Summary - 2_trchl-98-110009
Wave Climate - 2_trchl-98-110010
Physical Model Studies
Physical Model Studies (cont.)
Introduction - 2_trchl-98-110013
Figure 1. Study location
Figure 2. Kaumalapau Harbor
Harbor Operational Considerations
Wave Climate - 2_trchl-98-110017
Figure 3. WIS Phase I grid for the North Pacific
Field Wave Measurements
System Design
Results - 2_trchl-98-110021
Figure 4. Location of prototype gauges
Table 1. Field Wave Gauge HI01 - Statistical Summary of Wave Parameters
Table 2. Percent Occurrence as a Function of Peak Wave Gauge HI01
Table 3. Field Wave gauge HI01 - Statistical Summary of Wave Parameters
Table 4. Percent Occurrence as a Function of Peak Period for Field Wave Gauge HI01
Numerical Model - 2_trchl-98-110027
Model Description - 2_trchl-98-110028
Model Formulation
Figure 5. Representation of HARBD domain
Model Formulation (cont.)
Table 5. Critical HARBD Input Parameters and Ranges of Typical Values
Spectral Adaptation
Spectral Adaptation (cont.)
Table 6. Guidance for Choosing Y
Finite element grids
Figure 6. Grid of existing harbor
Figure 7. Bathymetry
Figure 8. Wave reflection coefficient values, short waves
Table 9. Harbor Alternatives for Numerical Modeling
Figure 10. Grid with straight breakwater extension
Figure 12. Grid of WES-recommended plan
Figure 13. Wave reflection coefficient values for wave absorber simulations, short waves
Table 10. Summary of Field Cases for Model Validation
Figure 14. Model validation
Table 11. Summary of Incident Short Wave Conditions
Figure 15. Incident wave directions
table 13. Approximate Relationship Between Tp and Y
Figure 16. Output Basins
Harbor Response to Wind Waves and Swell - 2_trchl-98-110050
Figure 17. Amplification factor sensitivity to wave direction, Tp = 8 sec
Figure 19. Amplification factor sensitivity to wave direction, Tp = 16 sec
Comparison of Alternatives
Figure 21. Wave height relative to existing harbor, dogleg breakwater extension, Tp = 10 sec
Figure 22. Wave height relative to existing harbor, dogleg breakwater extension, Tp = 16 sec
Figure 23. Wave height relative to existing harbor, straight breakwater extension, Tp = 10 sec
Figure 25. Wave height relative to existing harbor, existing breakwater, Tp = 10 sec
Figure 26. Wave height relative to existing harbor, existing breakwater, Tp = 16 sec
Comparison of Alternatives (cont.)
Figure 27. Amplification factors contours, 251-deg incident direction, Tp = 10 sec
Figure 28. Amplification factors contours, 251-deg incident direction, Tp = 16 sec
Harbor Oscillators
Figure 29. Long wave response, existing harbor
Figure 31. Resonant long wave amplification factor contours, existing harbor
Figure 32. Resonant long wave contours, existing harbor
Harbor Oscillators (cont.)
Figure 33. Resonant long-wave amplification factor contours, WES-recommended plan
Figure 34. Resonant long-wave phase contours, WES-recommended plan
Table 14. Comparison of Long Wave Response in Existing and WES-Recommended harbor Plans
Physical Model Design
table 15. Model-Prototype Scale Relations (1:49 scale)
Figure 35. Physical model layout
Figure 36. Photograph of physical model
Figure 37. Cross section of propsed structure at existing structure center line, Station 0+00
Figure 38. Cross section of proposed structure at existing breakwater center line, Station 2+00
Figure 40. Cross section of proposed breakwater at revised center line, Station 2+00
Figure 42. Sketch of dogleg breakwater configuration (Plan 4)
Wave gauges - 2_trchl-98-110078
Figure 43. Wave gauges configuration 1 for studies of pre-breakwater conditions
Figure 44. Wave gauges configuration 2 for studies of existing and alternative harbor plans
Guide vanes
Physical Model Experiment Conditions
Table 16. Kaumalapau Tidal Data
Wave and storm data selected
Figure 45. Incident wave directions for physical model studies
Table 17. Combined Number of Occurrences for the Two WIS Stations
Table 18. Physical Model Wave Conditions Chosen
Table 19. Target Versus Measured Wave Heights for Waves from 251 deg
