J Coast Conserv (2015) 19:307320

DOI 10.1007/s11852-015-0392-x

Sediment grain size variation along a cross-shore profile

representative d50
Pedro Narra 1 & Carlos Coelho 2 & Jorge Fonseca 1

Received: 28 November 2014 / Revised: 12 May 2015 / Accepted: 13 May 2015 / Published online: 24 May 2015
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract The coastal zones management not only relies on a

profound knowledge of the shoreline but also on a good assessment of morphodynamics, sediments transport and coastal
interventions required. Many coastal studies, such as beach
slope estimates, equilibrium beach profile definition or sediment transport analysis, depend on the sediment grain size at
the site. This paper aims to gain a better understanding of grain
size distribution along the cross-shore profile and variation of
d50, allowing to define a representative d50 to characterize the
beaches. On the study site chosen, Barra beach, Aveiro, an
extensive field campaign was performed, from October 2010
to May 2011. In a weekly basis, samples from 5 points along a
cross-shore profile were collected. During this period, data
related to wave climate was collected from the Portuguese
Hydrographic Institute in temporal series of 10 min. Tidal
projections from Hydrographic Institute were also identified
for the period of the field campaigns. The sediment grain size
distributions showed that, although the mass-median-diameter
does not usually pass the 1 mm, d50 presented a great variation
during winter, in the intertidal zone. On the other side, the first
and last points of the cross-shore profile, located far from the
intertidal zone, presented the smaller d50 and variation through

* Pedro Narra
pedronarra@ua.pt
Carlos Coelho
ccoelho@ua.pt
Jorge Fonseca
jfonseca@ua.pt
1

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Aveiro, Campus de

Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal

Department of Civil Engineering and RISCO, University of Aveiro,

Campus de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal

time. The significant wave height presented a mean value of

2.16 m. The most energetic wave climates happened in November, January and February. During those months, an increase of d50 in the wave breaking zone was noticed. Generally, the expected behavior of the cross-shore sediment grain
size distribution is in line with the data collected in this paper
and it was verified that the grain size is coarser on the intertidal
zone and after storm periods. Also, despite the complexity of
defining a characteristic d50 due to its great temporal and spatial variation, sensitivity analysis on the data obtained helped
the identification of the upper foreshore limit, at high tide, as
the better location for a sediment sample collection representative of a cross-shore profile.
Keywords Wave height . Sediment grain size . Emerged and
immerse samples . Cross-shore profile . Barra beach

Introduction
In human history, land areas located close to shorelines always
has been primarily chosen for occupation. As an example,
according to the EUROSTAT, in 2011, around 40 % of the
population in the European Union lived in coastal zones (Collet and Engelbert 2013). Due to the high economic and social
value of the littoral environment, urban areas grew around it
and, consequently, the interest in these areas generated a considerable number of researchers dedicated to coastal dynamic
studies.
In Portugal, the high energetic wave climate of the
west coast and erosion problems on the majority of the
coastal areas lead to an increasing number of developed
studies that aimed to better understand the behavior of
the Portuguese shoreline, namely on subjects as coastal
dynamics, sediment transport and coastal erosion, which

308

are directly or indirectly dependent on the sediment grain

size (Andrade and Freitas 2001; Bettencourt 1997;
Coelho 2005; Dias 2005; Lopes et al. 2001; Silva et al.
2009; Trigo-Teixeira et al. 2000; Veloso-Gomes et al.
2004).
However, the management of coastal zones not only depends on the knowledge about the shoreline and its behaviors
and trends, but also on a good assessment of coastal processes
and interventions required, such as beach nourishments and
coastal structures. Thus, many coastal studies depend, among
other attributes, on the sediment grain size characteristics at
the site. For instance, some important aspects of coastal
studies are related with beach slope, equilibrium beach
profile proposed by Dean (1977) or numeric evaluation of
sediment transport volumes, all of them depending on the
d50. Therefore, it is also important to understand the grain size
distribution along a cross-shore profile, its variation in space
and time, and the relation with other coastal agents, such as the
wave climate and tide regime.
Several researchers in the past aimed to understand grain
size variation in coastal zones (Celikolu et al. 2006; Guilln
and Hoekstra 1997; Masselink 1992; McCave 1978; Terwindt
1962; Visher 1969).
However, only a few number of studies considered the
simultaneous collection of samples at emerged and submerged locations of the same beach profile (Guilln and
Hoekstra 1997). Thus, this paper aims to contribute for a
better understanding of grain size distribution along a
cross-shore beach profile, in order to improve the efficiency of future field campaigns in the collection of important grain size parameters, such as a representative
d50, essential for a correct approach in coastal studies.
For that, a fieldwork was performed in Barra beach,
Aveiro, Portugal. This is a sandy beach located south
of Aveiro inlet and slightly protected from the intense
wave climate, typical from the North Atlantic coast. A
cross-shore profile was monitored during 8 months (from
October 2010 to May 2011), taking samples every week
on 5 locations along the profile, 3 of them emerged and
2 immersed, in a total of 33 field campaigns and 165
samples. Also, during the same period, data of tides
and wave climate from the Portuguese Hydrographic Institute was gathered, in order to establish a relationship
with the grain size on the studied profile. This paper
starts with a characterization of the study site where the
field campaigns were performed, followed by the description of the methodologies used for sample collection. Next, the results are presented and analyzed, first
as separate categories sediment grain size and wave
and tidal climate and then combined, seeking for a
relation between the two attributes. Finally, a discussion
is presented including the impacts of different consideration on attributes as beach slope, Deans equilibrium

P. Narra et al.

profile or sediment transport volume rate, also considering the results of previous researchers in the field.

