Most rivers have bars at their mouths. In the case of deltaic rivers the bar, as already stated, is caused by the heavy silt carried by the river, though it may be assisted by littoral drift. In the case of non-deltaic rivers flowing into tideless seas, the quantity of silt is not enough to form a bar, and the same is generally true in the case of tidal rivers where the volume of tidal water is usually much greater than that of the upland water. In both these classes of rivers the formation of the bars is due chiefly to littoral drift or to sediment brought in by the sea water. The bar, as in the case of deltaic rivers, may be partly scoured away by a flood in the river, and the scoured material may deposit on the seaward slope of the bar. Generally, the navigation channel across a bar of this kind can be kept sufficiently deep by dredging, but sometimes jetties, like those mentioned in the preceding article, have been constructed, and in this case there is the great advantage that the bar is not liable to form further out. If littoral drift tends to accumulate, the jetties, or at least the one on the side whence the drift comes, can be lengthened. This was done, as mentioned by Harcourt (Rivers and Canals, Chap. IX.), in the case of the rivers Chicago, Buffalo, and Oswego, which flow into the Great Lakes of America. The same writer states that the jetties at the Swine mouth of the tideless river Oder were made to curve to the left, the convex or left-hand jetty being the shorter, but that this exposed the mouth to littoral drift coming from the left. The river, upstream of the jetties, had a slight curve towards the left, but this could have been corrected or, at all events, the jetties made to curve to the right.
A case ([fig. 69]) where parallel jetties were recently constructed in a tidal sea is that of the mouth of the Richmond River, New South Wales (Min. Proc. Inst. C.E., vol. clx.).
Fig. 69.
In the case of a bar at the mouth of an estuary, parallel jetties would be too far apart. In such cases converging breakwaters ([fig. 70]) are sometimes made, especially if the tidal capacity of the estuary is small. The entrance is generally 1000 to 2500 feet wide. If made narrow, it would reduce the tidal flow too much. The space inside the breakwaters adds to the tidal capacity, and thus induces scour at the bar. The case is similar to that of the Mersey estuary ([Chap. XIV., Art. 5]), the breakwaters assisting scour at the bar, though perhaps slightly interfering with the tidal flow in the estuary.
Fig. 70.
Converging breakwaters also tend to stop littoral drift, and the space inside them acts as a harbour of refuge in storms and as a sheltered place where dredgers can work (Rivers and Canals, Chap. XI.). They have to be heavily built and are very expensive, and they are generally adopted only when there is an important seaport, and when they can be put to all the uses above indicated.
APPENDIX A
Fallacies in the Hydraulics of Streams ([Chap. I., Art. 4], and [Chap. VI., Art 2]).—In an inundation canal in India the supply during floods was excessive. Orders were given that a flume be made at the head, as shown in [fig. 71]. The sides were to be revetted, as shown in [fig. 19] ([Chap. VI., Art. 3]); the length, excluding the splayed parts, was to be 200 feet, and the floor was to be a mattress well staked or pegged down. The order stated that “by this means we cannot get into the canal much more than its true capacity.” With 9 feet of water, a surface fall of 4 inches in 300 feet would give a velocity of some 6·5 feet per second, and a further fall of about 8 inches would be required at the head of the flume to impress this velocity on the water. The flume would reduce the depth of water in the canal by 1 foot, i.e. from 9 feet to 8 feet. This would not be in anything like the proportion desired. Moreover the flume, unless the bed was extremely well protected, would be destroyed. The above is a case of exaggerating the effect of an “obstruction.”