Figure 46. Plan view of breakwater crest and -9.1 m depth contour of existing, straight and dogleg breakwater
Physical Model Experiments and Results
Table 20. Results of Waves from 251 deg, Existing Breakwater
Table 21. Results of Waves from 251 deg, Straight Breakwater
Table 22. Results of Waves from 251 deg, Dogleg Breakwater
Figure 47. Comparison of existing conditions with the two alternative layout configurations - waves from 251 deg
Waves from 221 deg
Table 23. Results of Waves from 221 deg, Existing Breakwater
Table 24. Results of Waves from 221 deg, Straight Breakwater
Table 25. Results of Waves from 221 deg, Dogleg Breakwater
Figure 48. Comparison of existing conditions with the two alternative layout configurations for waves from 221 deg
Table 26. Results of Waves from 291 deg, Existing Breakwater
Table 27. Results of Waves from 291 deg, Dogleg Breakwater
Figure 49. Comparison of existing conditions with the two alternative layout configuartions for waves from 291 deg
Summary of Results from the Three Wave Directions
Figure 50. Period-averaged deepwater wave height transmission coefficient for waves from 251 deg with dogleg breakwater
Figure 52. Period-everaged deepwater wave height transmission coefficient for waves from 291 deg with dogleg breakwater
Table 28. Average Transmision Coefficient and maximum Deepwater Wave Height That Provide for a 1.5-m Average Wave Height Along the Pier
Figure 53. Importance of wave height on wave transmission coefficient for a single wave period and direction for Hmo wave heights of 2.5, 3.5, and 4.5 m
Figure 54. Normalize transmission coefficient for the dogleg breakwater
Table 30. Comparison Between the Straight and Dogleg Breakwater Configurations Using the Normalized Transmission Coefficients (Na)
Table 31. Frequency of Occurrence for Waves Used in Physical Model
Table 32. Number of Wave Occurrences from 20-year WIS Data Set as a Function of Wave Parameters and the Design Acceptance Criteria for Waves Along the Wharf
Table 32. Number of Wave Occurrences from 20-year WIS Data Set as a Function of Wave Parameters and the Design Acceptance Criteria for Waves Along the Wharf (cont.)
Three-Dimensional Stability Study
Figure 55. Cross section of Station 0+00
Model Construction - 2_trchl-98-110115
Figure 57. Placement of toe core-locs
Figure 59. Dimensions of rib cap
Study Facilities and Equipment
Table 33. Kaumalapau Stability Study Conditions
Plan 4, Plan 4A, Plan 4B, Plan 4C
Plan 4D, Plan 4E, Plan 4F
Figure 60. Plan 4G
Figure 61. Plan H
Summary - 2_trchl-98-110124
Conclusions and Recommendations - 2_trchl-98-110125
Conclusions - 2_trchl-98-110126
References - 2_trchl-98-110127
References (cont.) - 2_trchl-98-110128
References (cont.) - 2_trchl-98-110129
References (cont.) - 2_trchl-98-110130
References (cont.) - 2_trchl-98-110131
Appendix A. Monthly Summaries of Prototype Data
Figure A1. Prototype data summary for January, 1994, outside harbor
Figure A2. Prototype data summary for January, 1994, inside harbor
Figure A3. Prototype data summary for February, 1994, outside harbor
Figure A4. Prototype data summary for February, 1994, inside harbor
Figure A5. Prototype data summary for March, 1994, outside harbor
Figure A6. Prototype data summary for March, 1994, inside harbor
Figure A7. Prototype data summary for April, 1994, outside harbor
Figure A8. Prototype data summary for April, 1994, inside harbor
Figure A9. Prototype data summary for May, 1994, outside harbor
Figure A10. Prototype data summary for May, 1994, inside harbor
Figure A11. Prototype data summary for June, 1994, outside harbor
Figure A12. Prototype data summary for June, 1994, inside harbor
Figure A13. Prototype data summary for July, 1994, outside harbor
Figure A14. Prototype data summary for July, 1994, inside harbor
Figure A15. Prototype data summary for August, 1994, outside harbor
Figure A16. Prototype data summary for August, 1994, inside harbor
Figure A17. Prototype data summary for September, 1994, outside harbor
Figure A18. Prototype data summary for September, 1994, inside harbor
Appendix C. Notation
Appendix C. Notation (cont.)