Methods
Study area
The study site, Barra beach, is located at the Northwest Portuguese coast, in Gafanha da Nazar, Aveiro district (Fig. 1).
The shoreline orientation at the beach is approximately N21E
and it is essentially a sandy open coast with highly energetic
wave climate, typically oriented from northwest. Regarding
the energetic exposure of the beach, Coelho et al. (2009b),
using the Short (1999) morphodynamics classification, classified Barra beach as mainly intermediate to reflective. During
storms, especially common during winter, the significant
wave heights may reach 8 m and although its duration is
usually inferior to 2 days, sometimes storms persist for up to
5 days (Costa et al. 2001). The tide is semi-diurnal, with amplitudes that can range between 2 m during neap tides, to
almost 4 m during spring tides.
In recent years, the coast at the study site is facing
shoreline retreat problems, mainly due to sea level rise,
land occupation and most significantly, river sediment
supplies reduction (Coelho et al. 2009a). This reduction
is a consequence from the diminished sediment loads
from Douro River, located about 50 km North of the
study area, and is considered the main cause of coastal
erosion problems along the Central Portuguese coast (Silva et al. 2007). In the past, sediments supplies from
Douro ranged between 1.5 and 2 million m3/year. Currently, the value decreased to below 0.25 million m3/year
(Bettencourt 1997). The difference is explained by inriver works and actions, such as dam construction, navigation dredging, sand extraction and shore protection, as
well as catchment land use and practice changes (Coelho
et al. 2009a). The decrease of sediments available in the
coastal system is intensified at Barra beach, located south
of Aveiro inlet and harbor. The small amount of sediments in the longitudinal drift is trapped by the northern
breakwater and is dredged to ensure the harbor operability. The sediments that can be found at the study site
should have origin in the littoral drift, mainly feed by
the beach erosion occurring updrift and in a small portion, from the Aveiro lagoon.
Fieldwork
The data that contributed to this paper was collected between October 2010 and May 2011, as part of Fonseca
(2011) work. In Barra beach, 3 representative cross-shore
profiles were chosen (Fig. 1). The protective effect of the

Sediment grain size variation along a cross-shore profile

309

Fig. 1 Location of Barra beach (right) and selected profiles for sample collection (left) (adapted from Google Maps)

breakwater and safety during the sample collection were

also factors that influence the selection of those profiles.
Therefore, profile A was chosen as the main profile. Profile B and C located in the shallow zone of the diffraction
effects of the breakwater, were considered as a backup in
case of Profile A not having the required safety conditions
for the extraction of samples due to its greater exposure to
the wave climate. From the 33 field campaigns, 26 were
performed on profile A, 5 on B and 2 on C (Table 1),
giving a total of 165 samples collected (5 samples per
campaign).
The fieldwork campaigns were conducted in a weekly basis, during low tide. Initially, the campaigns were scheduled
for every Wednesday, but due to weather conditions, some had
to be rescheduled in order to ensure safety. The month of
January had a particular strong wave climate, which did not
allowed to perform the number of collections initially
intended, being only possible to collect samples three times
during that month.
Figure 2 shows the typical cross-shore profile of Barra
beach in 2010 based on the topographic and bathymetric surveys, performed by Aveiro harbor. Along the profile, 5 different locations for sand sample collection were defined (P2 to
P5 locations are tide level dependent):
&
&
&
&
&

P1 dune base;
P2 upper foreshore limit, at high tide;
P3 upper foreshore limit, at low tide;
P4 1 m deep, at low tide;
P5 3 m deep, at low tide.

On the emerged locations (P1, P2 and P3), sediment

samples with about 20 cm deep were collected, in order
to have a good representativeness of the existing grain
size distribution. On the immerse points, the position of
the sampling and the amount of sediments gathered was

more difficult to control due to the maritime actions of

waves and currents.
Next, in the laboratory of Civil Engineer Department
of Aveiro University, the collected samples were weighted, put on stove at 50 C for 48 h and then tested. For
each one, the grain size distributions were estimated by
sieving and the respective mass-median-diameter (d50)
was obtained.
Wave and tidal data acquisition
During the same period as the field campaign, data related to
wave climate and tide levels, registered by the Portuguese
Hydrographic Institute, available on their website (IH 2011),
was saved on a daily basis. The wave data is collected by the
wave buoy located near Leixes harbor and about 80 km far
from Barra beach, anchored at 83 m deep. This location presents offshore wave characteristics similar to Barra beach.
Due to the lack of a closer point to collect data, Leixes wave
buoy was considered representative of the wave climate at
Barra beach. Local nearshore wave characteristics were not
available or evaluated, and thus, it was not considered the
different morphodynamic, orientation and a protective effect
given by coastal structures at north.
The acquisition of wave data is performed in a 1.28 Hz
frequency and is saved in two distinct ways, a temporal series
of 10 min, processed in real time and a series of 30 min,
processed after the data collection. For the analysis performed,
the information of the 10 min series was considered. Thus, on
each day around 144 registers were collected and, therefore,
during the 8 months, a total of 36,288 registers were gathered.
The parameters considered to evaluate wave climate were the
significant wave height and the mean period. Regarding tidal
data, information about high and low tide projections was
gathered from the Portuguese Hydrographic Institute, accompanied by the date and hour when it occurred.

310

2010

2011

October

November

December

5 (B)

4 (C)

4 (A)

11 (A)

2 (B)

2 (A)

6 (A)

4 (A)

13 (A)
20 (A)
27 (A)

12 (C)
22 (C)
24 (A)

10 (A)
15 (A)
22 (B)
29 (B)

19 (A)
27 (A)

9 (A)
18 (A)
23 (A)

9 (A)
17 (A)
23 (A)
30 (A)

13 (A)
19 (A)
27 (A)

11 (A)
18 (A)
25 (A)

Results and analysis

Sediment grain size
The sediment grain size distribution results obtained from the
field campaigns show a great variation of the mass-mediandiameter along the profile and also through time. That confirms what was visually proved by Fonseca (2011), during the
8 months of the field campaign. As mentioned earlier, for each
sample collected, the respective grain size distribution was
obtained (Fig. 3), as well as the statistical analysis support
(Table 2) for every sample in each location of the crossshore profile.
Figure 3 shows a much higher variability of the grain size at
P3 and P4. The statistical analysis performed (Table 2) confirms this information. The statistical data analysis was based
in Blott and Pye (2001) classification. To analyze grain size
distributions, four different parameters are considered in this
study: mean (average grain size of the sample); sorting (the
spread of the sizes around the average); skewness (the symmetry or preferential spread to one side of the average); and
kurtosis (the concentration degree of grains relative to the
average). According with the classification given, along the
profile, the samples vary from moderately well sorted at P1
and P5 to very poorly sorted at P3 and P4. It is skewed to the
left, indicating that the distributions are majorly composed by
fine sediments and very platykurtic, meaning a very wide
distribution around the mean.
In general, along the cross-shore profile, the grain size increases nearest to the intertidal zone (mainly at locations P2,
P3 and P4), also presenting greater variation along time. On
the other hand, P1 and P5 locations presented the lower values

