sediment transport, and ultimately leads to beach
erosion and the need for beach nourishment projects along
major tracts of coastline. The introduced sediment is generally
mined offshore and placed in an area either on the shore face
or on the beach itself to produce an overfull profile. The
sediments are then reworked alongshore and offshore by the
local wave and current regime (Grunnet and Ruessink, 2005;
Ojeda et al., 2008). This can result in the introduced sediment
being rapidly eroded from the beach and redistributed to attain a more equilibrium profile. In doing so, this changes the
local bathymetry of the surf and breaker zone of the site.
Coastal engineering works can and do impact beach
morphodynamics (see e.g., Tanaka, 1983). Hard structures
permanently modify the beach morphology, which reduces
beach permeability; modifies waves breaking and surf zone
circulation; as well as locking or trapping sediment (Sherman
et al., 1990). All of these are a predictable result of the interaction of the structure or works within an existing and
modified morphodynamic regime. The important factor is to
predict, acknowledge, and prepare for these changes as part of
the engineering design, and not, as is often the case, feign
ignorance when the beach disappears. Coastal engineering can
play a positive role in coastal management as illustrated in
successful projects such as the massive Gold Coast sand bypassing system (Figure 10). However, to be successful, the full
ramifications of the projects must be modeled, predicted,
prepared, and budgeted for, with the local community fully
informed throughout.
10.5.2.9
Shoreface Morphodynamics
The shoreface extends from wave base to the limit of run-up
(Figure 5), and represents a complex and poorly understood
part of the coastal zone. It plays a critical role in acting as a
transport corridor, a sediment source area, and an exchange
zone between the beach and inner shelf zone, ultimately
driving the dynamics of beach behavior. Modeling of the
Beach Morphodynamics
Figure 10 Training walls constructed in 1967 at the mouth of the
Tweed River, New South Wales, interrupted the northerly longshore
sand transport, trapping millions of cubic meters of sand and causing
downdrift erosion. Sand bypassing commenced in 2000 and by 2010
had pumped 6 million cubic meters from the pumping jetty (in
background above) north under the river mouth. Photo by A.D. Short.
shoreface has provided significant clues to sediment transport
rates and qualitative behavior under a number of scenarios.
The stochastic, nonlinear, and multidimensional variables
operating on the shoreface change continuously with time and
therefore remain notoriously difficult to quantitatively predict
(Cowell and Thom, 1994). Given its sometimes high-energy
setting, the shoreface is also difficult to observe over sufficient
periods to fully understand its behavior (Backstrom et al.,
2008). In fact, the high spatial and temporal variability in
shoreface morphodynamics normally result in simplistic
shoreface models, like the Bruun rule (Bruun, 1954, 1962) or
the profile of equilibrium (Dean, 1991), to be largely ineffectual in predicting coastal response to changing conditions
(Cooper and Pilkey, 2004).
Worldwide investigations of shoreface environments have
been performed along the largely straight coastlines of the
eastern USA (Niedoroda et al., 1984; Wright, 1995) and the
Netherlands (van de Meene and van Rijn, 2000; Stive and
Vriend de, 1995) as well as off the more geologically constrained coasts of southeast Australia (Roy et al., 1994) and
Canada (Hequette and Hill, 1993; Hequette et al., 2001); and
more recently, along the higher-energy coast of Northern Ireland (Backstrom et al., 2007, 2009a, 2009b). Many of these
studies have shown that the morphodynamics of the shoreface
are driven largely by the frequency and magnitude of highenergy storm events that mobilize the seabed and dramatically
shift sediments across the entire shoreface. Previous investigations have demonstrated that sand is commonly transported
far beyond the surf zone and upper shoreface during storms,
with transport occurring as far offshore as the inner shelf
(Smith and Hopkins, 1972; Pearson and Riggs, 1981; Snedden
et al., 1988; Hequette et al., 2001; Thieler et al., 2001; Amos
et al., 2003; Roy et al., 1994). Moreover, longer-term studies of
shoreface processes have shown that seabed changes can extend further offshore (Nicholls et al., 1998). All these events
have consequences for the availability of sediment to the
beach.
115
Compared to other shoreface settings, relatively little is
known about shoreface morphodynamics of steep, highenergy, and geologically constrained (embayment) locations
(Roy et al., 1994; Backstrom et al., 2009a, 2009b). Most
shoreface studies have been undertaken in sediment-abundant
areas where the profile can adjust to a more stable form.
However, where there is a sediment deficit, the profile steepens
and becomes increasingly mobile, with an immediate implication for the onshore beach systems. Beaches backing such
systems are likely to be more mobile, routinely switching between beach states. Medium-term studies (2–5 years) are required to gain an improved understanding of shoreface
behavior in these environments. Furthermore, it is important
to determine whether the morphodynamics of steep embayment shorefaces are significantly different from those on long,
straight, and gentle shorefaces, which are currently better
understood.
10.5.2.10
Beach Monitoring
Beaches are inherently dynamic features, which led to the early
recognition of the need to continuously monitor their behavior. This was initially, and in many locations still is,
achieved through laborious beach-profiling programs. Although this provides valuable data, they are limited in their
spatial and temporal coverage, and are expensive and time
consuming. Similarly, aerial photographs provide excellent
spatial coverage of beach systems, but are also limited in their
temporal coverage. Beach profiling has been supplemented in
recent years by a growing array of remote sensors that can
provide both real time and continuous spatial and temporal
coverage of beach behavior.
Video imaging of beaches commenced in the 1980s
and became best developed as part of the ARGUS program
(Holman and Stanley, 2007). The images (Figure 11) have
been used to provide time series of beach evolution, shoreline
and bar patterns, bar migration, beach morphodynamics,
and wave measurements (Almar et al., 2008; Lafon
et al., 2004; Ranasinghe et al., 2004b; Shand, 1999; Quartel
et al., 2007; McNinch, 2007; Smit et al., 2007); and they are
often used for beach management (Turner and Anderson,
2007).
Light detection and ranging (LiDAR) survey methods
(Figure 12) have also provided a significant step forward in
the ability to accurately measure the nearshore and coastal
zone and provide large spatial measurement of bathymetry
and topography over a relatively short survey time. Although
the depth of water through which LiDAR can operate is reduced by breaking wave conditions and turbidity, the method
is otherwise capable of providing a high-resolution framework
(bathymetry) over which, for example, shallow water waverefraction models such as SWAN can be used. Other techniques such as ground-based radar are also providing useful
(and cheaper) ways of measuring wave heights in the nearshore zone (Wolf and Bell, 2001; Ruessink et al. 2002;
McNinch, 2007). Deronde et al. (2006) used airborne hyperspectral data and airborne LiDAR data to assess beach
morphodynamics along the entire Belgian backshore and
foreshore.
Beach Morphodynamics
On a global scale, satellite imagery, such as that presented
by Google Earth,TM provides complete spatial coverage of the
world’s beaches. Although limited in its temporal domain, the
wide coverage and high resolution permits the desktop
examination of all beach systems and today is the major
source of images for any presentation on beaches.
Remote-sensing techniques will likely be the most realistic
way forward in providing useful data for studies of nearshore
morphodynamics. They represent a method capable of collecting information over the required spatial and temporal
scale to be of use in future investigations and therefore help
examine more realistically the behavior of nearshore circulation patterns and associated coastal responses in this complex environment.
10.5.2.11
Figure 11 Argus time exposure image of Palm Beach, Australia. The
intensity fluctuations in the real time images have been averaged,
resulting in a stable depiction of the wave-breaking pattern which
reflects the bar and rip pattern. Reproduced from Ranasinghe, R.,
Symonds, G., Black, K., Holman, R., 2004b. Morphodynamics of
intermediate beaches: a video imaging and numerical modelling
study. Coastal Engineering 51, 629–655, with permission from
Coastal Engineering.
Modeling
Modeling beach morphodynamics requires the ability to
model all the parameters outlined in Figure 3. To date, this is
not possible, so at best models are restricted to 2D representations of cross-shore behavior or to generating 3D patterns
that, although resembling aspects of beach morphology, have
no physical linkage. The most commonly used models are
therefore based on 2D representation, which can only replicate the 3D beach environment, by generating multiple
transects. The best known of these are the increasingly redundant Bruun rule (Pilkey and Cooper, 2004), which some
still use, and increasingly S-Beach (CHL, 1989) and GENESIS
(Hanson and Kraus, 1989), which are both used to model
cross-shore response to changing conditions. The shoreface
translation model (STM) (Cowell et al., 1992) is used to plot
cross-shore response at scales from days to millennium. More
recently, the XBeach model, in development since 2006, is a
00
116
61
18
50
0
61
18
00
0
61
17
50
0
61
17
00
0
61
16
50
0
61
16
00
06
11
55
10
−10
Figure 12 LiDAR (LADS) image of Magilligan, Co. Londonderry, Northern Ireland, revealing a complex picture of successive foredune ridges
as well as nearshore bathymetry. Image resolution is at 4 m spacing of sample points; vertical exaggeration 3 . Reproduced from Jackson,
D.W.T., Beyers, J.H.M., Lynch, K., Cooper, J.A.G., Baas, A.C.W., Delgado-Fernandez, I., 2011. Investigation of three-dimensional wind flow
behaviour over coastal dune morphology under offshore winds using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and ultrasonic anemometry. Earth
Surface Processes and Landforms 36, 1113–1124.
Beach Morphodynamics
2D model that considers wave propagation, long waves, and
mean flow, sediment transport and morphological changes of
the nearshore area, beaches, dunes, and back-barrier during
storm conditions. The model is still in its infancy, but has been
used recently by Roelvink et al. (2009) to assess dune erosion
and breaching along a number of sandy, dune-fringed sites on
the coast of the Netherlands.
