Technical Report CERC-96-11 December 1996 US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station D/2 ao Se). oe Ele. - 7/ Wave Response of Kahului Harbor, Maui, Hawaii by Edward F. Thompson, Lori L. Hadley, Willie Ann Brandon, David D. McGehee, Jon M. Hubertz Approved For Public Release; Distribution Is Unlimited Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer Division, Pacific Ocean The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products. EB) rans ON RECYCLED PAPER Technical Report CERC-96-11 December 1996 Wave Response of Kahului Harbor, Maui, Hawaii by Edward F. Thompson, Lori L. Hadley, Willie Ann Brandon, David D. McGehee, Jon M. Hubertz U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station 3909 Halls Ferry Road Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 Wit [__iaa) — r = oO —r ——=— 4 — - — C) — oD —_— ee —aA — CO) =m === OD —— Final report Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer Division, Pacific Ocean Ft. Shafter, Hl 96858-5440 US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE U.S. ARMY ENGINEER WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION 3909 HALLS FERRY ROAD VICKSBURG, MISSISSIPPi 39180-6199 PHONE: (601) 634-2502 AREA OF RESERVATION « 2.7 sqion Waterways Experiment Station Cataloging-in-Publication Data Wave response of Kahului Harbor, Maui, Hawaii / by Edward F. Thompson ... [et al.] ; prepared for U.S. Army Engineer Division, Pacific Ocean. 224 p. : ill. ; 28 cm. — (Technical report ; CERC-96-11) Includes bibliographic references. 1. Ocean waves — Hawaii — Kahului. 2. Wind waves — Hawaii — Maui. 3. Harbors —Hydrodynamics — Mathematical models. 4. Harbors — Hawaii — Maui. |. Thompson, Edward F. Il. United States. Army. Corps of Engineers. Pacific Ocean Division. Ill. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. IV. Coastal Engineering Research Center (U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station) V. Series: Technical report (U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station) ; CERC-96-11. TA7 W34 no.CERC-96-11 Contents PEL ACE isa crenc ees faite saves fax haere elven eV Gece ee tetas StH Pee etna rotons date 1x Conversion Factors, Non-SI to SI Units of Measurement ................... x1 RSI THAT ITF 1 (lle ro ERO EC nt, ae Cos Ces can ee Cam gees el oid Cee xu 1=— Introduction) 75h Se AE 3 cis loc ated te bine nos oto are enue amuse oce a oct 1 Backpround ee :sscysio1c8 sheave) pope thane serra eaeese, See cos cuenneetieusieie 1 Study Approach) 95.340. cy. iohieyiry teats beet W eee: aoe erst 3 2—hield WayveiMeasurements!.7--e cae eee ieee eee ee ee eee 9 Plannin Sas ysl eya ia eee ss cette ove Mi he ae Mays Meron acm ee etences 9 instrumentehype;and! Site|Sclechlonse eee eee ee Reece 9 Datav Acquisitions tarerscisen erasure eee ee ae eis ca oid eosin a Weta 10 Analysisi)Methods rst erates orsiney sid Ss eee es eee OS toe ao Se ences 15 INES! Gogcouddsucdd sfopalol siauu teen su seev-sver/bualaay sites leis caval ay ataue nae Sree “19 3——WindiWaverand'Swelll@limate sa45- nce eee ee eee eee 34 SOULCES IR cays Si -bast Se serct anemia a) x tt eI Meet eattelats oie cos shelters ie 34 Deepwater, Wave) Climate fis. Site. c to s.cos se eision cate ee ac 34 Wave Climaterat/KahuluiHarborrena eee eee eee eee 37 4——NumericaliModel wiz, y 5 iv 9 Se ese rere eet ohs) Siateie myerstesaes Suess sersieaele es < 41 ObjectivesandvApproachy pease ere Ae ee brass See LS csp oo. 41 Model: Description e.:444 2) p.cas svete, Neate Ree een ee Aes RE 42 Test Procedures and Calculations ..................-02-ee eee eee eee 61 5—Harbor Response to Wind Waves and Swell ...............-..-.----- 69 ATaplificationy RactOrs | iss )o ses ity ceed PRN IANS bea es) e222. Sate ayes ay apereceienes 69 Evaluation Against Operational Criteria for Wind Waves and Swell ...... 71 6—Harbor' Oscillations: 342.c.ccsenc.cisoe ee Gee eee Amplification: Factors! 20): sce siamese Wenaeeee nee Oe eiee Evaluation Against Operational Criteria for Long Waves .............. 7—Conclusions and Recommendations ..................-----e-+eeee- RELETENCES ii 3 ecc SCE Gra ee Appendix;As. Field Data Sunmatye ce ener eee eee eEeereroe Appendix B: Means and Standard Deviations of A,,,, , from Field Wave Gages: «osteo: o steeiaceit siers cite eae ans a Pa es eae Appendix C: Summary Tables of Extreme Events of H,and H,,,,. -------- Appendix D:s WaveiClimate: Summary eee eee eee eee eee eee Appendix E: Basin Locations for Alternative Plans .................... Appendix F: Wind Wave and Swell Summaries from Numerical Model ... . Appendix G: Harbor Oscillation Summaries from Numerical Model ...... Appendix H: Resonant Amplification Factor and Phase Contour Plots, AIBN ans ey 9. SR scr three cere ee sl wcrc aa ect ca date IEE reron gee Appendix'l:; Notation ase: 5 15,2 22 5 cece 7 Sa a Ne ney Ce SF 298 List of Figures Figure: 1../Study, location\s:5.10 cm at piers, T=100-400 sec ...... 86 Figure 58. Percent occurrence of H,,,,.> 10 cm at piers, T=30-100 sec ....... 87 List of Tables ables Field*Wave' Gages. acy. cere hots ne oe leo eo aeas 11 Table 2. Summary Statistics, NDBC Buoy 51026, N. Molokai ............. 13 ables rieldiwiavelParametersimnee eee eee eerie een eee 16 Table 4. Effect of Overlapping Bands on 7, Estimates, Array .............. 19 Table 5. Field Wave Gage Parameter Correlation Coefficients, Pier 2, SF a a ee te erste eect cane ee Se reer deer ads ome ea aoc toan Re Me UN 20 Table 6. Sources of Wave Climate Information ......................... 35) Table 7. Empirical Relationships Between Deepwater and KahuluitiarbowEntrances none eee ee cone orn aoe 38 Table 8. Critical HARBD Input Parameters and Ranges of Typical Values ... 47 Table 9. Guidance for Choosing y .............-..-2. cece e cece eee ee 49 Table 10. Guidance for Choosing s ............-..02. 002 cece eee tees 50 sRable Mle sGrid: Sizes: are eee tac worst a oak seta © ese aoa ieoy erat een iene 54 Table 12. Parameter Values Used in HARBD ......................-.-- 56 Table 13. Harbor Alternatives for Numerical Modeling .................. 56 Vii Vili Table 14. Table 15. Table 16. Table 17. Table 18. Table 19. Table 20. Table 21. Table 22. Table 23. Field Cases for Short Wave Model Calibration, Array ........... Summary of Incident Short Wave Conditions .................. Summary of Incident Long Wave Conditions .................. Approximate Relationships Among T,, y, ands ...............-. Slope Values Defined by Seabergh and Thomas’ (1995) Longs Wave'Criterial tess5 see Paes. ye ee Se Significant Wave Heights Exceeded 10 Percent and 1 Percent ofthe Tume iat Field'Gages .5 .<.2..2 acces te ee eine ae ioe Percent Occurrence of H,;,,,210 cm at Field Gages ............. Plans with H>1 ft Less Than 1 Percent of the Time ............. Plans with H.,,,,2 10cm Less Than 16 Percent of the Time, slong 100=to’400-sec'Periods’ 't 7 WAGON MALIOORR, ooh ae , wt bP te Wis Moldy @ | ey a fe Ri € Murs he oe, ja paeen PRs tre Pik. ane mites’ a i, an : ii ae Rh ee ee 7 o bi | ya 7 ere ee re ey See Gey hail ee — 7 ee ek hel i i. Tithe make: aan v4 up i Avge ve tipetiaal wal ap wi ee oe hol i alt voatrry hy Oe | fh § ir) fi “a f(y rr i nd ~sttim’ wer aan ; - we ; , ot “guava ann politi it vi boas Ny ’ 1 Introduction Background Kahului Harbor is the only deep-draft harbor on the Island of Maui and the busiest port in Hawaii outside of the Island of Oahu. The harbor is approxi- mately 94 miles' southeast of Honolulu and is conveniently located on Maui’s north shore (Figure 1). The harbor is exposed to wind and waves from the north and northeast. The northwest end of Maui shelters the harbor from waves arriving from the northwest. The harbor is protected by two large breakwaters. High energy waves generated by intense winter storms in the north Pacific Ocean routinely attack the breakwaters. Hurricanes can also create large waves incident to the harbor. The breakwaters have a long history of construction and repair (Markle and Boc 1994; Sargent, Markle, and Grace 1988). Breakwaters are armored with molded concrete units of up to 35 tons on the trunk and 50 tons on the head. The harbor entrance is a 660-ft opening between the breakwaters. Commercial piers are located in the southeast part of the harbor. Piers are used by a variety of vessels including barges, container ships, passenger cruise ships, and fishing vessels. Pier 1 accommodates the larger overseas vessels and barges. Water depth in the Federal entrance channel, harbor basin, and commer- cial pier areas is 35 ft. Two canoe clubs are located along the shore immediately southwest of Pier 2. A large coral stockpile has been placed inside the harbor, adjacent to the west breakwater. This area, under the jurisdiction of the County of Maui, is being considered for park development. A public boat ramp is located near the land- ward end of the stockpile (Figure 2). The southern shore of the harbor, between the boat ramp and canoe clubs, includes a revetment along Kahului Beach Road and several rock groins further east. Because of Kahului Harbor’s size and importance (both recreational and commercial), the Harbors Division, Department of Transportation, State of " A table of factors for converting non-SI units of measurement to SI units is presented on page xi. Chapter 1 Introduction KAUAI KAHULUI NBR NUHAU OAHU oS maul LANAI e KAHOOLAWE me Figure 1. Study location Figure 2. Kahului Harbor, existing plan Chapter 1 Introduction Hawaii (HDOT), has devoted special care to long-range planning. Plans and concerns are described in the 2010 Master Plan for Kahului Harbor produced by the State of Hawaii in 1994. A key concern is the possibility for expansion of the harbor in concert with projected increases in population and economic activ- ity. Wave activity at the existing piers during heavy northerly swells is also a concern. Study Approach The study described in this report was performed by the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES), Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC), in support of the 2010 Master Plan for Kahului Harbor. The approach consisted of the following components: a. Collect and analyze field wave data. b. Relate field data to long-term wave climate. c. Use field data to calibrate and validate a numerical wave model. d. Use the numerical model to investigate alternative harbor modification plans. Field wave gages were installed outside the harbor and at four locations inside the harbor. Locations for the harbor gages were selected with the aid of a pre- liminary numerical model study of harbor oscillations (Okihiro et al. 1994). Two events of special interest occurred during the measurement program. Intense wave activity causing closure of the harbor occurred on 14-15 March 1994. A sizeable (but not damaging) tsunami event due to an earthquake off the coast of Japan occurred on 4 October 1994. The field wave measurement portion of the study is described in Chapter 2. Long-term wind wave and swell climate was investigated primarily with numerical hindcast information covering a period of 20 years. Statistics from the gage outside the harbor were evaluated relative to the long-term climate. The wave climate study is presented in Chapter 3. A numerical wave model was set up to cover the entire harbor and the area outside the harbor extending to the wave gage. The model was tested, calibrated, and validated, mainly using the field data. Nine alternative harbor plans were defined as part of the mid-study model review conference, with provisions for two additional plans to be specified after evaluating the initial plans. Thus the study included a total of eleven plans and the existing harbor. All plans included the following features: a. A 200-ft extension of Pier 1 toward the harbor entrance. b. A dredged area between Piers | and 3 to 35-ft depth to accommodate fuel barges. Chapter 1 Introduction Each plan includes provisions for a new passenger vessel area on the west side of the harbor and a new barge facility on the south side of Pier 2. Appropriate dredging is incorporated into the plans to provide 35-ft depth for passenger ves- sels and 25-ft depth for barges. Special features of each plan are: a. Plan I (Figure 3). Slip cut into coral stockpile to accommodate passenger ships; fill south of Pier 2 to provide barge pier oriented nearly north/south (referred to as Concept C in HDOT planning documents). b. Plan 2 (Figure 4). Slip cut into coral stockpile to accommodate passenger ships; fill south of Pier 2 to provide barge pier parallel to Pier 2 (referred to as Concept 12 in HDOT planning documents). c. Plans 3a, 3b, and 3c (Figure 5). Notch cut into coral stockpile to accom- modate passenger ships; protective stub aligned with entrance channel added to end of west breakwater in Plans 3b and 3c with length of 600 ft (Plan 3b), and 1,000 ft (Plan 3c); fill south of Pier 2 to provide barge pier parallel to Pier 2. d. Plans 4a, 4b, and 4c (Figure 6). Passenger ship pier located adjacent to existing coral stockpile; protective stub added to end of west breakwater in Plans 4b and 4c with length of 600 ft (Plan 4b), and 1,000 ft (Plan 4c); fill south of Pier 2 to provide barge pier parallel to Pier 2. e. Plan 5 (Figure 7). 800-ft by 800-ft fill area added in southwest area of harbor to accommodate passenger ships; fill south of Pier 2 to provide barge pier parallel to Pier 2. f. Plan 6 (Figure 8). Identical to Plan 4b except 35-ft project depths dredged to 38 ft. g. Plan 7 (Figure 9). Combination of Plans 4b and 5 with 35-ft project depth areas dredged to 38 ft and realignment of passenger ship pier along south- east side of fill area. This plan represents a fully utilized harbor. Development of the numerical model and test procedures is described in Chapter 4. Response of the existing harbor to waves was studied using field data and numerical model results. Response of the alternative harbor plans was investigated with only numerical model results. Harbor response to wind waves and swell (short waves) is presented in Chapter 5. Harbor oscillation characteristics (response to long waves) are presented in Chapter 6. For both short and long waves, the harbor response is related to wave climate and to relevant operational criteria at commercial piers. Conclusions and recommendations are given in Chapter 7. This chapter is followed by references and appendices with detailed information supporting the main report and notation definitions. Chapter 1 Introduction Figure 3. Plan 1 Figure 4. Plan 2 Chapter 1 Introduction Figure 5. Plan 3 PASSENGER SHIP TERWINAL PIER 2 EXTENSION \. (OFFSHORE LANOFIL) \ Figure 6. Plan 4 Chapter 1 Introduction Figure 7. Plan5 PIER 2 EXTENSION \. (OFF—SHORE LANDFILL) \. Figure 8. Plan 6 Chapter 1 Introduction PASSENGER SHIP TERMINAL (OFF=SHORE LANDFILL) Figure 9. Plan 7 Chapter 1 Introduction 2 Field Wave Measurements Planning Wave data were required at Kahului Harbor to document present conditions and provide data to validate numerical and physical models of harbor response to incident wind waves and long waves, also called seiche, or infragravity waves (typically, waves with frequencies lower than 0.03 Hz or wave periods longer than 33 sec). Tidal response was not included. The numerical model calculates the amplitude of the response at each grid point to an incident wave of a particular height, frequency, and approach angle. For each frequency and direction, validation involves driving the model with measured data of known energy and comparing the model's output to the measured energy at one or more sites within the harbor. Planning the measurement program requires specifying the location, duration, and type of data collected. Ideally, incident measurements coincide with the outer boundary of the model, and there are sufficient interior measurements to define spatial variability within the harbor. Finally, the types of data (wave energy, wave direction, currents, etc.) and the range of frequencies measured should equal or exceed the requirements of the model. Fiscal, logistic, and schedule limits always constrain the ideal measurement plan. Due to the random nature of waves, it is always difficult to schedule the duration of a wave study in advance based solely on engineering considerations. It is desirable to continue measurements long enough to obtain a broad range of incident conditions - up to or exceeding design conditions - but study schedules and budgets usually override this issue. The plan for Kahului was an initial deployment of one year. A decision to continue measurements would be based on the amount and type of measurements obtained by the end of that year. Instrument Type and Site Selection Incident waves in deep water are used to define the wave field before it is affected by local shallow water. For ocean swell with a period of 25 sec, deep water is considered greater than about 500 m. Surface-following buoys are typically used to measure waves in deep water, but the accelerometer-based Chapter 2 Field Wave Measurements 10 sensors have a low frequency cutoff near 0.05 Hz (20 sec), or about at the infragravity band, so only wind waves are measured. In January 1993, a 3-m discus buoy, station number 51026, was installed at latitude 21.37° N, longitude 156.96° W - about 20 n. m. north of Molokai in 7,618 ft (2,322 m) of water. While not directly offshore of the study site, the difference in the deep-ocean conditions over distances less than 100 n. m. was considered small. The wave climate portion of this study (Chapter 3) helped confirm this judgement. The buoy, which measures directional wave energy and meteorological data, is operated by the National Weather Service (NWS) National Data Buoy Center (NDBC). The station was installed prior to, and maintained after, the Kahului Harbor study by the Corps of Engineers’ Field Wave Gaging Program. During the scheduled Kahului field data collection period, the station was funded by HDOT. The range of frequencies of interest for wave energy inside the harbor extends from approximately 0.001 Hz to 0.2 Hz. Experience has shown bottom-mounted pressure sensors provide the desired frequency response, flexibility of placement, reliability, and survivability in the coastal environment. Due to the attenuation of wave-induced pressure fluctuations with depth, measurement of the higher frequency wind waves limits the allowable water depth of the bottom-mounted sensors to around 10 m. (This constraint indirectly