https://cirpwiki.info/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Rdchltmb&feedformat=atomCIRPwiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T11:37:36ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.39.2https://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=GenCade&diff=9589GenCade2013-03-04T19:43:53Z<p>Rdchltmb: /* GenCade Documentation */</p>
<hr />
<div>__notitle__<br />
__notoc__<br />
=GenCade=<br />
<br />
[[Image:GENESIS_Cascade.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Figure 1. Combination of GENESIS and Cascade]]<br />
<br />
'''A Regional Coastal Model'''<br />
<br/><br />
GenCade is a 1D model that combines GENESIS and Cascade. It is operated within the Surface-water Modeling System (SMS) 11.1 interface. The model was officially released in April 2012. SMS 11.1 (beta) was released in October 2012. A user guide, examples of simple cases, applications, frequently asked questions, and important information will be posted here. A Technical Report is complete and is located on the [[http://cirp.usace.army.mil/products/?tab=4#products CIRP website]].<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
[[Image:Example_GenCade_setup.jpg|200px|thumb|left|Figure 2. Example GenCade Setup]]<br />
<br />
'''Tech Transfer'''<br />
<br/>GenCade was highlighted during two CIRP Workshops in 2011. The first took place in February in Jacksonville, FL. This was the first workshop to include GenCade. About 25 students listened to several GenCade presentations, watched a demonstration, and participated in a hands-on example. A full day session of GenCade was featured in San Diego in August.<br />
<br />
A full day session of GenCade was presented during the March 2012 CIRP Workshop in Philadelphia. The morning consisted of presentations and a hands-on demonstration. In the afternoon, students worked through an example independently while instructors walked around answering questions.<br />
<br />
The first GenCade webinar took place in October 2012. Each of the three days consisted of two hours of instruction. During Day 1, several presentations introducing students to GenCade, the SMS, and previous applications were given. A quick example showing input and output files and how to view results in the SMS was shown at the beginning of Day 2. Then a very simple example and a case highlighting beach fills and dredging were shown. A more complex example with structures was completed during Day 3. Then a quick discussion of future GenCade capabilities was given. The day concluded with a presentation and example of the new wave conversion tool.<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
<!-----------POC-----------------------><br />
{|style="width:75%; border-spacing:8px;"<br />
|class="MainPageBG" style="width:100%; border:1px solid #cedff2; background:#234B7C ; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"|<br />
{|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;"<br />
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#445797; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#FFF; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">'''POC:''' Ashley Frey</h2><br />
|-<br />
|style="color:#000;"|<br />
US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) <br />
<br\>Coastal and Hydraulics Lab (CHL)<br />
<br\>For any questions, please contact [mailto://Ashley.E.Frey@usace.army.mil Ashley Frey]<br />
<br\> Phone: 601-634-2006 . <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
__notitle__<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
= GenCade Documentation =<br />
{|class=main width=99%<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33% | <!-- Left Column Portal --><br />
===Technical Documentation===<br />
----<br />
*Model Theory<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Assumptions|Basic Assumptions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Governing Equations|Governing Equations]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sand Transport Rates|Sand Transport Rates]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Empirical Parameters|Empirical Parameters]]<br />
*Wave Model<br />
**[[GenCade:Wave Calculation|Wave Calculation]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Internal Wave Transformation|Internal Wave Transformation]]<br />
*Model Structure<br />
**[[GenCade:Grid System|Grid System]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Boundary Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Numerical Stability|Numerical Stability]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Representation of Inlets|Representation of Inlets]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Structures|Structures]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sediment Sources and Sinks|Sediment Sources and Sinks]]<br />
<br />
*[[GenCade_Tech_Documentation|Technical Documentation]]<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Middle Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Interface and User Guide===<br />
----<br />
* [[GenCade_Users_Guide|User Guide]]<br />
*Getting Started<br />
**[[GenCade:Conceptual Model|Conceptual Model]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Grid_Setup|Grid Setup]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Preparing_Input_Files|Input]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Wave_Input|Wave Input]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Parameters|Parameters]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Boundary_Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Output_Files|Output Files]]<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Calibration|Model Calibration]]<br />
<br />
*[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Developing_Alternatives|Developing Alternatives]]<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Example|GenCade Tutorial/Example]]<br />
<br />
*[[GenCade_Executable|GenCade Executable]]<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_FAQs|Frequently Asked Questions]]<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Right Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Model Validation & Standard Benchmark Cases===<br />
----<br />
<br />
*[[GenCade_Val:LSTF|LSTF Laboratory Cases]]<br />
*[[GenCade_Val:Benchmark Cases|Benchmark Cases]]<br />
*[[GenCade_Val:Genesis Validation - Jucar River|Genesis Validation to Jucar River, Cullera, Spain]]<br />
<br />
===Examples===<br />
----<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Applications|GenCade Applications]]<br />
<br />
*[[GenCade_Applications_USACE Districts Previous Projects | USACE Districts]]<br />
<br />
*[[GenCade_Applications_CIRP Projects Previous Projects | CIRP Led Projects]]<br />
<br />
* Private Sector<br />
** [[GenCade_Applications_Private Sector U.S. Previous Projects|United States]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Applications_Private Sector International Previous Projects|International]]<br />
<br />
<br />
===Tools & Links===<br />
----<br />
*[[Statistics| Goodness-of-Fit Statistics]]<br />
*[[GenCade References| GenCade References]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=GenCade&diff=9588GenCade2013-03-04T19:33:55Z<p>Rdchltmb: /* GenCade Documentation */</p>
<hr />
<div>__notitle__<br />
__notoc__<br />
=GenCade=<br />
<br />
[[Image:GENESIS_Cascade.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Figure 1. Combination of GENESIS and Cascade]]<br />
<br />
'''A Regional Coastal Model'''<br />
<br/><br />
GenCade is a 1D model that combines GENESIS and Cascade. It is operated within the Surface-water Modeling System (SMS) 11.1 interface. The model was officially released in April 2012. SMS 11.1 (beta) was released in October 2012. A user guide, examples of simple cases, applications, frequently asked questions, and important information will be posted here. A Technical Report is complete and is located on the [[http://cirp.usace.army.mil/products/?tab=4#products CIRP website]].<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
[[Image:Example_GenCade_setup.jpg|200px|thumb|left|Figure 2. Example GenCade Setup]]<br />
<br />
'''Tech Transfer'''<br />
<br/>GenCade was highlighted during two CIRP Workshops in 2011. The first took place in February in Jacksonville, FL. This was the first workshop to include GenCade. About 25 students listened to several GenCade presentations, watched a demonstration, and participated in a hands-on example. A full day session of GenCade was featured in San Diego in August.<br />
<br />
A full day session of GenCade was presented during the March 2012 CIRP Workshop in Philadelphia. The morning consisted of presentations and a hands-on demonstration. In the afternoon, students worked through an example independently while instructors walked around answering questions.<br />
<br />
The first GenCade webinar took place in October 2012. Each of the three days consisted of two hours of instruction. During Day 1, several presentations introducing students to GenCade, the SMS, and previous applications were given. A quick example showing input and output files and how to view results in the SMS was shown at the beginning of Day 2. Then a very simple example and a case highlighting beach fills and dredging were shown. A more complex example with structures was completed during Day 3. Then a quick discussion of future GenCade capabilities was given. The day concluded with a presentation and example of the new wave conversion tool.<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
<!-----------POC-----------------------><br />
{|style="width:75%; border-spacing:8px;"<br />
|class="MainPageBG" style="width:100%; border:1px solid #cedff2; background:#234B7C ; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"|<br />
{|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;"<br />
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#445797; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#FFF; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">'''POC:''' Ashley Frey</h2><br />
|-<br />
|style="color:#000;"|<br />
US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) <br />
<br\>Coastal and Hydraulics Lab (CHL)<br />
<br\>For any questions, please contact [mailto://Ashley.E.Frey@usace.army.mil Ashley Frey]<br />
<br\> Phone: 601-634-2006 . <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
= GenCade Documentation =<br />
{|class=main width=99%<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33% | <!-- Left Column Portal --><br />
===Technical Documentation===<br />
----<br />
*Model Theory<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Assumptions|Basic Assumptions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Governing Equations|Governing Equations]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sand Transport Rates|Sand Transport Rates]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Empirical Parameters|Empirical Parameters]]<br />
*Wave Model<br />
**[[GenCade:Wave Calculation|Wave Calculation]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Internal Wave Transformation|Internal Wave Transformation]]<br />
*Model Structure<br />
**[[GenCade:Grid System|Grid System]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Boundary Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Numerical Stability|Numerical Stability]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Representation of Inlets|Representation of Inlets]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Structures|Structures]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sediment Sources and Sinks|Sediment Sources and Sinks]]<br />
<br />
*[[GenCade_Tech_Documentation|Technical Documentation]]<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Middle Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Interface and User Guide===<br />
----<br />
* [[GenCade_Users_Guide|User Guide]]<br />
*Getting Started<br />
**[[GenCade:Conceptual Model|Conceptual Model]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Grid_Setup|Grid Setup]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Preparing_Input_Files|Input]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Wave_Input|Wave Input]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Parameters|Parameters]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Boundary_Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Output_Files|Output Files]]<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Calibration|Model Calibration]]<br />
<br />
*[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Developing_Alternatives|Developing Alternatives]]<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Example|GenCade Tutorial/Example]]<br />
<br />
*[[GenCade_Executable|GenCade Executable]]<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_FAQs|Frequently Asked Questions]]<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Right Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Model Validation & Standard Benchmark Cases===<br />
----<br />
<br />
*[[GenCade_Val:LSTF|LSTF Laboratory Cases]]<br />
*[[GenCade_Val:Benchmark Cases|Benchmark Cases]]<br />
*[[GenCade_Val:Genesis Validation - Jucar River|Genesis Validation to Jucar River, Cullera, Spain]]<br />
