USGS Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70123142

11 things a geologist thinks an engineer should know about carbonate beaches

Robert B. Halley
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This is a review of the geological aspects of carbonate beaches that a geologist thinks may be useful for an engineer. Classical geologic problems of carbonate beaches, for example how ancient examples are recognized in rock sequences, are of little interest to engineers. Geologists not involved in engineering problems may find it difficult to know what an engineer should understand about carbonate beaches. Nevertheless, there are at least eleven topics that are potentially very useful for engineers to keep in mind. These eleven are chosen with as much thought going into what has been omitted as has been given to the eleven included topics. Some qualifications are in order: First, this paper does not discuss certain kinds of carbonate shorelines that are beyond the scope of engineering issues. For example, this review does not discuss very high-energy carbonate boulder beaches. These beaches are comprised of pieces of carbonate material ganging in size from ten centimeters to meters. Typically, these are high-energy storm deposits formed from pieces of either eroded carbonate rock or other large carbonate pieces such as pieces of large corals. This paper focuses on sand-sized (0.0625–2.0 mm) coastal carbonate deposits. Second, offshore beaches will not be discussed. There are many carbonate beaches that form on banks or shoals exposed at low tide, but our discussion is confined to what most people think of when they go to some tropical island and/or resort and walk out to lay on the beach. Third, this paper does not consider mixed carbonate/quartz sand beaches. While mixed beaches are common, only the end member of purely carbonate sand beaches is considered. Fourth, there will be no order of preference of the eleven topics. And lastly, these eleven topics are not consensus items. These are simply one geologist s thoughts about the aspects of carbonate beaches that would be useful for engineering colleagues to keep in mind. Where possible, general reference is made to textbooks that will lead the reader to extensive literature on carbonate sediments. Several of the topics are not so broad as to have had a large general treatment in texts, and in those cases some original literature is cited.

Explore related subjects

Conference Paper

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Robert B. Halley. 2012-04-26. 11 things a geologist thinks an engineer should know about carbonate beaches. https://doi.org/10.1061/40640(305)1

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Authoritative knowledge infrastructure for GeoAI: Implications for scientific spatial data providers

Geospatial Artificial Intelligence (GeoAI) increasingly relies on automated analysis of authoritative geospatial data, exposing limitations in data infrastructures originally designed for simple dissemination rather than for knowledge-driven use. From the perspective of scientific spatial data providers, the challenge is enabling GeoAI responsibly while retaining semantic clarity, provenance, reproducibility, and governance. This short paper (i) examines how GeoAI exposed limitations within existing geospatial data infrastructures, and (ii) identifies provider-side requirements for an authoritative knowledge infrastructure. Drawing on GIScience, scientific workflow, and operational AI literature, the paper outlines implications for national mapping organizations that seek to support advanced analytics without jeopardizing scientific rigor or stewardship responsibilities.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2026

Springs of the Catskill Mountains: A conduit flow system in predominantly siliciclastic strata

The Catskill Mountains of New York state are composed of thick sequences of interbedded mudstone, sandstone, and siltstone that are intercalated with thin beds of paludal limestone and calcareous mudstone. Sandstones often contain rip-up clasts of calcareous material at their bases and contain minor amounts of carbonate cement throughout their mass. This minor amount of calcareous material weathers out to produce thin zones of solutional porosity and permeability integrated within perched aquifers that feed perennial hillslope springs. Solutional features are evident within thin carbonate lenses and along fractures in sandstones, occasionally resulting in explorable cave-sized conduits. This study focuses on the behavior of bedrock springs and seeps in the headwaters of the Neversink River basin above the Neversink Reservoir. Bedrock springs are numerous throughout the Catskill Mountains and serve to provide baseflow to the headwater streams that tends to be more persistent during dry times than other baseflow sources. We observed dissolution-influenced conduits within the bedrock, and suffosional conduits within unconsolidated materials. Continuous water temperature at six springs was monitored at hourly intervals from May to October 2022 to investigate the thermal response of groundwater to daily and seasonal changes in air temperature along with event-based meteorological events. Temperature monitoring was augmented at some springs with time-lapse photography to evaluate persistence of flow. The thermal responses of springs to precipitation events were highly variable across sites, with some springs exhibiting flashy responses indicating a strong connection to the surface, while other springs showed muted or no thermal response to events. The seasonal thermal response also varied across sites having lag times of 23-48 days between peak air temperature and peak spring water temperature. The water temperatures and geochemical compositions of these bedrock springs support a conceptual model of multiple residence times, showing both event and seasonal groundwater storage within the conduit flow system that feeds the springs of the Catskill Mountains.

New York↗
USGS2026

Stability changes after weak layer collapse: Insights from an unexpected dataset

While conducting avalanche mitigation or traveling through the backcountry, avalanche professionals sometimes experience a "whumpf": a collapse-mode crack accompanied by surface cracking that does not produce an avalanche. These whumpfs are a clear warning sign of instability in the surrounding terrain. But assessing the collapsed slope itself, if it is steep enough to avalanche, carries much more uncertainty. Can slopes that whumpf and are steep enough to slide still avalanche? The answer to this question supports avalanche mitigators and ski guides in assessing whether to open such slopes. Previous research on collapsed slopes is limited to one study conducted before tests that estimate crack propagation propensity, such as the Propagation Saw Test (PST), were developed. This work showed that weak layer shear strength decreased immediately after collapsing and then increased over time. However, no research has examined crack propagation propensity after a whumpf. Studying propagation propensity is key for assessing how whumpfs immediately affect slope stability. To improve our understanding of changes in propagation propensity following weak layer collapse, we conducted PSTs on a test slope in the hours and days after an unexpected collapse occurred on a layer of surface hoar. Two PSTs at our study site three days prior to this collapse provided an estimate of weak layer propagation propensity. PST cut lengths decreased immediately following the collapse, suggesting that the collapse increased the propagation propensity. However, over the next 4-5 hours, PST cut lengths steadily increased at our site, likely due to ongoing sintering and strengthening in the collapsed weak layer. By the end of day two, we were no longer able to initiate propagation, suggesting substantial stabilization of the weak layer. Our results support prior findings and observations suggesting that slopes may remain capable of producing avalanches immediately after a collapse but likely stabilize over the next day or two. Although this research does not provide answers about precisely when a slope becomes stable after a collapse, it does highlight uncertainties in our understanding and interpretation of the stability of slopes that have whumped.

Montana↗