Morphodynamic models often demonstrate poor performance when compared with natural beach response
(de Vriend et al., 1993; Nicholson et al., 1997; Sutherland
et al., 2004) partly because the physical processes that are
driving morphological change occur on much shorter timescales than the actual changes themselves. Short-term forcing
parameters such as tides and waves drive the redistribution of
sediment across particular 3D framework surfaces. This produces sediment transport pathways that are driven temporally
and spatially by both cyclical and random events, leading to
highly complicated fluid and sediment motions, making
realistic modeling extremely difficult. Attempts at understanding the behavior of these systems have been undertaken
using a number of techniques and applied under a range of
scales. One approach that is gathering increasing momentum
is the concept of system self-organization (Falqués et al.,
2008). Nonlinear behavior in any natural system can exhibit
complex patterns that in themselves are not related to similar
patterns within an associated forcing environment. Observed
rhythmic patterns found within 3D beach morphology (e.g.,
cusps) have been proposed to be driven by self-organized
processes related to the interaction between fluid flow and
morphology. If we consider a hypothetical situation with an
initial linear (flat) sediment surface (e.g., beach face) with
uniform wave forcing, it gives rise to beach morphology in
equilibrium. In reality, this could not be sustainable as heterogeneous breaking wave conditions would give a nonuniform energy distribution along this morphology. If one
perturbation occurs as a result, then this sets up a chain
reaction of events and leads to a spontaneous growth of
morphological features across what was once a smooth
surface. Nearshore models describing morphodynamic selforganization generally consist of the following elements: (1)
wave transformation – refraction, shoaling, and breaking
descriptors; (2) mean currents and water levels over heterogeneous bathymetry; (3) sediment transport induced by wave
and currents; and (4) bathymetric updating (Caballeria et al.,
2002; Reniers et al., 2004; Coco and Murray, 2007; Gallagher,
2011). Although still in its infancy compared to other scientific
analyses of complex systems, the self-organization concept
appears to be a pragmatic approach for modeling coastal
morphodynamics across a range of spatial and temporal
scales. However, as discussed below, there remain concerns
about this approach.
10.5.2.12
Beach Ecology
Sandy beach ecology is generally related to morphodynamic
conditions (waves, tide and sediment) occurring at a site and
ecologists have commonly attributed zonation of organisms
in the intertidal zone to certain elevation levels of wave–swash
exposure (e.g., McLachlan and Jaramillo, 1995; Alves and
Pezzuto, 2009). Although characteristically linked in nature,
117
the relationship between beach morphodynamics and local
biological behavior has received only modest attention
over the years. Within sandy beach systems, both benthic
and in situ biota are dependent on habitat type and stability
and water circulation, and as these vary through time so
must the biota adjust to wave, tide, and storm forcing. The
beach biota both represent an important coastal ecosystem
and provide also positive and negative feedback on bed
behavior. Within certain beach environments, bioturbation
(feeding birds, worm casts, etc.) of the sediments can play
important roles in sediment dynamics (Grant et al., 1982;
Jackson et al., 2005), commonly leading to increased sediment transport potential. For example, bioturbation may lead
to roughening of the surface, reduced sediment cohesion and
higher mobility of the sediment itself (Fries et al., 1999;
Quaresma et al., 2004). Conversely, algal mats and seagrass
debris on the surface may help bind the surface sediments into
a less mobile substrate, increasing the energy levels at which
the sediment can move (Grant et al., 1986; Escartin and
Aubrey, 1995).
10.5.3
Beach Morphodynamics – Status
In the 40 years since beaches were first viewed from a morphodynamic perspective, there has been a surge in the number
of coastal groups working on beaches; the variety of beach
environments being investigated; and the sophistication of
both hardware and software used to monitor, measure, model,
and analyze beach systems. Where does this leave us in 2011?
One way to assess our present understanding and application
of beach morphodynamics is to use Figure 4 as a framework
within which to locate progress since the 1970s with the four
major space–time approaches: instantaneous, event, large
scale (engineering), and geological.
10.5.3.1
Instantaneous
At the instantaneous level (seconds to hours) there has been
limited progress owing to the difficulty in obtaining meaningful measurements at this scale, in particular, during highenergy events. There are also inherent problems associated
with scaling up the complex interactions and nonlinear relationships based on those measurements. Most studies at this
level tend to focus on boundary-layer dynamics and sediment
transport, most of which, by logistical necessity, are confined
to fair weather conditions, whereas most change takes place
during high-wave conditions. Some of the most ambitious
experiments took place during the 1990s at the Duck facility
including DELILAH (1990), Duck94, and Sandy Duck (1997).
The aims of Sandy Duck were to measure small- and mediumscale sediment transport and morphology (sediment grains to
100 m scale); wave shoaling, wave breaking, and nearshore
circulation; and swash processes including sediment motion,
with the overall aim of integrating these across the time–space
scales.
On the west coast was the similarly ambitious 1978–81
Nearshore Sediment Transport Study (Seymour 1989) and
in Canada the 1983 Canadian Coastal Sediment Study
(Willis, 1987). More recent research at this level has been
118
Beach Morphodynamics
undertaken in Denmark by Aagaard and colleagues (see e.g.,
Aagaard et al., 1998a, 1998b, 2002); and the Coastal Process
Research Group at Plymouth which has been working at
timescales from the instantaneous to event to seasonal across a
range of generally meso- and macro-tidal beaches around
southern England and in France (see e.g., Masselink et al.,
2008a, 2008b; 2010; van Houwelingen et al., 2008). All the
above led to considerable improvement in our understanding
of the range of motions in the surf zone and their impact on
sediment entrainment and transport. However, linking these
to the next step, the formation, movement, and erosion of
mesoscale topography including the swash zone, bars, trough
and channels, is proving more difficult.
10.5.3.2
Event
The beach changes at the event scale (days to years) are the
most readily observable and remain the focus of most morphodynamic studies. It spans the time frame of most field
experiments; of all shoreline monitoring programs; of LiDAR
and video technology; and of the major storm and recovery
events that periodically impact the coast. It is also the scale
that the public, politicians, and the media turn to when
looking for the impacts of climate change, even though the
impacts are usually not detectable at this scale.
10.5.3.2.1
Beach experiments
Beach experiments still remain the most productive means
of investigating beach morphodynamics, particularly those
that encompass both hydrodynamic processes across the
surf zone and the associated morphological change. Our
ability to investigate both these areas has been enhanced in
recent years with improved instrumentation, in particular, the
acoustic doppler current profiler (ADCP) for Eulerian flows
and the use of global positioning system (GPS) buoys to
monitor Lagrangain flows. These have been used in the surf
zone to monitor 3D current and wave flows, particularly in rip
currents. Surf zone topography can now be measured using
GPS-depth sounders mounted on jet skis. When combined,
these provide the most comprehensive overview of beach
morphodynamics over timescales of hours to days. The
best examples of this approach have been undertaken by
MacMahan et al. (2009) along the rip-dominated beaches of
Monterey Bay.
10.5.3.2.2
Video and remote technology
The event level understanding has seen most progress. This
has been achieved through the monitoring and measurement
of beach processes and changes using a range of techniques;
the use of empirical relationships to explain this change; and
the limited application of both edge wave, self-organizing and
modeling approaches to predict the changes. The advent of
increasingly low-cost video cameras and their application to
monitor surf zone behavior, through the Argus video-monitoring system, for example, has provided the greatest insight
into the nature and behavior of the surf zone topography
across a wide range of settings. The Argus system was developed under the hypothesis that nearshore hydrodynamics
and morphodynamics are governed by a finite set of physical
laws whose observable manifestations depended on a number
of bulk site characteristics such as beach slope and wave height
and period. By sampling a set of end-member beaches, insight
into the underlying physics should be made obvious (Holman
and Stanley, 2007). The Argus network now includes 10
cameras worldwide; whereas the comparable European
CoastView project involves cameras operated by 12 groups
(Huntley and Stive, 2007).
In recent years, beach experiments have also tended to
focus more on the event scales, commonly coupled with video
monitoring to obtain at least an understanding of bulk morphological changes. Lippmann and Holman (1990) used the
Duck video to characterize the full sequence of beach types
observed. Aagaard and Holm (1989) monitored wave run-up;
Shand (1999) monitored bar migration patterns; van Enckevort and Ruessink (2003a, 2003b) monitored bar patterns
over weekly to yearly timescales; and more recently, Almar
et al. (2010) have monitored bar migration during storm
events.
Today videos can monitor shoreline position and change
(Turner et al., 2006), surf zone topography and beach state
(Ranashinghe et al., 2004b; Figure 11), bar migration (Shand,
1999); wave period and bathymetry (Aarninkhof et al., 2003;
Stockdon and Holman, 2000); breaker wave height and period across the surf zone (www.coastalcoms.com/); shoreline
oscillation (swash) including wave runup and infragravity
setup and setdown (Holland and Holman, 1993); and surfzone currents (Chickadel et al., 2003). They can also be used
for counting people on the beach (www.CoastalCOMS.com).
Since the mid-1990s, CoastalWatch.com has monitored over
100 coastal sites globally. The data from these sites are being
used by their research arm CoastalCOMS to provide time
series of beach state and morphological change. The data are
being interrogated to provide accurate measurements of
shoreline position and change, wave height and period,
infragravity wave period, wave runup and setup; and surf zone
currents, as well as counting people on the beach. In Australia
and the US, these data are being used to monitor shoreline
change and public safety.
One of the most ambitious programs to monitor beach–
nearshore changes has been associated with the Tweed River
Sand Bypassing System (TREBS) on the border of New South
Wales and Queensland (Figure 10). Established in 2000, it has
been continuously bypassing sand under the Tweed River at a
rate between 500 000 and 600 000 m3 yr–1. Detailed seabed
surveys on both sides of the bypass site, coupled with waverider data and modeling of cross-shore sediment transport,
have resulted in the development of very accurate models of
cross-shore and longshore transport (Boswood et al., 2001).
These data clearly demonstrate that most transport takes place
during high-wave events on the inner and outer bar, with
relatively little moving along the shoreline. The results are in
stark contrast with some of the more simplistic models of
longshore transport.