<br />
===Examples===<br />
----<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Applications|GenCade Applications]]<br />
<br />
===Tools & Links===<br />
----<br />
*[[Statistics| Goodness-of-Fit Statistics]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=GenCade&diff=9587GenCade2013-03-04T19:31:17Z<p>Rdchltmb: /* GenCade Documentation */</p>
<hr />
<div>__notitle__<br />
__notoc__<br />
=GenCade=<br />
<br />
[[Image:GENESIS_Cascade.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Figure 1. Combination of GENESIS and Cascade]]<br />
<br />
'''A Regional Coastal Model'''<br />
<br/><br />
GenCade is a 1D model that combines GENESIS and Cascade. It is operated within the Surface-water Modeling System (SMS) 11.1 interface. The model was officially released in April 2012. SMS 11.1 (beta) was released in October 2012. A user guide, examples of simple cases, applications, frequently asked questions, and important information will be posted here. A Technical Report is complete and is located on the [[http://cirp.usace.army.mil/products/?tab=4#products CIRP website]].<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
[[Image:Example_GenCade_setup.jpg|200px|thumb|left|Figure 2. Example GenCade Setup]]<br />
<br />
'''Tech Transfer'''<br />
<br/>GenCade was highlighted during two CIRP Workshops in 2011. The first took place in February in Jacksonville, FL. This was the first workshop to include GenCade. About 25 students listened to several GenCade presentations, watched a demonstration, and participated in a hands-on example. A full day session of GenCade was featured in San Diego in August.<br />
<br />
A full day session of GenCade was presented during the March 2012 CIRP Workshop in Philadelphia. The morning consisted of presentations and a hands-on demonstration. In the afternoon, students worked through an example independently while instructors walked around answering questions.<br />
<br />
The first GenCade webinar took place in October 2012. Each of the three days consisted of two hours of instruction. During Day 1, several presentations introducing students to GenCade, the SMS, and previous applications were given. A quick example showing input and output files and how to view results in the SMS was shown at the beginning of Day 2. Then a very simple example and a case highlighting beach fills and dredging were shown. A more complex example with structures was completed during Day 3. Then a quick discussion of future GenCade capabilities was given. The day concluded with a presentation and example of the new wave conversion tool.<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
<!-----------POC-----------------------><br />
{|style="width:75%; border-spacing:8px;"<br />
|class="MainPageBG" style="width:100%; border:1px solid #cedff2; background:#234B7C ; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"|<br />
{|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;"<br />
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#445797; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#FFF; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">'''POC:''' Ashley Frey</h2><br />
|-<br />
|style="color:#000;"|<br />
US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) <br />
<br\>Coastal and Hydraulics Lab (CHL)<br />
<br\>For any questions, please contact [mailto://Ashley.E.Frey@usace.army.mil Ashley Frey]<br />
<br\> Phone: 601-634-2006 . <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
= GenCade Documentation =<br />
{|class=main width=99%<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33% | <!-- Left Column Portal --><br />
===Technical Documentation===<br />
----<br />
*Model Theory<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Assumptions|Basic Assumptions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Governing Equations|Governing Equations]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sand Transport Rates|Sand Transport Rates]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Empirical Parameters|Empirical Parameters]]<br />
*Wave Model<br />
**[[GenCade:Wave Calculation|Wave Calculation]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Internal Wave Transformation|Internal Wave Transformation]]<br />
*Model Structure<br />
**[[GenCade:Grid System|Grid System]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Boundary Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Numerical Stability|Numerical Stability]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Representation of Inlets|Representation of Inlets]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Structures|Structures]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sediment Sources and Sinks|Sediment Sources and Sinks]]<br />
<br />
*[[GenCade_Tech_Documentation|Technical Documentation]]<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Middle Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Interface and User Guide===<br />
----<br />
* [[GenCade_Users_Guide|User Guide]]<br />
*Getting Started<br />
**[[GenCade:Conceptual Model|Conceptual Model]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Grid_Setup|Grid Setup]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Preparing_Input_Files|Input]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Wave_Input|Wave Input]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Parameters|Parameters]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Boundary_Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Output_Files|Output Files]]<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Calibration|Model Calibration]]<br />
<br />
*[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Developing_Alternatives|Developing Alternatives]]<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Example|GenCade Tutorial/Example]]<br />
<br />
*[[GenCade_Executable|GenCade Executable]]<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_FAQs|Frequently Asked Questions]]<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Right Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Model Validation & Standard Benchmark Cases===<br />
----<br />
<br />
*[[GenCade_Val:LSTF|LSTF Laboratory Cases]]<br />
*[[GenCade_Val:Benchmark Cases|Benchmark Cases]]<br />
*[[GenCade_Val:Genesis Validation - Jucar River|Genesis Validation to Jucar River, Cullera, Spain]]<br />
<br />
===Examples===<br />
----<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Applications|GenCade Applications]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=GenCade&diff=9586GenCade2013-03-04T19:28:20Z<p>Rdchltmb: /* GenCade Documentation */</p>
<hr />
<div>__notitle__<br />
__notoc__<br />
=GenCade=<br />
<br />
[[Image:GENESIS_Cascade.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Figure 1. Combination of GENESIS and Cascade]]<br />
<br />
'''A Regional Coastal Model'''<br />
<br/><br />
GenCade is a 1D model that combines GENESIS and Cascade. It is operated within the Surface-water Modeling System (SMS) 11.1 interface. The model was officially released in April 2012. SMS 11.1 (beta) was released in October 2012. A user guide, examples of simple cases, applications, frequently asked questions, and important information will be posted here. A Technical Report is complete and is located on the [[http://cirp.usace.army.mil/products/?tab=4#products CIRP website]].<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
[[Image:Example_GenCade_setup.jpg|200px|thumb|left|Figure 2. Example GenCade Setup]]<br />
<br />
'''Tech Transfer'''<br />
<br/>GenCade was highlighted during two CIRP Workshops in 2011. The first took place in February in Jacksonville, FL. This was the first workshop to include GenCade. About 25 students listened to several GenCade presentations, watched a demonstration, and participated in a hands-on example. A full day session of GenCade was featured in San Diego in August.<br />
<br />
A full day session of GenCade was presented during the March 2012 CIRP Workshop in Philadelphia. The morning consisted of presentations and a hands-on demonstration. In the afternoon, students worked through an example independently while instructors walked around answering questions.<br />
<br />
The first GenCade webinar took place in October 2012. Each of the three days consisted of two hours of instruction. During Day 1, several presentations introducing students to GenCade, the SMS, and previous applications were given. A quick example showing input and output files and how to view results in the SMS was shown at the beginning of Day 2. Then a very simple example and a case highlighting beach fills and dredging were shown. A more complex example with structures was completed during Day 3. Then a quick discussion of future GenCade capabilities was given. The day concluded with a presentation and example of the new wave conversion tool.<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
<!-----------POC-----------------------><br />
{|style="width:75%; border-spacing:8px;"<br />
|class="MainPageBG" style="width:100%; border:1px solid #cedff2; background:#234B7C ; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"|<br />
{|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;"<br />
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#445797; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#FFF; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">'''POC:''' Ashley Frey</h2><br />
|-<br />
|style="color:#000;"|<br />
US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) <br />
<br\>Coastal and Hydraulics Lab (CHL)<br />
<br\>For any questions, please contact [mailto://Ashley.E.Frey@usace.army.mil Ashley Frey]<br />
<br\> Phone: 601-634-2006 . <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
= GenCade Documentation =<br />
{|class=main width=99%<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33% | <!-- Left Column Portal --><br />
===Technical Documentation===<br />
----<br />
*Model Theory<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Assumptions|Basic Assumptions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Governing Equations|Governing Equations]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sand Transport Rates|Sand Transport Rates]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Empirical Parameters|Empirical Parameters]]<br />
*Wave Model<br />
**[[GenCade:Wave Calculation|Wave Calculation]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Internal Wave Transformation|Internal Wave Transformation]]<br />
*Model Structure<br />
**[[GenCade:Grid System|Grid System]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Boundary Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Numerical Stability|Numerical Stability]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Representation of Inlets|Representation of Inlets]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Structures|Structures]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sediment Sources and Sinks|Sediment Sources and Sinks]]<br />
<br />
*[[GenCade_Tech_Documentation|Technical Documentation]]<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Middle Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Interface and User Guide===<br />
----<br />
* [[GenCade_Users_Guide|User Guide]]<br />
*Getting Started<br />
**[[GenCade:Conceptual Model|Conceptual Model]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Grid_Setup|Grid Setup]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Preparing_Input_Files|Input]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Wave_Input|Wave Input]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Parameters|Parameters]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Boundary_Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Output_Files|Output Files]]<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Calibration|Model Calibration]]<br />
<br />
*[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Developing_Alternatives|Developing Alternatives]]<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Example|GenCade Tutorial/Example]]<br />
<br />
*[[GenCade_Executable|GenCade Executable]]<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Right Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Model Validation, Standard Benchmark Cases, and Examples===<br />
----<br />
<br />
*Model Validation<br />
**[[GenCade_Val:LSTF|LSTF Laboratory Cases]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Val:Benchmark Cases|Benchmark Cases]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Val:Genesis Validation - Jucar River|Genesis Validation to Jucar River, Cullera, Spain]]<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Applications|GenCade Applications]]<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_FAQs|Frequently Asked Questions]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=GenCade&diff=9585GenCade2013-03-04T19:03:43Z<p>Rdchltmb: /* GenCade Documentation */</p>
<hr />
<div>__notitle__<br />
__notoc__<br />
=GenCade=<br />
<br />
[[Image:GENESIS_Cascade.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Figure 1. Combination of GENESIS and Cascade]]<br />
<br />
'''A Regional Coastal Model'''<br />
<br/><br />