Report Documentation Page - 2_trchl-98-110153
2_trchl-98-11
Wave Climate - 2_trchl-98-110010
Physical Model Studies
Physical Model Studies (cont.)
Introduction - 2_trchl-98-110013
Figure 1. Study location
Figure 2. Kaumalapau Harbor
Harbor Operational Considerations
Wave Climate - 2_trchl-98-110017
Figure 3. WIS Phase I grid for the North Pacific
Field Wave Measurements
System Design
Results - 2_trchl-98-110021
Figure 4. Location of prototype gauges
Table 1. Field Wave Gauge HI01 - Statistical Summary of Wave Parameters
Table 2. Percent Occurrence as a Function of Peak Wave Gauge HI01
Table 3. Field Wave gauge HI01 - Statistical Summary of Wave Parameters
Table 4. Percent Occurrence as a Function of Peak Period for Field Wave Gauge HI01
Numerical Model - 2_trchl-98-110027
Model Description - 2_trchl-98-110028
Model Formulation
Figure 5. Representation of HARBD domain
Model Formulation (cont.)
Table 5. Critical HARBD Input Parameters and Ranges of Typical Values
Spectral Adaptation
Spectral Adaptation (cont.)
Table 6. Guidance for Choosing Y
Finite element grids
Figure 6. Grid of existing harbor
Figure 7. Bathymetry
Figure 8. Wave reflection coefficient values, short waves
Table 9. Harbor Alternatives for Numerical Modeling
Figure 10. Grid with straight breakwater extension
Figure 12. Grid of WES-recommended plan
Figure 13. Wave reflection coefficient values for wave absorber simulations, short waves
Table 10. Summary of Field Cases for Model Validation
Figure 14. Model validation
Table 11. Summary of Incident Short Wave Conditions
Figure 15. Incident wave directions
table 13. Approximate Relationship Between Tp and Y
Figure 16. Output Basins
Harbor Response to Wind Waves and Swell - 2_trchl-98-110050
Figure 17. Amplification factor sensitivity to wave direction, Tp = 8 sec
Figure 19. Amplification factor sensitivity to wave direction, Tp = 16 sec
Comparison of Alternatives
Figure 21. Wave height relative to existing harbor, dogleg breakwater extension, Tp = 10 sec
Figure 22. Wave height relative to existing harbor, dogleg breakwater extension, Tp = 16 sec
Figure 23. Wave height relative to existing harbor, straight breakwater extension, Tp = 10 sec
Figure 25. Wave height relative to existing harbor, existing breakwater, Tp = 10 sec
Figure 26. Wave height relative to existing harbor, existing breakwater, Tp = 16 sec
Comparison of Alternatives (cont.)
Figure 27. Amplification factors contours, 251-deg incident direction, Tp = 10 sec
Figure 28. Amplification factors contours, 251-deg incident direction, Tp = 16 sec
Harbor Oscillators
Figure 29. Long wave response, existing harbor
Figure 31. Resonant long wave amplification factor contours, existing harbor
Figure 32. Resonant long wave contours, existing harbor
Harbor Oscillators (cont.)
Figure 33. Resonant long-wave amplification factor contours, WES-recommended plan
Figure 34. Resonant long-wave phase contours, WES-recommended plan
Table 14. Comparison of Long Wave Response in Existing and WES-Recommended harbor Plans
Physical Model Design
table 15. Model-Prototype Scale Relations (1:49 scale)
Figure 35. Physical model layout
Figure 36. Photograph of physical model
Figure 37. Cross section of propsed structure at existing structure center line, Station 0+00
Figure 38. Cross section of proposed structure at existing breakwater center line, Station 2+00
Figure 40. Cross section of proposed breakwater at revised center line, Station 2+00
Figure 42. Sketch of dogleg breakwater configuration (Plan 4)
Wave gauges - 2_trchl-98-110078
Figure 43. Wave gauges configuration 1 for studies of pre-breakwater conditions
Figure 44. Wave gauges configuration 2 for studies of existing and alternative harbor plans
Guide vanes
Physical Model Experiment Conditions
Table 16. Kaumalapau Tidal Data
Wave and storm data selected
Figure 45. Incident wave directions for physical model studies
Table 17. Combined Number of Occurrences for the Two WIS Stations
Table 18. Physical Model Wave Conditions Chosen
Table 19. Target Versus Measured Wave Heights for Waves from 251 deg
Figure 46. Plan view of breakwater crest and -9.1 m depth contour of existing, straight and dogleg breakwater