LiDAR technology developed during the 1990s can now
provide very accurate 3D mapping of the land surface including beaches and shallow seabed. This has been applied in
the coastal zone to accurately map the beach environment
(Figure 11) and monitor beach changes, particularly following
serve coastal erosion events. In the era of rising sea level,
Beach Morphodynamics
1. Dissipative
119
4. Transverse bar and rip
0
0
0
10
5
0
20
0
10
m
00
3
0m
15
2. Longshore bar and trough
5. Low tide terrace
0
0
50
0
10
0
0
20
10
0m
0m
15
30
3. Rhythmic bar and beach
6. Reflective
0
0
50
0
10
0
0
20
10
0m
30
0m
15
Figure 13 The 13 wave-dominated (1–6), tide-modified (7–9), and tide-dominated (10–13) beach states occurring around the Australian coast.
See Figure 14 and Table 1 for their relation to wave height, sand size, O, and RTR. Reproduced from Short, A.D., Woodroffe, C.D., 2009. The
Coast of Australia. Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, 288 pp.
LiDAR mapping is now being used to map areas of potential
inundation.
10.5.3.2.3
Beach types and states
In Australia, Short (2006) completed a 14-year circumAustralia research project that provided information on
every Australian beach, and from this the full spectrum of
beach types and their associated environmental controls from
high-energy wave-dominated through to the lowest energy
beaches fronted by mud flats (Figures 13 and 14; Short,
2006). As mentioned above, the morphodynamics of many of
these systems, particularly in higher energy micro- through
macro-tidal environments are now being investigated. The same
cannot, however, be said for beaches at the lower energy end
120
Beach Morphodynamics
10. Beach + ridged sand flats
7. Reflective + low tide terrace (+rips)
0
HT
HT
0
0
10
00
LT
1
LT
00
2
00
0m
2
30
0m
30
11. Beach + sand flats
8. Reflective + low tide bars and rips
0
HT
HT
0
0
10
LT
LT
00
00
2
1
00
0m
2
30
0m
30
12 and 13. Beach + tidal sand/mud flats
9. Ultradissipative
HT
0
HT
0
LT
0
0
10
10
LT
0
0
20
20
0m
0m
30
30
Figure 13 (Continued)
of the spectrum, where the infrequency of dominant processes
makes field experimentation logistically difficult. Houser and
Hill (2010) conducted one of the few field experiments across a
lower-energy environment. They measured wave attenuation
across a sand flat and found that attenuation increased with
increasing wave height and/or decreasing water depth. This
provides a mechanism for limiting sediment resuspension and
accumulation of fine sediments on the flats.
10.5.3.3
Large Scale Coastal Behavior (Engineering)
Following a low-key, invited symposium in Amsterdam in
1989 (Terwindt and Battjes, 1990), large-scale coastal behavior
(LCSB) (years–decades–centuries) burst upon the international scene with a 1993 conference in Clearwater, Florida
(List, 1993). The rapid rise of the study of LSCB is owing
to its relevance (decades to 100 years) for coastal planning,
Beach Morphodynamics
121
3.0
Wave height (m)
2.5
0
0
2
5 43
2.0
6
1.5
Ω
5
WD
10
15
1
8
TM
1.0
9 10
10
0.5
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13
1.8
1.6
20
11
1.2
RTR
Sand size (m)
1.4
1.0
TD
0.8
0.6
30
0.4
12
0.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13
Relative tide range
90
40
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
13
50
Tidal flats
1
(a)
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Beach state
(b)
Figure 14 (a) The relationship between beach state and wave height, sand size and relative tide range (bars ¼ standard deviation) (Short, 2006);
and (b) the relationship between beach type and O (Hb/Tws) and RTR (TR/Hb). WD ¼ wave dominated; TM ¼ tide modified; TD ¼ tide dominated.
Numbers (see Figure 12) refer to modal beach state location on Australian coast. Based on data from Short, A.D., 2006. Australian beach
systems – nature and distribution. Journal of Coastal Research 22, 11–27.
management and, particularly, politicians in an era of
climate change. Moderate progress has occurred here with
some of the longer-term monitoring sites now having
been observed for several decades and providing an accurate
insight into decadal scale changes, trends, and climatic
forcing. At the same time, 2D shoreface modeling has progressed substantially since the Bruun Rule, with an array of
models including SBeach (CHL, 1989), GENESIS (Hanson
and Kraus, 1989) and STM (Cowell et al., 1992). Although
some models use the self-organizing approach to predict
patterns in beach and surf zone topography, they are not
based on any physical connection to the salient environmental parameters and produce intriguing patterns rather
than robust predictions.
The renewed focus on longer-term beach behavior that
commenced in the late 1960s was followed by the establishment of a few long-term, beach-monitoring sites, some of
which have now recorded monthly beach behavior for periods
of 30–40 years. The Duck facility, for example, commenced in
1977, and daily video monitoring began in 1986. In Australia,
the Moruya surveys initiated by Thom and Mclean in
1972 (Thom and Hall, 1991) provide extremely valuable
information on the size of storm demand and the rate of
beach and foredune recovery. The Narrabeen surveys initiated
by Short in 1976 provided the first of a growing body of evidence of the link between beach oscillation and rotation and
various climate indices such as the Southern Oscillation Index
(SOI) and Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) (Ranasinghe
et al., 2004a; Short and Trembanis, 2004; Harley et al.,
2011). What is important about these relationships is that they
can provide a surrogate for how the wave climate might behave in a changing climate and thereby how beaches may
behave in the future. Weinberg and Terwindt (1995) utilized
decades of shoreline monitoring to quantify the behavior of
122
Beach Morphodynamics
the Dutch coast, whereas in Ireland, Cooper et al. (2007) reported on decadal scale coastal behavior based on a 170-year
record. On the US west coast, Komar et al. (2001) and Dingler
and Reiss (2002) monitored the impact of El Nino-SOI
(ENSO)-generated cyclone conditions.
The past decade has also seen the increasing application of
the results of event and LSCB studies to address coastal
management issues, particularly in the field of beach safety
(Short and Hogan 1994; Scott et al., 2007; MacMahan et al.,
2010) and shoreline management (Turner et al., 2006; Turner
and Anderson, 2007). These approaches are also being called
upon to provide insight into the coastal impacts of climate
change, particularly the impact of rising sea level and changing
wave climate.
10.5.3.4
Geological
The geological scale (centuries to millennium) has seen
some exceptional work being undertaken by Goodwin (2003)
and Goodwin et al. (2006) who are reconstructing long-term
wave climate and using it to explain Holocene shoreline
evolution along parts of southeast Australia. Apart from
this groundbreaking research, there has been little other progress, primarily because there has been little interest in
applying morphodynamic principles to long-term shoreline
evolution. Interestingly, as Figure 4 illustrates, this was one of
the tenants of the original Wright and Thom (1977) paper,
which was in fact titled ‘Coastal depositional landforms’.
However, as is common within the community of geomorphologists, most of those interested in longer time frames
have yet to grasp the interdependence on processes as well
as stratigraphy.
10.5.4.1
How beaches will respond to climate change, in particular,
how climate change leads to continued sea-level rise, are
questions being asked by scientists, managers, and politicians.
However, it is the coastal scientists and engineers that must
provide the answers. The simplistic approach is to apply the
Bruun rule (Bruun, 1962). However, several studies have
questioned this approach as being too simplistic and too
ignorant of the many ancillary parameters that can affect
shoreline response (Pilkey and Cooper, 2004). The most sophisticated of these approaches is the application of the STM
developed by Cowell et al. (1992) and applied to climate
change scenarios by Cowell et al. (2006). The STM considers
all parameters that may modify the shoreface, including
its topography and composition, cross-shore sediment characteristics, all potential sources and sinks of sediment, and
structures such as seawalls.
Response to changes in wave climate will be just as important on many beaches, as wave climate will vary the intensity, frequency, and direction of major events, causing
changes in the level of beach oscillation, longshore and crossshore transport, and on embayed beaches – beach rotation.
The most productive approach to date has been the use of
longer-term wave-beach monitoring programs, that have provided a sufficiently long time series (years–decades) to permit
preliminary correlation with climate indices such as the SOI
and PDO (Short and Trembanis, 2004; Ranasinghe et al.,
2004a). Although beaches make the headline in the climate
change debate, it is in fact the lower-lying, low-gradient coastal
areas that will be most impacted by sea-level rise. The approach
for these coasts is to use LiDAR mapping to produce highresolution maps that identify areas of potential inundation.
10.5.4.2
10.5.4
Beach Morphodynamics – the Way Forward
Although beaches are superficially simple and can empirically
be defined with the use of three to four variables, in detail
they become incredibly complex, sometimes appearing
chaotic. As a consequence, although there has been good
progress in establishing empirical relations between process
and beach response, the same cannot be said for those
pursuing an approach based on first principles that endeavors
to scale up from sediment transport into meso-scale beach-bar
forms. Attempts to model the beach environment are
hampered by the inherent complexity of its interactions,
as well as their linear and nonlinear relationships, positive
and negative feedback within and between the interactions;
considerable inertia and lag owing to the vast quantities
of sediment that must be moved every time conditions
change; and the influence of external factors such as
sediment supply, wave and wind regimes, ice on high latitude
beaches, and geological and biological controls. Given the
present state of knowledge, where does this leave us as we face
the future with increasing demand for predictions of how
coasts, and particularly beaches, will behave in an era of rising
sea levels, changing wave climates, increasing human pressure
and pollution, and in many places, diminishing sediment
supply?
Impacts of Climate Change
Sediment Transport
The prediction of sediment transport rates and directions,
both cross-shore and longshore, has been one of the holy
grails of coastal science since Cornaglia (1889). Longshore
transport models have typically been based on simplistic
empirical relationships; attempts to quantify sand transport in
the field; and back scaling through measures of down drift
sand accumulation. The best outcomes to date have been
based on both modeling of sand entrainment and transport
across the shoreface (Bayram et al., 2007), coupled with seabed mapping to monitor bed changes and rates of actual
transport (Boswood et al., 2001). By contrast, studies of crossshore transport have largely been based on measures of surf
zone transport and attempts to scale up from there as manifest
in S-Beach and GENESIS modeling. At longer timescales, Short
(2010b) has used measures of Holocene barrier volume to
provide rough estimates of rates of onshore Holocene sand
supply around the entire Australian coast.