GenCade is a 1D model that combines GENESIS and Cascade. It is operated within the Surface-water Modeling System (SMS) 11.1 interface. The model was officially released in April 2012. SMS 11.1 (beta) was released in October 2012. A user guide, examples of simple cases, applications, frequently asked questions, and important information will be posted here. A Technical Report is complete and is located on the [[http://cirp.usace.army.mil/products/?tab=4#products CIRP website]].<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
[[Image:Example_GenCade_setup.jpg|200px|thumb|left|Figure 2. Example GenCade Setup]]<br />
<br />
'''Tech Transfer'''<br />
<br/>GenCade was highlighted during two CIRP Workshops in 2011. The first took place in February in Jacksonville, FL. This was the first workshop to include GenCade. About 25 students listened to several GenCade presentations, watched a demonstration, and participated in a hands-on example. A full day session of GenCade was featured in San Diego in August.<br />
<br />
A full day session of GenCade was presented during the March 2012 CIRP Workshop in Philadelphia. The morning consisted of presentations and a hands-on demonstration. In the afternoon, students worked through an example independently while instructors walked around answering questions.<br />
<br />
The first GenCade webinar took place in October 2012. Each of the three days consisted of two hours of instruction. During Day 1, several presentations introducing students to GenCade, the SMS, and previous applications were given. A quick example showing input and output files and how to view results in the SMS was shown at the beginning of Day 2. Then a very simple example and a case highlighting beach fills and dredging were shown. A more complex example with structures was completed during Day 3. Then a quick discussion of future GenCade capabilities was given. The day concluded with a presentation and example of the new wave conversion tool.<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
<!-----------POC-----------------------><br />
{|style="width:75%; border-spacing:8px;"<br />
|class="MainPageBG" style="width:100%; border:1px solid #cedff2; background:#234B7C ; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"|<br />
{|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;"<br />
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#445797; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#FFF; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">'''POC:''' Ashley Frey</h2><br />
|-<br />
|style="color:#000;"|<br />
US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) <br />
<br\>Coastal and Hydraulics Lab (CHL)<br />
<br\>For any questions, please contact [mailto://Ashley.E.Frey@usace.army.mil Ashley Frey]<br />
<br\> Phone: 601-634-2006 . <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
= GenCade Documentation =<br />
{|class=main width=99%<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33% | <!-- Left Column Portal --><br />
===Technical Documentation===<br />
----<br />
*Model Theory<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Assumptions|Basic Assumptions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Governing Equations|Governing Equations]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sand Transport Rates|Sand Transport Rates]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Empirical Parameters|Empirical Parameters]]<br />
*Wave Model<br />
**[[GenCade:Wave Calculation|Wave Calculation]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Internal Wave Transformation|Internal Wave Transformation]]<br />
*Model Structure<br />
**[[GenCade:Grid System|Grid System]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Boundary Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Numerical Stability|Numerical Stability]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Representation of Inlets|Representation of Inlets]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Structures|Structures]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sediment Sources and Sinks|Sediment Sources and Sinks]]<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Tech_Documentation|Technical Documentation]]<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Middle Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Interface and User Guide===<br />
----<br />
* [[GenCade_Users_Guide|User Guide]]<br />
*Getting Started<br />
**[[GenCade:Conceptual Model|Conceptual Model]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Grid_Setup|Grid Setup]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Preparing_Input_Files|Input]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Wave_Input|Wave Input]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Parameters|Parameters]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Boundary_Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Output_Files|Output Files]]<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Calibration|Model Calibration]]<br />
<br />
*[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Developing_Alternatives|Developing Alternatives]]<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Example|GenCade Tutorial/Example]]<br />
<br />
*[[GenCade_Executable|GenCade Executable]]<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Right Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Model Validation, Standard Benchmark Cases, and Examples===<br />
----<br />
<br />
*Model Validation<br />
**[[GenCade_Val:LSTF|LSTF Laboratory Cases]]<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Applications|GenCade Applications]]<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_FAQs|Frequently Asked Questions]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=GenCade&diff=9584GenCade2013-03-04T15:20:21Z<p>Rdchltmb: /* GenCade Documentation */</p>
<hr />
<div>__notitle__<br />
__notoc__<br />
=GenCade=<br />
<br />
[[Image:GENESIS_Cascade.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Figure 1. Combination of GENESIS and Cascade]]<br />
<br />
'''A Regional Coastal Model'''<br />
<br/><br />
GenCade is a 1D model that combines GENESIS and Cascade. It is operated within the Surface-water Modeling System (SMS) 11.1 interface. The model was officially released in April 2012. SMS 11.1 (beta) was released in October 2012. A user guide, examples of simple cases, applications, frequently asked questions, and important information will be posted here. A Technical Report is complete and is located on the [[http://cirp.usace.army.mil/products/?tab=4#products CIRP website]].<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
[[Image:Example_GenCade_setup.jpg|200px|thumb|left|Figure 2. Example GenCade Setup]]<br />
<br />
'''Tech Transfer'''<br />
<br/>GenCade was highlighted during two CIRP Workshops in 2011. The first took place in February in Jacksonville, FL. This was the first workshop to include GenCade. About 25 students listened to several GenCade presentations, watched a demonstration, and participated in a hands-on example. A full day session of GenCade was featured in San Diego in August.<br />
<br />
A full day session of GenCade was presented during the March 2012 CIRP Workshop in Philadelphia. The morning consisted of presentations and a hands-on demonstration. In the afternoon, students worked through an example independently while instructors walked around answering questions.<br />
<br />
The first GenCade webinar took place in October 2012. Each of the three days consisted of two hours of instruction. During Day 1, several presentations introducing students to GenCade, the SMS, and previous applications were given. A quick example showing input and output files and how to view results in the SMS was shown at the beginning of Day 2. Then a very simple example and a case highlighting beach fills and dredging were shown. A more complex example with structures was completed during Day 3. Then a quick discussion of future GenCade capabilities was given. The day concluded with a presentation and example of the new wave conversion tool.<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
<!-----------POC-----------------------><br />
{|style="width:75%; border-spacing:8px;"<br />
|class="MainPageBG" style="width:100%; border:1px solid #cedff2; background:#234B7C ; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"|<br />
{|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;"<br />
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#445797; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#FFF; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">'''POC:''' Ashley Frey</h2><br />
|-<br />
|style="color:#000;"|<br />
US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) <br />
<br\>Coastal and Hydraulics Lab (CHL)<br />
<br\>For any questions, please contact [mailto://Ashley.E.Frey@usace.army.mil Ashley Frey]<br />
<br\> Phone: 601-634-2006 . <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
= GenCade Documentation =<br />
{|class=main width=99%<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33% | <!-- Left Column Portal --><br />
===Technical Documentation===<br />
----<br />
*Model Theory<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Assumptions|Basic Assumptions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Governing Equations|Governing Equations]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sand Transport Rates|Sand Transport Rates]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Empirical Parameters|Empirical Parameters]]<br />
*Wave Model<br />
**[[GenCade:Wave Calculation|Wave Calculation]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Internal Wave Transformation|Internal Wave Transformation]]<br />
*Model Structure<br />
**[[GenCade:Grid System|Grid System]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Boundary Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Numerical Stability|Numerical Stability]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Representation of Inlets|Representation of Inlets]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Structures|Structures]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sediment Sources and Sinks|Sediment Sources and Sinks]]<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Middle Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Interface and User Guide===<br />
----<br />
* [[GenCade_Users_Guide|User Guide]]<br />
*Getting Started<br />
**[[GenCade:Conceptual Model|Conceptual Model]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Grid_Setup|Grid Setup]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Preparing_Input_Files|Input]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Wave_Input|Wave Input]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Parameters|Parameters]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Boundary_Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Output_Files|Output Files]]<br />
<br />
*[[GenCade_Executable|GenCade Executable]]<br />
<br />
*[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Developing_Alternatives|Developing Alternatives]]<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Example|GenCade Tutorial/Example]]<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Calibration|Model Calibration]]<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Tech_Documentation|Technical Documentation]]<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Right Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Model Validation, Standard Benchmark Cases, and Examples===<br />
----<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Applications|GenCade Applications]]<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_FAQs|Frequently Asked Questions]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=GenCade&diff=9583GenCade2013-03-04T14:38:00Z<p>Rdchltmb: /* GenCade */</p>
<hr />
<div>__notitle__<br />
__notoc__<br />
=GenCade=<br />
<br />
[[Image:GENESIS_Cascade.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Figure 1. Combination of GENESIS and Cascade]]<br />
<br />
'''A Regional Coastal Model'''<br />
<br/><br />
GenCade is a 1D model that combines GENESIS and Cascade. It is operated within the Surface-water Modeling System (SMS) 11.1 interface. The model was officially released in April 2012. SMS 11.1 (beta) was released in October 2012. A user guide, examples of simple cases, applications, frequently asked questions, and important information will be posted here. A Technical Report is complete and is located on the [[http://cirp.usace.army.mil/products/?tab=4#products CIRP website]].<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
[[Image:Example_GenCade_setup.jpg|200px|thumb|left|Figure 2. Example GenCade Setup]]<br />
<br />
'''Tech Transfer'''<br />
<br/>GenCade was highlighted during two CIRP Workshops in 2011. The first took place in February in Jacksonville, FL. This was the first workshop to include GenCade. About 25 students listened to several GenCade presentations, watched a demonstration, and participated in a hands-on example. A full day session of GenCade was featured in San Diego in August.<br />
<br />