February

March

April

May

10 m
P1
P2

High Tide

300 m

-5 m

100 m

0m

Low Tide

P5 3 m
500 m

P4 1 m

400 m

P3

600 m

5m

0m

Fig. 2 Selected points for sample

collection along the cross-shore
profile on each campaign

January

of d50 and a small variation during the 8 months of sample

collection (Fig. 4). In spite of the different times and wave
climate conditions registered during the sample collection at
each profile, the field campaigns performed at profiles B and
C presented a lower mass-median-diameter. The mean d50 of
all samples from profile B was 0.53 mm, while on C was
0.35 mm, against the 0.87 mm registered on profile A. This
difference may be explained by the protective effect of the
coastal structures at north, leading to lower energy of wave
climate at those profiles.
Figure 4 presents the evolution of d50 through time at each
location, also considering the significant wave height registered during the time period between field campaigns. The
values of d50 at P1 and P5 are very similar to each other and
present small variations when compared with the other 3 locations. The mass-median-diameter varies between 0.199 and
0.399 mm at P1 and between 0.224 and 0.812 mm at P5. The
temporal mean value of d50 for these two points is almost
identical, with 0.352 mm for P1 and 0.371 mm for P5. At
P2, the d50 increases substantially compared with the ones
mentioned previously, reaching a mean value of 0.503 mm,
with a minimum of 0.318 mm and a maximum of 1.733 mm.
P3 and P4 are the ones that present a higher mass-mediandiameter, corresponding during time to the most common
wave breaking zones of the cross-shore profile. The temporal
mean value of d50 at P3 is 1.329 mm while at P4 is 1.373 mm.
However, those locations are also the ones with the bigger
variation and poor sorting, as it is presented in Table 2 and
Fig. 5. Figure 5 presents a statistical analysis of d 50 ,
representing its distribution and the median (numerical value
separating the higher half of a data sample). Through this
figure, it is concluded that although the minimum value at

200 m

Table 1 Schedule of all field

campaigns with respective profile
where it was executed, in brackets

P. Narra et al.

Sediment grain size variation along a cross-shore profile

P1

311

P2

P4

P3

P5

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0

0.1

10 24.5

0.1

10 24.5

0.1

10 24.5

0,1

10 24.5

0.1

10 24.5

Fig. 3 Grain-size distributions for each location of the representative cross-shore profile

P3 and P4 is similar to P2, some samples at those locations

reached much higher d50. The maximum at P3 was 7.059 mm,
while at P4 was 6.341 mm. Although the bigger values of d50
are spread through time, the field campaigns from December
4th, January 11th and 27th and April 27th presented values in
the upper 25 % in at least 3 of the 5 assessed locations.
Along the 33 field campaigns performed, P3 had the higher
d50 values of the cross-shore profile 61 % of the times, followed by P4, with 24 %, and P2, with 15 %. P1 and P5 never
presented the higher d50 on a cross-shore location of a single
field campaign. On the other side, those locations presented
minimum mass-median-diameter on 42 % and 36 % of the
Table 2 Statistical analysis of all the grain size distributions obtained in
the field campaigns
Minimum

Average

Maximum

Mean (mm)
Sorting (mm)
Skewness
Kurtosis
Mean (mm)

0.111
0.797
0.142
0.020
0.167

0.207
1.458
0.132
0.023
0.360

0.254
1.773
0.106
0.036
0.964

Sorting (mm)
Skewness
Kurtosis
Mean (mm)
Sorting (mm)
Skewness
Kurtosis
Mean (mm)
Sorting (mm)
Skewness
Kurtosis
Mean (mm)
Sorting (mm)
Skewness
Kurtosis

1.190
0.144
0.020
0.178
1.261
0.144
0.020
0.201
1.417
0.144
0.020
0.144
1.015
0.144
0.021

2.499
0.139
0.022
1.139
7.846
0.142
0.021
0.993
6.846
0.142
0.021
0.245
1.715
0.134
0.022

6.649
0.112
0.030
3.848
26.453
0.121
0.026
3.834
26.363
0.128
0.023
0.649
4.474
0.115
0.028

campaigns, respectively. P2 had the minimum value of d50 on

18 % of the times. The mass-median-diameter had the minimum value of the cross-shore profile at P4 in only 3 % of the
field campaigns and P3 never presented the minimum d50 of
the profile.
In Fig. 6, the monthly average grain size on each point of
the profile is represented. In general, an increase of the grain
size from P1 to P3 is verified followed by a decrease from it to
P5. The only two exceptions are January and April, where P4
registered a considerable increase as showed in Fig. 4. Those
two months were crucial for the result of the temporal mean
grain size registered at P4. Moreover, P3 is the one that presents a more evident trend, increasing until February, where it
starts decreasing at a similar rate of the increase, from February to May.
Wave and tidal climate

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

The amount of wave data obtained from the Hydrographic

Institutes was 30,283 data sets. It corresponded to 83 % of
the data expected with an acquisition period of 10 min. Some
data was missing due to problems with the wave buoy or
transmission of the acquired information. May was the month
with the highest number of registers, with 4409, around 97 %
of the expected data. On the other hand, during February only
2948 values were registered, 65 % of the expected data
(Table 3).
Through the 8 months of field campaigns, the wave height
ranged from 0.35 to 9.48 m (Fig. 7). Sometimes it could pass
from a quiet period to a high energetic state, with maximum
waves reaching the 16 m, as verified in October 2010. The
data set that registered this wave had a significant wave height,
Hs, of 7.9 m and a period of 9.2 s.
As mentioned earlier, Aveiro coastal stretch is exposed to
one of the most energetic wave climates of Portugal. According to Andrade and Freitas (2001), the mean significant wave
height and respective period for the Portuguese west coast is
between 2 and 2.5 m, with a period between 9 and 11 s.