The study of wave–beach–dune morphodynamics and the
controls of sand transport from the beach to dunes was initiated with Short and Hesp (1982), followed in North America
by Sherman and Lyons (1994); and more recently Thornton
et al. (2007), who verified the relationship between rip location and dune erosion. In an era of rising sea level and
predicted massive dune erosion, this generally neglected field
is in need of more attention (Houser, 2009).
Beach Morphodynamics
123
Figure 15 High waves have inundated the beach and are eroding
the dune in this view of Narrabeen beach, Australia. Photo by A.D.
Short.
10.5.4.3
Beach Erosion
Prediction of beach erosion from whatever cause is one of
the prime requirements in coastal management (Figure 15).
It forms the basis of setback and hazard lines, buffer zones and
retreat strategies, as well as estimations of sediment volumes
required in beach nourishment projects. To date, volumes of
storm demand sediments are usually based on beach profile
data, whereas predictions of extreme water levels, which can
then be used to predict erosion, are based on models such as
SBeach (Hanson and Kraus, 1989) and Xbeach (Roelvink
et al., 2009). A more recent approach is to use all processes
that contribute to elevated sea level and their probability of
occurrence to provide a probabilistic approach to elevated
water levels (Callaghan et al., 2008, 2009).
10.5.4.4
interactions between wave dynamics and sediment. With edge
wave theory, the waves initiate sediment movement, whereas
with self-organization theory, a perturbation in the sediment
surface initiates a change in wave dynamics. Each theory has
critical problems that need to be resolved before we can begin
to confidently model beach behavior. Beach cusps are, however, just one component of the total beach topography, which
is in turn an expression of the beach morphodynamics. Approaches to modeling these components need to be expanded
to include the entire beach system.
Beach Type and Changes in Beach Type
Beach type and state (Figures 13 and 14) can be predicted using
the empirical relationships shown in Table 1. However, although
these provide insight into the combination of parameters required to produce each type and state; our ability to predict real
time changes in beach state has not progressed much since
Wright et al. (1985). They predicted beach state based on both
the prevailing O and a weighted mean O, which decreased in
value at a given rate over a set number of days. At Narrabeen
Beach, for example, they found a decrease of 10% over 30 days
provided the best predictor, however, other environments will
require different combinations. This is a research area where
continuous video monitoring is producing excellent time series
of both wave–tide processes and associated beach change. Such
data should be able to provide more information on their
interrelationships (Price and Ruessink, 2011).
10.5.4.5
Figure 16 Rhythmic beach and bar, western Cape York Peninsula,
Australia. Photo by A.D. Short.
Formation of Rhythmic Features
The formation of rhythmic features, in particular, beach cusps,
megacusps, and rips (Figure 16) is, at present, predicted using
either edge wave or self-organization theory. Both rely on
10.5.5
Discussion and Conclusion
The morphodynamic approach to coastal systems had its
origins in the USA in the late 1960s and was formally introduced by Wright and Thom (1977). Since then, while it has
had a wide range of applications across the coastal sphere, in
both coastal science and engineering, the focus has been on
beach research. Also, although the approach is equally relevant across the field of geomorphology, no other subfields
have taken it up, staying with more traditional and fragmented
approaches.
Within the coastal field, the predominant applications are
relatively narrow, generally focusing on single beaches or experiments and over relatively short time frames (hours to
weeks). The advent of video technology has been rapidly extending this time frame to months and years. Outside of work
in Australia, there has been sparse application of morphodynamic approaches to longer time frames, especially millennial,
and to regional coastal systems. This reflects, in part, the
nature of funding for coastal research, which tends to be
experiment based, and again a reticence on the part of Quaternary researchers to consider a more morphodynamic
124
Beach Morphodynamics
Figure 17 Transition from a cuspate pattern to a straight berm over a six-day period, Tairua Beach, New Zealand. Reproduced from Almar, R.,
Coco, G., Bryan, K.R., Huntley, D.A., Short, A.D., Senechal, N., 2008. Video observations of beach cusp morphodynamics. Marine Geology 254,
216–223.
approach to the systems they study. Although the beach lends
itself to this approach, with highly visible and measurable
processes and rapid and visible changes, all other geomorphic
systems, no matter what time–space scale, can be studied from
a morphodynamic perspective.
The morphodynamic approach has been utilized for
the study of beach systems for over 40 years. Combined
with increasingly sophisticated field instrumentation and
experimentation, it is providing a unified understanding
of both the complex and dynamic interactions within
these systems. Although beaches occur across a wide range of
wave–tide–sediment environments, located within an everchanging range of boundary conditions, all beaches can be
readily located within a relative small range of beach types and
states, types that are both predictable and, at an empirical
level, readily explained.
The issues still facing the study of beaches include our
inability to scale up from first principles because of the inherent nonlinearities, positive and negative feedback, and
overall 3D complexities of surf zone interactions. Another
major issue is the edge waves versus self-organization debate.
While we still await substantial confirmation of field evidence
of the geomorphological work of edge waves, likewise, selforganization models produce interesting and realistic patterns
but their operation continues to elude field verification. For
example, the concept of the system self-organization of beach
cusps results in predictions of erosion and accretion and
conservation of mass, whereas in the field, typical beach cusps
have been shown to be not only accretional but also to involve
net sediment volume changes (Figure 17; Almar et al., 2008).
In the validation of nearshore models, there is a pressing need
for much more extensive sediment transport measurement at
the appropriate spatial scale for the model being applied.
Reliable information on local bed slope, now attainable
through modern LIDAR surveys, for example, will also be
crucial in determining the influence of bed slope on total
transport. Furthermore, detailed field measurements examining local wave entrainment will help to produce a more
rigorous field validation of models and feed into examination
of cross-shore sediment transport on beaches. Detailed experiments should also be conducted to accurately assess the
bed shear stress within surf and swash zones and thus the
resulting turbulent mixing that occurs within planar and
barred systems. The shear stress parameter is currently only
afforded a single, homogeneous value in models, but in reality
is likely to be spatially and temporally heterogeneous across
the beach face zone. This shortcoming has serious repercussions for modeling efforts.
Finally, while this chapter has focused on beach morphodynamics one must ask why a similar approach has not been
taken up not only in other coastal fields but also in other fields
of geomorphology. Woodroffe (2003) has shown how it can
be applied across the full range of coastal fields from beach to
muddy shore, rocky coast and coral reefs, and as mentioned
earlier it has been applied across the Quaternary in relation to
coastal evolution. However, this has not been so in related
geomorphological fields. In part, this can be explained by its
early and rapid acceptance by coastal scientists who can clearly
see and monitor the dynamic interactions that are beach
morphodynamics. However, although coastal scientists have
initiated its application into coastal dunes, this has not been
the case with dune scientists focused on arid systems, nor the
fluvial, glacial, desert, mountain, and other geomorphologists.
Perhaps each needs a seminal paper, such as Wright and Thom
(1977) to kick start a fresh paradigm in their respective fields,
followed by research applying it to their landscapes.
References
Aagaard, T., Davidson-Arnott, R., Greenwood, B., Nielsen, J., 2004. Sediment
supply from shoreface to dunes: linking sediment transport measurements and
long-term morphological evolution. Geomorphology 60, 205–224.
Aagaard, T., Greenwood, B., Nielsen, N., 2002. Bed level changes and megaripple
migration on a barred beach. Journal of Coastal Research SI 34, 110–116.
Aagaard, T., Holm, J., 1989. Digitization of wave run-up using video records.
Journal of Coastal Research 5, 547–551.
Aagaard, T., Nielsen, J., Davidson-Arnott, R., Greenwood, B., Nielsen, N., 1998a.
Coastal morphodynamics at Skallingen, SW Denmark: high energy conditions.
Danish Journal of Geography 98, 20–30.
Aagaard, T., Nielsen, J., Greenwood, B., 1998b. Suspended sediment transport and
nearshore bar formation on a shallow intermediate-state beach. Marine Geology
148, 203–225.
Aarninkhof, S.G.J., Turner, I., Dronkers, T.D.T., Caljouw, M., Nipius, L., 2003.
A video-based technique for mapping intertidal beach bathymetry. Coastal
Engineering 49, 275–289.
Beach Morphodynamics
Almar, R., Castelle, B., Ruessink, G., Senechai, H., Bonneton, P., Marieu, V., 2010.
Two- and three-dimensional double-sandbar system behaviour under intense
wave forcing and a meso-macro tidal range. Continental Shelf Research 30,
781–792.
Almar, R., Coco, G., Bryan, K.R., Huntley, D.A., Short, A.D., Senechal, N., 2008.
Video observations of beach cusp morphodynamics. Marine Geology 254,
216–223.
Alves, E.S., Pezzuto, P.R., 2009. Effect of morphodynamics on annual average
zonation pattern of benthic macrofauna of exposed sandy beaches in Santa
Catarina, Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Oceanography 57, 189–203.
Amos, C.L., Li, M.Z., Chiocci, F.L., La Monica, G.B., Cappucci, S., King, E.H.,
Corbani, F., 2003. Origin of shore-normal channels from the shoreface of Sable
Island, Canada. Journal of Geophysical Research C3, 3094. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1029/2001JC001259.
Anthony, E.J., Levoy, F., Monfort, O., 2004. Morphodynamics of intertidal bars on a
megatidal beach, Merlimont, Northern France. Marine Geology 208, 73–100.
Aubrey, D.G., 1979. Seasonal patterns of onshore/offshore sediment movement.
Journal of Geophysical Research 84, 6347–6354.
Austin, M.J., Scott, T., Brown, J.W., MacMahan, J.H., 2009. Macrotidal rip current
experiment: circulation and dynamics. Journal of Coastal Research SI 56,
24–28.
Austin, M.J., Scott, T.M., Brown., J., MacMahan, J., Masselink, G., Russell, P.,
2010. Temporal observations of rip current circulation on a macro-tidal beach.
Continental Shelf Research 30, 1149–1165.
Backstrom, J., Jackson, D.W.T., Cooper, J.A.G., 2007. Shoreface dynamics of two
high-energy beaches in Northern Ireland. Journal of Coastal Research SI 50,
594–598.