A full day session of GenCade was presented during the March 2012 CIRP Workshop in Philadelphia. The morning consisted of presentations and a hands-on demonstration. In the afternoon, students worked through an example independently while instructors walked around answering questions.<br />
<br />
The first GenCade webinar took place in October 2012. Each of the three days consisted of two hours of instruction. During Day 1, several presentations introducing students to GenCade, the SMS, and previous applications were given. A quick example showing input and output files and how to view results in the SMS was shown at the beginning of Day 2. Then a very simple example and a case highlighting beach fills and dredging were shown. A more complex example with structures was completed during Day 3. Then a quick discussion of future GenCade capabilities was given. The day concluded with a presentation and example of the new wave conversion tool.<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
<!-----------POC-----------------------><br />
{|style="width:75%; border-spacing:8px;"<br />
|class="MainPageBG" style="width:100%; border:1px solid #cedff2; background:#234B7C ; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"|<br />
{|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;"<br />
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#445797; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#FFF; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">'''POC:''' Ashley Frey</h2><br />
|-<br />
|style="color:#000;"|<br />
US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) <br />
<br\>Coastal and Hydraulics Lab (CHL)<br />
<br\>For any questions, please contact [mailto://Ashley.E.Frey@usace.army.mil Ashley Frey]<br />
<br\> Phone: 601-634-2006 . <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
= GenCade Documentation =<br />
{|class=main width=99%<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33% | <!-- Left Column Portal --><br />
===Technical Documentation===<br />
----<br />
*Model Theory<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Assumptions|Basic Assumptions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Governing Equations|Governing Equations]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sand Transport Rates|Sand Transport Rates]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Empirical Parameters|Empirical Parameters]]<br />
*Wave Model<br />
**[[GenCade:Wave Calculation|Wave Calculation]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Internal Wave Transformation|Internal Wave Transformation]]<br />
*Model Structure<br />
**[[GenCade:Grid System|Grid System]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Boundary Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Numerical Stability|Numerical Stability]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Representation of Inlets|Representation of Inlets]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Structures|Structures]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sediment Sources and Sinks|Sediment Sources and Sinks]]<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Middle Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Interface and User Guide===<br />
----<br />
* [[GenCade_Users_Guide|User Guide]]<br />
*[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Getting_Started|Getting Started]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Preparing_Input_Files|Input and Output]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Conceptual Model|Conceptual Model]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Grid_Setup|Grid Setup]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#GenCade_Files.2C_Menu.2C_Model_Setup.2C_and_Execution|GenCade Files, Menu, Model Setup, and Execution]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Developing_Alternatives|Developing Alternatives]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Right Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Model Validation, Standard Benchmark Cases, and Examples===<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Executable|GenCade Executable]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Input_Files|Input Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Output_Files|Output Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Parameters|Parameters]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Example|GenCade Tutorial/Example]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Boundary_Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Wave_Input|Wave Input]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Applications|GenCade Applications]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Calibration|Model Calibration]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Tech_Documentation|Technical Documentation]]<br />
* [[GenCade_FAQs|Frequently Asked Questions]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=GenCade&diff=9582GenCade2013-03-04T14:37:12Z<p>Rdchltmb: /* GenCade */</p>
<hr />
<div>__notitle__<br />
__notoc__<br />
=GenCade=<br />
<br />
[[Image:GENESIS_Cascade.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Figure 1. Combination of GENESIS and Cascade]]<br />
<br />
'''A Regional Coastal Model'''<br />
<br/><br />
GenCade is a 1D model that combines GENESIS and Cascade. It is operated within the Surface-water Modeling System (SMS) 11.1 interface. The model was officially released in April 2012. SMS 11.1 (beta) was released in October 2012. A user guide, examples of simple cases, applications, frequently asked questions, and important information will be posted here. A Technical Report is complete and is located on the [[http://cirp.usace.army.mil/products/?tab=4#products CIRP website]].<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
[[Image:Example_GenCade_setup.jpg|200px|thumb|left|Figure 2. Example GenCade Setup]]<br />
<br />
'''Tech Transfer'''<br />
<br/>GenCade was highlighted during two CIRP Workshops in 2011. The first took place in February in Jacksonville, FL. This was the first workshop to include GenCade. About 25 students listened to several GenCade presentations, watched a demonstration, and participated in a hands-on example. A full day session of GenCade was featured in San Diego in August.<br />
<br />
A full day session of GenCade was presented during the March 2012 CIRP Workshop in Philadelphia. The morning consisted of presentations and a hands-on demonstration. In the afternoon, students worked through an example independently while instructors walked around answering questions.<br />
<br />
The first GenCade webinar took place in October 2012. Each of the three days consisted of two hours of instruction. During Day 1, several presentations introducing students to GenCade, the SMS, and previous applications were given. A quick example showing input and output files and how to view results in the SMS was shown at the beginning of Day 2. Then a very simple example and a case highlighting beach fills and dredging were shown. A more complex example with structures was completed during Day 3. Then a quick discussion of future GenCade capabilities was given. The day concluded with a presentation and example of the new wave conversion tool.<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
<!-----------POC-----------------------><br />
{|style="width:50%; border-spacing:8px;"<br />
|class="MainPageBG" style="width:100%; border:1px solid #cedff2; background:#234B7C ; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"|<br />
{|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;"<br />
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#445797; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#FFF; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">'''POC:''' Ashley Frey</h2><br />
|-<br />
|style="color:#000;"|<br />
US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) <br />
<br\>Coastal and Hydraulics Lab (CHL)<br />
<br\>For any questions, please contact [mailto://Ashley.E.Frey@usace.army.mil Ashley Frey]<br />
<br\> Phone: 601-634-2006 . <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
= GenCade Documentation =<br />
{|class=main width=99%<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33% | <!-- Left Column Portal --><br />
===Technical Documentation===<br />
----<br />
*Model Theory<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Assumptions|Basic Assumptions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Governing Equations|Governing Equations]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sand Transport Rates|Sand Transport Rates]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Empirical Parameters|Empirical Parameters]]<br />
*Wave Model<br />
**[[GenCade:Wave Calculation|Wave Calculation]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Internal Wave Transformation|Internal Wave Transformation]]<br />
*Model Structure<br />
**[[GenCade:Grid System|Grid System]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Boundary Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Numerical Stability|Numerical Stability]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Representation of Inlets|Representation of Inlets]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Structures|Structures]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sediment Sources and Sinks|Sediment Sources and Sinks]]<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Middle Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Interface and User Guide===<br />
----<br />
* [[GenCade_Users_Guide|User Guide]]<br />
*[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Getting_Started|Getting Started]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Preparing_Input_Files|Input and Output]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Conceptual Model|Conceptual Model]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Grid_Setup|Grid Setup]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#GenCade_Files.2C_Menu.2C_Model_Setup.2C_and_Execution|GenCade Files, Menu, Model Setup, and Execution]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Developing_Alternatives|Developing Alternatives]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Right Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Model Validation, Standard Benchmark Cases, and Examples===<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Executable|GenCade Executable]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Input_Files|Input Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Output_Files|Output Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Parameters|Parameters]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Example|GenCade Tutorial/Example]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Boundary_Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Wave_Input|Wave Input]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Applications|GenCade Applications]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Calibration|Model Calibration]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Tech_Documentation|Technical Documentation]]<br />
* [[GenCade_FAQs|Frequently Asked Questions]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=GenCade&diff=9581GenCade2013-03-04T14:35:22Z<p>Rdchltmb: /* GenCade */</p>
<hr />
<div>__notitle__<br />
__notoc__<br />
=GenCade=<br />
<br />
[[Image:GENESIS_Cascade.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Figure 1. Combination of GENESIS and Cascade]]<br />
<br />
'''A Regional Coastal Model'''<br />
GenCade is a 1D model that combines GENESIS and Cascade. It is operated within the Surface-water Modeling System (SMS) 11.1 interface. The model was officially released in April 2012. SMS 11.1 (beta) was released in October 2012. A user guide, examples of simple cases, applications, frequently asked questions, and important information will be posted here. A Technical Report is complete and is located on the [[http://cirp.usace.army.mil/products/?tab=4#products CIRP website]].<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
'''Tech Transfer'''<br />
<br />
[[Image:Example_GenCade_setup.jpg|200px|thumb|left|Figure 2. Example GenCade Setup]]<br />
<br />
GenCade was highlighted during two CIRP Workshops in 2011. The first took place in February in Jacksonville, FL. This was the first workshop to include GenCade. About 25 students listened to several GenCade presentations, watched a demonstration, and participated in a hands-on example. A full day session of GenCade was featured in San Diego in August.<br />
<br />
A full day session of GenCade was presented during the March 2012 CIRP Workshop in Philadelphia. The morning consisted of presentations and a hands-on demonstration. In the afternoon, students worked through an example independently while instructors walked around answering questions.<br />
<br />
The first GenCade webinar took place in October 2012. Each of the three days consisted of two hours of instruction. During Day 1, several presentations introducing students to GenCade, the SMS, and previous applications were given. A quick example showing input and output files and how to view results in the SMS was shown at the beginning of Day 2. Then a very simple example and a case highlighting beach fills and dredging were shown. A more complex example with structures was completed during Day 3. Then a quick discussion of future GenCade capabilities was given. The day concluded with a presentation and example of the new wave conversion tool.<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<!-----------POC-----------------------><br />