Hs
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5

7
6
5

d50 [mm]

Fig. 4 Mass-median-diameter
(d50) variation through time on
each selected point of the crossshore profile and the significant
wave height during the period of
field campaigns

P. Narra et al.

7
6
5

0
4-Oct

0
3-Nov

3-Dec

During the field campaign, the mean wave height was 2.16 m,
with a mean period of 7.36 s (Table 4), which is around the
same as stated by Andrade and Freitas (2001). On the other
hand, Coelho (2005) analyzed the significant wave height
between 1981 and 2003. Coelho (2005) divided the wave
heights in representative classes and 40.3 % of the results
belonged to the class of 0.5 to 1.5 m, followed by the class
of 1.5 to 2.5 m, with 31.7 %. The wave climate considered by
Coelho (2005) was slightly less energetic than the one observed during the field campaigns.
Figure 8 presents the tidal level through the period of field
campaigns. The mean tidal level is around 2 m, with an average tidal amplitude of 2.02 m. The lowest tide registered
reached the 0.28 m on March 20th. The highest tide was registered on February 20th, reaching a value of 3.73 m.
Figure 9 presents the wave direction sorted by significant
wave height. The most common directions are NW, WNW
and NNW, due to the high latitude winds from the Atlantic
North. Some wave direction changes to W and SW were registered during some brief periods, mainly in December.
Wave climate vs sediment grain size
As stated above (Costa et al. 2001), storm usually persist for
2 days. Figure 10 takes that statement into account and represents the average wave height of the wave climate registered
up to 3 days before the sample collection, allowing to relate
the wave heights verified in the days prior to the field

2-Jan

1-Feb

3-Mar

2-Apr

2-May

campaign, together with the d50 from P2, P3 and P4 (location

where relevant changes along the time were registered, in
opposition to P1 and P5, where negligible variations occurred). As stated by Fonseca (2011), the average Hs from
one day before the sample collection is usually inferior to
the average Hs obtained from considering 2 and 3 days before
the campaign. This is a consequence of the dates chosen for
field campaigns, which had to present a low energetic wave
climate, in order to ensure safety for the submerged sample
collection at locations P4 and P5. P3 reveals an incremental
increase on the sediment grain size until February, and starts
decreasing from then. February is also the month with the
most energetic wave climate and higher tidal amplitude. P2
and P4 were also represented due to its location in the wave
run-up limit and the wave breaking zone, respectively, so, it
can also present some trends related with wave height. As
referred, locations P1 and P5 were not represented due to the
small variation through time.
Although it was not possible to establish a clear trend for
the relation between wave climate and sediment grain size,
Fig. 10 shows some evidences of that relation.
At P3, the grain size of the sample collected on November
24th had a d50 almost 3 times bigger than the previous sample.
This increase could be related with the high energetic wave
climate registered during the month of November, when the
mean significant wave height reached 7 m, namely on 9th of
November. Moreover, the increase of the mass-mediandiameter was registered from the beginning of the month,

7
6
5
d50 (mm)

Fig. 5 Quartile distribution of d50

of all the samples collected during
the field campaigns along the
cross-shore profile

Hs [m]

312

4
3
2
1
0
P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

Sediment grain size variation along a cross-shore profile

P1

3.5

P2

P3

P4

P5

Hs (m)

Hs [m]

2.5

2
3
1.5
2

0.5
0

0
October

November December

showing a continuous increase until the sample of November

24th. The month of February also presented a steady increase
of the d50, where increasingly energetic wave climate through
the month was followed by the increase of the grain size at P3.
The last field campaign of the month presented an increase of
the d50 by 5 times compared with the previous one, reaching a
value of 7 mm. Moreover, some isolated increases on field
campaigns from December 22nd, January 11th, March 23rd
and April 27th were registered. All of them were posterior to a
more energetic wave climate happening up to a week before
the field campaign.
In the majority of the times, P4 followed the same trends as
P3. As Fig. 10 shows, an increase on December 4th was registered shortly after the increase of P3 on November 24th. The
month of January presented some of the higher values of P4,
also accompanied by an increase of wave height and tidal
amplitude. On the other side, the increase of sediment grain
size felt at P3 during February was not registered at P4, namely, on February 23rd, when it was registered a massive increase at P3 and a decrease at P4. Moreover, the samples from
March 23rd and April 13th did not show the relation between
P3 and P4 presented in other measurements, as in April 27th,
when both suffered a considerable increase.
The sediment grain size for P2 presented a linear temporal trend, presenting similarities with P1 and P5. The
only noticeable variation occurred on February 2nd.
However, this increase of sediment grain size was not
due to an increase of the wave height, which remained
steady during the days before. As stated earlier, P2 is
collected on the upper foreshore limit at high tide, which
was 3.07 m referred to Hydrographic Zero at that day
(Fig. 8) (IH 2011). The previous spring tide reached
one of the highest values during the field campaign
(3.62 m). This very high tide could have removed the
smaller sediments, leading to the increase of the grain
size during that sample collection. This increase was also
Table 3 Monthly mean
significant wave height, period
and number of datasets
Hs [m]
T [s]
Datasets

d50 [mm]

Fig. 6 Monthly mean d50 for

each point of the cross-shore profile and respective monthly mean
significant wave height

313

January

February

March

April

May

slightly observed in the previous P2 sample, on January

27th.
Due to the small time interval that it was registered changes
in wave directions, it is difficult to present any kind of relation
with sediment grain size. However, during December, namely,
between the 4th and the 14th of December, it was common to
register directions of W and SW. Also, during this period it
was registered a decrease of the sediment grain size at P3 and
P4, despite the slight increase of the wave energy until December 10th. This could indicate the existent of finer sediments south to Barra beach.
On Fig. 11 it is represented the energy flux (P) in a similar
way as significant wave height is presented in Fig. 10, in order
to include the wave period to the relation between wave climate and sediment grain size (1). The values of the energy flux
presented on Fig. 11 show a direct relation with the wave
height on Fig. 10, with increases and decreases on the same
dates as the wave height. However, it is not possible to conclude that the wave period does not have influence on the
sediment grain size, because of the small variation that the
wave period had through time (Table 3 and Table 4). In fact,
March was the only month that had a mean wave period significantly higher, which could explain the increase of d50 at
P3, on March 23rd.
P E: cg 1=8 : g::H2 :gT=4