affected the offshore extent of the numerical model grid boundary.) Directional information was needed for incident energy at the model boundary. Three or more pressure sensors in an array provide a two-dimensional (energy and direction) spectrum. Only non- directional wave energy, provided by a single pressure sensor at each site, is required inside the model domain. Design, installation, and operation of the shallow water gaging system was provided by the Coastal Data Information Program (CDIP), a joint effort of the Corps and the California Department of Boating and Waterways. The CDIP is a network of wave gages operated by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO). Gages in the network are linked by radio and/or telephone to a central computing facility in La Jolla, CA, where data are collected, analyzed, qualified, and stored. Given the size and complexity of the harbor, a minimum of three interior sites, in addition to the incident, or boundary site, were planned. Usually, these sites are selected based on engineering judgement and logistics (Basco and McGehee 1990). For this study, the numerical model itself was used to optimize the measurement sites (Okihiro et al. 1994). Four interior sites were used in this study. Gage locations are summarized in Figure 10 and Table 1. Data Acquisition The NDBC buoy measures directional energy with a pitch-roll-heave sensor and magnetometer. The superstructure supports dual anemometers and baro- meters for wind velocity and atmospheric pressure. Thermistors measure near- surface sea and air temperature. Signals from the sensors are time averaged or spectrally analyzed with on-board computers. Reduced parameters are Chapter 2 Field Wave Measurements Table 1 Field Wave Gages Coordinates Sampling Freq. (Hz) N. Molokai 51026 NDBC buoy 21°22.2’ | 156°57.6' | 7,618 uae RE Array 77 CDIP array 20°54.2' | 156°28.2' raranre: mPa 8,192 Pier 2 79-1 CDIP single pt. | 20°53.7° | 156°28.0' ee 8,192 Back Basin 79-3 CDIP single pt. | 20rsa. | | 1s6°28.9' | ferme [er [Ts 8,192 Entranc: Record Length (sec) Figure 10. Field gage locations and bathymetry, in feet transmitted hourly to the NWS gateway via Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) for additional analysis, qualification, and distribution. Edited data are provided monthly to CERC. Details of the measurement, transmission, and analysis process can be found in Steele and Mettlach (1993). Chapter 2 Field Wave Measurements 1 The CDIP system was operated as a “hardwired” system. Signals from the pressure sensors are sampled at 1-2 Hz (Table 1) via submarine cables from an onshore field data logging station. The field station was designed to operate independently, under locally resident program control, as a software-driven, autonomous, data acquisition system. Its primary function is to locally acquire, log, and, in response to a call from a host computer, upload the stored data. The data are received through a phase lock loop, electronically conditioned and optimally compacted, according to the header block instructions, and stored locally in 16 K-bytes of RAM. Storage is based on the “first in, first out” principle, with the oldest word overwritten by the latest word as the storage buffer is filled. Two-way communication between the field station and the central station in La Jolla is accomplished via modem connections, through normal phone service. In response to a phone query from the central station, typically every 3 hr, the field station uploads the latest data buffer. Since each record is over 2 hr long, this allows for nearly continuous sampling (gaps of several minutes occur during downloading). The central station data collection computer, a Sun workstation, superficially examines the incoming data for obvious defects, such as incomplete transmissions and failed phone connections. A detected fault will trigger a retry call to the field station. After additional quality control, final data are transferred monthly to CERC via Internet. Additional details of the CDIP operation are given by Seymour et al. (1993). Data collection commenced for the NDBC buoy in January 1993, was interrupted briefly in May 1993, and continued through May 1994. Repairs were effected in September 1994, and the buoy continued operation through 1995. Table 2 provides summary statistics for the deployment with 20-year hindcast statistics for comparison (Corson et al. 1986).' Figure 11 is a rose plot of the mean significant wave height and occurrence by direction (convention is direction waves are coming from, with respect to true north). The CDIP system was installed in October 1994 and operated without interruption through the duration of the study. As planned, the adequacy of the measurements was assessed after the first year of operation (McGehee 1995). The principal issues were the range of different types of incident conditions measured by the buoy, and the /evel of infragravity energy measured by the harbor gages. While a reasonable variety of incident wave directions and frequencies was captured, it was not a particularly energetic year. One event sufficient to affect harbor operations occurred, on 14-15 March 1994, reportedly due to wind wave conditions in the entrance. Figure 12 expresses the total measured infragravity energy for each record (high-energy cases only) at each site as an equivalent wave height during the first 8 months of record. Infragravity wave heights experienced in mid-March were exceeded in other months without reported problems. It is not clear whether the lack of reported impacts on operations in " For convenience, mathematical symbols used in Table 2 and throughout this report are listed in the notation (Appendix I). 12 Chapter 2 Field Wave Measurements Table 2 Summary Statistics, NDBC Buoy 51026, N. Molokai feet ea Cee ae ee aise Oe Ora re ee aoe Se ee 9 16.7 gta sak 8.5 2.6 10.7 2.9 Maximum H, (ft) 23. Associated T, (sec) 6. Associated direction (deg coming from) 344 Percent occurrence, period>18.2 sec 2 Uc Percent occurrence, period>15.4 sec ' Data from Jan 93 through Feb 96 MEAN WAVE HEIGHT PERCENTAGE OF SAMPLES 0-02% CJ 2-10% 224 10-15% >15% Figure 11. Wave rose, NDBC buoy 51026, N. Molokai the harbor at those other times results from lack of problems, or failure of problems to be observed/documented. Thus, a simple, quantifiable threshold for allowable infragravity energy was not determined. Additional measurements Chapter 2 Field Wave Measurements 13 were recommended to attempt the capture of a high infragravity event concurrently with noticeable impacts on harbor operations. Feb Mar Apr BEES O* are & ba Ag Bo Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Canoe Club Basin ‘Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Cat = O aS as ve Ae O ae ~ = o 3) = = J? Y “™ N ag + 2 [e) | a ie) (@) 2 (e) 4 SS 5= > o VS D o = = aS Entrance Dec Jan ‘Feb Mar Apr May Jun 1993 1994 Figure 12. Overview of extreme infragravity wave events; only events with H,jong2 15 cm are shown (from McGehee (1995)) The memorandum (McGehee 1995) also supported a statistical correlation study to test the ability to predict the amplitude of observed infragravity energy in shallow water with the characteristic wind wave parameters measured offshore. Preliminary analysis showed weak correlation. A longer data set was recommended for statistical reliability of the correlation study. The recommen- Chapter 2 Field Wave Measurements dation was followed, and the gages were funded for an additional winter season, through March 1995. Analysis Methods The CDIP nearshore wave gage data were processed to give two types of output for each record: spectra and parameters. These outputs, which were customized to meet needs of the Kahului Harbor study, are briefly described here. NDBC buoy data were analyzed with standard NDBC procedures. SIO provided customized spectra and parameters covering the time period Nov 93 - Sep 94. Subsequent wave climate studies indicated that this data set gives a reasonable representation of the wind wave and swell climate. Wind wave and swell data from the winter of 1994-5 are comparable to the winter of 1993-4. Fewer extreme infragravity (long) wave events occurred in the winter of 1994-5 than in the winter of 1993-4. There were eight events with significant wave heights for long (infragravity) waves H,,,,>>15 cm in 1993-4 and only three such events in 1994-5 (Merrifield and Okihiro 1996). Also there were no reported operational problems in the harbor during the winter of 1994-5. Because of these considerations, harbor data from Nov 93 - Sep 94 were considered sufficiently representative of the full measurement period for validation of the numerical model and for relating numerical model results to operational concerns. Spectra Time series from the CDIP gages were subjected to SIO’s standard spectral analysis for long records. The 8,192-sec records gave a spectral resolution of 0.000122 Hz. Spectral output files were created with energy values for the first 286 spectral frequencies, or spectral lines (up to a frequency of 0.0349 Hz, corresponding to a wave period of 28.6 sec), followed by energy values for higher frequencies (shorter wave periods) grouped into bands of width 0.01 Hz. A total of 32 frequency bands were included, with central frequencies ranging from 0.04 Hz (25 sec) to 0.35 Hz (2.9 sec). Thus the analysis system produced a high-resolution spectrum for infragravity waves and a conventional resolution spectrum for wind waves and swell. The wind wave and swell spectrum is estimated with an unusually high level of confidence (high number of degrees of freedom) because of the exceptionally long records. Parameters Spectral results were also condensed into a small number of parameters for output (Table 3). Significant wave height and peak spectral period for long waves were computed from the infragravity portion of the spectrum using the same procedures traditionally used for wind waves and swell (short waves). The Back Basin gage, used for water depth measurement, had a higher quality pressure transducer than the other gages, and was more stable over long time periods. Chapter 2 Field Wave Measurements 15 16 The last three parameters in the table were added at CERC to the basic parameter files provided by SIO. The number of major peaks in the short wave spectrum was computed by a procedure similar to that of Thompson (1980). Peaks were considered major if their energy density differed from that of the intervening low point by at least 3 percent of the total energy. Amplification factors for long and short waves were defined as A = ( A, tong Viarbor gage . ah ( H, arbor gage amp. 2 amps.) Gye ] ( loli es, ( H, Vartay ( ) Table 3 Field Wave Parameters a ane a inaisen e aaney ee T rn can a Se Estimation of Un The traditional procedure for estimating T,, for wind waves and swell was modified in this study to obtain better resolution in the swell periods. Peak period is normally calculated as the reciprocal of the frequency at the midpoint of the highest energy spectral band. This is a standard, widely accepted procedure. The resolution with standard 0.01-Hz spectral bands is sufficient to give a good estimate of peak period over most of the possible frequency range, but it is rather coarse for the longer swell periods. The standard procedure imposes some limitations on the Kahului Harbor study for the following two reasons: a. Much of the wave energy at Kahului Harbor, including cases of greatest interest, is long period, low frequency swell. Chapter 2 Field Wave Measurements b. The range of possible wave period variation within a single low- frequency band translates into significantly different harbor responses in the numerical model and, presumably, the field. The most straightforward change is to use a finer spectral bandwidth, though finer bands have the undesirable consequence of lower confidence levels. SIO provided CERC with one month (January 1994) of detailed line spectral coeffi- cients to explore alternatives (Thompson 1995). The effect of bandwidth on the T, estimate is illustrated in Figure 13 using data from the array (line spectra from all four sensors averaged together). This record was selected because there was an exceptional level of long wave energy in the harbor. Bandwidth is expressed in the figure in terms of the number of spectral lines. The standard SIO proce- dure for the Kahului Harbor gages gives 82 lines per band. Peak period esti- mates are quite variable. For this particular case, T, estimated by the standard procedure is 14.29 sec while the “true” peak period (middle of the scatter) appears to be around 15 sec. The sawtooth shape of the plotted data arises because the main energy concentration slowly marches toward shorter period as bandwidth increases. Eventually, the band preceding the main energy extends far enough to encompass that energy, and peak period abruptly shifts to the center of that band. The artificial variability induced by bandwidth can be reduced by using overlapping bands to identify a T,, The approach is to select a bandwidth and identify T,. Then the bands (keeping the same bandwidth) are shifted a fixed number of lines toward higher frequency (shorter period) and T, is again estimated. The bands are shifted repeatedly and the final estimate of T,,is based on whichever band gives the very highest energy. The whole process can be repeated with different choices of bandwidth to examine this effect as well. Results with a two-line shift show a significantly reduced scatter relative to the nonoverlapping approach (Figure 14). Thus the overlapping bands allow a more refined estimate of T,. Two other cases in January 1994 corresponding to high levels of long wave energy in the harbor were examined using the same overlapping band approach. Peak period for 20 Jan 94 (1314) appears to be well-estimated by both the over- lapping approach and the standard approach (Table 4). However, this case has a relatively short 7, and broad energy spectrum. The T, for 31 Jan 94 (0719) is around 18 sec by the overlapping approach and 20 sec by the standard approach. The standard analysis is not sufficiently discriminating for this case. Chapter 2 Field Wave Measurements 17 18 30 40 50 60 70 Bandwidth (No. of Lines) Figure 13. Influence of spectral bandwidth on T,, non-overlapping bands; array, 3 Jan 94 (1311) 40 50 60 70 80 90 Bandwidth (No. of Lines) Figure 14. Influence of spectral bandwidth on T,, overlapping bands (two-line offset); array, 3 Jan 94 (1311) Chapter 2 Field Wave Measurements Table 4 Effect of Overlapping Bands on T, Estimates, Array Standard Standart Anais Overlapping Bands, Two-Line t 1311 03 Jan 94 1314 20 Jan 94 0719 31 Jan 94 Because of these considerations, the SIO procedure for estimating T, values for wind waves and swell in this study was modified to an overlapping approach with a one-line overlap. Thus the reported T, corresponds to the midpoint of the 82 consecutive spectral lines which collectively have the highest energy in the spectrum. Results Parameters and spectra from the CDIP array and harbor gages were studied and evaluated in various ways to better understand harbor behavior and to prepare results in a form useful for validating the numerical model. Summaries are included in Appendix A of this report and in monthly compendia (e.g., Coastal Engineering Research Center (1996)). Complementary studies by Okihiro and Guza (1996) have also contributed to understanding of the harbor. Parameters Parameter time-histories were plotted by month, as illustrated in Figures 15-17. The plots are useful for reviewing the variety of conditions recorded and for identifying relationships between parameters. As an example, Figure 16 shows a strong tendency for high values of H,and H,,,,,, to occur together. Correlation coefficient statistics were computed between selected parameters, as illustrated in Table 5 for Pier 2. The correlation coefficient for H, and H, jn, is fairly high, 0.81 at Pier 2. That correlation was also high at other gages (not shown): 0.74 at the array and between 0.61 and 0.72 at the other harbor gages. Other parameters showed lower correlations, but evidence of some other tendencies, such as a weak correlation between H,,,,, in the harbor and (A) array The variation of An, and A,,,,, With various long and short wave parameters is an important concern. These parameters are actually quite consistent at any given location. For example at Pier 2, A,,,,,,is around 0.1 and A,,,,,is generally between 1.2 and 1.8. Peaks in A,,,,,, tend to coincide with long period swell events (high values of T,). The smallest values of A,,,,, generally occur with high energy events (high values of H, and H,,,,,). Chapter 2 Field Wave Measurements 19 Parameter summaries are especially useful for numerical modeling of short waves. The range and distribution of measured T,, and 6,, values at the array help determine wave conditions to be modeled (Figures 18 and 19). Since the numerical model produces amplification factors as a function of incident short wave period and direction, similar results from the field data are needed for validation. Values of A,,,,, from field gage records were grouped according to 1-sec bins of T, and 10-deg bins of @,. A mean and standard deviation were computed from values of A,,,,,in each bin (Appendix B). The parameter N,, (number of spectral peaks) at the array was found to be one in almost every case. Thus short wave conditions at Kahului Harbor are gener- ally well-represented by T,. More than one major wave event (e.g. sea and swell) occurring simultaneously is unusual. Chapter 2 Field Wave Measurements Hs (cm Fg ase are Canoe Club |" Day of Month Figure 16. Time-history of H,,,,,, H,, and (T, ),,,ay: harbor gages, Jan 94 array’ Chapter 2 Field Wave Measurements Hs.long (cm) : i 2a Channel Entrance 21 22 Figure 17. Time-history of A,,,,, and A 20 Day of Month amp,l? harbor gages, Jan 94 Chapter 2 Field Wave Measurements ~ iS & oO =e © o. 14 Period Range (sec) Figure 18. Probability distribution of (T, ),,,,,; Nov 93-Sep 94, 1,785 observations : Percent 210 Direction Range (deg) Figure 19. Probability distribution of ( @,, ),,,,.,; Nov 93-Sep 94, 1,785 observations Chapter 2 Field Wave Measurements 23 24 Spectra Short wave spectra were required to compute N,, It is also helpful to examine spectra for specific events of interest to identify any presence of multiple wave systems