{|style="width:50%; border-spacing:8px;"<br />
|class="MainPageBG" style="width:100%; border:1px solid #cedff2; background:#234B7C ; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"|<br />
{|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;"<br />
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#445797; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#FFF; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">'''POC:''' Ashley Frey</h2><br />
|-<br />
|style="color:#000;"|<br />
US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) <br />
<br\>Coastal and Hydraulics Lab (CHL)<br />
<br\>For any questions, please contact [mailto://Ashley.E.Frey@usace.army.mil Ashley Frey]<br />
<br\> Phone: 601-634-2006 . <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
= GenCade Documentation =<br />
{|class=main width=99%<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33% | <!-- Left Column Portal --><br />
===Technical Documentation===<br />
----<br />
*Model Theory<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Assumptions|Basic Assumptions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Governing Equations|Governing Equations]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sand Transport Rates|Sand Transport Rates]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Empirical Parameters|Empirical Parameters]]<br />
*Wave Model<br />
**[[GenCade:Wave Calculation|Wave Calculation]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Internal Wave Transformation|Internal Wave Transformation]]<br />
*Model Structure<br />
**[[GenCade:Grid System|Grid System]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Boundary Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Numerical Stability|Numerical Stability]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Representation of Inlets|Representation of Inlets]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Structures|Structures]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sediment Sources and Sinks|Sediment Sources and Sinks]]<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Middle Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Interface and User Guide===<br />
----<br />
* [[GenCade_Users_Guide|User Guide]]<br />
*[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Getting_Started|Getting Started]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Preparing_Input_Files|Input and Output]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Conceptual Model|Conceptual Model]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Grid_Setup|Grid Setup]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#GenCade_Files.2C_Menu.2C_Model_Setup.2C_and_Execution|GenCade Files, Menu, Model Setup, and Execution]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Developing_Alternatives|Developing Alternatives]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Right Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Model Validation, Standard Benchmark Cases, and Examples===<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Executable|GenCade Executable]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Input_Files|Input Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Output_Files|Output Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Parameters|Parameters]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Example|GenCade Tutorial/Example]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Boundary_Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Wave_Input|Wave Input]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Applications|GenCade Applications]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Calibration|Model Calibration]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Tech_Documentation|Technical Documentation]]<br />
* [[GenCade_FAQs|Frequently Asked Questions]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=GenCade&diff=9580GenCade2013-03-04T14:29:31Z<p>Rdchltmb: /* GenCade */</p>
<hr />
<div>__notitle__<br />
__notoc__<br />
=GenCade=<br />
<br />
[[Image:GENESIS_Cascade.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Figure 1. Combination of GENESIS and Cascade]]<br />
<br />
'''A Regional Coastal Model'''<br />
GenCade is a 1D model that combines GENESIS and Cascade. It is operated within the Surface-water Modeling System (SMS) 11.1 interface. The model was officially released in April 2012. SMS 11.1 (beta) was released in October 2012. A user guide, examples of simple cases, applications, frequently asked questions, and important information will be posted here. A Technical Report is complete and is located on the [[http://cirp.usace.army.mil/products/?tab=4#products CIRP website]].<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
'''Tech Transfer'''<br />
<br />
[[Image:Example_GenCade_setup.jpg|300px|thumb|left|Figure 2. Example GenCade Setup]]<br />
<br />
GenCade was highlighted during two CIRP Workshops in 2011. The first took place in February in Jacksonville, FL. This was the first workshop to include GenCade. About 25 students listened to several GenCade presentations, watched a demonstration, and participated in a hands-on example. A full day session of GenCade was featured in San Diego in August.<br />
<br />
A full day session of GenCade was presented during the March 2012 CIRP Workshop in Philadelphia. The morning consisted of presentations and a hands-on demonstration. In the afternoon, students worked through an example independently while instructors walked around answering questions.<br />
<br />
The first GenCade webinar took place in October 2012. Each of the three days consisted of two hours of instruction. During Day 1, several presentations introducing students to GenCade, the SMS, and previous applications were given. A quick example showing input and output files and how to view results in the SMS was shown at the beginning of Day 2. Then a very simple example and a case highlighting beach fills and dredging were shown. A more complex example with structures was completed during Day 3. Then a quick discussion of future GenCade capabilities was given. The day concluded with a presentation and example of the new wave conversion tool.<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<!-----------POC-----------------------><br />
{|style="width:50%; border-spacing:8px;"<br />
|class="MainPageBG" style="width:50%; border:1px solid #cedff2; background:#234B7C ; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"|<br />
{|width="50%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;"<br />
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#445797; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#FFF; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">'''POC:''' Ashley Frey</h2><br />
|-<br />
|style="color:#000;"| Phone: 601-634-2006 <br />
US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) <br />
<br\>Coastal and Hydraulics Lab (CHL)<br />
<br\>For any questions, please contact [mailto://Ashley.E.Frey@usace.army.mil Ashley Frey]. <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
= GenCade Documentation =<br />
{|class=main width=99%<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33% | <!-- Left Column Portal --><br />
===Technical Documentation===<br />
----<br />
*Model Theory<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Assumptions|Basic Assumptions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Governing Equations|Governing Equations]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sand Transport Rates|Sand Transport Rates]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Empirical Parameters|Empirical Parameters]]<br />
*Wave Model<br />
**[[GenCade:Wave Calculation|Wave Calculation]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Internal Wave Transformation|Internal Wave Transformation]]<br />
*Model Structure<br />
**[[GenCade:Grid System|Grid System]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Boundary Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Numerical Stability|Numerical Stability]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Representation of Inlets|Representation of Inlets]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Structures|Structures]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sediment Sources and Sinks|Sediment Sources and Sinks]]<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Middle Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Interface and User Guide===<br />
----<br />
* [[GenCade_Users_Guide|User Guide]]<br />
*[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Getting_Started|Getting Started]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Preparing_Input_Files|Input and Output]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Conceptual Model|Conceptual Model]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Grid_Setup|Grid Setup]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#GenCade_Files.2C_Menu.2C_Model_Setup.2C_and_Execution|GenCade Files, Menu, Model Setup, and Execution]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Developing_Alternatives|Developing Alternatives]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Right Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Model Validation, Standard Benchmark Cases, and Examples===<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Executable|GenCade Executable]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Input_Files|Input Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Output_Files|Output Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Parameters|Parameters]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Example|GenCade Tutorial/Example]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Boundary_Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Wave_Input|Wave Input]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Applications|GenCade Applications]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Calibration|Model Calibration]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Tech_Documentation|Technical Documentation]]<br />
* [[GenCade_FAQs|Frequently Asked Questions]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=GenCade&diff=9579GenCade2013-03-04T14:26:50Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div>__notitle__<br />
__notoc__<br />
=GenCade=<br />
<br />
[[Image:GENESIS_Cascade.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Figure 1. Combination of GENESIS and Cascade]]<br />
<br />
'''A Regional Coastal Model'''<br />
GenCade is a 1D model that combines GENESIS and Cascade. It is operated within the Surface-water Modeling System (SMS) 11.1 interface. The model was officially released in April 2012. SMS 11.1 (beta) was released in October 2012. A user guide, examples of simple cases, applications, frequently asked questions, and important information will be posted here. A Technical Report is complete and is located on the [[http://cirp.usace.army.mil/products/?tab=4#products CIRP website]].<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
'''Tech Transfer'''<br />
<br />
[[Image:Example_GenCade_setup.jpg|300px|thumb|left|Figure 2. Example GenCade Setup]]<br />
<br />
GenCade was highlighted during two CIRP Workshops in 2011. The first took place in February in Jacksonville, FL. This was the first workshop to include GenCade. About 25 students listened to several GenCade presentations, watched a demonstration, and participated in a hands-on example. A full day session of GenCade was featured in San Diego in August.<br />
<br />
A full day session of GenCade was presented during the March 2012 CIRP Workshop in Philadelphia. The morning consisted of presentations and a hands-on demonstration. In the afternoon, students worked through an example independently while instructors walked around answering questions.<br />
<br />
The first GenCade webinar took place in October 2012. Each of the three days consisted of two hours of instruction. During Day 1, several presentations introducing students to GenCade, the SMS, and previous applications were given. A quick example showing input and output files and how to view results in the SMS was shown at the beginning of Day 2. Then a very simple example and a case highlighting beach fills and dredging were shown. A more complex example with structures was completed during Day 3. Then a quick discussion of future GenCade capabilities was given. The day concluded with a presentation and example of the new wave conversion tool.<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<!-----------POC-----------------------><br />
{|style="width:100%; border-spacing:8px;"<br />
|class="MainPageBG" style="width:100%; border:1px solid #cedff2; background:#234B7C ; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"|<br />
{|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;"<br />