Discussion
Cross-shore grain size distribution
Due to Aveiro littoral and specifically Barra beach coastal
dynamics, erosion rates and relation with Aveiro lagoon, several studies used this coastal stretch and its surroundings for

October

November

December

January

February

March

April

May

2.17
7.15
4136

2.61
7.35
3503

1.87
6.47
4172

2.39
7.94
3051

3.18
8.81
2948

1.70
13.30
3868

1.92
7.75
4196

1.90
6.97
4409

314

P. Narra et al.
10
8

Hs [m]

Fig. 7 Significant wave height

(Hs) through the period of field
campaigns

6
4
2
0
Sep-10

Oct-10

Nov-10

analysis of sediments characteristics. According to Ferreira

(1993), the sediments on the Portuguese coast correspond to
fine sand, with diameters between 0.125 and 0.5 mm. Pereira
(2000) characterized the granulometry of samples extracted in
10 different locations of the intertidal zone along the coastal
stretch from Costa Nova to Poo da Cruz, located in the district of Aveiro and nearby Barra beach. Pereira (2000) analyzed 112 samples collected in a monthly basis from each one
of the 10 stations, finding d50 between 0.063 and 2 mm.
Coelho (2005), who analyzed several attributes of coastal
zones in order to develop a methodology to evaluate
vulnerability and risks, also collected samples at Barra
beach. During 16 months, 5 field campaigns along Aveiro
shoreline were performed, for sediment collection in the
intertidal zone. The first was on February 2003 and the next
campaigns were performed on every 3 months, ending on
June 2004. The samples revealed mean values between 0.32
and 0.36 mm. In general, the measurements performed in this
work are in line with the ones made by Pereira (2000) and
Coelho (2005), although the grain size obtained in the intertidal zone presents higher values.
Generally, cross-shore grain-size sorting studies show that
the grain size is coarsest near the wave plunge point at the base
of the beach face. From there, the grain size decreases up the
foreshore beach as well as down the offshore bottom (Hassan
2003). This statement was visible on the average data collected in the present work, with the increase of the sediment grain
size along the profile from P1 to P3, followed by a decrease
until P5.
Terwindt (1962) studied the grain-size variations at the
coast of Katwijk, Netherlands. This study included the
effect of a storm event. The data of Terwindt (1962) is
based on samples collected in a summer period under
different wave climate conditions. Terwindt (1962) compared the mass-median-grain size after a storm period

Table 4 Wave climate

summary
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation

Hs [m]

T [s]

0.35
9.48
2.16
1.10

3.40
14.20
7.36
1.67

Dec-10

Jan-11

Feb-11

Mar-11

Apr-11

May-11

and after a calm period. The results showed an increase

between 10 and 20 % of the grain size after the storm
period, not only in the intertidal zone, but generally
along a cross-shore profile of 900 m long. Although
the study did not specify how much time passed between
the measurements performed after the calm period and
after the storm period, it is clear the trend of coarser
granulometry during higher energetic wave climate, like
it was noticed in this study.
Guilln and Hoekstra (1997) analyzed data from a crossshore profile in Terchelling, Netherlands. They also concluded
that relatively coarser sediments were located in the swash
zone, near the shoreline. From there, the grain size decreased both on seaward and landward directions. Again,
these results are in line with the obtained now and could
be explained by a higher energetic wave state near the
swash zone. Measurements from Wang et al. (1998) in
29 sites along the southeast coast of the United States also
showed several coastal zones with significant cross-shore
variation of the sediment grain size, with coarser sediments close to the shoreline.
Pereira (2000) also attempted to find the relation between wave climate and grain size, stating that the wave
climate has influence on the deposition of sediments. A
low energy wave climate allows the deposition of smaller
particles, resulting in the decrease of the mass-mediandiameter. On the other side, if the wave climate has a
more energetic state, the first particles to enter in a transport state are the ones with smaller diameter, resulting in
coarser granulometric distributions at the beach profile.
However, concrete data to support the theory and additional information, such as values for the wave climate
were not presented.
On the other hand, Coelho (2005) obtained contradictory results in this subject. In his field campaigns, performed at the Aveiro coast, where Barra beach is located,
the higher grain size values were collected during the
campaign from June 2004, suggesting higher
granulometry during summer. Since usually the wave climate is less energetic during the summer, this trend is
against the analysis performed in this work. Coelho
(2005) also tried to relate the wave climate with the
granulometry of the collected samples, considering the
wave climate from 1, 5, 15 and 30 days before the field

Sediment grain size variation along a cross-shore profile

315

Fig. 8 Tidal level through the

period of field campaigns

3.5

Tidal Level (m)

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
30-Sep

31-Oct

30-Nov

campaigns. However, the results did not show any trend.

This absence of trend could be explained by the temporal
distance between samples collected.
Finally, Celikolu et al. (2004) and Celikolu et al.
(2006) studied the phenomena of cross-shore sediment
sorting at a beach under wave action through an experimental procedure in a wave basin with 24.5 m long, 5.40
wide and 1 m deep. The experiments showed that finer
material was deposited on the crest of bar-type beach
profiles, and coarser grains accumulated on the foreshore, trough, ridge, and toe sections. This conclusion
supports the results obtained by the present work.
Grain size impact on coastal parameters
As referred before, the characterization of the massmedian-diameter in a cross-shore profile has great importance for several applications and formulations. This variable is used to evaluate interventions such as beach
nourishments and is also applied on the estimation of
the beach slope of a cross-shore profile, the sediment
transport rate and the definition of equilibrium profile

31-Dec

31-Jan

28-Feb

31-Mar

30-Apr

31-May

(Dean 1977), among others. As an example, both

Sunamura (1984) and Kamphuis (2000) presented formulations for the estimation of the slope of a cross-shore
profile that depend of the square-root of the medianmass-diameter (2 and 3).