or to confirm that H, and T, adequately characterize the sea state. Spectra are especially useful in relation to long waves. Average long wave spectra were computed by month for each gage to reveal general structure in the long wave response of the harbor. A maximum energy density value (over all records during the month) at each spectral frequency was also identified. The results for January 1994 are typical (Figure 20). Average spectra are surprisingly similar from month to month. Maxima are typically an order of magnitude higher than the average, but they define a shape very similar to the average spectra. The maxima clearly show more statistical variability than the averages, as would be expected. Long wave spectra were examined in more detail to better understand harbor response during high energy long wave events. Spectra for one such event are shown in Figure 21. Averages of the event spectra are also shown. Individual spectral values fluctuate over a very wide range. Averages follow the charac- teristic shape of monthly averages, suggesting that each area of the harbor tends toward a signature response curve which varies in energy level according to incident wave variations but not in shape. The energy level across all frequen- cies of the extreme event average spectra is considerably higher than that of the monthly average spectra (Figure 20). Mean water level variations during the event had no clear impact on energy level of the spectral peaks at Pier 2, but they did appear to cause very small shifts in the frequency at which the peaks occurred. To explore whether high energy long wave events consistently excite the main resonant peaks of the signature response curve, the time-history of energy level at specific resonant frequencies was plotted. Figure 22 shows results for a dominant resonant frequency at Pier 2. Two adjacent frequencies are shown because varying conditions, such as tidal water level, caused the peak frequency to vary over this very small range. By comparing with Figure 16, it is clear that high values of H,,.,, ate accompanied by high energy in this resonant peak. Other resonant peaks show similar correspondence, indicating that when H,,,,, 1S high, all of the characteristic resonant frequencies have high energy levels. Correlations for predicting incident infragravity wave energy A special study was conducted to relate incident infragravity (long) wave energy to offshore wave conditions, for which long-term information is available. The purpose of the correlation study was to determine the ability to predict infragravity energy levels incident to the harbor from deepwater, wind wave parameters (Merrifield and Okihiro 1996). Correlations and linear regressions were calculated between observed infragravity energy (converted to an H,,,,,) in the frequency range 0.002-0.040 Hz (500 to 25 sec) at the array just outside of the harbor and reduced parameters (H,, T,, and 6,,) measured at the offshore Chapter 2 Field Wave Measurements NDBC buoy. The distribution of H,,,,. at the array and @,, at the buoy over the two-winter analysis period is shown in Figures 23 and 24. In general, the correlations were weak. A correction for the reduction in wind wave energy at the array based on the direction of the deepwater waves provided some improvement, but predictions of infragravity energy levels based on offshore wind wave height still vary by a factor of five or more (Figure 25). The study concluded that detailed inspection of the deepwater spectra, perhaps in combination with a refraction-diffraction transformation model, would be needed to significantly improve the predictions. Special events, harbor closing The only reported operational problem during the period of harbor wave measurement was a closing of the harbor on 14-15 Mar 94. Figures 26-28 summarize CDIP array and NDBC buoy wave and meteorological measurements during the event. Figure 29 helps put the event in perspective relative to the full winter of 1993-4. The steepness parameter in the figure is the ratio of (H_) buoy tO deepwater wavelength based on (T,),,.. Although (H. eres Celene) as EU (A) soy are all high during the closure, they are not sufficiently high to distin- guish the event as more extreme than other recorded events. The exceptional condition during closure appears to be a combination of high winds, high wave steepness, and long duration. Thus the harbor was apparently closed by a haz- ardous short wave condition (steep, energetic waves with likely wind-induced breaking). Special events, tsunami While tsunamis were not considered in the design of this study, the continu- ance of the gages beyond the first year resulted in a fortuitous measurement of the Shikotan tsunami on 4 October 1994 (McGehee and McKinney 1996). The measurement represents one of the few large (approximately 1-m wave height) tsunami time series sampled continuously at high frequency (1 Hz). The tsunami wave period was approximately 30-35 min, or about 0.0005 Hz. Aside from the scientific value, this data set provided an opportunity to examine the response of the harbor to one instance of large-amplitude infragravity energy. Special events, extreme event parameters A more detailed documentation of extreme events recorded by the CDIP gages is given in Appendix C. Included are tabular summaries of parameters for observations with (H,),,,;2200 cm for short wave extremes and FZ, jong2 20 Cm at the array or Pier 2 for long wave extremes. Chapter 2 Field Wave Measurements 25 26 Average ves hye Fok Part eb eae Paar os -_— € © ~— > a = © c Ww ) & a) 0.02 Frequency (Hz) Figure 20. Average and maximum long wave spectra, Jan 94 Chapter 2 Field Wave Measurements | —— Event Average : ~~ N ° ar) > a 2 5) c uw © = =) Frequency (Hz) Figure 21. Long wave spectra for event on 2 Jan 94 (2355) to 3 Jan 94 (1900) Chapter 2 Field Wave Measurements 2 28 I N oO ~— > a i= ® (= ud o {= =| Day of Month Figure 22. Time-history of amplification of specific resonant peak frequencies, Jan 94 Percent Occurrence bese 0.15 Hs,long (m) Figure 23. Probability distribution Of (A, ing )array» OCt 93-Mar 95 (from Merrifield and Okihiro (1996)) Chapter 2 Field Wave Measurements ® iS} S © E s oO oO (o) = r= o 2 Co) On 210 | 260 310 0 50 3560 8m (deg coming from) Figure 24. Probability distribution of ( @, ),,,,,, from NDBC buoy 51026, N. Molokai, Oct 93-Mar 95 (from Merrifield and Okihiro (1996)) So iv (Hs, long array (m) oS a ° ms Figure 25. Scatter plot of ( Okihiro 1996) Chapter 2 Field Wave Measurements He s, long (Hs)buey (m) ) es versus (H, ),,,, (from Merrifield and 29 30 Harbor Closed — £ (e) tS eS 1o)) is S [e) 16) Dm Oo uo) Ww € fa) MARCH 1994 Figure 26. Harbor closing event; array parameters Chapter 2 Field Wave Measurements Harbor Closed 25 29 Hao CUTOFF = 0.15 M 25 29 T, CUTOFF = 2.78 S Q@m (deg coming from) MARCH 1994 Figure 27. Harbor closing event; NDBC buoy wave parameters Chapter 2 Field Wave Measurements 2 31 32 Harbor Closed Barometric Pressure (mb) Wind Speed (m/sec) “™~ E ec © oO -§ =—- a o = £ = 9 © = O = Oo ue) we MARCH 1994 Figure 28. Harbor closing event; NDBC buoy meteorological parameters Chapter 2 Field Wave Measurements 380 400 420 440 Year Day 1993 > fe) =) 2 “— Qa —= wa (Om) buoy (deg coming from) Steepness Figure 29. Time-history of selected wave parameters, array and NDBC buoy, winter of 1993-4 (from Merrifield and Okihiro (1996)) Chapter 2 Field Wave Measurements 33 34 3 Wind Wave and Swell Climate Sources Three sources of wind wave and swell information were available to develop wave climate outside the harbor entrance (Table 6 and Figure 30). The first was the directional array gage in the 47.6-ft (14.5-m) depth just outside the harbor entrance (CDIP gage 77). Data from November 1993 through December 1994 were used. The second was the directional buoy north of Molokai (NDBC buoy 51026) with data from October 1993 through May 1994 and September through December 1994. These gages are discussed in Chapter 2. The time intervals used were intended to be reasonably representative of the seasons of the year so that the gage data could be compared to long-term climate. Inclusion of the additional three months of available array data (Jan-Mar 95) would have distorted the distribution toward winter conditions (high wave heights). The third source was the Wave Information Studies (WIS). WIS has hindcast waves over the North Pacific Ocean and saved information at selected deepwater stations around the Hawaiian Islands (Corson et al. 1986). Station 31, north of Maui, from the main 20-year hindcast, was considered in this study. The study also included two stations from a specially prepared 1-year WIS update coincident with the measurement time period. Stations of interest in the special update, which used a different grid, are shown in Figure 30 (Stations 3 and 5). Results from Station 5 were compared to data from the NDBC buoy to validate the special hindcast. Sample validation plots and wave summaries are given in Appendix D. Deepwater Wave Climate Although an NDBC buoy and three WIS stations are available in deep water offshore from Kahului Harbor, only WIS Station 31 provides long-term climate information. It is important to evaluate whether the locations and time period of measurement and special hindcast are representative of the long-term Chapter 3 Wind Wave and Swell Climate Table 6 Sources of Wave Climate Information i oi Eee ec boners: Jen Jen ee! en [eee dae ee WIS Station 5 eo lizicel UN Geese oNDBC 51026 +STA5 MOLOKAI Kahului Harbor (Array) HAWAII 160W 159°W 158°'W 157W 156°W 155°W Figure 30. Location map for wave climate study climate incident to the north coast of Maui. Wave parameter summaries for the deepwater sources are compared in Figures 31-33. Peak wave direction was not available for the 20-year hindcast, only the mean wave direction. Wave components for sea (component 1) and swell (compo- nent 2) were available for this data set and consisted of height, period, and direction for each component. To get a representation of peak directions for comparison, a direction was chosen from either the sea or swell. If the overall Chapter 3 Wind Wave and Swell Climate 35 36 Buoy 51026 WIS STA5 WIS STA3 WIS STA 31 no o D O = c ® 3) —_ ® oO 0.0-0.49 0.5-0.99 1.0-1.49 1.5-1.99 20-249 25299 3.03.49 3.53.99 4.04.49 4.54.99 5.05.49 5.55.99 6.06.49 6.5-> Wave Height Range (m) Figure 31. Deepwater wave climate comparison, H, Buoy 51026 WIS STA5 WIS STA 3 WIS STA 31 Percentages 9.0-9.9 11.0-11.9 13.0-13.9 15.0-15.9 17.0-17.9 19.0-19.9 10.0-10.9 12.0-12.9 14.0-14.9 16.0-16.9 18,0-18.9 20.0-> Wave Period Range (m) Figure 32. Deepwater wave climate comparison, T, peak period was close to the sea period, the direction associated with the sea was chosen as the peak direction. If the peak period was close to the swell peak, the direction associated with the swell was used. Summaries shown in the figures are generally similar. Wave height and period distributions indicate virtually the same climate from all sources, although the buoy shows a tendency for a greater occurrence of swell periods above 14 sec. Wave direction distributions for the buoy and Station 31 both show Chapter 3 Wind Wave and Swell Climate Buoy 51026 WIS STA5 WIS STA 3 WIS STA 31 ?>) o aD © £ c oO 2 Oo oO 90 1125 135 157.5 180 2025 225 247.5 270 2925 315 337.5 Wave Direction Center (deg) Figure 33. Deepwater wave climate comparison, @, (deg, coming from) preferences for waves from the east, east-northeast, and northwest. Stations 3 and 5 also show a concentration of waves from northerly directions but the main concentration is centered on north. Despite these differences, it is concluded that the deepwater wave climate offshore from Maui’s north coast is adequately represented by the available buoy measurements and long-term WIS station. Wave Climate at Kahului Harbor The deepwater wave climate analysis suggests that data from the array, which covers a time period comparable to the NDBC buoy and special hindcast sources, would reasonably characterize the wave climate immediately incident to Kahului Harbor. The array measurements incorporate local effects of sheltering and bathymetry. To further validate the use of array data as the incident wave climate, an approximate procedure was used to relate the 20-year WIS hindcast to Kahului Harbor entrance. The procedure was to develop an empirical transformation between NDBC buoy and array measurement sites and then apply the trans- formation to the 20-year deepwater climate. Wave heights and peak periods in the NDBC buoy and array data sets were segregated by direction bands, based on direction measured at the buoy. Linear regression equations were calculated for bands with more than 100 cases (Table 7). The regression equations were applied to the 20 years of WIS Station 31 information to estimate long-term climate at the Kahului gage. The transformed Station 31 (WIS 31T) and array gage summaries are very similar, especially considering the approximations involved in the transformation (Figures 34-36). Chapter 3 Wind Wave and Swell Climate 37 38 Table 7 Empirical Relationships Between Deepwater and Kahului Harbor Entrance NDBC Buoy Direction Parameter (deg. coming from) Empirical Transformation’ | Correlation Significant H, = -0.21 + 0.64 H,, Wave Height (m) 45-90 H, = 0.06 + 0.34 H,, 90-135 H, = 0.06 + 0.27 H,, 270-315 H, = 0.18 + 0.21 H,, 315-360 H, = 0.05 + 0.36 H,, H, = 0.07 + 0.35 H,, 0.71 Peak Wave 0-45 T,=-2.5 +0.77 T,, Periad (s) 45-90 T,= 8.1 + 0.23 T,, 90-135 T,= 5.9 + 0.53 T,, 270-315 T,= 3.4+ 0.65 T,, 315-360 T,= 4.1+0.65 7, joo | he sonoset, | oss Wave Direction 6, = 22 + 0.20 G,, (deg, coming from) G, = 33 - 0.05 G,, G, = 45 - 0.17 6,, 270-315 G, = -153 + 0.60 Ao 315-360 G,=95-0.19 4, In conclusion, the time period of available measurements at the array gage appears to give a good representation of the overall wind wave and swell climate immediately incident to Kahului Harbor. It is recommended that the array data be used as the primary source of wave information for driving numerical and physical models of the harbor. Chapter 3 Wind Wave and Swell Climate Array @ WIS3IT 2) ® D 2} = = ® (2) — o oO 0.0-0.49 0.5-0.99 1.0-1.49 1.5-1.99 20-249 25299 3.0-3.49 3.53.99 4.04.49 4.5-4.99 5,0-5.49 5.5-5.99 6.06.49 6.5-> Wave Height Range (m) Figure 34. Harbor entrance wave climate comparison, H, Percentages 9.0-9.9 11.0-11.9 13.0-13.9 15.0-15.9 17.0-17.9 19.0-19.9 8.08.9 10.0-10.9 120-129 14.0-14.9 16.0-16.9 18.0-18.9 20.0-> Wave Period Range (m) Figure 35. Harbor entrance wave climate comparison, it Chapter 3 Wind Wave and Swell Climate 39 40 |] Array m@ WIS31T 7) o D o = ae @ rs) —_ ®o a 90 #1125 135 157.5 180 2025 225 247.5 270 2925 315 337.5 Wave Direction Center (deg) Figure 36. Harbor entrance wave climate comparison, @, (deg, coming from) Chapter 3 Wind Wave and Swell Climate 4 Numerical Model Objectives and Approach The numerical model studies have three main objectives: a. Calibrate and validate the numerical model with field data. b. Advance understanding of the existing harbor wave response. c. Evaluate the effect of proposed harbor modifications on harbor wave response. The numerical model used for the studies, HARBD, is the standard WES tool for numerical harbor wave investigations. The model includes the following assumptions: a. No wave transmission through the breakwaters. b. No wave overtopping of structures. c. Structure crest elevations above the water surface cannot be tested or optimized. d. Currents in the channel cannot be evaluated. e. Wave breaking effects in the entrance and harbor cannot be considered. f. No nonlinear effects are considered. g. Diffraction around structure ends is represented by diffraction around a blunt vertical wall with specified reflection coefficient. Despite limitations imposed by the above assumptions, HARBD is considered suitable for meeting the numerical modeling objectives of the Kahului Harbor study. Chapter 4 Numerical Model 41 42 The harbor wave response model is presented in the following section, including a general description of the HARBD model and implementation of the model at Kahului Harbor. Validation was accomplished with a combination of storm wave events selected from available field data and with statistical sum- maries of a wide range of field cases. The final section of this chapter describes the test procedures and calculations. Procedures for evaluating operational performance at a pier are discussed. As part of the test procedures, a suite of incident wave conditions must be specified at the seaward boundary of the area covered by HARBD. Incident short waves are determined by consideration of measurements outside the harbor. Incident long waves are specified over a broad range of frequencies but only a normally incident direction to identify possible harbor resonant responses. The existing harbor and 11 proposed modifications were studied. Results for wind waves and swell are presented in Chapter 5. Harbor oscillation results are presented in Chapter 6. The presentation focuses on wave conditions in the vicinity of existing or proposed piers, but results over the full harbor area are also given. Model Description Model formulation The numerical wave model HARBD is a steady-state hybrid element model used in the calculation of linear wave response in harbors of varying size and depth (Chen 1986, Chen and Houston 1987, Lillycrop and Thompson 1996). Originally developed for use with long-period waves (Chen and Mei 1974), HARBD has since been adapted to include capabilities for modeling wind waves and swell (Houston 1981), bottom friction, and partially reflective boundaries (Chen 1986). The model is based on a linearized mild slope equation. An overview of the model and its applications is given by Thompson and Hadley (1995). The HARBD model has been shown to perform satisfactorily in comparison to analytic solutions and laboratory data for a variety of wind wave and swell cases (Houston 1981; Crawford and Chen 1988; Thompson, Chen, and Hadley 1996) and long wave cases (Chen 1986; Chen and Houston 1987; Houston 1981; Thompson, Chen, and Hadley 1993). As a result, it has been used with confi- dence in both long wave and short wave studies. Studies encompassing both long (harbor oscillations) and short waves are Harkins et al. (1996) and Thompson and Hadley (1994b). Additional long wave studies have included harbor oscillations (Briggs et al. 