Backstrom, J., Jackson, D.W.T., Cooper, J.A.G., Malvarez, G.C., 2008. Storm-driven
shoreface morphodynamics on a low-wave energy delta: the role of nearshore
topography and shoreline orientation. Journal of Coastal Research 24,
1379–1387.
Backstrom, J., Jackson, D.W.T., Cooper, J.A.G., 2009a. Shoreface morphodynamics
of a high-energy, steep and geologically constrained shoreline segment in
Northern Ireland. Marine Geology 257, 94–106.
Backstrom, J., Jackson, D.W.T., Cooper, J.A.G., 2009b. Contemporary
morphodynamics of a high-energy headland-embayment shoreface. Continental
Shelf Research 29, 1361–1372.
Bayram, A., Larson, M., Hanson, H., 2007. A new formula for the total longshore
sediment transport rate. Coastal Engineering 54, 700–710.
Boswood, P., Victory, S., Lawson, S., 2001. Placement strategy and monitoring of
the Tweed River Entrance Sand Bypassing Project. 15th Australasian Coastal and
Ocean Engineering Conference, Gold Coast, Queensland.
Bowen, A.J., 1975. On–offshore sand transport on a beach (abstract). Eos
Transactions of AGU 56, 83.
Bowen, A.J., Inman, D.L., 1969. Rip currents. 2. Laboratory and Field Observations.
Journal Geophysical Research 74, 5479–5490.
Bowen, A.J., Inman, D.L., 1971. Edge waves and crescentic bars. Journal
Geophysical Research 76, 8662–8670.
Brander, R.W., Short, A.D., 2000. Morphodynamics of a large scale rip current
system. Marine Geology 165, 27–39.
Browder, A.G., McNinch, J.E., 2006. Linking framework geology and nearshore
morphology: correlation of paleo-channels with shore-oblique sandbars and
gravel outcrops. Marine Geology 231, 141–162.
Bruun, P., 1954. Coast erosion and the development of beach profiles. Beach
Erosion Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Technical Memorandum, no. 44.
82 pp.
Bruun, P.F., 1962. Sea-level rise as a cause of shore erosion. Journal of the
Waterways and Harbors Division 88(WW1), 117–130.
Bryan, K.R., Bowen, A.J., 1996. Edge wave trapping and amplification on barred
beaches. Journal of Geophysical Research 101(C3), 6543–6552.
Bryan, K.R., Howd, P.A., Bowen, A.J., 1998. Field observations of bar-trapped edge
waves. Journal of Geophysical Research 103(C1), 1285–1305.
Butt, T., Russell, P.E., 1999. Suspended sediment transport mechanisms in highenergy swash. Marine Geology 161, 361–375.
Butt, T., Russell, P.E., Puleo, J.A., Miles, J.R., Masselink, G., 2004. The influence of
bore turbulence in the swash and inner surf zones. Continental Shelf Research
24, 757–771.
Caballeria, M., Coco, G., Falqués, A., Huntley, D.A., 2002. Self-organization
mechanisms for the formation of nearshore crescentic and transverse sand bars.
Journal of Fluid Mechanics 465, 379–410.
Callaghan, D.P., Nielsen, P., Short, A.D., Ranasinghe, R., 2008. Statistical
simulation of wave climate and extreme beach erosion. Coastal Engineering 55,
375–390.
125
Callaghan, D.P., Ranasinghe, R., Short, A.D., 2009. Quantifying the storm erosion
hazard for coastal planning. Coastal Engineering 56, 90–93.
Carter, R.W.G., Orford, J., 1993. The morphodynamics of coarse clastic beaches and
barriers: a short and long term perspective. Journal Coastal Research Special
Issue 15, 158–179.
Chickadel, C.C., Holman, R.A., Freilich, M.H., 2003. An optical technique for the
measurement of longshore currents. Journal of Geophysical Research 108(C11),
3364.
CHL, 1989. SBEACH empirical foundation and model development. Report TRCERC 89-9, Coastal and Hydraulic Laboratory, US Army Corps of Engineers.
Coco, G., Murray, A.B., 2007. Patterns in the sand: from forcing templates to selforganization. Geomorphology 91(3–4), 271–290.
Cooper, J.A.G., Jackson, D.W.T., 2003. Geomorphological and dynamic constraints
on mesoscale coastal response to storms, Western Ireland. In: Davis R.A., Howd
P.A., Kraus N.C. (Eds.), Coastal Sediments ’03. Proceedings of the 6th
International Symposium on Coastal Engineering and Science of Coastal
Sediment Processes. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia,
pp. 1–13.
Cooper, J.A.G., McKenna, J., Jackson, D.W.T., O’Connor, M., 2007. Mesoscale
coastal behaviour related to morphologiocal; self-adjustment. Geology 35,
187–190.
Cooper, J.A.G., Pilkey, O.H., 2004. Sea level rise and shoreline retreat: time to
abandon the Bruun rule. Global and Planetary Change 43, 157–171.
Cornaglia, P., 1889. On beaches. In: Fisher J.S., Dolan R. (Eds.), Beach Processes
and Coastal Hydrodynamics. Dowden, Hutchins and Ross, Stroudsberg, PA,
Benchmark Papers in Geology, Volume 39, pp. 11–26.
Cowell, P.J., Hanslow, D.J., Meleo, J.F, 1999. The shoreface. In: Short A.D. (Ed.),
Handbook of Beach and Shoreface Morphodynamics. Wiley, Chichester, pp.
37–71.
Cowell, P.J., Roy, P.S., Jones, R.A., 1992. Shoreface translation model: computer
simulation of coastal-sand-body response to sea level rise. Mathematics and
Computers in Simulation 33, 603–608.
Cowell, P.J., Thom, B.G., 1994. Morphodynamics of coastal evolution.
In: Carter R.W.G., Woodroffe C.D. (Eds.), Coastal Evolution: Late Quaternary
Shoreline Morphodynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp. 33–86.
Cowell, P.J., Thom, B.G., Jones, R.A., Everts, C.H., Simanovic, D., 2006.
Management of uncertainty in predicting climate-change impacts on beaches.
Journal of Coastal Research 22, 232–245.
Davidson-Arnott, R.G.D., MacQuarie, K., Aagaard, T., 2005. The effect of wind
gusts, moisture content and fetch length on sand transport on a beach.
Geomorphology 68, n115–n129.
Dean, R., 1991. Equilibrium beach profiles: characteristics and applications. Journal
of Coastal Research 7, 53–84.
Dehouck, A., Dupuis, H., Sénéchal, N., 2009. Pocket beach hydrodynamics:
the example of four macrotidal beaches, Brittany, France. Marine Geology 266,
1–17.
Deronde, B., Houthuys, R., Debruyn, W., Fransaer, D., Lancker, V., Henriet, J., 2006.
Use of airborne hyperspectral data and laserscan data to study beach
morphodynamics along the Belgian Coast. Journal of Coastal Research 22,
1108–1117.
Dingler, J.R., Reiss, T.E., 2002. Changes to Monterey Bay beaches from the end of
the 1982–83 El Nino through the 1997–98 El Nino. Marine Geology 181,
249–263.
Escartin, J., Aubrey, D.G., 1995. Flow structure and dispersion within algal mats
40(4), 451–472, Estuarine coastal and shelf science 40(4), 451–472.
Etri, T., Mayerle, R., 2006. Effect of storm events on the morphodynamics of a
tidally-dominated coastal environment. Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on HydroScience and Engineering, Philadelphia, USA September,
1–11.
Falqués, A., Dodd, N., Garnier, R., et al., 2008. Rhythmic surf zone bars and
morphodynamic self-organization. Coastal Engineering 55, 622–641.
Fries, J.S., Butman, C.A., Wheatcroft, R.A., 1999. Ripple formation induced by
biogenic mounds. Marine Geology 159, 287–302.
Gallagher, E.L., 2011. Computer simulations of self–organized megaripples in the
nearshore. Journal of Geophysical Research 116, F01004. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1029/2009JF001473.
Goldsmith, V., Bowman, D., Kiley, K., 1982. Sequential stage development of
crescentic bars: Hahoterim Beach, southeastern Mediterranean. Journal of
Sedimentary Petrology 52, 233–249.
Gómez-Pujol, L., Orfila, A., Cañellas, B., Alvarez-Ellacuria, A., Méndez, F.J., Medina,
R., Tintoré, J., 2007. Morphodynamic classification of sandy beaches in low
energetic marine environment. Marine Geology 242(4), 235–246.
126
Beach Morphodynamics
Goodwin, I.D., 2003. Unravelling climate influences on late Holocene sea-level and
coastal evolution. In: Mackay A., Battarbee R., Birks J., Oldfield F. (Eds.), Global
Change in the Holocene. Edward Arnold, London, pp. 406–421.
Goodwin, I.D., Stables, M.A., Olley, J., 2006. Wave climate, sediment budget and
shoreline alignment evolution of the Iluka–WoodyBay sand barrier, northern
NSW, Australia, since 3000yrBP. Marine Geology 226, 127–144.
Grant, W.D., Bathmann, U.V., Mills, E.L., 1986. The interaction between benthic
diatom films and sediment transport. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 23(2),
225–238.
Grant, W.D., Boyer, L.F., Sanford, L.P., 1982. The effects of bioturbation on the
initiation of motion of intertidal sands. Journal of Marine Research 40, 659–677.
Greenwood, B., Aagaard, T., Nielsen, J., 2004. Swash bar morphodynamics in the
Danish Wadden Sea: sand bed oscillations and suspended sediment flux
during an accretionary phase of the foreshore cycle. Geografisk Tidsskrift 104,
15–29.
Greenwood, B., Davidson-Arnott, R.G.D., 1979. Sedimentation and equilibrium in
wave-formed bars: a review and case study. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences
16, 312–332.
Grunnet, N.M., Ruessink, B.G., 2005. Morphodynamic response of nearshore bars
to a shoreface nourishment. Coastal Engineering 52(2), 119–137.
Guard, P.A., Baldock, T.E., 2007. The influence of seaward boundary conditions on
swash zone hydrodynamics. Coastal Engineering 54, 321–331.
Guillen, J., Palanques, A., 1993. Longshore bar and trough systems in a microtidal,
storm-wave dominated coast: the Ebro Delta (Northwestern Mediterranean).
