Horizontal and vertical pressure gradients may be important physical mechanisms contributing to onshore sediment transport beneath steep, near‐breaking waves in the surf zone. A barred beach was constructed in a large‐scale laboratory wave flume with a fixed profile containing a mobile sediment layer on the crest of the sandbar. Horizontal and vertical pore pressure gradients were obtained by finite differences of measurements from an array of pressure transducers buried within the upper several centimeters of the bed. Colocated observations of erosion depth were made during asymmetric wave trials with wave heights between 0.10 and 0.98 m, consistently resulting in onshore sheet flow sediment transport. The pore pressure gradient vector within the bed exhibited temporal rotations during each wave cycle, directed predominantly upward under the trough and then rapidly rotating onshore and downward as the wavefront passed. The magnitude of the pore pressure gradient during each phase of rotation was correlated with local wave steepness and relative depth. Momentary bed failures as deep as 20 grain diameters were coincident with sharp increases in the onshore‐directed pore pressure gradients, but occurred at horizontal pressure gradients less than theoretical critical values for initiation of the motion for compact beds. An expression combining the effects of both horizontal and vertical pore pressure gradients with bed shear stress and soil stability is used to determine that failure of the bed is initiated at nonnegligible values of both forces.

A large‐scale laboratory experiment was conducted to evaluate cross‐shore sediment transport and bed response on a sandbar under erosive and accretive field‐scale wave conditions (total of 11 cases). Unprecedented vertical resolution of sediment concentration was achieved through the use of conductivity concentration profilers alongside miniature fiber optic backscatter profilers. Observations were made of intrawave (phase‐averaged) and wave‐averaged cross‐shore sediment flux profiles and transport rates in the lower half of the water column on the crest of a sandbar. The net sediment transport rate was partitioned into suspended sediment (SS) and bed load (BL) components to quantify the relative contributions of SS and BL to the total sediment transport rate. Net SS transport rates were greater than net BL transport rates for the positive (wave crest) half‐cycle in 6 of 11 cases, compared to 100% (11 of 11) for the negative (wave trough) half‐cycle. Net (wave‐averaged) BL transport rates were greater, in magnitude, than net SS transport rates for 7 of the 11 cases. The dominant mode of transport was determined from the ratio of net BL to net SS transport rate magnitudes. The net transport rate was negative (offshore‐directed) when SS dominated and positive (onshore‐directed) when BL dominated. Net BL transport rate correlated well with third moments of free‐stream velocity (r² = 0.72), suggesting that energetics‐type quasi‐steady formulae may be suitable for predicting BL transport under the range of test conditions.

Intense sediment transport experiments were performed in a gravity‐driven open‐channel flow with two sizes of uniformly distributed nonspherical acrylic particles having median diameters of 1.0 and 3.0 mm and a maximum packing volumetric concentration (ϕ) of 0.55. The flow conditions were adapted to each particle size to ensure similar sediment transport flow regimes as sheet flow corresponding to Shields numbers slightly above unity and a suspension number, ratio of settling velocity to friction velocity, near unity for the two experiments. An acoustic scattering‐based system (Acoustic Concentration and Velocity Profiler) and conductivity probes (Conductivity Concentration Profiler [CCP]) with two different vertical resolutions, 1 mm (CCP_1mm) and 2 mm (CCP_2mm) were used to measure instantaneous concentration profiles across the bedload and suspension layers. Measured concentration profiles, bed interface position, and sheet flow layer thicknesses are compared between the two techniques. The capabilities and limitations of both technologies are outlined. Average volumetric sediment concentration profiles were overestimated by 10% with the Acoustic Concentration and Velocity Profiler in the dense sheet layer when ⟨ϕ(z)⟩≳ 0.35, and by 100% with the CCP in the more diluted region when ⟨ϕ(z)⟩≲ 0.015 and ⟨ϕ(z)⟩≲ 0.20 for CCP_1mm and CCP_2mm, respectively. Good agreement is found between the three systems in terms of average and time‐resolved bed level position and sheet layer thickness, validating the different bed interface detection methods on data from the two sensors.

A novel large wave flume experiment was conducted on a fixed, barred beach with a sediment pit on the sandbar, allowing for the isolation of small‐scale bed response to large‐scale forcing. Concurrent measurements of instantaneous sheet layer sediment concentration profiles and near‐bed velocity profiles were obtained on a sandbar for the first time. Two sediment distributions were used with median grain diameters, , of 0.17 and 0.27 mm. Sheet flow occurred primarily under wave crests, where sheet thickness increased with increasing wave height. A proportionality constant, , was used to relate maximum Shields parameter to maximum sheet thickness (normalized by ), with bed shear stress computed using the quadratic drag law. An enhanced sheet layer thickness was apparent for the smaller sediment experiments ( = 18.7), when directly compared to closed‐conduit oscillatory flow tunnel data ( = 10.6). However, varied significantly (5 < < 31) depending on the procedure used to estimate grain roughness, , and wave friction factor, . Three models for were compared (keeping the model for fixed): constant = 2.5 , and two expressions dependent on flow intensity, derived from steady and oscillatory sheet flow experiments. Values of varied by two orders of magnitude and exhibited an inverse relationship with , where ∼ 30 for of (1) while ∼ 5 for of (100). Two expressions for were also tested (with the steady flow‐based model for ), yielding a difference of 69% ( versus ).

A prototype rapidly deployable, Line-scanning, Low-Cost (LLC) LiDAR system (USD 400 per unit; 2020) was developed to measure coastal hydro-morphodynamic processes. A pilot field study was conducted at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Field Research Facility (FRF) in Duck, North Carolina, USA to evaluate the efficacy of the LLC LiDAR in measuring beach morphology, wave runup, and free-surface elevations against proven approaches. A prototype LLC LiDAR collected continuous cross-shore line scans for 25 min of every half hour, at ~7 revolutions/s and ~1.3° angular resolution, at two locations (one day at each location), spanning 12 m (i) on the backshore berm (35 scans; Series B) and (ii) in the swash/inner surf zone (28 scans; Series C). LLC LiDAR time-averaged beach profiles and wave runup estimates were compared with the same quantities derived from the continuously sampling terrestrial LiDAR scanner installed atop the dune at the FRF (DUNE LiDAR). The average root-mean-square difference (RMSD) between 17 (6) time-averaged LLC and DUNE LiDAR beach profiles was 0.045 m (0.031 m) with a standard deviation of 0.004 m (0.002 m) during Series B (Series C). Small-scale (cm) swash zone bed level changes were resolved over 5-min increments with the LLC LiDAR. The RMSD between LLC- and DUNE LiDAR-derived wave runup excursions over two 25-min segments was 0.542 m (cross-shore) and 0.039 m (elevation) during the rising tide and 0.366 m (cross-shore) and 0.032 m (elevation) during the falling tide. Between 72–79% of the LLC LiDAR wave runup data were more accurate than the RMSD values, thereby demonstrating the LLC LiDAR is an effective, low-cost instrument for measuring wave runup and morphodynamic processes. Co-located water levels were measured with a continuously sampling (16 Hz) RBRsolo³ D|wave16 pressure logger during Series C. LLC LiDAR free-surface elevations at the nadir during one high tide (4.5 h) compared well with pressure-derived free-surface elevations (RMSD = 0.024 m, $R^2$ = 0.85).