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#445797; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#FFF; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">POC</h2><br />
|-<br />
|style="color:#000;"| Ashley Frey<br />
<br\>Phone: 601-634-2006 <br />
<br\>US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) <br />
<br\>Coastal and Hydraulics Lab (CHL)<br />
<br\>For any questions, please contact [mailto://Ashley.E.Frey@usace.army.mil Ashley Frey]. <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''POC:''' Ashley Frey<br />
<br\>Ashley.E.Frey@usace.army.mil <br />
<br\>601-634-2006 <br />
<br\>US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) <br />
<br\>Coastal and Hydraulics Lab (CHL) <br />
<br />
= GenCade Documentation =<br />
{|class=main width=99%<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33% | <!-- Left Column Portal --><br />
===Technical Documentation===<br />
----<br />
*Model Theory<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Assumptions|Basic Assumptions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Governing Equations|Governing Equations]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sand Transport Rates|Sand Transport Rates]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Empirical Parameters|Empirical Parameters]]<br />
*Wave Model<br />
**[[GenCade:Wave Calculation|Wave Calculation]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Internal Wave Transformation|Internal Wave Transformation]]<br />
*Model Structure<br />
**[[GenCade:Grid System|Grid System]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Boundary Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Numerical Stability|Numerical Stability]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Representation of Inlets|Representation of Inlets]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Structures|Structures]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sediment Sources and Sinks|Sediment Sources and Sinks]]<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Middle Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Interface and User Guide===<br />
----<br />
* [[GenCade_Users_Guide|User Guide]]<br />
*[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Getting_Started|Getting Started]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Preparing_Input_Files|Input and Output]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Conceptual Model|Conceptual Model]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Grid_Setup|Grid Setup]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#GenCade_Files.2C_Menu.2C_Model_Setup.2C_and_Execution|GenCade Files, Menu, Model Setup, and Execution]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Developing_Alternatives|Developing Alternatives]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Right Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Model Validation, Standard Benchmark Cases, and Examples===<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Executable|GenCade Executable]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Input_Files|Input Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Output_Files|Output Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Parameters|Parameters]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Example|GenCade Tutorial/Example]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Boundary_Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Wave_Input|Wave Input]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Applications|GenCade Applications]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Calibration|Model Calibration]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Tech_Documentation|Technical Documentation]]<br />
* [[GenCade_FAQs|Frequently Asked Questions]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=GenCade&diff=9578GenCade2013-03-04T14:16:45Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div>__notitle__<br />
__notoc__<br />
=GenCade=<br />
<br />
[[Image:GENESIS_Cascade.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Figure 1. Combination of GENESIS and Cascade]]<br />
<br />
'''A Regional Coastal Model'''<br />
GenCade is a 1D model that combines GENESIS and Cascade. It is operated within the Surface-water Modeling System (SMS) 11.1 interface. The model was officially released in April 2012. SMS 11.1 (beta) was released in October 2012. A user guide, examples of simple cases, applications, frequently asked questions, and important information will be posted here. A Technical Report is complete and is located on the [[http://cirp.usace.army.mil/products/?tab=4#products CIRP website]].<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
'''Tech Transfer'''<br />
<br />
GenCade was highlighted during two CIRP Workshops in 2011. The first took place in February in Jacksonville, FL. This was the first workshop to include GenCade. About 25 students listened to several GenCade presentations, watched a demonstration, and participated in a hands-on example. A full day session of GenCade was featured in San Diego in August.<br />
<br />
A full day session of GenCade was presented during the March 2012 CIRP Workshop in Philadelphia. The morning consisted of presentations and a hands-on demonstration. In the afternoon, students worked through an example independently while instructors walked around answering questions.<br />
<br />
The first GenCade webinar took place in October 2012. Each of the three days consisted of two hours of instruction. During Day 1, several presentations introducing students to GenCade, the SMS, and previous applications were given. A quick example showing input and output files and how to view results in the SMS was shown at the beginning of Day 2. Then a very simple example and a case highlighting beach fills and dredging were shown. A more complex example with structures was completed during Day 3. Then a quick discussion of future GenCade capabilities was given. The day concluded with a presentation and example of the new wave conversion tool.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Example_GenCade_setup.jpg|400px|thumb|left|Figure 2. Example GenCade Setup]]<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
'''POC:''' Ashley Frey<br />
<br\>Ashley.E.Frey@usace.army.mil <br />
<br\>601-634-2006 <br />
<br\>US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) <br />
<br\>Coastal and Hydraulics Lab (CHL) <br />
<br />
= GenCade Documentation =<br />
{|class=main width=99%<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33% | <!-- Left Column Portal --><br />
===Technical Documentation===<br />
----<br />
*Model Theory<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Assumptions|Basic Assumptions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Governing Equations|Governing Equations]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sand Transport Rates|Sand Transport Rates]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Empirical Parameters|Empirical Parameters]]<br />
*Wave Model<br />
**[[GenCade:Wave Calculation|Wave Calculation]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Internal Wave Transformation|Internal Wave Transformation]]<br />
*Model Structure<br />
**[[GenCade:Grid System|Grid System]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Boundary Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Numerical Stability|Numerical Stability]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Representation of Inlets|Representation of Inlets]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Structures|Structures]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sediment Sources and Sinks|Sediment Sources and Sinks]]<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Middle Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Interface and User Guide===<br />
----<br />
* [[GenCade_Users_Guide|User Guide]]<br />
*[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Getting_Started|Getting Started]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Preparing_Input_Files|Input and Output]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Conceptual Model|Conceptual Model]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Grid_Setup|Grid Setup]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#GenCade_Files.2C_Menu.2C_Model_Setup.2C_and_Execution|GenCade Files, Menu, Model Setup, and Execution]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Developing_Alternatives|Developing Alternatives]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Right Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Model Validation, Standard Benchmark Cases, and Examples===<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Executable|GenCade Executable]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Input_Files|Input Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Output_Files|Output Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Parameters|Parameters]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Example|GenCade Tutorial/Example]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Boundary_Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Wave_Input|Wave Input]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Applications|GenCade Applications]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Calibration|Model Calibration]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Tech_Documentation|Technical Documentation]]<br />
* [[GenCade_FAQs|Frequently Asked Questions]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=GenCade&diff=9577GenCade2013-03-04T14:16:14Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div>__notitle__<br />
__notoc__<br />
=GenCade=<br />
<br />
[[Image:GENESIS_Cascade.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Figure 1. Combination of GENESIS and Cascade]]<br />
<br />
==A Regional Coastal Model==<br />
GenCade is a 1D model that combines GENESIS and Cascade. It is operated within the Surface-water Modeling System (SMS) 11.1 interface. The model was officially released in April 2012. SMS 11.1 (beta) was released in October 2012. A user guide, examples of simple cases, applications, frequently asked questions, and important information will be posted here. A Technical Report is complete and is located on the [[http://cirp.usace.army.mil/products/?tab=4#products CIRP website]].<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
'''Tech Transfer'''<br />
<br />
GenCade was highlighted during two CIRP Workshops in 2011. The first took place in February in Jacksonville, FL. This was the first workshop to include GenCade. About 25 students listened to several GenCade presentations, watched a demonstration, and participated in a hands-on example. A full day session of GenCade was featured in San Diego in August.<br />
<br />
A full day session of GenCade was presented during the March 2012 CIRP Workshop in Philadelphia. The morning consisted of presentations and a hands-on demonstration. In the afternoon, students worked through an example independently while instructors walked around answering questions.<br />
<br />
The first GenCade webinar took place in October 2012. Each of the three days consisted of two hours of instruction. During Day 1, several presentations introducing students to GenCade, the SMS, and previous applications were given. A quick example showing input and output files and how to view results in the SMS was shown at the beginning of Day 2. Then a very simple example and a case highlighting beach fills and dredging were shown. A more complex example with structures was completed during Day 3. Then a quick discussion of future GenCade capabilities was given. The day concluded with a presentation and example of the new wave conversion tool.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Example_GenCade_setup.jpg|400px|thumb|left|Figure 2. Example GenCade Setup]]<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
'''POC:''' Ashley Frey<br />
<br\>Ashley.E.Frey@usace.army.mil <br />
<br\>601-634-2006 <br />
<br\>US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) <br />
<br\>Coastal and Hydraulics Lab (CHL) <br />
<br />
= GenCade Documentation =<br />
{|class=main width=99%<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33% | <!-- Left Column Portal --><br />
===Technical Documentation===<br />
----<br />
*Model Theory<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Assumptions|Basic Assumptions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Governing Equations|Governing Equations]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sand Transport Rates|Sand Transport Rates]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Empirical Parameters|Empirical Parameters]]<br />
*Wave Model<br />
**[[GenCade:Wave Calculation|Wave Calculation]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Internal Wave Transformation|Internal Wave Transformation]]<br />
*Model Structure<br />