1994; Briggs, Lillycrop, and McGehee 1992; Mesa 1992; Sargent 1989; Weishar and Aubrey 1986; Houston 1976) and tsunamis (Farrar and Houston 1982, Houston and Garcia 1978, Houston 1978). Additional wind wave and swell studies include Thompson and Hadley (1994a); Lillycrop et al. (1993); Lillycrop and Boc (1992); Lillycrop, Bratos, and Chapter 4 Numerical Model Thompson (1990); Kaihatu, Lillycrop, and Thompson (1989); Farrar and Chen (1987); Clausner and Abel (1986); and Bottin, Sargent, and Mize (1985). The HARBD model covers in detail a domain including the harbor and a portion of the adjacent nearshore area (Figure 37). This domain is bounded by a 180-deg semicircle in the water region seaward of the harbor entrance (0A in Figure 37) and the land-water interface along the shoreline and harbor (OC in Figure 37). The region defined by these boundaries is denoted Region A. If possible, the semicircle radius should be at least twice the wavelength of the longest incident wave to be modeled (using a typical water depth within the semicircle). Also, the semicircle should encompass any complex offshore bathymetry which strongly influences waves entering the harbor. In general, the semicircle should be as large as practical constraints on grid size and resolution will allow. a a REGION 8 Z_-BOUHDARY AT ye INFINITY 68 Figure 37. Representation of HARBD domain The area outside the semicircle is treated as a semi-infinite region which extends from a straight coastline seaward to infinity (Region B). This region is assumed to have a constant water depth and no bottom friction. Assuming linear, regular waves propagating over mild slope in arbitrary water depth, Chen (1986) derived the governing equation as Chapter 4 Numerical Model 43 o” V- (Acc, Vb) + a ieee (2) where V = horizontal gradient operator A =complex bottom friction factor c = wave phase speed c, = wave group speed @ = velocity potential @ = angular frequency This equation is identical to Berkhoff's (1972) equation except for addition of the bottom friction factor 1. The factor 1, which is a complex number with magnitude greater than zero and less than or equal to one, is specified as e iy (3) where i =(-1)” = dimensionless bottom friction coefficient that can vary in space a; = incident wave amplitude d =water depth kK = wave number Y = phase shift between stress and flow velocity The bottom friction factor is a factor tending to reduce local velocities propor- tionately through the relationships Chapter 4 Numerical Model ax ee (4) where u,v = local horizontal velocity components x,y = horizontal coordinates Boundary conditions are specified in Regions A and B. At the solid boundary , a reflection/absorption boundary condition is used similar to the impedance condition in acoustics. The condition is specified as Sei tenb B00 (5) with eS a igenKe (6) where n =unit normal vector directed into the solid region K, = reflection coefficient of the boundary Values of K, for wind waves and swell are normally chosen based on the boundary material and shape. General guidelines for K,can be assembled from laboratory and field data (Thompson, Chen, and Hadley 1996). In wind wave and swell studies, K, is generally chosen to be consistent with this guidance. Effects such as slope, permeability, relative depth, wave period, breaking, and overtopping can be considered in selecting values within these fairly wide ranges. For long wave studies, K,is generally set equal to 1.0, representing full reflection. The second boundary condition is imposed in the far region (Region B) at infinity. It requires that the scattered wave, defined as the difference between the total wave and incident wave, behave as a classical outgoing wave at infinity. This radiation condition may be expressed as Chapter 4 Numerical Model 45 46 (7) where r =radial polar coordinate @ =velocity potential of the scattered wave The complete boundary value problem is specified by Equations 2, 5, and 7. A hybrid element method is employed to solve the boundary value problem. A conventional finite element grid is developed and solved in Region A. The triangular elements allow detailed representation of harbor features and bathymetry within Region A. An analytical solution with unknown coefficients in a Hankel function series is used to describe Region B. For a given grid, short wave period tests (relatively large values of x) require more terms than long period tests to adequately represent the series. A variational principle with a proper functional is established such that matching conditions are satisfied along OA. Details are given by Chen (1986) and Lillycrop and Thompson (1996). Experience with the model has indicated that the element size Ax and local wavelength L should be related by L Typically, harbor domains include some shallow areas in which many elements would be needed to satisfy the constraint in Equation 8. In practice, Equation 8 is at least satisfied in the harbor channel and basin depths. If additional elements can be accomodated, it is generally preferred to extend the semicircle further seaward rather than to greatly refine shallow harbor regions. Input information for HARBD must be carefully assembled. In addition to developing the finite element grid to suit HARBD requirements, a number of parameters must be specified. Critical input parameters and ranges of typical values are summarized in Table 8. The principal output information available from HARBD consists of amplification factor and phase at each node. These are defined as Gee Vel ELE rs) = tan7! Im {o} Re {o} (9) Chapter 4 Numerical Model Table 8 Critical HARBD Input Parameters and Ranges of Typical Values Typical Values Where Specified raat 0 Bottom friction, B .0 Every element 0.0 - 1.0 1.0 1.0 Between avg. & max. on semicircle Number of terms in 8 - 100' Hankel function series ' The number of terms needed increases as wave period decreases. Boundary reflection, K, Every element on solid boundary Coastline reflection, K,.2, | Single value Depth in infinite region, (Pe Single value Single value where A gmp = amplification factor a,a; = local and incident wave amplitudes H, H; = local and incident wave heights @ =phase relative to the incident wave Im{ @} = imaginary part of Re{ @} = real part of & Amplification factors are easily interpreted. Phases are helpful in viewing wind wave and swell propagation characteristics and in interpreting standing wave patterns. In long wave applications, phases prove useful for determining relative phase differences within the harbor, interpreting harbor oscillation patterns, and identifying potentially troublesome nodal areas. Spectral adaptation HARBD computes harbor response to specified wave period and direction combinations. However, the model is often used to approximate irregular wind wave and swell behavior, as in physical model tests with irregular waves and all field cases. More realistic numerical model simulations can be obtained by linearly combining HARBD results from a range of regular wave frequencies and directions in the irregular wave spectrum. With proper weighting, regular wave results represent a desired spectral distribution of energy. Chapter 4 Numerical Model 47 Spectral adaptation of the HARBD model is done as a post-processing step using the standard, regular wave output from the model. For a given set of incident wave directions representing the range of possible approach directions, HARBD is run for a number of wave periods spread between the shortest period satisfying the grid resolution constraint of Equation 8 and the longest swell period of interest. Spectral post-processing is based on the assumption that a consistent spectral form can be applied at every node. This major assumption provides the basis for a workable, reasonable spectral weighting which improves on the traditional regular wave approach. The spectrum is represented as the product of two functions: S(f8) = S(f) D(f®) (10) where S(f, @) = directional spectral energy density function S(f) = spectral energy density function D(f,@) = angular spreading function The JONSWAP spectral form was chosen for S(f) (Hasselmann et al. 1973). The JONSWAP spectrum is specified as (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1989) = a g? a 4b S(f;) tans Chany (11) where S(f,) = spectral energy density at frequency f,. The parameters a and b are given by the following relationships: feces ip iG =— (Gm, = Buz pin (12) o = 007 fo fi =. f i i Pare FA Np» = index of highest JONSWAP frequency f; satisfying f, < are Chapter 4 Numerical Model Sirf efir1 = (K-1)’ th, F th, and (k+1)’th HARBD computational frequencies, with fpSiSfivs Though not shown in the equation, the weighting factor also includes fractional energy interpolated across JONSWAP frequencies bracketing the two end points of each HARBD band. Directional spread is also calculated over 1,000 points, covering a range of - 7/2 to +7/2. The midpoints between HARBD wave directions are used to define directional bands. The weighting factor for each HARBD-defined directional band becomes: D(8,) z 1,000 (16) D(@,) where w, = weighting factor for n'th HARBD computational direction 6,_,+9 N,,; = index of lowest spreading direction @ satisfying 0, > saa 6 +60 N,2= index of highest spreading direction @, satisfying 8, < — 5 mel 8, G,, 6,., = (n-1)'th, n'th, (n+1)'th HARBD computational directions, with 6,#<6,<6, n+1 The width of the lowest HARBD-defined directional band is assumed to be twice the difference between the HARBD direction and the first midpoint. The width of the highest HARBD-defined directional band is defined similarly. The effective amplification factor at each node can then be computed as (AGE = Sy, ww, Ac GA0n) (17) where (A amp eg = effective, or spectral, amplification factor at a node Chapter 4 Numerical Model 51 52 Aanp(f 9,) = nodal amplification factor for HARBD computational frequency f, and direction 0, N; = number of HARBD computational wave periods Np = number of HARBD computational wave directions Finite element grids The finite element numerical grid depicting existing conditions at Kahului Harbor was created using WES's finite element grid development software (Turner and Baptista 1993) (Figure 38). The grid covers the entire Kahului Harbor area and extends somewhat seaward into Kahului Bay. The land boundary was digitized from an aerial photograph. Grid element size is based on the criterion of 6 elements per wavelength (the minimum recommended resolu- tion with HARBD) for a 10-sec wave in 15-ft water depth. Depths for virtually all areas of interest exceed 15 ft. For the longer period waves, the grid gives a high degree of resolution. Grid characteristics are summarized in Table 11. The radius of the seaward semicircle is 2,307 ft. This is equivalent to 2.9 and 9.7 wavelengths for the longest and shortest short wave periods considered, assuming a representative water depth of 35 ft. The semicircle size and location were chosen to include both breakwaters and the immediate nearshore area. The semicircle extends sufficiently far seaward to cover the most important nearshore bathymetry while maintaining a reasonable number of grid elements. Bathymetric data were obtained from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration hydrographic chart 19342 and WES bathymetric survey data. Digitized depths were transferred onto the finite element grid using the WES grid software package. A contour plot of bathymetry is given in Figure 39. Reflection coefficients K, are needed for all solid boundaries. For the short wave tests, K, values were estimated from existing Corps of Engineers guidance, photos, and field notes from a recent site visit by WES personnel, and past experience. The solid boundary was divided into 13 zones and a reflection coefficient was estimated for each zone (Figure 40). Reflection coefficients ranged from 0.2 for the shallow sandy beach along the southwest shore of the existing harbor to 0.5 for all pier areas and 0.9 for the grouted revetment along the western side of Pier 2. Additional parameter values used in the numerical model are summarized in Table 12. Different parameters are used for the long wave tests. The reflection coefficient was set to 1.0 for all boundaries, since long waves generally reflect very well from a coastal boundary. Long waves are more affected by bottom friction than short waves, so a value of B greater than zero is appropriate. The value of B is best determined by calibration with field data, as discussed in the following section. A value of B=0.032 was selected. This and other parameters are summarized in Table 12. Chapter 4 Numerical Model Figure 38. Grid of existing harbor In addition to existing conditions, 11 harbor modification plans were specified for evaluation, as discussed in Chapter 1 and summarized in Table 13. The existing harbor grid was modified to represent each alternative config- uration. Grid characteristics for each configuration are included in Table 11. Short wave reflection coefficients were modified as appropriate for the plan grids. General guidelines were K = 0.5 along piers (mainly due to steep, partially revetted slopes under piers) and K = 0.35 along breakwater extensions. Chapter 4 Numerical Model 53 54 Table 11 Grid Sizes Number of: Plan 3a Plan 3b Length of Typical Element (ft) Chapter 4 Numerical Model Depths im Feet Figure 39. Bathymetry, existing harbor als 0.35 \ IO fo \ ih ee) oN \ a \ / 0.4 ere HNeie3 \ lL ea Jf. / 0.4 | ye / Gs / [08 J 0.5 ree a ik \ 05 0.2 0.9 NO ‘ 0.4 ww 0.3 wh Sar ee Ni Figure 40. Wave reflection coefficient values, short waves, existing harbor Chapter 4 Numerical Mode! 55 56 Table 12 Parameter Values Used in HARBD Depth in infinite region, d,, Pea 45.5 ft Table 13 Harbor Alternatives for Numerical Modeling Pic kang? 27 ea fee eye rer ane ln feted WP alge | Pieractacccttomisiogm | || tx | dx [a New fill area in SW area of harbor ee aan ete tees cpanel eens lle | Protective Stub Added to End of West Breakwater test lengths of 0, 600, 1,000 ft Barge Pier in Canoe Club Area esas fe bi Genscan iesay c-Fes | aigned norivsounconency) tx | | | oT | | parateltopier2 (coment | te [x Lx [x |x [x | Teer neaaicn 8 Wie ela Pier 1 Extension T-Pier for Fuel Barges dredge & revet between Piers 1&3 Areas with 35-ft Project Depth Dredged to 38-f Depth Slot Combination of estes Cena mes! * Breakwater stub of 600-ft length only. Calibration and validation The availability of extensive field data at Kahului Harbor allowed a detailed calibration and validation of the numerical harbor response model. Both short and long wave responses were considered. Data from the time period Nov 93 - Sep 94 were used for calibration and validation, as discussed in Chapter 2. Chapter 4 Numerical Model Short waves. Four high wave events during January and March 1994 were selected for short wave calibration (Table 14). HARBD was run for the incident wave periods and directions described in the following section and the output was post-processed to give spectral estimates of the four events. Reflection coefficients were adjusted within reasonable ranges to achieve a good fit between field data and model results (Figure 41). The principal adjustment was the reflection coefficient used along the piers. As-built plans for the commercial piers and ea laboratory studies of a : 20 aN 8 similar configuration of rive 8 pile-supported pier with underlying slope (Allsop 1990) were used to determine reasonable ranges for reflection coefficient. Only the 192-, 203-, and 214-deg incident wave directions were used during the calibra- tion and validation phase of the study. The remaining two directions were added later to more Figure 41. Model short wave calibration to four completely represent storm events the range of diffraction possibilities for alternatives involving the western portion of the harbor. 