6 



































LS W D Q LS, 



LEGEND 





5 

 E 











CB: Central Beach 

 CP: Castlewood Park 

 LS: Lakeshore Park 

 LV: Lakeview Park 

 RS: Redington Shores 





l 4 



- 













"O 















C 



I 



I 3 



- 







PERFECT -~ 

 AGREEMENT \. _^ 



^^^ aLv 1A3 





-" 















E 2 



_ 







^^ DRS 





















"5 



I 















1 

 



CP 3 D 

 I 



^"^ CB 3i4 

 I 



DCB 2 

 I 



DCB, 



1 1 1 



I I I 

















0.4 



0.8 



1.2 



1.6 2.0 2.4 



2.8 3.2 3.6 











Depth at Structure, m 





Figure 27. 



Evaluation of Hallermeier's (1983) relationship for structure design depth (from 

 Rosati (1990)) 



U.S. projects. First, 60 percent of the projects designed using the JMC 

 method result in tombolos (Rosati 1990), generally undesirable for projects, 

 except for headland or pocket beach design. Secondly, the JMC method does 

 not account for beach fill in the design, nor does it allow the designer to vary 

 structural transmissibility. 



A comparison of the JMC method and the design from the Lakeview Park 

 project was conducted by Rosati and Truitt (1990). For the four example 

 problems and site parameters evaluated, use of the JMC design tended to 

 result in more numerous, shorter length segments with a decreased gap width. 

 Additionally, the JMC structures are designed to be placed closer to shore 

 than the distance observed in U.S. projects. 



Evaluation of methods using Lakeview Park. The Lakeview Park 

 project was used to intercompare relationships and further assess their validity 

 (Rosati 1990). The Diffraction Energy Method (Walker, Clark, and Pope 

 1980) was used to design this project, which has been successful in terms of 

 shoreline protection. A comparison of as-constructed project parameters to 



Chapter 2 Functional Design Guidance 



45 