Physical Model Experiments and Results
Table 20. Results of Waves from 251 deg, Existing Breakwater
Table 21. Results of Waves from 251 deg, Straight Breakwater
Table 22. Results of Waves from 251 deg, Dogleg Breakwater
Figure 47. Comparison of existing conditions with the two alternative layout configurations - waves from 251 deg
Waves from 221 deg
Table 23. Results of Waves from 221 deg, Existing Breakwater
Table 24. Results of Waves from 221 deg, Straight Breakwater
Table 25. Results of Waves from 221 deg, Dogleg Breakwater
Figure 48. Comparison of existing conditions with the two alternative layout configurations for waves from 221 deg
Table 26. Results of Waves from 291 deg, Existing Breakwater
Table 27. Results of Waves from 291 deg, Dogleg Breakwater
Figure 49. Comparison of existing conditions with the two alternative layout configuartions for waves from 291 deg
Summary of Results from the Three Wave Directions
Figure 50. Period-averaged deepwater wave height transmission coefficient for waves from 251 deg with dogleg breakwater
Figure 52. Period-everaged deepwater wave height transmission coefficient for waves from 291 deg with dogleg breakwater
Table 28. Average Transmision Coefficient and maximum Deepwater Wave Height That Provide for a 1.5-m Average Wave Height Along the Pier
Figure 53. Importance of wave height on wave transmission coefficient for a single wave period and direction for Hmo wave heights of 2.5, 3.5, and 4.5 m
Figure 54. Normalize transmission coefficient for the dogleg breakwater
Table 30. Comparison Between the Straight and Dogleg Breakwater Configurations Using the Normalized Transmission Coefficients (Na)
Table 31. Frequency of Occurrence for Waves Used in Physical Model
Table 32. Number of Wave Occurrences from 20-year WIS Data Set as a Function of Wave Parameters and the Design Acceptance Criteria for Waves Along the Wharf
Table 32. Number of Wave Occurrences from 20-year WIS Data Set as a Function of Wave Parameters and the Design Acceptance Criteria for Waves Along the Wharf (cont.)
Three-Dimensional Stability Study
Figure 55. Cross section of Station 0+00
Model Construction - 2_trchl-98-110115
Figure 57. Placement of toe core-locs
Figure 59. Dimensions of rib cap
Study Facilities and Equipment
Table 33. Kaumalapau Stability Study Conditions
Plan 4, Plan 4A, Plan 4B, Plan 4C
Plan 4D, Plan 4E, Plan 4F
Figure 60. Plan 4G
Figure 61. Plan H
Summary - 2_trchl-98-110124
Conclusions and Recommendations - 2_trchl-98-110125
Conclusions - 2_trchl-98-110126
References - 2_trchl-98-110127
References (cont.) - 2_trchl-98-110128
References (cont.) - 2_trchl-98-110129
References (cont.) - 2_trchl-98-110130
References (cont.) - 2_trchl-98-110131
Appendix A. Monthly Summaries of Prototype Data
Figure A1. Prototype data summary for January, 1994, outside harbor
Figure A2. Prototype data summary for January, 1994, inside harbor
Figure A3. Prototype data summary for February, 1994, outside harbor
Figure A4. Prototype data summary for February, 1994, inside harbor
Figure A5. Prototype data summary for March, 1994, outside harbor
Figure A6. Prototype data summary for March, 1994, inside harbor
Figure A7. Prototype data summary for April, 1994, outside harbor
Figure A8. Prototype data summary for April, 1994, inside harbor
Figure A9. Prototype data summary for May, 1994, outside harbor
Figure A10. Prototype data summary for May, 1994, inside harbor
Figure A11. Prototype data summary for June, 1994, outside harbor
Figure A12. Prototype data summary for June, 1994, inside harbor
Figure A13. Prototype data summary for July, 1994, outside harbor
Figure A14. Prototype data summary for July, 1994, inside harbor
Figure A15. Prototype data summary for August, 1994, outside harbor
Figure A16. Prototype data summary for August, 1994, inside harbor
Figure A17. Prototype data summary for September, 1994, outside harbor
Figure A18. Prototype data summary for September, 1994, inside harbor
Appendix C. Notation
Appendix C. Notation (cont.)
Report Documentation Page - 2_trchl-98-110153
2_trchl-98-11