 p
m 0:12= Hb = Tb : g: d50
2
1

m 1:8Hb =d50 2

The beach slope (m) in both equations (2 and 3) is influenced by the square-root of the mass-median-diameter. Therefore, Fig. 12 characterizes the influence that d50 has on beach
slope calculation and the range of its variation depending of
the sample and cross-shore beach profile location selected for
the grain size definition. It is observed that the variation of d50,
mainly at P3 and P4, leads to values of beach slope that can
fluctuate in 400 %, depending of the sample considered. On
the other side, using samples from P1 and P5, the beach slope
show little fluctuation, corresponding to uncertainties around
100 %.
Kamphuis (1991) also presents a formulation to estimate
the sediment transport rate (Ql) that depends of the median-

records

Coas

tline

tline
Coas

Coas

tline

Fig. 9 Wave directions collected

during the field campaign, sorted
by classes according with its
significant wave height (Fonseca
2011)

records

records

P. Narra et al.
8

0
5-Oct
13-Oct
20-Oct
27-Oct
4-Nov
12-Nov
22-Nov
24-Nov
4-Dec
10-Dec
15-Dec
22-Dec
29-Dec
11-Jan
19-Jan
27-Jan
2-Feb
9-Feb
18-Feb
23-Feb
2-Mar
9-Mar
17-Mar
23-Mar
30-Mar
6-Apr
13-Apr
19-Apr
27-Apr
4-May
11-May
18-May
25-May

Hs [m]

Fig. 10 Mean d50 of P2, P3 and

P4, and average significant wave
height from 1, 2 and 3 days prior
to the sample collection

d50 from P2 [mm]

316

Hs from 3 days
8

0
5-Oct
13-Oct
20-Oct
27-Oct
4-Nov
12-Nov
22-Nov
24-Nov
4-Dec
10-Dec
15-Dec
22-Dec
29-Dec
11-Jan
19-Jan
27-Jan
2-Feb
9-Feb
18-Feb
23-Feb
2-Mar
9-Mar
17-Mar
23-Mar
30-Mar
6-Apr
13-Apr
19-Apr
27-Apr
4-May
11-May
18-May
25-May

d50 from P4 [mm]

Hs from 2 days

d50 from P3 [mm]

Hs from 3 days

Hs from 1 day

Hs [m]

Hs from 2 days

5-Oct
13-Oct
20-Oct
27-Oct
4-Nov
12-Nov
22-Nov
24-Nov
4-Dec
10-Dec
15-Dec
22-Dec
29-Dec
11-Jan
19-Jan
27-Jan
2-Feb
9-Feb
18-Feb
23-Feb
2-Mar
9-Mar
17-Mar
23-Mar
30-Mar
6-Apr
13-Apr
19-Apr
27-Apr
4-May
11-May
18-May
25-May

Hs [m]

Hs from 1 day

Hs from 1 day

mass-diameter (4). Figure 13 has the same structure as Fig. 12,

and shows the influence of d50 in the sediment transport rate.
In this case, the variation is rather inferior, since for bigger
sediments there is a smaller variation of d50 parcel in the
expression. Again, P3 and P4 present the higher variation
and impact on this parameter evaluation. However, this variation is around 100 %, considerably less than on beach slope.
Ql 6:4  104 : Hb 2 :T p 1:5 : m0:75 : dS0 0:25 :sin0:6 2: b

Finally, Fig. 14 compares the equilibrium profile (Dean

1977), given by Eq. 5. This formulation includes a parameter
A which, according to Hanson and Kraus (1989) is based on
the mass-median-diameter (6) collected in the cross-shore

Hs from 2 days

Hs from 3 days

profile, considering an intermediate beach exposure, typical

situation at Barra. As in the other examples, the profiles computed with sediment grain size of P3 and P4 present great
variation. Based on the size of the sample collected on those
points, the depth can vary from 10 to 30 m on the 600th meter
far from shore. On the other hand, the profiles from P1 and P5
present smaller variations, but also less deep profiles than the
average. The samples collected on P2 were the ones that best
duplicated the profiles obtained by considering the sediment
grain size of all the samples.
y A:x2=3

A 0:41d50 0:94 ; if d50 < 0:4mm

A 0:23d50 0:32 ; if d50 > 0:4mm

317

5
4

5
4

2
1

d50 from P2 [mm]

8
6

P [J/m]

Fig. 11 Mean d50 of P2, P3 and

P4, and energy flux from 1, 2 and
3 days prior to the sample
collection

x 105

Sediment grain size variation along a cross-shore profile

1
0
5-Oct
13-Oct
20-Oct
27-Oct
4-Nov
12-Nov
22-Nov
24-Nov
4-Dec
10-Dec
15-Dec
22-Dec
29-Dec
11-Jan
19-Jan
27-Jan
2-Feb
9-Feb
18-Feb
23-Feb
2-Mar
9-Mar
17-Mar
23-Mar
30-Mar
6-Apr
13-Apr
19-Apr
27-Apr
4-May
11-May
18-May
25-May

P from 2 days

P from 3 days
8

P [J/m]

6
4

5
4

2
1

d50 from P3 [mm]

x 105

P from 1 day

0
5-Oct
13-Oct
20-Oct
27-Oct
4-Nov
12-Nov
22-Nov
24-Nov
4-Dec
10-Dec
15-Dec
22-Dec
29-Dec
11-Jan
19-Jan
27-Jan
2-Feb
9-Feb
18-Feb
23-Feb
2-Mar
9-Mar
17-Mar
23-Mar
30-Mar
6-Apr
13-Apr
19-Apr
27-Apr
4-May
11-May
18-May
25-May

P from 2 days

P from 3 days
8

P [J/m]

5
4

2
1

d50 from P4 [mm]

x 105

P from 1 day

0
5-Oct
13-Oct
20-Oct
27-Oct
4-Nov
12-Nov
22-Nov
24-Nov
4-Dec
10-Dec
15-Dec
22-Dec
29-Dec
11-Jan
19-Jan
27-Jan
2-Feb
9-Feb
18-Feb
23-Feb
2-Mar
9-Mar
17-Mar
23-Mar
30-Mar
6-Apr
13-Apr
19-Apr
27-Apr
4-May
11-May
18-May
25-May