Marine Geology 115, 239–252.
Hanson, H., Kraus, N., 1989. GENESIS –generalised model for simulating shoreline
change. Report TR-CERC 89-19 (Report 1), Coastal and Hydraulic Laboratory,
US Army Corps of Engineers.
Hapke, C.J., Lentz, E.E., Gayes, P.T., McCoy, C.A., Hehre, R., Schwab, W.C.,
Williams, S., 2010. A review of sediment budget imbalances along Fire Island,
New York: can nearshore geologic framework patterns of shoreline change
explain the deficit? Journal of Coastal Research 26, 510–522.
Harley, M.D., Turner, I.L., Short, A.D., Ranasinghe, R., 2011. A re-evaluation of
coastal embayment rotation: the dominance of cross-shore versus alongshore
sediment transport processes, Collaroy-Narrabeen Beach, southeast Australia.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 116(F4), doi: 10.1029/
2001JF001989.
Hegge, B., Eliot, I., Hsu, J., 1996. Sheltered sandy beaches of southwestern
Australia. Journal of Coastal Research 12, 748–760.
Hequette, A., Desrosiers, M., Hill, P.R., Forbes, D.L., 2001. The influence of coastal
morphology on shoreface sediment transport under storm-combined flows,
Canadian Beaufort Sea. Journal of Coastal Research 17, 507–516.
Hequette, A., Hill, P.R., 1993. Storm-generated currents and offshore sediment
transport on a sandy shoreface, Tibjak Beach, Canadian Beaufort Sea. Marine
Geology 113, 283–304.
Hesp, P.A., 1983. Morphodynamics of incipient foredunes in NSW, Australia.
In: Brookfield M.E., Ahlbrandt T.S. (Eds.), Eolian Sediments and Processes.
Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 325–342.
Holland, K.T., Holman, R.A., 1993. The statistical distribution of swash maxima on
natural beaches. Journal of Geophysical Research 98, 10271–10278.
Holman, R., Stanley, J., 2007. The history and technical capabilities of Argus.
Coastal Engineering 54, 477–491.
Horikawa K. (Ed.), 1988. Nearshore Dynamics and Coastal Processes. University of
Tokoyo Press, Tokoyo, 522 pp.
Houser, C., 2009. Synchronization of transport and supply in beach–dune
interaction. Progress in Physical Geography 33, 733–746.
Houser, C., Barrett, G., 2010. Divergent behavior of the swash zone in response
to different foreshore slopes and nearshore states. Marine geology 271,
106–118.
Houser, C., Greenwood, B., 2005. Profile response of a lacustrine multiple barred
nearshore to a sequence of storm events. Geomorphology 69, 118–137.
Houser, C., Hill, P., 2010. Wave attenuation across an intertidal sand flat:
implications for mudflat development. Journal of Coastal Research 26,
403–411.
Hughes, M.G., Aagaard, T., Baldock, T.E., 2007. Suspended sediment in the swash
zone: heuristic analysis of spatial and temporal variations in concentration.
Journal of Coastal Research 23, 1345–1354.
Hughes, M.G., Turner, I., 1999. The beachface. In: Short A.D. (Ed.), Handbook of
Beach and Shoreface Morphodynamics. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 119–144.
Huntley, D., Stive, M., 2007. Coast view special issue foreword. Coastal
Engineering 54, 461–462.
Jackson, D.W.T., Anfuso, G., Lynch, K., 2007. Swash bar dynamics on a highenergy mesotidal beach. Journal of Coastal Research SI 50, 738–745.
Jackson, D.W.T., Beyers, J.H.M., Lynch, K., Cooper, J.A.G., Baas, A.C.W., DelgadoFernandez, I., 2011. Investigation of three-dimensional wind flow behaviour over
coastal dune morphology under offshore winds using computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) and ultrasonic anemometry. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 36, 1113–1124.
Jackson, D.W.T., Cooper, J.A.G., 2009. Geological control on beach form:
accommodation space and contemporary dynamics. Journal of Coastal Research
SI 56, 69–72.
Jackson, D.W.T., Cooper, J.A.G., Del Rio, L., 2005. Geological control on beach
state. Marine Geology 216, 297–314.
Jackson, N.L., Nordstrom, K.F., Smith, D.R., 2005. Influence of waves
and horseshoe crab spawning on beach morphology and sediment grainsize characteristics on a sandy estuarine beach. Sedimentology 52, 1097–1108.
Jago, C.F., Hardisty, J., 1984. Sedimentology and morphodynamics of a macrotidal
beach, Pendine Sands, SW Wales. Marine Geology 60, 123–154.
Klein, A.H., Menezes, J.T., 2001. Beach morphodynamics and profile sequence for a
headland bay coast. Journal of Coastal Research 17, 812–835.
Komar, P.D., Allan, J., Dias-Mendez, G.M., Marra, J.J., Ruggiero, P., 2001. El Nino
and La Nina: erosion processes and impacts. Coastal Engineering 2000. ASCE
3, 2414–2427.
Kroon, A., Masselink, G., 2002. Morphodynamics of intertidal bar morphology on a
macrotidal beach under low-energy wave conditions, North Lincolnshire,
England. Marine Geology 190, 591–608.
Lafon, V., De Melo Apoluceno, D., Dupuis, H., Michel, D., Howa, H.,
Froidefond, J.M., 2004. Morphodynamics of nearshore rhythmic sandbars in a
mixed-energy environment (SW France): I. Mapping beach changes using visible
satellite imagery. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 61, 289–299.
Lafon, V., Dupuis, H., Butel, R., Castelle, B., Michel, D., Howa, H., De Melo
Apoluceno, D., 2005. Morphodynamics of nearshore rhythmic sandbars in a
mixed-energy environment (SW France): 2. Physical forcing analysis. Estuarine,
Coastal and Shelf Science 65, 449–462.
Larson, M., Kraus, N.C., 1994. Temporal and spatial scales of beach profile change,
Duck, North Carolina. Marine Geology 117, 75–94.
Lee, G.-H., Nichols, R.J., Birkemeier, W.A., 1998. Storm-driven variability of the
beach-nearshore profile at Duck, North Carolina, USA, 1981–1991. Marine
Geology 148, 163–177.
Levoy, F., Anthony, E.J., Monfort, O., Larsonneur, C., 2000. The morphodynamics of
megatidal beaches in Normandy, France. Marine Geology 117, 39–59.
Levoy, F., Monfort, O., Larsonneur, C., 2001. Hydrodynamic variability on megatidal
beaches, Normandy. Continental Shelf Research 21, 563–586.
Lippmann, T.C., Holman, R.A., 1990. The spatial and temporal variability
of sand bar morphology. Journal of Geophysical Research 95, 1575–1590.
List J. (Ed.), 1993. Large Scale Coastal Behavior. USGC, Denver, 238 pp.
MacMahan, J., Brown, J., Reniers, Ad., Thornton, E., Stanton, T., 2010. Lagrangian
rip current field observations: swim parallel? Abstract, Rip Current Symposium
2010, Miami, Florida.
MacMahan, J., Brown, J., Thornton, E., et al., 2009. Mean Lagrangian flow
behavior on an open coast rip-channeled beach: a new perspective. Marine
Geology 268, 1–15.
MacMahan, J.H., Reniers, Ad.J.H.M., Thornton, E.B., Stanton, T.P., 2004.
Infragravity rip current pulsations. Journal of Geophysical Research 109,
C01033. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003JC002068.
MacMahan, J.H., Thornton, E.B., Reniers, Ad.J.H.M., 2006. Rip current review.
Coastal Engineering 53, 191–208.
Masselink, G., Austin, M., Tinker, J., O’Hare, T., Russell, P.E., 2008a. Cross-shore
sediment transport and morphological response on a macro-tidal beach with
intertidal bar morphology, Truc Vert, France. Marine Geology 251, 141–155. htt
p://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2008.01.010.
Masselink, G., Buscombe, D., Austin, M., O’Hare, T., Russell, P.E., 2008b.
Sediment trend models fail to reproduce small-scale sediment transport patterns
on an intertidal beach. Sedimentology, 10.1111/j.1365-3091.2007.00917x.
Masselink, G., Hegge, B.J., 1995. Morphodynamics of meso- and macrotidal
beaches, Examples from central Queensland. Marine Geology 129, 1–23.
Masselink, G., Hegge, B.J., Pattiaratchi, C.B., 1997. Beach cusp morphodynamics.
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 22, 1139–1155.
Masselink, G., Kroon, A., Davidson-Arnott, R.G.D., 2006. Morphodynamics of
intertidal bars in wave-dominated coastal settings – a review. Geomorphology
73, 33–49.
Masselink, G., Pattiaratchi, C., 1998. The effect of sea breeze on beach morphology,
surf zone hydrodynamics and sediment resuspension. Marine Geology 14, 393–406.
Masselink, G., Pattiaratchi, C., 2001. Seasonal changes in beach morphology along
the sheltered coastline of Perth, Western Australia. Marine Geology 172,
243–263.
Beach Morphodynamics
Masselink, G., Puleo, J.A., 2006. Swash-zone morphodynamics. Continental Shelf
Research 26, 661–680.
Masselink, G., Russell, P.E., Blenkinsopp, C.E., Turner, I.L., 2010. Swash zone
sediment transport, step dynamics and morphological response on a gravel
beach. Marine Geology 274, 50–68.
Masselink, G., Russell, P.E., Turner, I.L., Blenkinsopp, C.E., 2009. Net sediment
transport and morphological change in the swash zone of a high-energy
sandy beach from swash event to tidal cycle time scales. Marine Geology 267,
18–35.
Masselink, G., Short, A.D., 1993. The effect of tide range on beach
morphodynamics, a conceptual beach model. Journal of Coastal Research 9,
785–800.
McLachlan, A., Jaramillo, E., 1995. Zonation on sandy beaches. Oceanography and
Marine Biology: An Annual Review 33, 305–335.
McLachlan, A., Jaramillo, E., Donn, T.E., Wessels, F., 1993. Sandy beach
macrofauna communities and their control by the physical environment, a
geographical comparison. Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue 15,
27–38.