1 57 \ ey Channel Entrance Back Basin & Canoe Club o no) ° = — 7) a E ° < Se Fboaesne 659 6 a) 2 ea a : (Aomp,s) harbor gage Table 14 Field Cases for Short Wave Model Calibration, Array A comparison of HARBD results and field data with published diffraction patterns through a breakwater gap, done as part of the calibration process, showed the dominance of diffraction between the entrance and interior harbor locations. Goda (1985) gives diffraction of a directional spectrum through a gap between two straight, colinear breakwaters in uniform depth. Bowers and Welsby (1982) report on laboratory tests of several other breakwater gap Chapter 4 Numerical Model 57 58 configurations, including one similar to the Kahului breakwaters. Their tests, as well as others by Blue and Johnson (1949), show that the relative rotation of the breakwaters makes little difference in the diffraction pattern for wave periods of concern here. However, the presence of rubble on the inside of the breakwaters causes significant absorption and dissipation relative to the classical vertical wall breakwater. Appropriate adjustment factors taken from Bowers and Welsby (1982) were applied to the spectral diffraction results of Goda (1985) for comparison to two of the field calibration events. The calibrated short wave model was run ina spectral mode for the T, Pier 2 E Canoe Club and @,, combinations Back Basin Channel Entrance represented in the field data summaries of Appendix B. Comparing the model results to field data validates the numer- ical model against an 11- month summary of gage data (Figure 42). The validation comparison is o no) ° E > CA a E o <= VS generally comparable to the calibration results. ; The agreement at Pier 2 G0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 is excellent. The model (Acme) Rersorgage shows a persistent tendency to under- estimate the amplification factor at the other gages. The tendency is more evident than in the initial storm calibration, particularly at Canoe Club and Back Basin. In most cases, it is greater than one standard deviation of the field data. The possibility of incorrect reflection coefficients and/or bathymetry in these shallow areas was explored within reasonable ranges, but the general level of agreement could not be improved. Figure 42. Model short wave validation to 11 months of gage data Long waves. Long wave calibration was aimed at adjusting bottom friction 7 to approximately match amplification factors between model and data. The reflection coefficient K, was set to 1.0. Only the lower frequencies (0.003- 0.010 Hz or 100- to 333-sec period) were considered because most prominent resonant peaks are in this range and K =1.0 is more strictly correct at low frequencies. Only resonant peaks were considered in calibration because they are the features of greatest interest and are most sensitive to the choice of & A value of 4=0.032 was found to give a reasonably good match at all peaks in the selected frequency range and at all harbor gages, as illustrated in Figure 43. Chapter 4 Numerical Model Canoe Club ial Le) ie : g - H ; : ; : 2 : : = : : 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.010 Frequency Figure 43. Model long wave calibration Field and model amplification factors over the full range of long wave frequencies are compared in Figure 44. The general agreement is reasonable. The model shows several overly large peaks, especially at frequencies higher than the 0.01-Hz limit considered in calibration. Chapter 4 Numerical Model 59 60 Average : Channel Entrance Model L ° ae re) ° uw c Jo =) ro) ° 2 a E < Frequency (Hz) Figure 44. Long wave comparison of average gage spectra and model Chapter 4 Numerical Model Test Procedures and Calculations Incident wave conditions A range of short and long wave conditions incident to Kahului Harbor was considered. A representative range of wave periods and directions which could cause damaging waves inside the harbor was included, based on field measure- ments. The short wave periods and approach directions considered are given in Table 15. These conditions rovide reasonable coverage of the F a Ligaen aren teas 2 eae Summary of Incident Short Figures 18 and 19. The shortest Wave Conditions local storms, is 2 sec shorter than the ‘sec deg, going toward grid design period. Past experience has shown that the model still provides adequate results for small increments below the grid design period. The longest period represents a very long swell condition. Direc- tions were chosen to include likely approach directions to the harbor entrance and to give adequate repre- sentation of the directional spectrum in post-processing. They were also chosen after review of directional response sensitivity runs at a selected swell period. Test directions were reckoned in 11-deg increments beginning with 192 deg (coming from, relative to true north). Incident wave directions and the angular orientation of the seaward semicircular model boundary are illustrated in Figure 45. Table 15 For the study of existing harbor conditions and comparison of alternatives, HARBD was run with the full set of short wave periods and directions in all possible combinations. Model results were then evaluated for directional spectra with T, and 6,, values equivalent to the period and direction values used in the initial HARBD runs (Table 15). Chapter 4 Numerical Model 61 62 Incident long wave conditions con- sidered are given in Table 16. A fine resolution in wave frequency was used over the full range of possible resonant conditions to ensure that all important peaks were identified. A total of 468 periods were considered. Only one approach direction is included, since past studies have indicated that harbor response is relatively insensitive to incident long wave direction. This direction represents a wave directly approaching the harbor entrance from deep water. One water level was tested. The tide range at Kahului Harbor is relatively small, with a mean range of 1.9 ft. Harbor wave response is unlikely to vary much with water level over this tidal range. The water level was selected as mean lower low water, the reference datum for bathymetric data. KAHULUI HARBOR Figure 45. Incident wave directions Table 16 Summary of Incident Long Wave Conditions Wave Direction (deg, going ' Frequency increments are 0.0001 Hz for periods of 25- 80 sec and 0.00006 Hz for periods of 80-1000 sec. Chapter 4 Numerical Model Calculation of spectra Numerical model test results for short waves in Kahului Harbor are all based on spectral post-processing of the initial HARBD runs. Hence, short wave amplification factors are all in the form of (A,,,,.).¢in Equation 17. This approach requires, first, that HARBD be run with the range of wave periods and directions to be considered in the spectral calculations. Second, values of peak wave period T, corresponding to the peak spectral frequency, wave approach direction @,, spectral peak enhancement factor y, and directional spreading factor s must be specified. The T, and @,, values were chosen to represent wind wave and swell conditions at the harbor, as discussed in the section “Incident wave conditions” (pages 61 and 62). Values for y and s were approximated by relating the guidance in Tables 9 and 10 to T, values. High energy waves, of concern for harbor design, with T, up to 10 sec were assumed to be growing seas. Parameters y and s were set to 3.3 and 10, respectively. Waves with T, greater than 10 sec were treated as swell. As swell T, increases, the swell is expected to have an increasingly peaked frequency spectrum and narrow direc- tional spread. To represent the spectrum for the range of swell considered, values of y and s were scaled to fall between the values for growing seas and maximum values established for old swell (Table 17). Table 17 Approximate Relationships Among T,, Y, and s = Output basins = = In order to get special coverage of areas where harbor traffic would most likely be affected by wave conditions, 38 possible output locations or “basins” were selected to cover all harbor layouts. A basin is a small cluster of elements over which the HARBD response is averaged to give a more representative output. Whenever possible, basins were posi- tioned to coincide with basins of other plans, particularly those of the existing harbor (Figure 46). Basin locations for alternative plans are given in Appendix E. In general, primary output basins define five areas of interest: Pier 1 (Basins 2-6), Piers 2 and 3 (Basins 7-10), recreational boat ramp (Basin 21), modified barge pier, and proposed passenger pier. Locations — = [>] [o) Chapter 4 Numerical Model 63 and defining basins of barge and passenger piers vary with plan. Each basin in this study contains 22-28 elements. HARBD output information was saved at each of these locations in addition to the detailed output at nodes. Figure 46. Output basins, existing harbor Procedures for evaluating operational performance at a pier One objective of this study was to develop and implement a more quantitative procedure for comparing the operational acceptability of different harbor plans subjected to long waves using HARBD. The procedures are described in the following paragraphs. Existing criteria. The following criteria are relevant to operational performance at a pier: 1. Wilson (1967) suggests that a wharf will be operationally acceptable if Chapter 4 Numerical Model = < 0.0038 ft/sec (18) 3 < 0.0012 m /s where H and T are long wave height and period measured in an adjacent comer. He refers to this as a slope criterion since it was derived from H/L for a shallow-water wave. The H and T combinations for threshold damage are shown in Figure 47. ra) o 77} col ° = o ro © > = Wave Height, cm Figure 47. Wilson’s threshold of surge damage for moored ships (from Seabergh and Thomas (1995)) 2. Seabergh and Thomas (1995) reference unpublished long-wave significant height criteria suggested by Walker and Szwetlot (A, ong = spectral line numbers in model corresponding to the period range being considered (30-100 sec or 100- 400 sec) (A gmp) harbor (Aamp)array = atuplification factors for i* spectral line in model Era(f) = spectral energy at array for i* spectral line in model (interpolated from gage data), in units of cm? Amplification factor at the array is needed as a divisor because long waves can easily reflect back to the array. Spectral energy at the array cannot be considered Chapter 6 Harbor Oscillations PEAK A PEAK B T= 214.6 sec Q~ 177.9 sec Freg.™ 0.0047 Hz . - .. Freq.= 0.0056 Hz PEAK C "OQ Glia? ceax D T ~ 120.2 sec T- 49.0 sac Freq.= 0.0083 Hz Freq.” 6.0208 Figure 54. Resonant iong wave amplification factor contours, existing harbor Chapter 6 Harbor Oscillations 81 PEAK A PEAK B T = 214.6 soc T= 177.9 sec Frog.= 0.0047 Uz ee Freq. 0.0056 Hz PEAK C T =- 120.2 sec T= 49.0 sec Freq. 0.0083 Hz Freq.= 0.0204 Hz Figure 55. Resonant long wave phase contours, existing harbor 82 Chapter 6 Harbor Oscillations Existing Plon1 Plon 2 PlanS Existing Plan 3a Plan 3b Plan 3c Existing Pilon 40 Plan 4b Plan 4c i= iS) re) ° ua c 2 i) © = a E <= 22) = a Existing Plan 4b Plon 6 Plon7 228.6 78910 252630 21 2171823 28293233 é 36 37 38 Basin Figure 56. Long wave RMS amplification factor comparison at piers, T=100-400 sec Chapter 6 Harbor Oscillations as purely incident energy. (A gm») array WAS COnstrained to be greater than or equal to 1.0 in this calculation. array Using Equation 32 and the 11-month field data set, the percent of obser- vations with H, ,,,,2 10 cm was calculated. Results for the 100-sec to 400-sec range are similar to the RMS amplification factor results (Figure 57). Results for the 30-sec to 100-sec range are more scattered (Figure 58). Corresponding information from the field gages is given in Table 20 for comparison. A slope criterion as suggested by Wilson Table 20 (1967) was also eval- Percent Occurrence of H,,,,.210 cm at uated. Wave height for Field Gages the criterion was an H,,,,. as in Equation 32, with 2 eae frequencies. The number nine was chosen because Ese Ee nine successive frequen- cies encompass a broad enough band to include [Channetentrance [22 mostorallofany peakin [are __ oa ___| the model spectral response. The H,,,,. Was multiplied by the center frequency to give aslope. If any combination of nine successive frequencies gave a slope exceeding Wilson’s criterion, the record was counted as having exceeded the threshold. Period ranges of 30-100 sec and 100-400 sec were evaluated separately as before. Results are given in Appendix G. An additional operational guideline is based on the value of A,,,, , for the higher resonant peaks. Experience with Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors has indicated that if A,,,,, 1s greater than about 5, some operational difficulties may be encountered. If A.,,,,,is greater than 10, major operational problems can be expected.' This guideline may be applied to the plots in Appendix G. If the very low frequency Helmholtz peak is excluded, Plans 1, 2, 5, and 7 all appear to be operationally unacceptable as presently formulated. They all have basins at which A,,,,, exceeds 10. Results are best judged by comparison to the existing piers. Plans 1 and 2 clearly have potential problems at the passenger pier (Basin 23) in the 100- to 400-sec range. The magnitude of response in a range which affects ships of this size is large enough that this facility would likely be unacceptable. Plans 5 and 7 also tend toward elevated responses. " Personal Communication, William C. Seabergh, Research Hydraulic Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 84 Chapter 6 Harbor Oscillations Most plans indicate improved conditions at the new barge facility on the south side of Pier 2 relative to existing piers. The 30- to 100-sec period range is considered especially important for barge response. Most plans show improved conditions for passenger vessels, too. The 100- to 400-sec range is probably more critical for these vessels. Chapter 6 Harbor Oscillations 85 86 Existing Plan1 Plan 2 Plan S Existing Plan 30 Plan 3b Plan 3c Existing Plan 4a Plan 4b Plan 4c E ° [o) Ni ao c ie) a ae fe s= = n c ie) & re} > i= o Yn re) [e) oS ° es c o O = © jae Existing Plan 4b Plan 6 Plan 7 aX oS 6 v7 & 2 Vo 25 26 30 Basin 21 17 18 23 28 29 32 33 36 37 38 Figure 57. Percent occurrence of H,,,,, 2 10cm at piers, T=100-400 sec Chapter 6 Harbor Oscillations Existing Plon1 Plan 2 Plan 5 Existing Plan 30 Plan 3b Plan 3c Existing Plan 40 Plan 4b Plan 4c E fe) {oe} = Ni toa) c & o ac, fe 6S = n c ° Pa) o > — o n a} (e) = {e} a S o oO = o ioe Existing Plan 4b Plan6 Plan7 313 BB 78910 2526 30 1718 23 28 29 32 33 ; 7 Basin BSH Figure 58. Percent occurrence of H,,,. 2 10 cm at piers, T=30-100 sec Chapter 6 Harbor Oscillations 88 7 Conclusions and Recommendations Studies of the wave response of Kahului Harbor have produced valuable information about the existing harbor and possible modifications. Field measurements taken over a period of 18 months at a deepwater directional buoy, a directional array outside the harbor, and four gages inside the harbor were extremely helpful in understanding present harbor behavior. Numerical modeling of the existing harbor also helped to explain the response to short and long waves. The numerical model was used to simulate the behavior of 11 alternative modifications to the harbor. Model results are compared with criteria for operational acceptability and with experience in the existing harbor to the extent possible. The effectiveness of proposed new harbor areas for wind wave and swell protection often has little relationship to protection from oscillations. These two aspects of pier operability must both be considered in judging success of the alternative plans. An overview of performance of the alternative plans is given by their success relative to a simple, meaningful criterion. For wind waves and swell, success was defined as having H> 1 ft less than 1 percent of the time at all basins along the pier (Table 21). The 1 percent level was chosen because the existing Piers 1 and 2 (which are considered successful) meet this criterion but the seaward ends of Piers 1 and 2 (which are believed to be marginal) slightly exceed the criterion. Thus successful piers in Table 21 should be comparable or better than the exis- ting facilities for wind waves and swell. A similar overview of plan performance for harbor oscillations is given in Tables 22 and 23. The criteria are expressed in terms of percent exceedances of FZ, iong=10 cm. The threshold percent values were selected to be slightly higher than the existing harbor facilities. Specific conclusions and recommendations are as follows: a. Plan I. Not recommended because of large long wave amplifications at proposed passenger pier. Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations b. Plan 2. Not recommended because of large long wave amplifications at proposed passenger pier. c. Plan 3a. Generally acceptable for both short and long waves. The long wave amplification factor at one resonance is quite high at Piers 1-3 and the proposed passenger pier. d. Plan 3b. Generally acceptable. e. Plan 3c. Generally acceptable. f- Plan 4a. Not recommended because of large wind waves and swell at the proposed passenger pier. g. Plan 4b. Generally acceptable. Fairly large wind waves and swell can be expected at the proposed passenger pier. h. Plan 4c. Generally acceptable. i. Plan 5. Not recommended because of large long wave amplifications at proposed barge and passenger piers. j. Plan 6. Generally acceptable. Fairly large wind waves and swell can be expected at the proposed passenger pier. k. Plan 7. Not recommended because of large long wave amplifications at proposed barge and passenger piers. All of the plans, including those designated as acceptable, include some long wave resonant peaks which are larger than in the existing harbor. These seem to be a likely consequence of creating new pier areas. It is assumed that peaks with amplification factors well under 10 will not cause any major operational diffi- culties. Some of the limitations in the plans tested may be overcome by prudent design. For example, the fill area in the southwest area of the harbor created strong oscillations. However, the same facility could be designed as a pile- supported structure and the strong oscillations would be avoided. The breakwater extension present in some of the plans might be designed without a core, allowing it to block wind waves and swell but remain transparent to long waves. A physical model study to refine and validate the preferred plan(s) is strongly recommended as a final phase of the studies. The physical modeling component was part of the originally proposed WES study. Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations 89 90 Table 21 Plans with H>1 ft Less Than 1 Percent of the Time Piers 2&3 Barge Boat Ramp Passenger Pier gi Table 22 Plans with H,,,,,2 10 cm Less Than 16 Percent of the Time, 100- to 400-sec Periods Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations Table 23 Plans with H,,,.,,210 cm Less Than 7 Percent of the Time, 30- to 100-sec Periods Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations 91 92 References Allsop, N. W. H. (1990). “Reflection performance of rock armoured slopes in random waves.” Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Coastal Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 2, 1460- 1472. Basco, D. R., and McGehee, D. D. (1990). “A methodology to select nearshore wave gauge sites: The Virginia wave gauge study,” Report No. 90-1, Coastal Engineering Institute, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA. Berkhoff, J.C. W. (1972). “Computation of combined refraction-diffraction.” Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Coastal Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 1, 471-490. Blue, F. L., and Johnson, J. W. (1949). “Diffraction of water waves passing through a breakwater gap.” Transactions, American Geophysical Union. Vol 30, No. 5, 705-718. Bottin, R. R., Jr., Sargent, F. E., and Mize, M. G. (1985). “Fisherman’s Wharf area, San Francisco Bay, California, design for wave protection: Physical and numerical model investigation,” Technical Report CERC-86-7, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Bowers, E. C., and Welsby, J. (1982). “Experimental study of diffraction through a breakwater gap,” Report No. IT 229, Hydraulics Research Station, Wallingford, England. Briggs, M. J., Lillycrop, L. S., and McGehee, D. D. (1992). “Comparison of model and field results for Barbers Point Harbor.” Proceedings, Coastal Engineering Practice. American Society of Civil Engineers, 387-99. Briggs, M. J., Lillycrop, L. S., Harkins, G. R., Thompson, E. F., and Green, D. R. (1994). “Physical and numerical model studies of Barbers Point Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii,” Technical Report CERC-94-14, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. References Chen, H. S. (1986). “Effects of bottom friction and boundary absorption on water wave scattering,” Applied Ocean Research 8 (2), 99-104. Chen, H. S., and Houston, J. R. (1987). “Calculation of water oscillation in coastal harbors: HARBS and HARBD user’s manual,” Instruction Report CERC-87-2, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Chen, H. S., and Mei, C. C. (1974). “Oscillations and wave forces in an offshore harbor,” Report No. 190, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Clausner, J. E., and Abel, C. E. (1986). “Contained aquatic disposal: Site location and cap material investigations for Outer Indiana Harbor, IN, and Southern Lake Michigan,” Technical Report EL-87-9, Vol II, Appendix J, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Coastal Engineering Research Center. (1996). “Compendium of U.S. wave data, summary statistics, January 1996,” U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station and U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. To obtain copies, contact U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CD-P, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180. Corson, W. D., Abel, C. E., Brooks, R. M., Farrar, P. D., Groves, B. J., Jensen, R. E., Payne, J. B., Ragsdale, D. S., and Tracy, B. A. (1986). “Pacific Coast hindcast deepwater wave information,” WIS Report 14, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Crawford, P. L., and Chen, H. S. (1988). “Comparison of numerical and physical models of wave response in a harbor,” Miscellaneous Paper CERC- 88-11, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Farrar, P. D., and Chen, H. S. (1987). “Wave response of the proposed harbor at Agat, Guam: Numerical model investigation,” Technical Report CERC- 87-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Farrar, P. D., and Houston, J. R. (1982). “Tsunami response of Barbers Point Harbor, Hawaii,” Miscellaneous Paper HL-82-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Goda, Y. (1985). Random seas and design of maritime structures. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, Japan. Harkins, G., Smith, E., McGehee, D., Thompson, E., and Hadley, L. (1996). “Wave response of Kaumalapau Harbor, Lanai, Hawaii,” in preparation, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. References 93 Hasselmann, K., Barnett, T. P., Bouws, E., Carlson, H., Cartwright, D. E., Enke, K., Ewing, J. A., Gienapp, H., Hasselmann, D. E., Kruseman, D., Meerburg, A., Muller, D., Olberg, D. J., Richter, K., Sell, W., and Walden, H. (1973). “Measurements of wind wave growth and swell decay during the Joint North Sea Wave Project (JONSWAP),” Deutsches Hydrographisches Institut, Hamburg, Germany. Houston, J. R. (1976). “Long Beach Harbor numerical analysis of harbor oscillation; Report 1, Existing conditions and proposed improvements,” Miscellaneous Paper H-76-20, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. . (1978). “Interaction of tsunamis with the Hawaiian Islands calculated by a finite-element numerical model,” Journal of Physical Oceanography 8 (1), 93-101. . (1981). “Combined refraction and diffraction of short waves using the finite element method,” Applied Ocean Research 3 (4), 163-170. Houston, J. R., and Garcia, A. W. (1978). “Type 16 flood insurance study: Tsunami predictions for the west coast of the continental United States,” Technical Report H-78-26, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Kaihatu, J. M., Lillycrop, L. S., and Thompson, E. F. (1989). “Effects of entrance channel dredging at Morro Bay, California,” Miscellaneous Paper CERC-89-3, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Lillycrop, L. S., and Boc, S. J. (1992). “Numerical modeling of proposed Kawaihae Harbor, HI.” Proceedings, Coastal Engineering Practice. American Society of Civil Engineers, 412-24. Lillycrop, L. S., and Thompson, E. F. (1996). “Harbor wave oscillation model (HARBD) theory and program documentation,” Coastal Modeling System (CMS) User's Manual, Instruction Report CERC-91-1, M. A. Cialone, ed., U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Lillycrop, L. S., Bratos, S. M., and Thompson, E. F. (1990). “Wave response of proposed improvements to the shallow-draft harbor at Kawaihae, Hawaii,” Miscellaneous Paper CERC-90-8, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Lillycrop, L. S., Bratos, S. M., Thompson, E. F., and Rivers, P. (1993). “Wave response of proposed improvements to the small boat harbor at Maalaea, Maui, Hawaii,” Miscellaneous Paper CERC-93-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. References Markle, D. G., and Boc, S. J. (1994). “Periodic inspections of Kahului and Laupahoehoe Breakwaters, Hawaii; Report 1, base conditions,” Technical Report CERC-94-12, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. McGehee, D. D. (1995). “Requirement for FY95 wave measurements in Kahului Harbor,” Memorandum for Record, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. McGehee, D. D., and McKinney, J. P. “Tsunami detection and warning capability using nearshore submerged pressure transducers; Case study of the 4 October 1994 Shikotan tsunami.” Proceedings, [UGG Tsunami Symposium. In preparation, Boulder, CO. Merrifield, M. A., and Okihiro, M. S. “Correlations between infragravity energy at Kahului Harbor and deep ocean wave buoy measurements,” in preparation, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Mesa, C. (1992). “A dual approach to low frequency energy definition in a small craft harbor.” Proceedings, Coastal Engineering Practice. American Society of Civil Engineers, 400-11. Okihiro, M. S., and Guza, R. T. (1996). “Observations of seiche forcing and amplification in three small harbors,” J. Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering 122 (5), 232-238, American Society of Civil Engineers. Okihiro, M. S., Guza, R. T., O’Reilly, W. C., and McGehee, D. D. (1994). “Selecting wave gauge sites for monitoring harbor oscillations: A case study for Kahului Harbor, Hawaii,” Miscellaneous Paper CERC-94-10, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses. (1995). “Criteria for movements of moored ships in harbours, a practical guide,” Report of Working Group No. 24, Supplement to Bulletin No. 88, Brussels, Belgium. Sargent, F. E. (1989). “Los Angeles - Long Beach Harbor Complex 2020 Plan harbor resonance analysis: Numerical model investigation,” Technical Report CERC-89-16, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Sargent, F. E., Markle, D. G., and Grace, P. J. (1988). “Case histories of Corps . breakwater and jetty structures; Report 4, Pacific Ocean Division,” Technical Report REMR-CO-3, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Seabergh, W. C., and Thomas, L. J. (1995). “Los Angeles Harbor Pier 400 harbor resonance model study,” Technical Report CERC-95-8, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. References 95 Seymour, R., Castel, D., McGehee, D., Thomas, J., and O’Reilly, W. (1993). “New technology in coastal wave monitoring.” Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposuim on Ocean Wave Measurement and Analysis. American Society of Civil Engineers, 105-123. Sorensen, R. M. (1993). Basic wave mechanics for coastal and ocean engineers. Wiley, New York. Steele, K. E., and Mettlach, T. (1993). “NDBC wave data - current and planned.” Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Ocean Wave Measurement and Analysis. American Society of Civil Engineers, 198-207. Thompson, E. F. (1980). “Energy spectra in shallow U.S. coastal waters,” Technical Paper 80-2, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. . (1995). “Estimation of peak period in wave data from Kahului Harbor,” Memorandum for Record, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Thompson, E. F., and Hadley, L. L. (1994a). “Wave response of Port Allen Harbor, Kauai, Hawaii” Miscellaneous Paper CERC-94-9, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. . (1994b). “Wave response of proposed improvement plan 6 to the small boat harbor at Maalaea, Maui, Hawaii” Miscellaneous Paper CERC-94- 17, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. . (1995). “Numerical modeling of harbor response to waves,” J. Coastal Research 11(3), 744-753. Thompson, E. F., Chen, H. S., and Hadley, L. L. (1993). “Numerical modeling of waves in harbors,” Proceedings, WAVES 93. American Society of Civil Engineers, 590-601. . (1996). “Validation of a numerical model for wind waves and swell in harbors,” J. Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering 122 (5), 245-257, American Society of Civil Engineers. Turner, P. J., and Baptista, A. M. (1993). “ACE/gredit User’s Manual,” Center for Coastal and Land-Margin Research, Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology, Beaverton, OR. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (1989). “Water levels and wave heights for coastal engineering design,” Engineer Manual 1110-2-1414, Washington, DC. 96 References Weishar, L. L., and Aubrey, D. G. (1986). “A study of inlet hydraulics at Green Harbor, Marshfield, Mass.,” Miscellaneous Paper CERC 88-10, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Wilson, B. W. (1967). “The threshold of surge damage for moored ships.” Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers. London, Vol. 38, 107-132. References 97 x Int ah aL Oy ai apo hy LM alt G2 ep Teagan PT ately, nope a iuyieyg i) hori Ao betel: ee denon alt syed ) w rr sealed UBS, til gu themed ~a0? ailliy N alncheeainans Ys Sppnnaas ‘fy i“ Lh a 7 7 / ; pert, ST", oop ts selina ted. ¢é ey pee aA heetipeme tesa a , online, Seo ON jpeadirr' : jah ves pi eet ealion't iombouens Bit : is VE": Acamg Magi Reeser an ‘\ — ; \ , 9 Oo A eNO Awd, GOTT AA ie amudlacdalale ad’ yesnpuegete big PEM. Ape S i aah ash sd ar i ( ; ce) aie ; v ic a, 7 : : fb) ih, @) aie sveeysnan an shin % , ° go pie Aitte Anh nw Pape € Sande, ina, a ae , 7 Te — i | 2 q) ied a Aiea? “ork, Wt edy, 1. ie uN * Ae y i a a Wicien aps jailed lee uienane a”! Veron Qads & Xcel ee ghee mn ro omer af ' * yet OP ria Ry, APNE ST HA Het nasi os "la mre Dig ice! 7 i), ait nw ener ae i 7 Bed Beh ale NATE Rm ne yi Tenens: 17, eat 4 do Nahabiks i por “ones oe wy 10606 Jap eey ‘scl wae ciitieaet dk =~ My Eaipreiren, me eae : - oe jsalialadiaalid Balers oh A he voi wea aoe ald | te. eee ‘yt mt Tia or oy 77 iain: 7 ~ ap ; * es PAL rons : ye : i ‘- : i : i, 4a : : , ME } Appendix A Field Data Summary Appendix A Field Data Summary Al Table A1 Number of Occurrences of T, and 6,, Array Appendix A Field Data Summary Table A1 (Concluded) 6, (deg azimuth (bec 214- 220- | 222- | 224 | 226- | 228- Appendix A Field Data Summary A3 NDBC 51026, N. MOLOKAI (21.37N 156.96W) NUMBER OF RECORDS WITH HMO BY MONTH FOR 1993 - 1996 YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL 1993 331 574 681 485 (0) 151 700 686 677 708 700 701 6394 1994 701 591 697 712 172 0 0 0) 325 727 701 486 5112 1995 137 646 727 701 733 707 728 727 709 7129 703 715 7962 1996 716 680 0 10) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1396 NUMBER OF RECORDS WITH HMO AND Tp BY MONTH FOR 1993 - 1996 YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL 1993 331 574 681 485 0 151 700 686 677 708 700 701 6394 1994 701 591 697 712 172 0 0 ie) 325 727 701 486 5112 1995 137 646 727 701 733 707 728 727 7109 729 703 715 7962 1996 716 680 0 0 0) 0 0 0 0 0 fe) fe) 1396 NUMBER OF RECORDS WITH HMO, Tp, AND Dp BY MONTH FOR 1993 - 1996 YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL 1993 331 574 681 485 (0) Sal 700 686 677 708 700 701 6394 1994 701 S591 697 712 172 (0) 0 0 325 727 701 486 5112 1995 137 646 727 701 733 707 7128 727 7109 729 703 TALS) 7962 1996 716 680 fo) 0 10) (0) te) 0 0 (0) (0) (0) 1396 A4 Appendix A Field Data Summary MEAN Hm0 (METRES) BY MONTH AND YEAR NDBC BUOY 51026 (21.37 N, 156.96 W) MONTH JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC YEAR MEAN 1993 20 208) Bo® Bot . wed M6 AsO» abot) Boa 2sB S62 Acs} 1994 20) Beh Bs 25S Goat . : oS 4250 268 Seal Zit) 1995 Do} Bo Bo) Bseh wdsGe aAloGo wes aoO “aled "260 Ses) BeS 2.0 1996 Poth SEC cS 6 : . : O 5 . . 2).9 MEAN 2.8 @Bo7 2c 255) Bel aeG ao Ao w6O Bo BAoO Bee LARGEST Hm0 (METRES) BY MONTH AND YEAR NDBC BUOY 51026 (21.37 N, 156.96 W) MONTH JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC YEAR 1993 3.5 6.8 5.0 4.4 2.9 G0 G7 Zoo So} Gow Bol 1994 §o6 @oG> 64.0 4.5 2.6 o 0 0 2.4 3.7 4.8 5.0 1995 AS 3.5 4.6 468 Sa 255 259 2.8 S59 So4h YoS Sa 1996 550 Soe) S 4 YR. STATISTICS FOR NDBC BUOY 51026 (21.37 N, 156.96 W) THE MEAN SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT (METRES) = Zod THE MEAN PEAK WAVE PERIOD (SECONDS) = OR, THE MOST FREQUENT 22.5(CENTER) DIRECTION BAND (DEGREES) = 90.0 THE STANDARD DEVIATION OF Hm0 (METRES) = 0.8 THE STANDARD DEVIATION OF TP (SECONDS) = 208) THE LARGEST Hm0 (METRES) = ToS THE TP (SECONDS) ASSOC. WITH THE LARGEST Hm0= 16.7 THE PEAK DIRECTION (DEGREES) ASSOC. WITH THE LARGEST Hm0= 344.0 THE DATE OF LARGEST Hm0 OCCURRENCE IS 95114350 Appendix A Field Data Summary BUOY STATION 51026 21.37 N, 156.96 W AZIMUTH(DEGREES) = 0.0 PERCENT OCCURRENCE (X1000) OF HEIGHT AND PERIOD BY DIRECTION HEIGHT (METRES) PEAK PERIOD (SECONDS) TOTAL <6.9 6.9— 8-1— 8.8— 9)-/6— 10-6— 11°8— 13°4— 15 54— 18° 2— 8.0 eZ Qos) alc) shila 7) alsios} abby} abfs}oal awlopsfejajs 0.0-0.9 : 14 23 28 4 14 : ° . . 83 ib W=w6©) 4 43 186 493 1064 929 464 110 14 4 3311 Bo Q4 o¥) 9 28 86 153 301 867 1020 220 tal 9 2764 SJ5=3358) : . 9 23 105 162 522 412 119 : 1352 4.0-4.9 Q . : : 9 4 86 115 81 4 299 5.0-5.9 C ° 28 9 37 6.0-6.9 3 9 4 13 Vo s¥) 0 : . 0 8.0-8.9 c 0 : - 0 ORO Sho 0 0 ° 0 10.0+ S 0 . : . : ° ° 0 TOTAL 13 85 304 697 1483 1976 2092 857 322 30 MEAN Hm0(M) = 2.3 LARGEST Hm0 (M)= 6.3 MEAN TP(SEC)= 11.5 NO. OF CASES= 1645. BUOY STATION 51026 21.37 N, 156.96 W AZIMUTH (DEGREES) = 22.5 PERCENT OCCURRENCE (X1000) OF HEIGHT AND PERIOD BY DIRECTION HEIGHT (METRES) PEAK PERIOD (SECONDS) TOTAL <6.9 6.9- 8.1- 8.8- 9.6- 10.6- 11.8- 13.4- 15.4- 18.2- 8.0 8.7 959 UO saoey aso WSs} wa oal Inoysfejain 0.0-0.9 0 23 38 14 38 : : 6 : : 113 i @=al 8) 4 76 268 680 824 311 67 6 o 2230 720-268) 19 138 167 186 258 532 560 76 14 2 1950 3.0-3.9 4 9 43 206 162 110 158 158 23 Es 873 4.0-4.9 : 28 33 67 : 128 SeO=529 oC : e 19 14 33 6.0-6.9 : 3 o 0 Omi 9 : . - 2 E 0 8.0-8.9 C 3 - 5 : 0 920—9159 : : . 5 : 0 10.0+ 0 o 5 : - ° 5 : C 0 TOTAL 27 246 516 1086 1310 953 785 267 123 14 MEAN Hm0(M) = 2.2 LARGEST Hm0 (M)= 5.8 MEAN TP(SEC)= 10.5 NO. OF CASES= 1115. A6 Appendix A Field Data Summary BUOY STATION 51026 PERCENT OCCURRENCE (X1000) OF HEIGHT AND PERIOD BY DIRECTION HEIGHT (METRES) <6.9 0.0-0.9 : 1.0-1.9 95 220) 5) 67 3.0-3.9 4 4.0-4.9 SmO> 519 6.0-6.9 7.0-7.9 8.0-8.9 9.0-9.9 10.0+ : TOTAL 166 MEAN Hm0(M) = 2.1 6.9- 8.0 38 690 474 Ua 4 1277 8.7 86 666 517 148 1417 21.37 N, 8.8- Se) 100 949 661 268 23 2001 LARGEST Hm0 (M)= BUOY STATION 51026 PERCENT OCCURRENCE (X1000) OF HEIGHT AND PERIOD BY DIRECTION HEIGHT (METRES) <6.9 0.0-0.9 23 1.0-1.9 1318 2.0-2.9 416 3.0-3.9 4.0-4.9 5.0=5.9 6.0-6.9 7.0-7.9 8.0-8.9 9.0-9.9 10.0+ - TOTAL ATS MEAN Hm0(M) = 2.2 6.9- 8.0 76 3168 1787 134 5165 Gaalo 8.7 71 2367 2276 273 14 5001 21.37 N, 8 .8- 58) 33 1433 1974 632 105 4 4181 LARGEST Hm0 (M)= Appendix A Field Data Summary 156.96 W PEAK PERIOD (SECONDS) AZIMUTH (DEGREES) = 45.0 9.6- 10.6- 11.8- 13.4- 15.4- 18.2- OPS) 23 642 1473 5.2 MEAN TP (SEC)= Lal 7 582 156.96 W ALS} 84 PEAK PERIOD (SECONDS) ieyos} alisicat 9 9 Yak 14 23 2 103 23 LONGER 9.1 NO. OF CASES= AZIMUTH (DEGREES ) = 67.5 663 L0>6> aloo atsodo tS odio ale Gao 10.5 450 637 508 287 33 1915 6.0 MEAN TP (SEC) = 11.7 210 100 67 292 76 745 13.3 23 33 93 Uo vabisical 4 9 19 32 0 8.4 NO. LONGER OF CASES= TOTAL 1491. TOTAL 3945. A7 BUOY STATION 51026 PERCENT OCCURRENCE (X1000) OF HEIGHT AND PERIOD BY DIRECTION HEIGHT (METRES) <659 (6.59= (8 1— 18)8= 8.0 8.7 66) 0.0-0.9 81 81 105 28 iL (ab &) Tews 3091 3589 2175 2029 493 1615 2324 3311 350-358) 4 81 263 661 4.0-4.9 c C 4 14 SoWSS58) 0 : 6.0-6.9 . : 7.0-7.9 . : 8.0-8.9 : 0 SRO—9)59 2 10.0+ 5 : 5 : TOTAL 2193 4868 6285 6189 MEAN Hm0(M) = 2.2 LARGEST Hm0 (M)= BUOY STATION 51026 21.37 N, HEIGHT (METRES) <6.9 6.9- 8.1- 8.8- 8.0 8.7 68 0.0-0.9 : 0 : 0 1.0-1.9 47 28 23 38 2.0-2.9 19 4 62 350-358) 4.0-4.9 . 5.0-5.9 6 6.0-6.9 cS C 7.0-7.9 C 8.0-8.9 : 9.0-9.9 6 : 10.0+ 0 : : : TOTAL 47 47 27 100 MEAN Hm0(M) = 2.0 LARGEST Hm0(M)= A8 21.37 N, 156.96 W PEAK PERIOD (SECONDS) AZIMUTH (DEGREES) = 90.0 TOTAL 9.6—- 10.6—- 11.8- 13.4—- 15.4- 18.2- Moby alabe7f abs}o3} 282 1926 1231 244 3683 4.9 156. 4 : 402 206 287 9 579 38 369 19 1641 272 MEAN TP (SEC) = 15.3 18.1 LONGER 132 75 0 8.7 NO. OF CASES= 5291. 96 W AZIMUTH (DEGREES) =112.5 PERCENT OCCURRENCE (X1000) OF HEIGHT AND PERIOD BY DIRECTION PEAK PERIOD (SECONDS) TOTAL Yo 6— UWoG— dal fio asd IG.¢> WB .2o 10.5 3.6 tio isos 4 4 43 19 27 43 MEAN TP (SEC) = 15.3 18.1 LONGER 0 0 0 9.1 NO. OF CASES= 78. Appendix A Field Data Summary BUOY STATION 51026 21.37 N, 156.96 W AZIMUTH (DEGREES) =135.0 PERCENT OCCURRENCE (X1000) OF HEIGHT AND PERIOD BY DIRECTION HEIGHT (METRES) PEAK PERIOD (SECONDS) <6.9 6.9— 8.1- 8.8- 9.6- 10.6- 11.8- 13.4- 15.4- 18.2- 8.0 8.7 955 NWO. aloy akscSi alos) aboab atlojsrejaag 0.0-0.9 p 2 ; 1.0-1.9 2 e ‘ 5 3 5 2.0-2.9 5 z 2 : . A 4 3.0-3.9 : i . : 5 ; 3 4 4.0-4.9 - 3 . 2 x 5.0-5.9 5 : , x 2 A 6.0-6.9 ; ce : : 7.0-7.9 F ‘ . 4 3 i 8.0-8.9 : i ; 9.0-9.9 s 10.0+ d ; : f : 5 ; e : : TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 MEAN Hm0(M) = 3.1 LARGEST Hm0(M)= 3.5 MEAN TP(SEC)= 22.5 NO. OF CASES= BUOY STATION 51026 21.37 N, 156.96 W AZIMUTH (DEGREES) =157.5 PERCENT OCCURRENCE (X1000) OF HEIGHT AND PERIOD BY DIRECTION HEIGHT (METRES) PEAK PERIOD (SECONDS) <6.9 6.9- 8.1- 8.8- 9.6- 10.6— 11.8- 13.4- 15.4- 18.2- 3.0 8.7 9.65 20.8 D7 U5 TASS WA wore 0.0-0.9 - y 1.0-1.9 Z 2 2.0-2.9 : 3.0-3.9 : “ 4.0-4.9 5 : 5.0-5.9 ei ‘ 6.0-6.9 , : 7.0-7.9 3 8-0-8.9 x 9.0-9.9 10.0+ : ’ : : : « : ; : : TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MEAN Hm0(M) = 0.0 LARGEST Hm0(M)= 0.0 MEAN TP(SEC)= 0.0 NO. OF CASES= Appendix A Field Data Summary TOTAL oooooo°ocr bhO°O TOTAL ooooocaoooceo°eo AQ BUOY STATION 51026 PERCENT OCCURRENCE (X1000) OF HEIGHT AND PERIOD BY DIRECTION 21.37 N, 156.96 W AZIMUTH (DEGREES) =180.0 HEIGHT (METRES) PEAK PERIOD (SECONDS) TOTAL <6 6.9— 8.1— 8.8— 9.6- 10.6— 11.8—- 13.4— 15.4— 18.2- 8.0 8.7 9.5 10.5 11.7 13.3 15.3 18.1 LONGER 0.0-0.9 0 : ° . . . 0 ib seek) 5 : 0 . : . 0 AS O—450) : . . . . . 0 SRO seo 6 C ; . . ° . . . 0 4.0-4.9 : o . ° 0 SJoW=S58) . 0 6.0-6.9 6S C . : . 