**[[GenCade:Grid System|Grid System]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Boundary Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Numerical Stability|Numerical Stability]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Representation of Inlets|Representation of Inlets]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Structures|Structures]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sediment Sources and Sinks|Sediment Sources and Sinks]]<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Middle Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Interface and User Guide===<br />
----<br />
* [[GenCade_Users_Guide|User Guide]]<br />
*[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Getting_Started|Getting Started]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Preparing_Input_Files|Input and Output]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Conceptual Model|Conceptual Model]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Grid_Setup|Grid Setup]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#GenCade_Files.2C_Menu.2C_Model_Setup.2C_and_Execution|GenCade Files, Menu, Model Setup, and Execution]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Developing_Alternatives|Developing Alternatives]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Right Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Model Validation, Standard Benchmark Cases, and Examples===<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Executable|GenCade Executable]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Input_Files|Input Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Output_Files|Output Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Parameters|Parameters]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Example|GenCade Tutorial/Example]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Boundary_Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Wave_Input|Wave Input]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Applications|GenCade Applications]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Calibration|Model Calibration]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Tech_Documentation|Technical Documentation]]<br />
* [[GenCade_FAQs|Frequently Asked Questions]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=GenCade&diff=9576GenCade2013-03-04T14:15:29Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div>__notitle__<br />
__notoc__<br />
=GenCade=<br />
<br />
[[Image:GENESIS_Cascade.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Figure 1. Combination of GENESIS and Cascade]]<br />
<br />
==A Regional Coastal Model==<br />
GenCade is a 1D model that combines GENESIS and Cascade. It is operated within the Surface-water Modeling System (SMS) 11.1 interface. The model was officially released in April 2012. SMS 11.1 (beta) was released in October 2012. A user guide, examples of simple cases, applications, frequently asked questions, and important information will be posted here. A Technical Report is complete and is located on the [[http://cirp.usace.army.mil/products/?tab=4#products CIRP website]].<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
==Tech Transfer==<br />
<br />
GenCade was highlighted during two CIRP Workshops in 2011. The first took place in February in Jacksonville, FL. This was the first workshop to include GenCade. About 25 students listened to several GenCade presentations, watched a demonstration, and participated in a hands-on example. A full day session of GenCade was featured in San Diego in August.<br />
<br />
A full day session of GenCade was presented during the March 2012 CIRP Workshop in Philadelphia. The morning consisted of presentations and a hands-on demonstration. In the afternoon, students worked through an example independently while instructors walked around answering questions.<br />
<br />
The first GenCade webinar took place in October 2012. Each of the three days consisted of two hours of instruction. During Day 1, several presentations introducing students to GenCade, the SMS, and previous applications were given. A quick example showing input and output files and how to view results in the SMS was shown at the beginning of Day 2. Then a very simple example and a case highlighting beach fills and dredging were shown. A more complex example with structures was completed during Day 3. Then a quick discussion of future GenCade capabilities was given. The day concluded with a presentation and example of the new wave conversion tool.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Example_GenCade_setup.jpg|400px|thumb|left|Figure 2. Example GenCade Setup]]<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
'''POC:''' Ashley Frey<br />
<br\>Ashley.E.Frey@usace.army.mil <br />
<br\>601-634-2006 <br />
<br\>US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) <br />
<br\>Coastal and Hydraulics Lab (CHL) <br />
<br />
= GenCade Documentation =<br />
{|class=main width=99%<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33% | <!-- Left Column Portal --><br />
===Technical Documentation===<br />
----<br />
*Model Theory<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Assumptions|Basic Assumptions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Governing Equations|Governing Equations]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sand Transport Rates|Sand Transport Rates]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Empirical Parameters|Empirical Parameters]]<br />
*Wave Model<br />
**[[GenCade:Wave Calculation|Wave Calculation]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Internal Wave Transformation|Internal Wave Transformation]]<br />
*Model Structure<br />
**[[GenCade:Grid System|Grid System]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Boundary Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Numerical Stability|Numerical Stability]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Representation of Inlets|Representation of Inlets]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Structures|Structures]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sediment Sources and Sinks|Sediment Sources and Sinks]]<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Middle Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Interface and User Guide===<br />
----<br />
* [[GenCade_Users_Guide|User Guide]]<br />
*[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Getting_Started|Getting Started]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Preparing_Input_Files|Input and Output]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Conceptual Model|Conceptual Model]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Grid_Setup|Grid Setup]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#GenCade_Files.2C_Menu.2C_Model_Setup.2C_and_Execution|GenCade Files, Menu, Model Setup, and Execution]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Developing_Alternatives|Developing Alternatives]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Right Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Model Validation, Standard Benchmark Cases, and Examples===<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Executable|GenCade Executable]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Input_Files|Input Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Output_Files|Output Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Parameters|Parameters]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Example|GenCade Tutorial/Example]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Boundary_Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Wave_Input|Wave Input]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Applications|GenCade Applications]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Calibration|Model Calibration]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Tech_Documentation|Technical Documentation]]<br />
* [[GenCade_FAQs|Frequently Asked Questions]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=GenCade&diff=9575GenCade2013-03-04T14:14:06Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div>__notitle__<br />
__notoc__<br />
=GenCade=<br />
<br />
[[Image:GENESIS_Cascade.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Figure 1. Combination of GENESIS and Cascade]]<br />
<br />
GenCade is a 1D model that combines GENESIS and Cascade. It is operated within the Surface-water Modeling System (SMS) 11.1 interface. The model was officially released in April 2012. SMS 11.1 (beta) was released in October 2012. A user guide, examples of simple cases, applications, frequently asked questions, and important information will be posted here. A Technical Report is complete and is located on the [[http://cirp.usace.army.mil/products/?tab=4#products CIRP website]].<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
GenCade was highlighted during two CIRP Workshops in 2011. The first took place in February in Jacksonville, FL. This was the first workshop to include GenCade. About 25 students listened to several GenCade presentations, watched a demonstration, and participated in a hands-on example. A full day session of GenCade was featured in San Diego in August.<br />
<br />
A full day session of GenCade was presented during the March 2012 CIRP Workshop in Philadelphia. The morning consisted of presentations and a hands-on demonstration. In the afternoon, students worked through an example independently while instructors walked around answering questions.<br />
<br />
The first GenCade webinar took place in October 2012. Each of the three days consisted of two hours of instruction. During Day 1, several presentations introducing students to GenCade, the SMS, and previous applications were given. A quick example showing input and output files and how to view results in the SMS was shown at the beginning of Day 2. Then a very simple example and a case highlighting beach fills and dredging were shown. A more complex example with structures was completed during Day 3. Then a quick discussion of future GenCade capabilities was given. The day concluded with a presentation and example of the new wave conversion tool.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Example_GenCade_setup.jpg|400px|thumb|left|Figure 2. Example GenCade Setup]]<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
'''POC:''' Ashley Frey<br />
<br\>Ashley.E.Frey@usace.army.mil <br />
<br\>601-634-2006 <br />
<br\>US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) <br />
<br\>Coastal and Hydraulics Lab (CHL) <br />
<br />
= GenCade Documentation =<br />
{|class=main width=99%<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33% | <!-- Left Column Portal --><br />
===Technical Documentation===<br />
----<br />
*Model Theory<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Assumptions|Basic Assumptions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Governing Equations|Governing Equations]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sand Transport Rates|Sand Transport Rates]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Empirical Parameters|Empirical Parameters]]<br />
*Wave Model<br />
**[[GenCade:Wave Calculation|Wave Calculation]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Internal Wave Transformation|Internal Wave Transformation]]<br />
*Model Structure<br />
**[[GenCade:Grid System|Grid System]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Boundary Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Numerical Stability|Numerical Stability]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Representation of Inlets|Representation of Inlets]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Structures|Structures]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sediment Sources and Sinks|Sediment Sources and Sinks]]<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Middle Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Interface and User Guide===<br />
----<br />
* [[GenCade_Users_Guide|User Guide]]<br />
*[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Getting_Started|Getting Started]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Preparing_Input_Files|Input and Output]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Conceptual Model|Conceptual Model]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Grid_Setup|Grid Setup]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#GenCade_Files.2C_Menu.2C_Model_Setup.2C_and_Execution|GenCade Files, Menu, Model Setup, and Execution]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Developing_Alternatives|Developing Alternatives]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Right Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Model Validation, Standard Benchmark Cases, and Examples===<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Executable|GenCade Executable]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Input_Files|Input Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Output_Files|Output Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Parameters|Parameters]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Example|GenCade Tutorial/Example]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Boundary_Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Wave_Input|Wave Input]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Applications|GenCade Applications]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Calibration|Model Calibration]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Tech_Documentation|Technical Documentation]]<br />