P from 1 day

From the previous examples it is possible to conclude that

to define a typical value of mass-median-diameter that could
characterize a cross-shore beach profile shape is not easy, due

P from 2 days

P from 3 days

to the great variation of sediment grain sizes registered along

the profile and time. This variation is mostly perceptible at
locations P3 and P4, so, it is not recommended to collect

3.0

P3

d 50 1/2 [m m1/2 ]

2.5

P4

2.0
P2

1.5
1.0

P1
P5

d50 range for each location

median d50 for each location

0.5
0.0
0

d 50 [mm]

Fig. 12 Influence of the mass-median-diameter in the estimation of beach slope. The dashed line represents the relation between the mass-mediandiameter and its square-root. The continuous lines represent the values of d50 for each location and how this value can impact the beach slope estimation

318

P. Narra et al.
3.50
d50 range for each location
median d50 for each location

d 50 -1/4 [mm-1/4 ]

3.00
2.50

2.00

P1

1.50
P2

1.00

P3

P5

0.50

P4

0.00
0

d 50 [mm]

Fig. 13 Influence of the mass-median-diameter in the estimation of volumetric transport rate. The dashed line represents the relation between the
mass-median-diameter and its negative fourth root. The continuous lines

represent the values of d50 for each location and how this value can impact
the estimation of volumetric transport rate

samples from these zones of the cross-shore profile, if the

objective is to find a characteristic mass-median-diameter of
the field site. On the other hand, the upper foreshore at high
tide (P2) presented the most similar values with the average of
all samples used to compute the equilibrium profile shape,
which could point for a representative d50 of the profile.
Moreover, although a great variation on the mass-mediandiameter along the cross-shore profile was found, the median
value of all d50 for the 5 locations remained below 1 mm
(Fig. 5). This fact could indicate that the use of the median
of all the collected samples instead of the mean value for the
estimation of a characteristic mass-median-diameter can be
the more representative, since it reduces the effect of outliers
collected in punctual samples.

Conclusions

Fig. 14 Equilibrium profiles of

Barra beach, taking into account
the grain size of the samples
collected for each point of the
beach and the median of all
samples

This paper aims to contribute for a better understanding

of grain size distribution along the cross-shore profile of
a coastline. In fact, it is not common in literature to
simultaneously have access to real nature grain size distribution along a cross-shore profile in a lengthy period
of time. Thus, a field campaign was performed from
October 2010 to May 2011, collecting sediment samples
in a weekly basis, from 5 points along a cross-shore
profile in Barra beach, Aveiro. In total, 33 samples were
collected, mainly on profile A (26 samples), but also on
B (5) and C (2) which were chosen to ensure safety
during the sample collection.
Distance to Shoreline (m)
P2

P1

Water Depth (m)

200

400

600

200

400

P3

600

10

10

10

15

15

15

20

20

20

25

25

25

30

30

30

35

35

35

P4
0

200

P5
400

600

200

200

400

600

Average of all samples

400

600

10

10

10

15

15

15

20

20

20

25

25

30

30

35

35

200

400

600

25
range of equilibrium profiles depending of d 50
equilibrium profile for median d 50

Sediment grain size variation along a cross-shore profile

The wave climate was also monitored during the 8 months

of the fieldwork. The data was acquired in a daily basis from
the Portuguese Hydrographic Institute website, which has a
wave buoy located near Leixes harbor, anchored at 83 m of
water depth. In total, 30,283 datasets were collected with a
mean wave height of 2.16 m with a period of 7.36 s. Level
and time of high and low tides were also registered during the
period of field campaigns.
The results obtained from the collected samples show a
great variation on the sediment grain size along the profile
and also thought time. The temporal mean grain size on the
5 points varied between 0.352 mm on P1 and 1.373 mm on
P4. However, the values are affected by a great variation and
poor sorted distributions, mainly on P3 and P4, since the medians at the 5 points were less than 1 mm.
The increase of the sediment grain size was registered
mostly during winter. In some occasions, it was possible to
observe a gradual increase of the grain size during the most
energetic wave climate months, reaching a maximum at the
end of these high energetic periods. However, it was not possible to estimate a specific response time of the sediment grain
size to a high energetic wave climate.
Along the cross-shore profile, the granulometry increases
nearer to the intertidal zone (P2, P3 and P4) and also presents
greater variation along time. On the other hand, P1 and P5
presented the lower values of d50 and a small variation during
the 8 months of sample collection. Moreover, the value of the
mass-median-diameter that should characterize a cross-shore
profile of the beach is not clear, due to the great variation that
was registered along the profile. Considering the characterization of d50 in a cross-shore profile, collecting samples on the
intertidal zone is not recommended, since it is the area where
the major fluctuations in d50 happens, reducing the confidence
in the representativity of the results. The value on the upper
foreshore limit, at high tide (P2), presented values close to the
median of all profiles along time and also a smaller variation
when compared with P3 and P4. So, this location can be
adequate for the collection of a representative sample on a
beach cross-shore profile. Also, using the median value of
d50 of several sample collection instead of the mean value
can help to reduce the effect of samples with bigger massmedian-diameter, leading to a more accurate result. It is expected that this information and recommendations could lead
to an improvement in following studies depending of a characteristic mass-median-diameter, as beach slope estimates,
equilibrium beach profile shape definition or sediment transport analysis, as well as contribute to improved designs of
coastal structures and beach nourishments interventions.

Acknowledgments This work was supported by FCT (Fundao para a

Cincia e Tecnologia) in the framework of the doctoral programme
Infrarisk - Analysis and Mitigation of Risks in Infrastructures with the

319
theme Coastal Erosion Risk Assessment at Portuguese Speaking Countries (PD/BI/52577/2014).