McNinch, J.E., 2004. Geologic control in the nearshore: shore-oblique sandbars
and shoreline erosional hotspots, Mid-Atlantic Bight, USA. Marine Geology 211,
121–141.
McNinch, J.E., 2007. Bar and swash imaging radar (BASIR): a mobile x-band radar
designed for mapping nearshore sand bars and swash-defined shorelines over
large distances. Journal of Coastal Research 23, 59–74.
Miles, J., Butt, T., Russell, P., 2006. Swash zone sediment dynamics: a comparison of a dissipative and an intermediate beach. Marine Geology 231,
181–200.
Morton, R.A., Gibeaut, J.C., Paine, J.G., 1995. Meso-scale transfer of sand during
and after storms: implications for prediction of shoreline movement. Marine
Geology 126, 161–179.
Nicholls, R.J., Birkemeier, W.A., Lee, G., 1998. Evaluation of depth of closure using
data from Duck, NC, USA. Marine Geology 148, 179–201.
Nicholson, J., Broker, I., Roelvink, J.A., Price, D., Tanguy, J.M., Moreno, L., 1997.
Intercomparison of coastal area morphodynamic models. Coastal Engineering
31, 97–123.
Niedoroda, A.W., Swift, D.J.P., Hopkins, T.S., Ma, C., 1984. Shoreface
morphodynamics on wave-dominated coasts. Marine Geology 60, 331–354.
Norcross, Z.M, Fletcher, C.H., Merrifield, M., 2002. Annual and interannual
changes on a reef-fringed pocket beach: Kailua, Hawaii. Marine Geology 190,
553–580.
Ojeda, E., Ruessink, B.G., Guillen, J., 2008. Morphodynamic response of a
two-barred beach to a shoreface nourishment. Coastal Engineering 55,
1185–1196.
Osborne, P.D., Rooker, G.A., 1999. Sand re-suspension events in a high energy
infragravity swash zone. Journal of Coastal Research 15, 74–86.
Pearson, D.R., Riggs, S.R., 1981. Relationship of surface sediments on the lower
forebeach and nearshore shelf to beach nourishment at Wrightsville Beach,
North Carolina. Shore Beach 49, 26–31.
Pilkey, O.H., Cooper, J.A.G., 2004. Society and sea level rise. Science 303,
1781–1782.
Pilkey, O.H., Dixon, K., 1998. The Corps and the Shore. Island Press, Washington,
DC, 286 pp.
Price, T.D., Ruessink, B.G., 2011. State dynamics of a double sandbar system.
Continental Shelf Research 31, 659–674.
Psuty, N.P. (Ed.), 1987. Beach/dune interactions. Journal of Coastal Research SI 3,
136.
Quaresma, V.D., Amos, C.L., Flindt, M., 2004. The influences of biological activity
and consolidation time on laboratory cohesive beds. Journal of Sedimentary
Research 74(2), 184–190.
Quartel, S., Addink, E.A., Ruessink, B.G., 2007. Extraction of beach morphology
from video images. Nederlandse Geografische Studies 366, 21–38.
Ranasinghe, R., McLoughlin, R., Short, A.D., Symonds, G., 2004a. The Southern
Oscillation Index, wave climate and beach rotation. Marine Geology 204,
273–287.
Ranasinghe, R., Symonds, G., Black, K., Holman, R., 2004b. Morphodynamics of
intermediate beaches: a video imaging and numerical modelling study. Coastal
Engineering 51, 629–655.
Reniers, A.J.H.M., Roelvink, J.A., Thorton, E.B., 2004. Morphodynamic modeling of
an embayed beach under wave group forcing. Journal of Geophysical Research
109(C01030), 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2002JC001586.
Roelvink, D., Reniersc, A., van Dongeren, A., van Thiel de Vries, J., McCall, R.,
Lescinski, J., 2009. Modelling storm impacts on beaches, dunes and barrier
islands. Coastal Engineering 56, 133–1152.
127
Roy, P.S., Cowell, P.J., Ferland, M.A., Thom, B.G., 1994. Wave dominated coasts.
In: Carter R.W.G., Woodroffe C.D. (Eds.), Coastal Evolution, Late Quaternary
Shoreline Morphodynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp. 121–186.
Ruessink, B.G., Aarninkhof, S.G.J., Bell, P.S., van Enckevort, I.M.J., 2002.
Nearshore bar crest location quantified from time-averaged X-band radar images.
Coastal Engineering 45, 19–32.
Ruessink, B.G., Kleinhans, M.G., van den Beukel, P.G.L., 1998. Observations of
swash under highly dissipative conditions. Journal of Geophysical Research
103, 3111–3118.
Sallenger, Jr. A.H., 2000. Storm impact scale for barrier islands. Journal of Coastal
Research 16, 890–895.
Schupp, C.A., McNinch, J.E., List, J.H., 2006. Nearshore shore-oblique bars, gravel
outcrops, and their correlation to shoreline change. Marine Geology 233,
63–79.
Scott, T.M., Russell, P.E., Masselink, G., Wooler, A., Short, A.D., 2007.
Classification of UK beaches and associated nearshore hazards. Journal of
Coastal Research SI 50, 1–6.
Seymour R.J. (Ed.), 1989. Nearshore Sediment Transport. Plenum, New York, NY,
418 pp.
Shand, R., 1999. An inter-site comparison of net offshore bar migration
characteristics and environmental conditions. Journal of Coastal Research 15,
750–765.
Shaw, J., 1985. Beach morphodynamics of an Atlantic coast embayment: Runkerry
Strand. Co. Antrim. Irish Geography 18, 51–58.
Sherman, D.J., Bauer, B.O., 1993. Dynamics of beach–dune systems. Progress in
Physical Geography 17, 413–447.
Sherman, D.J., Bauer, B.O., Nordstrom, K.F., Allen, J.R., 1990. A tracer study of
sediment transport in the vicinity of a groin: New York, U.S.A. Journal of
Coastal Research 6, 427–438.
Sherman, D.J., Lyons, W.F., 1994. Beach state controls on aeolian sand delivery to
coastal dunes. Physical Geography 15, 381–395.
Short, A.D., 1975. Multiple offshore bars and standing waves. Journal of
Geophysical Research 80, 3838–3840.
Short, A.D., 1978. Wave power and beach-stages, A global model. Proceedings
16th International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Hamburg. ASCE, Reston,
Virginia, pp. 1145–1162.
Short, A.D., 1979. Three dimensional beach-stage model. Journal of Geology 87,
553–571.
Short, A.D., 1992. Beach systems of the central Netherlands coast: processes,
morphology and structural impacts in a storm driven, multi-bar system. Marine
Geology 107, 103–137.
Short A.D. (Ed.), 1999. Beach and Shoreface Morphodynamics. Wiley, Chichester,
379 pp.
Short, A.D., 2006. Australian beach systems – nature and distribution. Journal of
Coastal Research 22, 11–27.
Short, A.D., 2010a. Role of geological inheritance in Australian beach
morphodynamics. Coastal Engineering 57, 92–97.
Short, A.D., 2010b. Sediment transport around Australia – sources, mechanisms,
rates and barrier forms. Journal of Coastal Research 26, 395–402.
Short, A.D., Aagaard, T., 1993. Single and multi-bar beach change models. Journal
of Coastal Research Special Issue No 15, 141–157.
Short, A.D., Buckley, R., Fotheringham, D.G., 1986. Coastal morphodynamics and
coastal evolution of the Eyre Peninsula coast, South Australia. Technical Report
86/2, Coastal Studies Unit, University of Sydney, 178 pp.
Short, A.D., Coleman, J.M., Wright, L.D., 1974. Beach dynamics and nearshore
morphology of the Beaufort Sea coast, Alaska. In: Reed J.C., Sater J.E. (Eds.),
The Coast and Shelf of the Beaufort Sea. The Arctic Institute of North America,
Arlington, VA, pp. 477–488.
Short, A.D., Fotheringham, D.G., 1986. Coastal morphodynamics and Holocene
evolution of the Kangaroo Island coast, South Australia. Technical Report No.
86/1, Coastal Studies Unit, University of Sydney, Sydney, 112 pp.
Short, A.D., Hesp, P.A., 1982. Wave, beach and dune interactions in southeast
Australia. Marine Geology 48, 259–284.
Short, A.D., Hesp, P.A., 1984. Beach and dune morphodynamics of the south east
coast of South Australia. Technical Report 84/1, Coastal Studies Unit, University
of Sydney, Sydney, 142 pp.
Short, A.D., Hogan, C.L., 1994. Rip currents and beach hazards, their impact on
public safety and implications for coastal management. In: Finkl C.W. (Ed.),
Coastal Hazards, pp. 197–209, Journal of Coastal Research SI 12.
Short, A.D., Trembanis, A., 2004. Decadal scale patterns in beach oscillation and
rotation Narrabeen Beach, Australia- time series, PCA and wavelet analysis.
Journal of Coastal Research 20, 523–532.
128
Beach Morphodynamics
Short, A.D., Woodroffe, C.D., 2009. The Coast of Australia. Cambridge University
Press, Melbourne, 288 pp.
Smit, M.W.J., Aarninkhof, S.G.J., Wijnberg, K.M., et al., 2007. The role of video
imagery in predicting daily to monthly coastal evolution. Coastal Engineering
54, 539–553.
Smith, J.D., Hopkins, T.S., 1972. Sediment transport on the continental shelf off of
Washington and Oregon in light of recent current measurements. In: Swift D.J.P.,
Duane D.B., Pilkey O.H. (Eds.), Shelf Sediment Transport: Process and Pattern.
Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsberg, PA, pp. 143–180.
Snedden, J.W., Nummedal, D., Amos, A.F., 1988. Storm- and fair-weather combined
flow on the central Texas continental shelf. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 58,
580–595.
Sonu, C.J., 1972. Field observation of nearshore circulation and meandering
currents. Journal of Geophysical Research 77, 3232–3247.
Sonu, C.J., 1973. Three dimensional beach changes. Journal of Geology 81, 42–64.
Sonu, C.J., James, W.R., 1973. A Markov model for beach profile changes. Journal
of Geophysical Research 78, 1462–1471.