0 7.0-7.9 a 3 0 . . 0 8.0-8.9 3 6 : ° F ° : 0 N50=959) : : : 5 ° : 0 10.0+ : . : ° ° 5 O : ° 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MEAN Hm0(M) = 0.0 LARGEST Hm0(M)= 0.0 MEAN TP(SEC)= 0.0 NO. OF CASES= 0. BUOY STATION 51026 21.37 N, 156.96 W AZIMUTH (DEGREES) =202.5 PERCENT OCCURRENCE (X1000) OF HEIGHT AND PERIOD BY DIRECTION HEIGHT (METRES) PEAK PERIOD (SECONDS) TOTAL KGoQ) Go9> Bolo Boke Oo6> LO.6> dil.B> Isto UG él W§.a5 8.0 8.7 9.5 10.5 11.7 13.3 15.3 18.1 LONGER 0.0-0.9 : cS : : 2 0 aL 6 ak) : : C 0 O 9 0 2 (74.58) 2 } : ° o ; : 0 3.0-3.9 . : : C 0 0 0 0 4.0-4.9 . . 0 0 3 0 0 Bo} : : 2 : 0 0 6.0-6.9 . 0 0 0 . 0 U oO of) 0 0 : 0 8.0-8.9 : : : . : : : 0 S099 : : 0 10.0+ . : 0 2 : 5 : : O 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0) 0 0 0 0 0 MEAN Hm0(M) = 0.0 LARGEST Hm0 (M)= 0.0 MEAN TP(SEC)= 0.0 NO. OF CASES= 0. A10 Appendix A Field Data Summary BUOY STATION 51026 21.37 N, 156.96 W AZIMUTH(DEGREES) =225.0 PERCENT OCCURRENCE (X1000) OF HEIGHT AND PERIOD BY DIRECTION HEIGHT (METRES) PEAK PERIOD (SECONDS) <6.9 6.9- 8.1- 8.8- 9.6- 10.6- 11.8- 13.4- 15.4- 18.2- 8.0 8.7 9.5 10.5 11.7 13.3 15.3 18.1 LONGER | ° | +OODIYWHADA UM PWNHNH OO . ODI AHDU Pf WNH OC ° e ° Th Tete eae . io A Co Fal Vo al Vo al Vo a Vo Coa (oda (oa Co) ° ° . ° ° . ° ° e ae Be BO Oo ney oO nay Oo oO oO (o) fo} > MEAN Hm0(M) = 1.4 LARGEST Hm0(M)= 1.7 MEAN TP(SEC)= 12.1 NO. OF CASES= BUOY STATION 51026 21.37 N, 156.96 W AZIMUTH (DEGREES) =247.5 PERCENT OCCURRENCE (X1000) OF HEIGHT AND PERIOD BY DIRECTION HEIGHT (METRES) PEAK PERIOD (SECONDS) “G58 Gole= Bade otk OoG= OG) aloo also WS oti) al} (Ao 8.0 8.7 Show LOSS) WSs) LSet e).15 LONGER eo. . ee woWoWoO WoO wowow Ww WO oO . ° . ° WODAIAHDUPWNEeH OC oe . ooooooooo;o OWIAHAUPWNr OO OF iE ME Ue ee Ue Te a + ray oO 0 0 0 4 0 4 fe) : oO H cay ry Cc) o MEAN Hm0(M) = 1.3 LARGEST Hm0 (M)= 1.9 MEAN TP(SEC)= 9.4 NO. OF CASES= Appendix A Field Data Summary TOTAL Go OoCOCOOOCOOOOON Oo TOTAL ooooooqocoeoon eo A11 BUOY STATION 51026 21.37 N, 156.96 W AZIMUTH (DEGREES) =270.0 PERCENT OCCURRENCE (X1000) OF HEIGHT AND PERIOD BY DIRECTION HEIGHT (METRES) PEAK PERIOD (SECONDS) TOTAL <6.9 6.9—- 8.1— 8.8- 9.6—- 10.6—- 11.8- 13.4— 15.4— 18.2- 8.0 8.7 SO) LORS SL 7 Se Sie3 el Siss) el! Gol ONGER: 0.0-0.9 4 : 5 C 4 5 ° 8 1.0-1.9 5 5 4 : 4 14 C . 4 26 BoQ=4o¥) ° ° . 3 4 ° o 4 3.0-3.9 . 0 : ° ° . o . 0 4.0-4.9 9 . . . ° ° . 2 0 Sei —Si9 0 : . : . 0 6.0-6.9 2 : : . . 0 ToW@7 of) fs ° ’ . : 0 8.0-8.9 : C 0 - : : 0 )50S9o8) C : c : . . - 0 10.0+ 6 E 0 a 0 . 5 2 ° ° 0 TOTAL 0 0 4 4 0 4 18 4 0 4 MEAN Hm0(M) = 1.4 LARGEST Hm0(M)= 2.9 MEAN TP(SEC)= 12.5 NO. OF CASES= 9. BUOY STATION 51026 21.37 N, 156.96 W AZIMUTH (DEGREES) =292.5 PERCENT OCCURRENCE (X1000) OF HEIGHT AND PERIOD BY DIRECTION HEIGHT (METRES) PEAK PERIOD (SECONDS) TOTAL “558 Go9> Bodo o> SoG= tOo6> ttobe is¢élo abot Wg oa= 8.0 8.7 9.5 10.5 11.7 13.3 15.3 18.1 LONGER 0.0-0.9 o 9 9 9 9 2 6 36 al <@=28) C 38 86 282 225 86 38 755 2.0-2.9 C 19 91 138 273 254 76 851 3.0-3.9 c ¢ 19 105 124 28 276 4.0-4.9 : E ° 62 9 71 5.0-5.9 : ° : 2 c 0 6.0-6.9 c : : C : E 0 0 C 0 7.0-7.9 : : . : E 5 0 8.0-8.9 : 0 0 c C 0 0 0 9.0-9.9 : 0 9 : 0 10.0+ C 5 S : C : 0 . 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 66 186 448 612 526 151 MEAN Hm0(M) = 2.3 LARGEST Hm0(M)= 4.9 MEAN TP(SEC)= 14.5 NO. OF CASES= 417. Ai2 Appendix A Field Data Summary BUOY STATION 51026 21.37 N, PERCENT OCCURRENCE (X1000) OF HEIGHT AND PERIOD BY DIRECTION HEIGHT (METRES) <955) GSE) calor othe 8.0 8.7 65) 25S 0.0-0.9 . 4 2 28 1.0-1.9 ° 23 110 273 2.0-2.9 23 9 14 38 100 3.0-3.9 3 0 9 9 28 4.0-4.9 : 5 9 C 5.0-5.9 s : - 6.0-6.9 3 6 0 . 7.0-7.9 : S 8.0-8.9 é c 9.0-9.9 . e 10.0+ . : 0 0 . TOTAL 23 9 50 157 429 MEAN Hm0(M) = 2.5 LARGEST Hm0(M)= BUOY STATION 51026 21.37 N, HEIGHT (METRES) PEAK PERIOD (SECONDS) PEAK PERIOD (SECONDS) & Ss Figure D3. Wave direction time series plot for November 1994 Appendix D Wave Climate Summary D3 HAWAII 1993. - 1994 6:156.96 W, BUOY 51026 ON BY MONTH WAVE INFORMATI KAHULUI HARBOR LON LAT: 21.37 .N SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCES OF WAVE HEIGHT BY MONTH FOR ALL YEARS TOTAL FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN Hmo(m) SOVANAK—MMNDODOOOOO0O000 eee eee Mesroerm DiS SES FIER SS 000700 0°00-050° TER SRR oR RRC RCC SOK KNNUMMITNNOORKRDODAKnO DINK OnNODODOKOOCOnDoODoOoOnd Ooo efmjlojlojlojeajelelaelololoelolalolalolalola={=} SHSHNSMOMSMNSMNSNSNnonenge SSH NAIMMYSIINGSNNAAOOS 7221 TOTAL OCCURRENCES OF PEAK PERIOD BY MONTH FOR ALL YEARS TOTAL FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV _ DEC JAN Tp(sec) OMTKKN OO Lotto] WNCOM = in e # COINMOOOst sh WQSO"-O a “Mc © 8 (QOMMO-O OO OQ © » ot TMNNS "MRS —MOOOM "= 90 «= 2 10 MMORNN — we ——NO N = 3 8 8 1 4 1 88 17 -—TNNMM - A ANNNNMNANAAANAAANAG ees ee ee ew =z MTINGNOKOK WMS INONIKO cere rrr a Ce 999999SSS9S9999S8SO cece ep ee oo ee oe ee MYINON DAO KAMARON DAO errr ceere 7221 0 325 1435 1401 1187 0 TOTAL OCCURRENCES OF PEAK DIRECTION BY MONTH FOR ALL YEARS TOTAL FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN Op(de DIRECTION BANDS CENTER TODQAININT-OOONDO= 0 RNaONmM on SMNMO cme —N -- Oestrevst ee ee ee TANS wn stm Mc eu N- sMOoohm~t * ee ee NN OnNMUONs We SenKNN - QOUINKRRN © © 8 ew OOMOn lohelolo yo) Amn - =-—NM -M IROOM © & 0 8 ee 2 oe MN mM Mtn “vs - Ce Ce —- Nw0oO - eee ee oe on No N- - LAtOINCOM « & . ee oO MIUINMOM) [eles - N DADOAN . NOW in Ow NAW = - NOMICOCMLN 8 8 8 8 8 8 tINO NNT -MoO - -— AO—-WO eee ee COON nse Cte — QAOQAOQQGQOQ QBN NON CONOMNOMOMOMOMOMOWN CC er YT ONMNKONINEONINKONINE}” NTOAKMNDONIRAKM Se KKNVNNNNMM ee SS Yee BN BN oN no ne nw oo Ne x ANARARARARARAIRAIN OUD OOO OOD DUO N10 CO 10: MwodKM O00 MIAN OM YG OoreminD OMS Sere KK NNNNMMM RARARRRARARARAE ere ee ee oe eeeceee COmM00—M 0 MOO HO SoHMMNRONTOOKMNDONM m Sree MK NNNNMM 7221 591 697 712 701 TOTAL D4 Appendix D Wave Climate Summary HAWAII 1994 56.56 W, STATION 5 ORMATION BY MONTH ool. BOR G31 N OCCURRENCES OF WAVE HEIGHT BY MONTH FOR ALL YEARS TOTAL FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN Hmo(m) afolalalalalalolalol=l—) OINcOh. HRaNe TS MN 1 he 0 7 9 # © WOLNTONCO © 6 ee ee ot we ew TER oagggneaenegenog eg ons SOK KNNMMSSINNOORN WOOO ee SDSOONDODODOOOBDODDODODGODO00 CNOMOMOMOMONOMONONnONo SCOMKNNMMSTINNOORNGDDAKRO = 8755 672 744 720 744 720 744 744 720 744 720 739 744 TOTAL OCCURRENCES OF PEAK PERIOD BY MONTH FOR ALL YEARS TOTAL FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN Tp(sec) SOON ONMNRMMORNOOO NANODNTHOOM— Oeste sNRN ee 8 OR O0NKR ONC DUM -MnMN come AG OA SO INIOM EAR NOnKMnnsN T2 8 3 8 9 4 NNN a Ww eee Reenter BOOS Ox Cx MIRON DOCK NIM NON GOS were ercreere Ko O0s080)00000 00 00 00 0°07 (afalafalnlalalalalalalalolalolol=i—) ° ce. MSTINORDHAOKMUIMSNOKRDORKRO eer errereee 8755 672 744 720 744 720 744 744 720 744 720 739 744 TOTAL OCCURRENCES OF PEAK DIRECTION BY MONTH FOR ALL YEARS TOTAL FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN Dp(de OIRECTION BANDS CENTER On BON Mt 000 wooun Neno No N LPO & © © © © 8 © 8 oe 8 OOO to wun N Da) QUNMs © © 8 oe ew ow oY —-OMo0 Oo —Ne- N UNO 8 6 8 ow 8 8 8 OOM =v NAN NM - gine ee © © © © © tONCOLNO ur~ -—™4 N -- TM STOORIN § 8 8 8 8 tOminsst OvrMhwte TOMO - - wow eo 2 eo 6 oe On OnaNe * RS& —— RrOstO 2 6 8 8 8 co ow ow tin —ONnKWN ue Na =— TTT ONO 8 8 8 ww tw et tm Qonaom on Lo te Qos eee 6 ee 8 ee tOwW —hee NM Ne N I Nivalve) eee eee ee 8 tn won iva) nM ow ee 8 © ee ee 8 8 OAL wn owt = MN WOO 8 + & oe ee ew wo ow Oy ot N N t+ PRADADAAIAIAAANAIAAAN ONOMOMONOMOMOMOM eee eee hed SIS tt “MOOK MONK MOM MGs =MANonS AKMNDON ST Serer NUNNNMMM RERRRERESERERR SEMRRSN SORES Mm Sree eK NNNNMM 8755 672 744 720 744 720 744 744 720 744 720 739 T44 TOTAL D5 Appendix D Wave Climate Summary FEB = 3 a 3 7 ec > = oe = 45 3 . 916 1128 ° . 1132 1280 C 115 91 : : 5 . : 3 1 . 1 UO NN . SONORAN Roe E>. oO o oeeee DOO DO NNADUIMIEEAWNN OO (elolelalalalelalalolalalalalalalololalala} perereerenreerenenenenvee PYSLSISISISISLSISISI5 = TER TOTAL 4960 4520 Tp(sec) JAN FEB 3.0 - 3.9 E 0 4.0- 4.9 : 9 5.0 - 5.9 17 4 6.0 - 6.9 53 55 7.0 - 7.9 182 229 8.0 - 8.9 261 233 S20 O59) 152 90 10.0 - 10.9 293 343 11.0 - 11.9 1366 1181 12.0 - 12.9 Q 9 13.0 - 13.9 1850 1806 14.0 - 14.9 749 =510 15.0 - 15.9 : 0 16.0 - 16.9 : 17.0 - 17.9 37 69 18.0 - 18.9 : 19.0 - 19.9 20.0 - LONGER TOTAL 4960 4520 Dprdeg? JAN DIRECTION BAND CENTER 348.75 - 11.24 ( 0.0) 240 11.25 - 33.74 ( 22.5) 81 33.75 - 56.24 ( 45.0) 47 56.25 - 78.74 ( 67.5) 105 78.75 - 101.24 ¢ 90.0) 166 101.25 - 123.74 (112.5) 14 123.75 - 146.24 (135.0) 29 146.25 - 168.74 (157.5) 35 168.75 - 191.24 (180.0) 33 191.25 - 213.74 (202.5) 42 213.75 - 236.24 (225.0) 30 236.25 - 258.74 (247.5) 58 258.75 - 281.24 (270.0) 48 231.25 - 303.74 (292.5) 1077 303.75 - 326.24 (315.0) 2662 326.25 - 348.74 (337.5) 293 TOTAL 4960 D6 HARBOR, HAWAII 1956 - 1975 LAT: 216g he LONG 155.69. W ORIGINAL STATION 31 SUMMARY OF WAVE INFORMATION BY MONTH OCCURRENCES OF WAVE HEIGHT BY MONTH FOR ALL YEARS MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL . . . : . . . * 0 : c 16 74 29 89 95 44 c 348 25 38 529 654 537 —504 2 189 54 11 3241 281 565 1550 1816 1701 2284 2221 1168 328 102 12116 949 1377 1680 1640 2335 1723 1539 1692 867 313 14940 1555 1672 1039 551 358 319 230 1252 1371 1067 11458 1365 800 146 64 . 32 30 430 1237 1531 8047 561 230 ° 1 . 9 3 124 577 953 4530 149 81 ° . 56 248 494 2002 44 16 o . 5 86 281 936 15 19 . . . 17—=«-112 411 5 2 : . 5 5 63 234 3 G 5 . . 5 33 143 8 . . . . . 5 5 : 30 . . . . . . . ° 4 5 . 0 . . . . : . 0 C 5 5 . . . . . 0 . 5 . : . . . 0 ° < . . . ° . . 0) O . . . A) 5 . . 0 4960 4800 4960 4800 4960 4960 4800 4960 4800 4960 58440 OCCURRENCES OF PEAK PERIOD BY MONTH FOR ALL YEARS MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL 5 5 . 5 5 8 4 47 388 628 0 1292 794 151 25 1 3991 466 566 900 1203 1088 529 300 122 80 5459 333 958 908 834 1145 946 625 376 407 394 7337 470 735 1244 1349 1580 1197 1087 694 331 362 9543 329 415 597 587 25 279 «8670 742 225 114 4450 730 776 86344 2 112 728 1034 657 2 6096 1314 941 420 134 6 42 304 958 1152 1142 He 1310 397 61 24 7 4 63 546 1474 1771 9306 322. «111 ° * 6 159 377 762 Bok : : : - 0 48 . 0 30 70 oe : 0 5 0 : . 0 4960 4800 4960 4800 4960 4960 4800 4960 4800 4960 58440 OCCURRENCES OF PEAK DIRECTION BY MONTH FOR ALL YEARS FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV _ DEC TOTAL 121. 305 223 203 126 87 80 104 400 257 234 2380 84 125 50 104 17 51 13 48 114 65 906 104 152 310 191 845 (656 (380 229 81 146 3407 253 312 926 906 1207 1867 2008 1093 452 442 327 9898 99 292 495 818 87. 384 724 445 198 180 179 4852 12. 51 67 78 5 40 13 23 17 66 422 8 15 11 7 12 3 : : 8 29 30 152 18 : 12 1 : : 9 1 3 18 6 94 o i : 2 : : : c 1 1 10 46 5 7 ° : 1 9 41 a 5 5 9 119 1 9 5 v4 2 c 5 . 4 3 2 56 10 14 : 2 : . é 5 3 E 13 100 35 7 = = : : = : c 6 96 1285 1194 (312 232 496 1121 385 (20 80 7 _580 7045 2287 2201 2020 1976 1543 463 817 1627 2254 2746 3059 23655 203 275 -3 435 224 125 136 1206 832 228 5212 4520 4960 4800 4960 4800 4960 4960 4800 4960 4800 4960 58440 Appendix D Wave Climate Summary GAGE 77 Of BY MONTH 156.47 W INFORMATI OR, HAWAII_1993 - 1994 LotG 90 SUMMARY OF UI HARB GA KAHUL' LAT: 20. OCCURRENCES OF WAVE HEIGHT BY MONTH FOR ALL YEARS TOTAL FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN Hmo(m) WMAND = OOOCGOO0000000 LM 3 0 1 1 a RE RE AE AT ATAL ESSAY SOT MKNNMMSSININOORK. OODROr 9 CCCI at CN Tt CC Ct TT elalojelelelololelalololalalelalalalalal=} SQNOMOMNSMNOMOMNOMNOMNONOMo COMMA MY SIAN OORNG GOOD 3128 212 202 233 236 218 227 182 218 228 466 475 231 TOTAL OCCURRENCES OF PEAK PERIOD BY MONTH FOR ALL YEARS TOTAL FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN Tp(sec) NWN OBMAON OO KNKNMMNINNK NY le 2 2 2 SOO OM Natt hint Neen PAS NSINGNROMRG 8 ee ee Tm <—NMMO POMNTKOM © eo ee te ee ew MRSNN *ROMCOOOMTN © 2 8 et ee we ial ab dala) *COOSOM-LN~TONO 8 8 8 8 ee e—INONG MOSTAROTNDK-OKMTN 8 2s NN|YN KNIT *—000M MASFONRK Nem orem N MANM Nem 28 re EINATONINEININMAN & NM Sn ee 8 ee COMNNUTOONOMN= + TH—MNMMK NK 2 eee OANTUOMONKOM= + KNIT NNM ee FH CN ANA AACA AACA CACACACACA ACA oo oe eo 0 ee «eo a4 MIRON DAOKAIMYIRON WAS Dh eh ol el el el el ek ee Ce et 9999S99SSSSSSSS0SS coeee ee ee ee eee MSINONDROKNMSIRON DOO Srrrr rrr KV 3128 212 202 233 236 218 227 182 218 228 466 475 231 TOTAL OCCURRENCES OF PEAK DIRECTION BY MONTH FOR ALL YEARS TOTAL FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV _ DEC JAN Dp(de DIRECTION Banos CENTER LAS N-OOOOO— 299 63 165 16 COMUNCONI © © © © © © we 8 ow 8 COLNCOW *®§ © © © © © © ew ow SOOKM © ee ee ww ee OOK ee ee ee ee ee NOwR SMe 8 te ee o~ N ODMR ORGIMEem 8 ee toe ine a SUNT? 9-0 0°00 0-0 0 X= ch OOM © © © ee we ee mo -— =_ Vote ene tanto enter etg ented ONOMNOMNOMNOMOMOMOoWM CO aC Da Oe ONMFONNEONNRONINY-” NTOKKMNDONSROAKM Sere NNNNM), ee Soest ttt ttt ttt ARNE NRA NRA NRA se eee ee ee —M0Oe MO KMOOKMOO THMNKONTOOKMNDONMST Seer KK NUNNNMMM RaRARARARARARARA QHMGVK MONK MIDIS Sarin TOAKMNDOM Ser K HK NNNNMM 3128 212 202 4233 «236 «©6218 )«=6h27F)S 1820218 )=— 228466475 231 TOTAL D7 Appendix D Wave Climate Summary . r 4 ny "9 | i ¢ - | ; 4! ee | po eee Mi ; PS et i , ae Ee it 20a NS Cen, we hs ws a i abe lag ‘a ni *y ete sits eee rt te ‘ Oar a ; . a a vane’ lake ; ain ‘ 1 : oe) is P ; iy ni #4 iy | - . 02 ; f siielh silaammeoaeai 4 em a A wut eed (hide < 2 snnesie a rons alt ‘in % \ atenn ah hone si fe Ne IS tet egy (ee sb ta Ae ee Trt (ou "4 aos a thy: i t 1 it ue i, ‘ : i‘ Appendix E Basin Locations for Alternative Plans Appendix E Basin Locations for Alternative Plans E1 E2 Figure E1. Basin locations, Plan 1 Figure E2. Basin locations, Plan 2 Appendix E Basin Locations for Alttemative Plans Figure E3. Basin locations, Plan 3a Figure E4. Basin locations, Plan 3b Appendix E Basin Locations for Alternative Plans E3 E4 Figure E5. Basin locations, Plan 3c Figure E6. Basin locations, Plan 4a Appendix E Basin Locations for Altemative Plans Figure E7. Basin locations, Plans 4b and 6 Figure E8. Basin locations, Plan 4c Appendix E Basin Locations for Altemative Plans E5 E6 Figure E9. Basin locations, Plan 5 Figure E10. Basin locations, Plan 7 Appendix E Basin Locations for Altemative Plans Appendix F Wind Wave and Swell Summaries from Numerical Model List of Tables Table Fl. A,,,, Values for 6,=192 deg, Existing Harbor F2 Table F2. A,,,,, Values for 6,=203 deg, Existing Harbor F4 Table F3. A,,,,,, Values for 6,=214 deg, Existing Harbor F6 Table F4. A,,, Values for 6,=225 deg, Existing Harbor F8 Table F5. A,,,,,, Walues for 6,=236 deg, Existing Harbor F10 Table F6. A,,,,, Walues Weighted by Wind Wave and Swell Climate F12 Table F7. H, Values Exceeded 10 Percent and 1 Percent of the Time at Piers F14 Appendix F Wind Wave and Swell Summaries from Numerical Model F penujjuog, ujseg RRR Roe eee oes Lee BOERS Mi Br ee ee eee ee Eee ee ee oe ee I ae] Ca aes pe wel ae eae eee ee eee ee ee ee Tes] aw] wo] ze] we | we] on] wo | eo] wo] we] eo agp ee ee OO |e [0 | am | amo [ere era ea gee | voit aaa ye ea 2 ae a gee Pee zo es ee a Ld e1geL F2 Appendix F Wind Wave and Swell Summaries from Numerical Model 0.47 0.47 0.47 ® < N (22) = a i) i= o = no) ‘= fe) (Ss) 0.47 0.47 0.47 Kahului Harbor - Existin Wave Period (sec) fos7_[oss [oss | oss _| 047 = o Appendix F Wind Wave and Swell Summaries from Numerical Model F3 80'0 80'0 Zt'0 810 8l'0 x0) ct'0 800 80'0 80°0 800 80'0 800 80'0 co) 0) 40'0 40°0 80’ 80'0 80'0 80'0 60'0 cl'0 Sl'0 40) Js Ol ed 91921 Appendix F Wind Wave and Swell Summaries from Numerical Model F4 0.68 0.68 le of Approach An Conditions - 203-dec Kahulul Harbor - Existin Wave Perlod (sec) Appendix F Wind Wave and Swell Summaries from Numerical Model F5 penujiuod, Zt'0 sol we[ oe zo] eel el zo] vee] ore| ool wo] we] ae] ao] ae a) ET) I |e) = = ) 3 Appendix F Wind Wave and Swell Summaries from Numerical Model | wv | by'0 | sro] 9v0 | 8r'0 | iso] vso| svo| 190] v90 | g0| zo| z0| 920! szo zz 22:0 | 8h SEER eee see eR eee ee ee ee ee ao Pe Ree ee ee ee eee BARI Ieee Te ee eas eee es Ema IEA Peers FE eeeeee | eee ee Soro oR Po Fe Bo ea |e ee ee | POLI ERIE Ee Roe ee 23 ee zs [ee] of 0] on] | enone of ee eel el ae) ao] ao] af wf wo] we] we] me] on we a 3 ro) oo S So 80'0 N — to) 1 0) yoeoiddy jo ajbuy Beap-p1z - suojjpuod bujys|xq - 4oqueH ininyey JoqueH bulys}xq ‘bap 71Z = @ 40} sanjeA ~ €4 e1geL F6 0.37 loca | 0.37 Ang 0.37 0.37 0.37 Conditions - 214-de 0.37 0.37 Kahulul Harbor - Existin Table F3 (Concluded Wave Perlod (sec) Appendix F Wind Wave and Swell Summaries from Numerical Model F7 penujjuod, vy'0 810 210 610 0v'0 Zt'0 ZL'0 Zt'0 810 Appendix F Wind Wave and Swell Summaries from Numerical Model 910 910 9L'0 910 LL'O 0) cl'0 ct'0 cl'0 40'0 40'0 80'0 80'0 80'0 80'0 80'0 80" 80'0 80'0 Zoo | zoo} soo | 800 oe] 80'0 80'0 Tt - >) es 80'0 60°0 08'0 08'0 080 vt pre = (>) @o Va o nN S io) ~ - Oo yoeosddy jo ajbuy Bap-szz - suojy|puoa Buyys|xy - Joquey Ininyey soqueH Buns|x3 ‘Bap szz = "@ 40) sanjea “"'y v4 10281 F8 0.37 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 [0.30 0.17 0.15 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.57 le of Approach An Conditions - 225-de [os7 [oss lose [os [os [oss | ove |oso |osi [oso los | os | oss Kahului Harbor - Existing 0 L 0.19 ' 0.70 | 0.67 062 _| jose _| 097 oa [ose | oso _| Wave Perlod (sec) Appendix F Wind Wave and Swell Summaries from Numerical Model FQ ‘Continued, le of Approach oae_[ous [oar [ooo [ose [oar [ose | Conditions - 236-de =) US o 0.74 g, Existing Kahului Harbor - Existin 0.76 0.75 0.72 So Wave Perlod (sec) Table F5 Appendix F Wind Wave and Swell Summaries from Numerical Model vz § YE fo) le of Approach An Conditions - 236-dec Kahului Harbor - Existin Table F5 (Concluded Wave Perlod (sec) Appendix F Wind Wave and Swell Summaries from Numerical Model F141 Table F6 A,,,,, Values Weighted by Wind Wave and Swell Climate jexising [1 [2 [sa |» [se [aa [a [a |s ‘ oS |° i A i) wo eel el eal ale Wolo eobobee le 0.12 —y NX fo} oO fo) fo} foe) Barge Pier (Planned) Sl ivelivalinelen Ga lmolen be [ene Boat Ramp lio eo incl ken fas ee eee Passenger Ship Pier (Planned) a ee ee Pei ee Sl renee ee Slip in existing fill Notch in existing fill New fill in SW harbor area : Back Basin gage | i © ele 9 |9° =_ ~s 3 Sik =) (Continued) F12 Appendix F Wind Wave and Swell Summaries from Numerical Model Table F6 (Concluded) Other Harbor Areas (concluded) aa ee eee eee jis |ow [oss [oss [oss ost |ors [oss fos for [os | 16 [os [ose [ose | ose | 017 | 00s [05s | a6 | 005 | 0.69 | chanel nrance seoe 7 [os ose [osr |ow |ors joo | | | fox] 3 for [os [oss jose ler joo | | | fem] 9 [om oo [oss |oce | oa: [ozs [oss |oss los [oss | ec ee ie ae ka js 100 | 1.06] 1.09 | 1.08 | 108 | 1.08 | 106 | 1.06 | 1.08 | 1.08 | araygage | Appendix F Wind Wave and Swell Summaries from Numerical Model F13 Table F7 H, Values Exceeded 10 Percent and 1 Percent of the Time at Piers (Sheet 1 of 3 F14 Appendix F Wind Wave and Swell Summaries from Numerical Model Table F7 (Continued) H, Values Exceeded 10% and 1% of Time (ft) Appendix F Wind Wave and Swell Summaries from Numerical Model F15 Table F7 (Concluded) ‘Sheet 3 of 3; F16 Appendix F Wind Wave and Swell Summaries from Numerical Model Appendix G Harbor Oscillation Summaries from Numerical Model List of Figures Figure G1. Figure G2. Figure G3. Figure G4. Figure G5. Figure G6. Long wave response, Pier 1 Long wave response, Piers 2 and 3 Long wave response, barge pier Long wave response, passenger pier Long wave response, boat ramp Comparison to Wilson’s (1967) slope criterion, 100- to 400-sec period Figure G7. Comparison to Wilson’s (1967) slope criterion, 30- to 100-sec period List of Tables Table G1. RMS Values of A,,,,, at Piers, T=100-400 sec Table G2. Percent Occurrence of H,,,,.