Difference between revisions of "Charlottenburg wave-protected shallow"
From REFORM wiki
(→Site description) |
(→Key features of the case study) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| − | This artificial structure provides a shallow water body along the bank line protected from boat wave wash by a sheet pile wall. This wall has trapezoidal 11 x 5 x 1.5 m (upper x lower width x depth) openings every 29.5 m with gabions behind to protect the littoral from parallel currents. The whole bank structure is 264 m long. This kind of artificial, shallow, wave-protected bank structure increases the construction costs by 8–15% compared with the most expensive standard embankment | + | This artificial structure provides a shallow water body along the bank line protected from boat wave wash by a sheet pile wall. This wall has trapezoidal 11 x 5 x 1.5 m (upper x lower width x depth) openings every 29.5 m with gabions behind to protect the littoral from parallel currents. The whole bank structure is 264 m long. This kind of artificial, shallow, wave-protected bank structure increases the construction costs by 8–15% compared with the most expensive standard embankment. |
==Measures selection== | ==Measures selection== | ||
Latest revision as of 17:09, 8 April 2010
Charlottenburg wave-protected shallow
Key features of the case study
This artificial structure provides a shallow water body along the bank line protected from boat wave wash by a sheet pile wall. This wall has trapezoidal 11 x 5 x 1.5 m (upper x lower width x depth) openings every 29.5 m with gabions behind to protect the littoral from parallel currents. The whole bank structure is 264 m long. This kind of artificial, shallow, wave-protected bank structure increases the construction costs by 8–15% compared with the most expensive standard embankment.
Measures selection
Success criteria
Ecological response
Hydromorphological response
Monitoring before and after implementation of the project
Socio-economic aspects
Contact person within the organization
Extra background information
Wolter, C. (2010) Functional vs scenic restoration – challenges to improve fish and fisheries in urban waters. Fisheries Management and Ecology 17: 176-185.