Sonu, C.J., Murray, S.P., Hsu, S.A., Suhayda, J.N., Waddell, E., 1973. Sea breeze
and coastal processes. Transactions, American Geophysical Union 54,
820–833.
Sonu, C.J., van Beek, J.L., 1971. Systematic beach changes on the Outer Banks,
North Carolina. Journal of Geology 79, 416–425.
Stive, M.J.F., Vriend de, H.J., 1995. Modelling shoreface profile evolution. Marine
Geology 126, 235–248.
Stockdon, H.F., Holman, R.A., 2000. Estimation of wave phase speed and nearshore
bathymetry from video imagery. Journal of Geophysical Research 105,
22,015–22,033.
Suhayda, J.N., 1974. Standing waves on beaches. Journal of Geophysical Research
79, 3065–3071.
Sutherland, J., Walstra, D.J.R., Chesher, T.J., van Rijn, L.C., Southgate, H.N., 2004.
Evaluation of coastal area modelling systems at an estuary mouth. Coastal
Engineering 51, 119–142.
Tanaka, N., 1983. A study on characteristics of littoral drift along the coast of Japan
and topographic change resulted from construction of harbours on sandy beach.
In: Horikawa K. (Ed.), 1988, Nearshore Dynamics and Coastal Processes.
University of Tokoyo Press, Tokoyo, pp. 163–166.
Terwindt, J.H.J., Battjes, J.A., 1990. Research on large-scale coastal behaviour.
Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Delft,
1975–1983.
Thieler, E.R., Pilkey, O.H., Cleary, W.J., Schwab, W.C., 2001. Modern sedimentation
on the shoreface and inner continental shelf at Wrightsville Beach, North
Carolina, USA. Journal of Sedimentary Research 71, 958–970.
Thom, B.G., Hall, W., 1991. Behaviour of beach profiles during accretion and
erosion dominated periods. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 16,
113–127.
Thornton, E.B., MacMahan, J., Sallenger, Jr. A.H., 2007. Rip currents, mega-cusps,
and eroding dunes. Marine Geology 240, 151–167.
Turner, I.L., 1995. Simulating the influence of groundwater seepage on sediment
transported by the sweep of the swash zone across macro-tidal beaches. Marine
Geology 125, 153–174.
Turner, I.L., Aarninkhof, S.G.J., Holman, R.A., 2006. Coastal imaging applications
and research in Australia. Journal of Coastal Research 22, 37–48.
Turner, I.L., Anderson, D.J, 2007. Web-based and ‘real-time’ beach management
system. Coastal Engineering 54, 555–565.
van de Meene, J.W.H., van Rijn, L.C., 2000. The shoreface-connected ridges along
the central Dutch coast – part 1: field observations. Continental Shelf Research
20, 2295–2323.
van Enckevort, I.M.J., Ruessink, B.G., 2003a. The behaviour of nearshore bars on
weekly to yearly time scales determined from video imagery. Part 1: alongshore
uniform behaviour. Continental Shelf Research 23, 501–512.
van Enckevort, I.M.J., Ruessink, B.G., 2003b. The behaviour of nearshore bars on
weekly to yearly time scales determined from video imagery. Part 2: alongshore
non-uniform behaviour. Continental Shelf Research 23, 513–532.
van Houwelingen, S.T., Masselink, G., Bullard, J.E., 2008. Wave and tidal forcing of
multiple intertidal bar dynamics. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 33,
1473–1490. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/esp.1616.
Vinther, N., Nielsen, J., Aagaard, T., 2004. Cyclic sand bar migration on a spitplatform in the Danish Wadden Sea – spit-platform morphology related to
variations in water level. Journal of Coastal Research 20, 672–679.
Voulgaris, G., Simminds, D., Michel, D., Howa, H., Collins, M.B., Huntley, D.A.,
1998. Measuring and modelling sediment transport on a macrotidal ridge
and runnel beach: an intercomparison. Journal of Coastal Research 14,
315–330.
de Vriend, H.J., Zyserman, J., Nicholson, J., Roelvink, J.A., Péchon, P., Southgate,
H.N., 1993. Medium-term 2DH coastal area modelling. Coastal Engineering 21,
193–224.
Weinberg, K.M., Terwindt, J.H.J., 1995. Quantification of decadal scale
morphological behaviour of the central Dutch coast. Marine Geology 136,
301–330.
Wijnberg, K.M., Wolf, F.C.J., 1994. Three-dimensional behaviour of a multiple bar
system. Coastal Dynamics ’94, ACSE, Reston, Virginia, pp. 590–573.
Willis, D.H., 1987. The Canadian coastal sediment study: An overview. Coastal
Sediments 87, ASCE.
Willyams, M.A., 1980. Sand beach morphodynamics in southern Pegasus Bay. MA
Thesis, University of Canterbury, Canterbury, 220 pp.
Wiseman, W.J., Coleman, J.M., Gregory, A., et al., 1973. Alaskan Arctic coastal
processes and morphology. Coastal Studies Institute Technical Report 149,
Coastal Studies Institute, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, 171 pp.
Wolf, J., Bell, P.S., 2001. Waves at Holderness from X-band radar. Coastal
Engineering 43, 247–263.
Woodroffe, C.D., 2003. Coasts – Forms, Process and Evolution. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 623 pp.
Wright, L.D., 1976. Morphodynamics of a wave-dominated river mouth.
International Coastal Engineering Conference, Honolulu, ASCE, pp. 1721–1737.
Wright, L.D., 1995. Morphodynamics of Inner Continental Shelves. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL, 241 pp.
Wright, L.D., Chappell, J., Thom, B.G., Bradshaw, M.P., Cowell, P.J., 1979.
Morphodynamics of reflective and dissipative beach and inshore systems,
Southeastern Australia. Marine Geology 32, 105–140.
Wright, L.D., Coleman, J.M., 1971. Variation in morphology of major river deltas as
functions of ocean wave and river discharge regimes. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists 57, 370–398.
Wright, L.D., Guza, R.T., Short, A.D., 1982a. Dynamics of a high-energy dissipative
surf zone. Marine Geology 45, 41–62.
Wright, L.D., Nielsen, P., Short, A.D., Coffey, F.C., Green, M.O., 1982b. Nearshore
and surf zone morphodynamics of a storm wave environment: eastern Bass
Strait, Australia. Coastal Studies Unit Technical Report 82/3, Department of
Geography, University of Sydney, Sydney, 154 pp.
Wright, L.D., Nielsen, P., Short, A.D., Green, M.O., 1982c. Morphodynamics of a
macrotidal beach. Marine Geology 50, 97–128.
Wright, L.D., Short, A.D., 1984. Morphodynamic variability of beaches and surf
zones, a synthesis. Marine Geology 56, 92–118.
Wright, L.D., Short, A.D., Green, M., 1985. Short-term changes in the
morphodynamic state of beaches and surf zones, an empirical predicative model.
Marine Geology 62, 339–364.
Wright, L.D., Thom, B.G., 1977. Coastal depositional landforms: a morphodynamic
approach. Progress in Physical Geography 1, 412–459.
Zhang, K., Douglas, B., Leatherman, S., 2002. Do storms cause long-term beach
erosion along the U.S. East barrier coast? Journal of Geology 110, 493–502.
Relevant Websites
http://www.CoastalCOMS.com
Coastal Observation and Monitoring Solutions.
http://www.googleearth.com
Google Earth.
http://csc.noaa.gov
NOAA Coastal Services Center: Coastal Inundation Toolkit.
http://www.tweedsandbypass.nsw.gov.au
NSW Government Land and Property Management Authority: Tweed River
Entrance Sand Bypassing Project.
http://www.frf.usace.army.mil
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS:ENGINEER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
CENTER: Field Research Facility.
http://coastal.er.usgs.gov
USGS: St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Center.
Beach Morphodynamics
129
Biographical Sketch
Andrew Short is a coastal geomorphologist specializing in coastal processes and beach dynamics. He has degrees
from the University of Sydney, University of Hawaii, and Louisiana State University and has worked on the coasts
of North and South America, including north Alaska and Hawaii, Europe, New Zealand, and the entire Australian
coast. He is presently Honorary Professor in the School of Geosciences at the University of Sydney, Adjunct
Professor in the Griffith (University) Centre for Coastal Management, Senior Coastal Scientist (part-time) with
CoastalCOMS.com, Scientific Adviser to Surf Life Saving Australia, Deputy Chair of National Surfing Reserves
(Australia), and on the Executive Committee of World Surfing Reserves. He also runs his own consultancy called
Coastal Studies and serves on the NSW Coastal Panel and the Eurobodalla Coastal Management Advisory
Committee. He has written 12 books including ‘The Coast of Australia’’ published in 2009, over 200 scientific
publications. His extensive contribution to both coastal science and beach safety was recognised on Australia Day
2010 with an Order of Australia Medal.
Short has also investigated all 10685 mainland beaches (inc Tasmania) plus another 1500 beaches on 30 major
islands, and all 1245 Australian coastal barrier systems. The beach information is available on line (http://
beachsafe.org) and as an Iphone app. It is also written up in an eight volume eight beach series, one for each state
and territory, published by Sydney University Press.
Derek Jackson is a Professor of Coastal Geomorphology at the Centre for Coastal & Marine Research, School of
Environmental Sciences, University of Ulster in Northern Ireland. Since graduating in 1993 as PhD student of the
late Bill Carter at Ulster, he has focused his research efforts on examining coastal morphodynamics and geomorphology at a number of spatial and temporal scales. Specifically, this includes aeolian sediment transport on
beaches and dunes, nearshore wave/sediment transport processes as well as investigating long-term coastal
change. He has worked on beaches and dunes of the UK, Ireland, France, Spain, Portugal, Japan, and U.S.A. Prof.
Jackson acts as advisor to European Union and UK funding bodies and is a peer review college member for the UK
Natural Environment Research Council. He has published extensively in the field of coastal morphodynamics and
is currently co-director of the Centre for Coastal & Marine Research at the University of Ulster, a Fellow of the
Royal Geographical Society and Fellow of the Geological Society of London.