>10 cm at Piers, T=100-400 sec Table G3. Percent Occurrence of H,,,,.>10 cm at Piers, T=30-100 sec Table G4. Percent Occurrence of Cases Exceeding Wilson’s (1967) Slope Criterion at Piers, 7=100-400 sec Table G5. Percent Occurrence of Cases Exceeding Wilson’s (1967) Slope Criterion at Piers, T=30-100 sec Appendix G Harbor Oscillation Summaries from Numerical Model G2 G13 G14 G15 G16 G17 G18 G1 G2 pane) |pemanrsnEe. PIER 1 Existing Harbor ——— Bosin6 - Amplification Factor 8 a 6 4 2 (0) (0) 8 6 4 2 0 (0) 8 6 4 2 0 0. 0.02 Frequency (hz) Figure G1. Long wave response, Pier 1 (Continued) Appendix G Harbor Oscillation Summaries from Numerical Model ——— Basin6 L ° g O ° u c eo) ie) 12) = a E < Frequency (hz) Figure G1. (Concluded) Appendix G Harbor Oscillation Summaries from Numerical Model PIER 1 Plan 40 : | G3 G4 Bosin 7 Bee ws: Bee PIER & 3 » Bosin& bee g Baan to : ; Existing Harbor i ° = re) fo) ir e ° £g io) ° = E 30 <= = a c 2 = > 2 o a 2 fe) ° < o ) 2 © a Existing Plan 4a Plan 4b Plan 4c Existing Plan 4b Plan 6 Plan 7 23583 6B 7 8910 252630 17 18 23 28 29 3233 a‘ 36 37 38 Basin Figure G6. Comparison to Wilson’s (1967) slope criterion, 100- to 400-sec period G12 Appendix G Harbor Oscillation Summaries from Numerical Model Existing Plan 1 Plan 2 PlanS Existing Plan 3a Plan 3b Plan 3c az) fe} <= a o L a= = oO aS no o o oO x lw bE SS = = = 7) ic 2 i) z o a pe) ° - ° ~ c o oO te o a Existing Plan 40 Plan 4b Plan 4c Existing Plan 4b Plon 6 Plon 7 v. 3 7 3 Basin Figure G7. Comparison to Wilson’s (1967) slope criterion, 30- to 100-sec period G13 Appendix G Harbor Oscillation Summanes from Numerical Model Table G1 RMS Values of A,,,,, at Piers, T=100-400 sec Harbor Plan G14 Appendix G Harbor Oscillation Summaries from Numerical Model Table G2 Percent Occurrence of H,,,,,210 cm at Piers, T=100-400 sec Harbor Plan Appendix G Harbor Oscillation Summaries from Numerical Model G15 Table G3 Percent Occurrence of H,,,,,210 cm at Piers, T=30-100 sec Harbor Plan 1 ; ie Appendix G Harbor Oscillation Summaries from Numerical Model Table G4 Percent Occurrence of Cases Exceeding Wilson’s (1967) Slope Criterion at Piers, T=100-400 sec Harbor Plan 7 No. Appendix G Harbor Oscillation Summaries from Numerical Model G17 Table G5 Percent Occurrence of Cases Exceeding Wilson’s (1967) Slope Criterion at Piers, T=30-100 sec Harbor Plan Appendix G Harbor Oscillation Summaries from Numerical Model Appendix H Resonant Amplification Factor and Phase Contour Plots, All Plans List of Figures Figure H1. Figure H2. Figure H3. Figure H4. Figure HS. Figure H6. Figure H7. Figure H8. Figure H9. Figure H10. Figure H11. Figure H12. Figure H13. Figure H14. Resonant long wave amplification factor contours, Plan 1 Resonant long wave phase contours, Plan 1 Resonant long wave amplification factor contours, Plan 2 Resonant long wave phase contours, Plan 2 Resonant long wave amplification factor contours, Plan 3a Resonant long wave phase contours, Plan 3a Resonant long wave amplification factor contours, Plan 3b Resonant long wave phase contours, Plan 3b Resonant long wave amplification factor contours, Plan 3c Resonant long wave phase contours, Plan 3c Resonant long wave amplification factor contours, Plan 4a Resonant long wave phase contours, Plan 4a Resonant long wave amplification factor contours, Plan 4b Resonant long wave phase contours, Plan 4b Appendix H Resonant Amplification Factor and Phase Contour Plots, All Plans H3 H10 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H1 H2 Figure H15. Figure H16. Figure H17. Figure H18. Figure H19. Figure H20. Figure H21. Figure H22. Resonant long wave amplification factors, Plan 4c H17 Resonant long wave phase contours, Plan 4c H18 Resonant long wave amplification factor contours, Plan 5 H19 Resonant long wave phase contours, Plan 5 H20 Resonant long wave amplification factor contours, Plan 6 H21 Resonant long wave phase contours, Plan 6 H22 Resonant long wave amplification factor contours, Plan 7 H23 Resonant long wave phase contours, Plan 7 H24 Appendix H Resonant Amplification Factor and Phase Contour Plots, All Plans T= 199.2 sec Freg.™ 0.0050 Hz @ ~ 1i7.6 sec Freq.” 0.0065 Hz Figure H1. Resonant long wave amplification factor contours, Plan 1 Appendix H Resonant Amplification Factor and Phase Contour Plots, All Plans T= 132.6 sec Freg.= 0.0075 Hx T * 43.3 sec Freq.” 0.0231 Ha H3 T = 199.2 soc T = 132.6 sec Frog." 0.0050 Hz Frog.= 0.0075 Hz T— 117.6 sec _— T = 43.3 sec Freq-= 0.0085 Hz Freq. 0.0231 Hz Figure H2. Resonant long wave phase contours, Plan 1 Ee Appendix H Resonant Amplification Factor and Phase Contour Plots, All Plans Oe T - 198.2 sec Freg.= 0.0050 Hz T~ 117-6 sec Freq.” 0.0085 Hz Figure H3. Resonant long wave amplification factor contours, Plan 2 Appendix H Resonant Amplification Factor and Phase Contour Plots, All Plans T= 333.7 Bec Freg.™ 0.0075 Hz T - 33.3 sec Frog. 0.0300 Hz H5 T= 199.2 sec T = 133.7 sec Frog.= 0.0050 Hz Freq. 0.0075 Hz T= 117.6 sec : T - 33.3 sec Freq. 0.0085 Hz Freq." 0.0300 Hz Figure H4. Resonant long wave phase contours, Plan 2 H6 Appendix H Resonant Amplification Factor and Phase Contour Plots, All Plans T= 206.6 sec Freq. 0.0068 Hx T= 181.8 sec Freg.= 0.0055 Hz 2 . < ee tT 116.0 sec ae tT 32.5 sec Freq.” 0.0086 Hz Freq.» 0.0308 Hx Figure H5. Resonant long wave amplification factor contours, Plan 3a Appendix H Resonant Amplification Factor and Phase Contour Plots, All Plans T = 206.6 sec T= 181.8 sec Froq.= 0.0048 Freq.= 0.0055 Hz mT = 116.0 sec Le T = 32.5 sec Freq.” 0.0086 Hz Freq.™ 0.0308 Bz Figure H6. Resonant long wave phase contours, Plan 3a H8 Appendix H Resonant Amplification Factor and Phase Contour Plots, All Plans T = 120.2 sec Freq.~ 0.0083 Hz sec Freq.” 0.0708 Hz Figure H7. Resonant long wave amplification factor contours, Plan 3b Appendix H Resonant Amplification Factor and Phase Contour Plots, All Plans T 78.7 sec Freq.” 0.0127 &: tT 27.5 sec Freq. 0.0364 He HQ T =- 120.2 sec T= 78.7 sec Freq.= 0.0083 Hz Freq. 0.0127 Hz T= 32.5 sec bd T= 27.5 sec Freq.™ 0.0308 Hz Freq.= 0.0364 Hz Figure H8. Resonant long wave phase contours, Plan 3b H 10 Appendix H Resonant Amplification Factor and Phase Contour Plots, All Plans T= 142.9 soc T- 129.5 sec Freq." 0.0070 Hz Fregq.™ 0.0077 Hx T~ 44.6 sec ~~ 32.4 soc Frag.— 0.0224 Hz frog." 0.0309 Hz Figure H9. Resonant long wave amplification factor contours, Plan 3c Appendix H Resonant Amplification Factor and Phase Contour Plots, All Plans H11 T= 142.9 sec T= 129.5 sec Froqg.= 0.0070 Hz - Freq.= 0.0077 Hz T ~ 44.6 sec : heen , T =~ 32.4 sec Freq." 0.0224 Hz Freq." 0.0309 Hz Figure H10. Resonant long wave phase contours, Plan 3c H12 Appendix H Resonant Amplification Factor and Phase Contour Plots, All Plans T = 269.2 sec T= 167.2 sec Freg.= 0.0066 Hz Freg. 0.0060 Hz T= 116.4 sec tT ™ 32.9 sec Freg-” 0.0087 Hz Freq.» 0.0304 Hz Figure H11. Resonant long wave amplification factor contours, Plan 4a Appendix H Resonant Amplification Factor and Phase Contour Plots, All Plans H13 T = 209.2 sec T — 167.2 sec Freq.= 0.0048 Hz Freq. 0.0060 Hz T= 114.4 soc eee T = 32.9 sec Freq." 0.0087 Hz Freq.” 0.0304 Hz Figure H12. Resonant long wave phase contours, Plan 4a H14 Appendix H Resonant Amplification Factor and Phase Contour Plots, All Plans T= 211.9 sec Tl“ 170.7 soc Freg.= 6.0067 Ez cee Freq-~ 0.0059 uz fT ~ 116.8 sec : Freq. 0.0086 Hz Freq. 0.0355 Hz Figure H13. Resonant long wave amplification factor contours, Plan 4b Appendix H Resonant Amplification Factor and Phase Contour Piots, All Plans H15 T = 211.9 sec T= 170.7 sec Freg.= 0.0047 Uz , Froq.= 0.0059 Hz T — 116.8 sec a T = 28.2 sec Freq." 0.0086 Hz Freq." 0.0355 Figure H14. Resonant long wave phase contours, Plan 4b H1i6 Appendix H Resonant Amplification Factor and Phase Contour Plots, All Plans — T= 211.9 sec Freg.” 0.0047 Hz ZT 188.0 sec Freq. 0.0053 Hz T ~ 130.6 sec T= 38.2 sec Freq. 0.0077 Ex Freg.™ 0.0128 Figure H15. Resonant long wave amplification factor contours, Plan 4c Appendix H Resonant Amplification Factor and Phase Contour Plots, Al! Plans H17 T= 211.9 soc T =- 188.0 sec Freq. 0.0047 Hz Froq-= 0.0053 uz T = 130.6 sec T = 78.1 sec Freq." 0.0077 Hz Freq.™ 0.0128 Hz Figure H16. Resonant long wave phase contours, Plan 4c is Appendix H Resonant Amplification Factor and Phase Contour Plots, All Plans rr ee T= 199.2 sec T=“ 131.6 sec Freq." 0.0050 Bz ‘ Freq.= 0.0076 Hz T 42.4 sec Bip: T =~ 38.2 nec Preq.* 0.0236 Hz Freq.= 0.0262 Hz Figure H17. Resonant long wave amplification factor contours, Plan 5 Appendix H Resonant Amplification Factor and Phase Contour Plots, All Plans Hi9 T = 199.2 sec T= 131.6 sec Freq.* 0.0050 Hz Freq.= 0.0076 Hz T - 42.4 sec / <= = 38.2 sec Freq-™ 0.0236 Hz Freq.= 0.0262 Hz Figure Hi8. Resonant long wave phase contours, Plan 5 Fi20 Appendix H Resonant Amplification Factor and Phase Contour Plots, All Plans T — 168.9 sec Freq.™ 0.0059 Hz T ™ 27.9 sec Freq. = 0.0358 Hz T= 116.0 sec Freq.= 0.0086 Bz Figure H19. Resonant long wave amplification factor contours, Plan 6 Appendix H Resonant Amplification Factor and Phase Contour Plots, All Plans H21 T = 209.2 sec T = 168.9 sec Frog." 0.00468 Hz Freq.= 0.0059 uz T= 116.0 sec % . T = 27.9 sec Freg.= 0.0086 Hz Freq. = 0.0358 Hz Figure H20. Resonant long wave phase contours, Plan 6 H22 Appendix H Resonant Amplification Factor and Phase Contour Plots, All Plans T= 192.3 sec To 122.9 sec Freq.= 0.0052 Hz : Freq-™ 0.0081 Hz T 114.4 sec : T= 60.2 sec Freg.= 0.0087 Hz Freq.= 0.0166 Figure H21. Resonant long wave amplification factor contours, Plan 7 Appendix H Resonant Amplification Factor and Phase Contour Plots, All Plans H23 T= 192.3 sec T= 122.9 sec Freq.= 0.0052 Hz . Freq.= 0.0081 uz T 114.4 sec < — T ~ 60.2 sec Freq.= 0.0087 Hz Freq.= 0.0166 Hz Figure H22. Resonant long wave phase contours, Plan 7 H24 Appendix H Resonant Amplification Factor and Phase Contour Plots, All Plans Appendix | Notation a Wave amplitude, m (ft) a; Incident wave amplitude, m (ft) Ajnp Wave amplification factor (Aanp)eg Effective, or spectral, wave amplification factor Wave amplification factor for long (infragravity) waves A Wave amplification factor for wind waves and swell Cc Wave phase speed, m/sec (ft/sec) c Wave group speed, m/sec (ft/sec) d Water depth, m (ft) day Water depth, m (ft) D(f,@) Angular spreading function dependent on wave frequency and direction D(@) Angular spreading function dependent only on wave direction e Constant, 2.7183 ef: Wave frequency, sec”! ip, Peak spectral frequency, sec”! g Gravitational acceleration, m/sec? (ft/sec?) H Wave height, m (ft) Appendix | Notation Incident wave height, m (ft) Energy-based, or zero-moment, estimate of significant wave height, m (ft) Significant wave height for wind waves and swell, m (ft) Significant wave height for long (infragravity) waves, m (ft) y-1 Reflection coefficient of a solid boundary Reflection coefficient of a solid boundary Wavelength, m (ft) Wavelength for waves at peak frequency, m (ft) Unit normal vector directed into the solid region Number of HARBD computational wave directions for spectral approximation Number of major peaks in wind wave and swell spectrum Number of HARBD computational wave periods for spectral approximation Radial polar coordinate, m (ft) Directional spreading parameter Spectral energy density function dependent only on frequency Spectral energy density function dependent on frequency and direction Spectral energy density at frequency, f; Wave period, sec Peak spectral wave period for wind waves and swell, sec Peak spectral wave period for long (infragravity) waves, sec Horizontal velocity components, m/sec (ft/sec) Weighting factor for kth HARBD computational frequency Appendix | Notation Weighting factor for m’th HARBD computational direction x,y Horizontal coordinates, m (ft) B Dimensionless bottom friction coefficient Y Spectral peak enhancement factor; phase shift between stress and flow velocity Ax Grid element dimension € Significant wave steepness qj Mean water level reading at Back Basin gage, m (ft) 0 Wave phase; wave direction G Primary wave direction, deg 6, Incident wave direction for wind waves and swell, deg K Wave number, m" (ft) A Complex bottom friction factor 58 Constant, 3.1416 p Velocity potential P Velocity potential of the scattered wave @ Angular wave frequency, radians Vv Horizontal gradient operator ro) Partial differentiation symbol Appendix | Notation a) ww of hen ltt “se el i Gi) ' } bbe " 7 i 4 i i J a7 , f y ar ae Ais ; a Oe Wak . i. - es a | (anf (i ia p/ : < WV a f i'n weet 4 bro? ci i wend walipana | \. ; * Watt swage) ie id ‘ ie oe Os ae Poy Hie bn | aie, a Pe pep 7 ea vi He Lego rey He | my aay ae conic wev cae | Asie tt it ia ag ei way ' — | REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No, 0704-0188 | Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining | the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions | for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the | Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503. l1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) |\2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED | December 1996 Final report }4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Wave Response of Kahului Harbor, Maui, Hawaii . AUTHOR(S) Edward F. Thompson, Lori L. Hadley, Willie Ann Brandon, David D. McGehee, Jon M. Hubertz 17. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER Technical Report CERC-96-11 | | | | | | | | | | | 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER . SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) U.S. Army Engineer Division, Pacific Ocean Building 230 Ft. Shafter, HI 96858-5440 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. l12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 113. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) Present and projected commercial activities in Kahului Harbor, Maui, Hawaii, indicate that new berths for barge and passenger ship operations will be needed. Deepening of the main harbor areas from 35 ft to 38 ft is also anticipated. The U.S. Army Engineer Division, Pacific Ocean, in coordination with the Harbors Division, Department of Transportation, State of Hawaii, requested field wave measurements and numerical (computer) model studies in support of long-term planning. Field measurements were collected over a period of 18 months at a deepwater directional buoy, a directional array outside the harbor, _ and four gages inside the harbor. The numerical model, validated with field measurements for short waves (wind waves and swell) and long waves (harbor oscillations), was used to evaluate the technical feasibility of 11 alternative modifications to the harbor. Model results were compared to experience in the existing harbor and to general criteria for operational acceptability. A physical model study is recommended as a final phase of developing harbor modification plans. 114. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES Harbor resonance Prototype wave data 274 Kahului Harbor Wind waves and swell Numerical modeling 16. PRICE CODE . SECURITY CLASSIFICATION |18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION |19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION |20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED | | | NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18 298-102 ood ? Be ——_—. ; 4 aie Re 4. pf ‘i amen TRONS if} Os UJ o- ape +o) © > oa cg@ lpi es dome ua |, apne «cee Gia eae eo ‘ye via ui ” dyer / Al! beet Me ot ae dviweisahh eee & ane ae mabe | Pratarah ae (a ies ‘ hkl Caen hate anand Wane ; ' ' 7 " ey 4) ani wernt mic) ltl PU we here Pisa rif uwattA ih ed va reine am betl an — ' Lg SOA Crue LCA OF ST MAREE e — ' a Dit j vs av awgal onpre ar i ed lor van ulbede han aoa ~ « aye — 4 hte TOCA hes CCAM TOE PEL vind ie OT | ¢ a 9 h A ba avg oer? : og Cp of | 7 ‘ igi se ' } ee UPA’ Hil ’ | si eae ) P pull iss 0G peed lyol Lasiptis typ t a dee ia 6 inci olka item { T MeARTIATE ee iA ayy 7 f . ts fers nt eat PPOd iz masta! ead en wal i ‘yim ‘ ’ wy a Paty | ven we seme ss tt Penipes gem are ee elie | wy eeQa } in wt fy ond amt dedi Gland ' j jc” Jjereas! lh loiruhade ot eerie bees ne foaat wagcouny an) ‘ ; ee eee | L 22 te oa wet age, val ay glee m ce thstupiai nd \ icusede be " “9 ” PA ae he Lah de yt ar Wr on a «o> aeaoal® 0 wi oie Snipes ekbeytts is) «yer a gece at aw Lotaila \eadaaegaons bot chi Cis iie peapiretys prea: th stsiailie en oes» woud Maieonl> sage ryan oh) to RE hl sh wp a ai ave Delay ee beh, ganna nan 4 tit ealun Whomtalant , priayriovanest vee ah oi Chatiare vv tpaoer ashe 11 Met BRON aad Beastial iad eaklelanain coe enacts anil Aart Ariane sini ~ . ,pijeeme Bema Hh efor Vie So p vital rae oat i tole ANTON aren lg rueaew Nibanety iad i. NE rte ely vate ae . ia ba 40 meta SAY Be: é aa A Hea hey aR at tl, Yan he ‘ bt | i wd oe ry ; i | iy Har / i Lot: Le vera etal aaa oe nee wether « ee Th We : ie ght Pa Wy foi Oren a Aa nas i 7 i en ae Destroy this report when no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator. = DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION CORPS OF ENGINEERS 3909 HALLS FERRY ROAD VICKSBURG, MISSISSIPP| 39180-6199 Official Business 246/L25/ 1 BATA/DOCURENT LIBRARY, WHOI CLEAN LAB, MS #8 366 WOOD HOLE ROAD WOODS HOLE MA 02543-1539 SPECTAL FOURTH-CLASS BOOKS/FILA