References
Andrade C, Freitas M (2001) Coastal zones. In: Santos F, Forbes K, Moita
R (eds) Climate change in Portugal, scenarios, impacts and adaptation measures - SIAM. Gradiva, Lisbon, pp 175215
Bettencourt P (1997) Notas para uma estratgia de gesto da orla costeira.
Colectnea de ideias sobre a Zona Costeira de Portugal:265283
Blott S, Pye K (2001) GRADISTAT: a grain size distribution and statistics
package for the analysis of unconsolidated sediments. Earth Surf
Process Landf 26:12371248. doi:10.1002/esp.261
Celikolu Y, Yksel Y, Sedat Kabdal M (2004) Longshore sorting on a
beach under wave action. Ocean Eng 31:13511375. doi:10.1016/j.
oceaneng.2004.02.001
Celikolu Y, Yksel Y, Sedat Kabdali M (2006) Cross-shore sorting on a
beach under wave action. J Coast Res 22:487501. doi:10.2112/050567.1
Coelho C (2005) Riscos de exposio de frentes urbanas para diferentes
intervenes de defesa costeira. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Aveiro
Coelho C, Conceio T, Ribeiro B (2009) Coastal erosion due to anthropogenic impacts on sediment transport in Douro river-Portugal. In:
Proceedings of Coastal Dynamics, Tokyo. World Scientific, p 15
Coelho C, Lopes D, Freitas P (2009) Morphodynamics classification of
Areo Beach, Portugal, Journal of Coastal Research, SI 56
(Proceedings of the 10th International Coastal Symposium), 34
38. Lisbon, Portugal. http://www.cerf-jcr.org/index.php/
international-coastal-symposium/ics-2009portugal/592morphodynamics-classification-of-areao-beach-portugal-c-coelhod-lopes-and-p-freitas
Collet I, Engelbert A (2013) Coastal regions: people living along the
coastline, integration of NUTS 2010 and latest population grid. vol
30. EUROSTAT
Costa M, Silva R, Vitorino J (2001) Contribuio para o estudo do clima
de agitao martima na costa portuguesa. In: 2as Jornadas
Portuguesas de Engenharia Costeira, Sines. Associao
Internacional de Navegao, p 20
Dean R (1977) Equilibrium beach profiles: US atlantic and gulf coasts.
Department of civil engineering and college of marine studies.
University of Delaware, Delaware
Dias J (2005) Evoluo da zona costeira portuguesa: foramentos
antrpicos e naturais. Tour Manag Stud 1:727
Ferreira (1993) Caracterizao dos principais factores condicionantes
do balano sedimentar e da evoluo da linha de costa entre Aveiro
eo Cabo Mondego. MSc Thesis, University of Aveiro
Fonseca J (2011) A dimenso dos sedimentos na caracterizao das
praias. MSc Thesis, University of Aveiro
Guilln J, Hoekstra P (1997) Sediment distribution in the nearshore zone:
grain size evolution in response to shoreface nourishment (island of
terschelling, The Netherlands). Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 45:639652.
doi:10.1006/ecss.1996.0218
Hanson H, Kraus N (1989) GENESIS: generalized model for simulating
shoreline change. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hassan W (2003) Transport of size-graded and uniform sediment under
oscillatory sheet-flow conditions. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Twente
IH (2011) Instituto Hidrogrfico. www.hidrografico.pt. Accessed 11/07/
2014
Kamphuis J (1991) Alongshore sediment transport rate. J Waterw Port
Coast Ocean Eng 117:624640. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733950X(1991)117:6(624)

320
Kamphuis J (2000) Introduction to coastal engineering and management,
vol 16. World Scientific, Singapore. doi:10.1142/9789812386403_
fmatter
Lopes J, Dias J, Dekeyser I (2001) Influence of tides and river inputs on
suspended sediment transport in the Ria de Aveiro lagoon, Portugal.
Phys Chem Earth Part B: Hydrol Oceans Atmos 26:729734. doi:
10.1016/S1464-1917(01)00077-0
Masselink G (1992) Longshore variation of grain-size distribution along
the coast of Rhode Delta, Southern France - A test of the McLaren
Model. J Coast Res 8:286291
McCave I (1978) Grain-size trends and transport along beaches: example
from eastern england. Mar Geol 28:4351. doi:10.1016/00253227(78)90092-0
Pereira L (2000) Evoluo de curto prazo da linha de costa entre Costa
Nova e Poo da Cruz. Aveiro. MSc Thesis, University of Aveiro
Short A (1999) Handbook of beach and shoreface morphodynamics.
Wiley, Australia. doi:10.1002/1099-0755(200009/10)
10:5<391::AID-AQC418>3.0.CO;2-F
Silva R, Coelho C, Veloso-Gomes F, Taveira-Pinto F (2007) Dynamic
numerical simulation of medium-term coastal evolution of the west
coast of portugal. J Coast Res 50:263267

P. Narra et al.
Silva R, Baptista P, Veloso-Gomes F, Coelho C, Taveira-Pinto F (2009)
Sediment grain size variation on a coastal stretch facing the north
atlantic (NW Portugal). J Coast Res 56:762766
Sunamura T (1984) Quantitative predictions of beach-face slopes. Geol
Soc Am Bull 95:242245. doi:10.1130/0016-7606(1984)
95<242:QPOBS>2.0.CO;2
Terwindt J (1962) Study of grain size variations at the coast of Katwijk.
Note K-324. Rijkswaterstaat, Deltadienst, Den Haag,
The Netherlands
Trigo-Teixeira A, Matos J, Pimentel C, Pinheiro J (2000) A map of land at
risk on the Portuguese Coast. Period Biol 102:605612
Veloso-Gomes F, Taveira-Pinto F, das Neves L, Pais Barbosa J, Coelho C
(2004) Erosion risk levels at the NW Portuguese coast: the Douro
mouthCape Mondego stretch. J Coast Conserv 10:4352. doi:10.
1652/1400-0350(2004)010[0043:ERLATN]2.0.CO;2
Visher G (1969) Grain size distributions and depositional processes. J
Sediment Petrol 39:10741106. doi:10.1306/74D71D9D-2B2111D7-8648000102C1865D
Wang P, Davis R, Kraus N (1998) Cross-shore distribution of sediment
texture under breaking waves along low-wave-energy coasts. J
Sediment Res 68:497506