* [[GenCade_FAQs|Frequently Asked Questions]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=GenCade&diff=9574GenCade2013-03-04T14:11:28Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div>__notitle__<br />
__notoc__<br />
=GenCade=<br />
<br />
[[Image:GENESIS_Cascade.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Figure 1. Combination of GENESIS and Cascade]]<br />
<br />
GenCade is a 1D model that combines GENESIS and Cascade. It is operated within the Surface-water Modeling System (SMS) 11.1 interface. The model was officially released in April 2012. SMS 11.1 (beta) was released in October 2012. A user guide, examples of simple cases, applications, frequently asked questions, and important information will be posted here. A Technical Report is complete and should be published soon.<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
GenCade was highlighted during two CIRP Workshops in 2011. The first took place in February in Jacksonville, FL. This was the first workshop to include GenCade. About 25 students listened to several GenCade presentations, watched a demonstration, and participated in a hands-on example. A full day session of GenCade was featured in San Diego in August.<br />
<br />
A full day session of GenCade was presented during the March 2012 CIRP Workshop in Philadelphia. The morning consisted of presentations and a hands-on demonstration. In the afternoon, students worked through an example independently while instructors walked around answering questions.<br />
<br />
The first GenCade webinar took place in October 2012. Each of the three days consisted of two hours of instruction. During Day 1, several presentations introducing students to GenCade, the SMS, and previous applications were given. A quick example showing input and output files and how to view results in the SMS was shown at the beginning of Day 2. Then a very simple example and a case highlighting beach fills and dredging were shown. A more complex example with structures was completed during Day 3. Then a quick discussion of future GenCade capabilities was given. The day concluded with a presentation and example of the new wave conversion tool.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Example_GenCade_setup.jpg|400px|thumb|left|Figure 2. Example GenCade Setup]]<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
'''POC:''' Ashley Frey<br />
<br\>Ashley.E.Frey@usace.army.mil <br />
<br\>601-634-2006 <br />
<br\>US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) <br />
<br\>Coastal and Hydraulics Lab (CHL) <br />
<br />
= GenCade Documentation =<br />
{|class=main width=99%<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33% | <!-- Left Column Portal --><br />
===Technical Documentation===<br />
----<br />
*Model Theory<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Assumptions|Basic Assumptions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Governing Equations|Governing Equations]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sand Transport Rates|Sand Transport Rates]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Empirical Parameters|Empirical Parameters]]<br />
*Wave Model<br />
**[[GenCade:Wave Calculation|Wave Calculation]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Internal Wave Transformation|Internal Wave Transformation]]<br />
*Model Structure<br />
**[[GenCade:Grid System|Grid System]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Boundary Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Numerical Stability|Numerical Stability]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Representation of Inlets|Representation of Inlets]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Structures|Structures]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sediment Sources and Sinks|Sediment Sources and Sinks]]<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Middle Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Interface and User Guide===<br />
----<br />
* [[GenCade_Users_Guide|User Guide]]<br />
*[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Getting_Started|Getting Started]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Preparing_Input_Files|Input and Output]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Conceptual Model|Conceptual Model]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Grid_Setup|Grid Setup]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#GenCade_Files.2C_Menu.2C_Model_Setup.2C_and_Execution|GenCade Files, Menu, Model Setup, and Execution]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Developing_Alternatives|Developing Alternatives]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Right Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Model Validation, Standard Benchmark Cases, and Examples===<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Executable|GenCade Executable]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Input_Files|Input Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Output_Files|Output Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Parameters|Parameters]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Example|GenCade Tutorial/Example]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Boundary_Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Wave_Input|Wave Input]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Applications|GenCade Applications]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Calibration|Model Calibration]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Tech_Documentation|Technical Documentation]]<br />
* [[GenCade_FAQs|Frequently Asked Questions]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=GenCade&diff=9573GenCade2013-03-04T14:11:06Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div>__notitle__<br />
__notoc__<br />
=GenCade=<br />
GenCade is a 1D model that combines GENESIS and Cascade. It is operated within the Surface-water Modeling System (SMS) 11.1 interface. The model was officially released in April 2012. SMS 11.1 (beta) was released in October 2012. A user guide, examples of simple cases, applications, frequently asked questions, and important information will be posted here. A Technical Report is complete and should be published soon.<br />
<br />
[[Image:GENESIS_Cascade.jpg|350px|thumb|right|Figure 1. Combination of GENESIS and Cascade]]<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
GenCade was highlighted during two CIRP Workshops in 2011. The first took place in February in Jacksonville, FL. This was the first workshop to include GenCade. About 25 students listened to several GenCade presentations, watched a demonstration, and participated in a hands-on example. A full day session of GenCade was featured in San Diego in August.<br />
<br />
A full day session of GenCade was presented during the March 2012 CIRP Workshop in Philadelphia. The morning consisted of presentations and a hands-on demonstration. In the afternoon, students worked through an example independently while instructors walked around answering questions.<br />
<br />
The first GenCade webinar took place in October 2012. Each of the three days consisted of two hours of instruction. During Day 1, several presentations introducing students to GenCade, the SMS, and previous applications were given. A quick example showing input and output files and how to view results in the SMS was shown at the beginning of Day 2. Then a very simple example and a case highlighting beach fills and dredging were shown. A more complex example with structures was completed during Day 3. Then a quick discussion of future GenCade capabilities was given. The day concluded with a presentation and example of the new wave conversion tool.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Example_GenCade_setup.jpg|400px|thumb|left|Figure 2. Example GenCade Setup]]<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
'''POC:''' Ashley Frey<br />
<br\>Ashley.E.Frey@usace.army.mil <br />
<br\>601-634-2006 <br />
<br\>US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) <br />
<br\>Coastal and Hydraulics Lab (CHL) <br />
<br />
= GenCade Documentation =<br />
{|class=main width=99%<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33% | <!-- Left Column Portal --><br />
===Technical Documentation===<br />
----<br />
*Model Theory<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Assumptions|Basic Assumptions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Governing Equations|Governing Equations]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sand Transport Rates|Sand Transport Rates]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Empirical Parameters|Empirical Parameters]]<br />
*Wave Model<br />
**[[GenCade:Wave Calculation|Wave Calculation]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Internal Wave Transformation|Internal Wave Transformation]]<br />
*Model Structure<br />
**[[GenCade:Grid System|Grid System]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Boundary Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Numerical Stability|Numerical Stability]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Representation of Inlets|Representation of Inlets]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Structures|Structures]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sediment Sources and Sinks|Sediment Sources and Sinks]]<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Middle Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Interface and User Guide===<br />
----<br />
* [[GenCade_Users_Guide|User Guide]]<br />
*[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Getting_Started|Getting Started]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Preparing_Input_Files|Input and Output]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Conceptual Model|Conceptual Model]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Grid_Setup|Grid Setup]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#GenCade_Files.2C_Menu.2C_Model_Setup.2C_and_Execution|GenCade Files, Menu, Model Setup, and Execution]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Developing_Alternatives|Developing Alternatives]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Right Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Model Validation, Standard Benchmark Cases, and Examples===<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Executable|GenCade Executable]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Input_Files|Input Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Output_Files|Output Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Parameters|Parameters]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Example|GenCade Tutorial/Example]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Boundary_Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Wave_Input|Wave Input]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Applications|GenCade Applications]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Calibration|Model Calibration]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Tech_Documentation|Technical Documentation]]<br />
* [[GenCade_FAQs|Frequently Asked Questions]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=GenCade&diff=9572GenCade2013-03-04T14:10:13Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div>__notitle__<br />
__notoc__<br />
=GenCade=<br />
GenCade is a 1D model that combines GENESIS and Cascade. It is operated within the Surface-water Modeling System (SMS) 11.1 interface. The model was officially released in April 2012. SMS 11.1 (beta) was released in October 2012. A user guide, examples of simple cases, applications, frequently asked questions, and important information will be posted here. A Technical Report is complete and should be published soon.<br />
<br />
[[Image:GENESIS_Cascade.jpg|400px|thumb|left|Figure 1. Combination of GENESIS and Cascade]]<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
GenCade was highlighted during two CIRP Workshops in 2011. The first took place in February in Jacksonville, FL. This was the first workshop to include GenCade. About 25 students listened to several GenCade presentations, watched a demonstration, and participated in a hands-on example. A full day session of GenCade was featured in San Diego in August.<br />
<br />
A full day session of GenCade was presented during the March 2012 CIRP Workshop in Philadelphia. The morning consisted of presentations and a hands-on demonstration. In the afternoon, students worked through an example independently while instructors walked around answering questions.<br />
<br />
The first GenCade webinar took place in October 2012. Each of the three days consisted of two hours of instruction. During Day 1, several presentations introducing students to GenCade, the SMS, and previous applications were given. A quick example showing input and output files and how to view results in the SMS was shown at the beginning of Day 2. Then a very simple example and a case highlighting beach fills and dredging were shown. A more complex example with structures was completed during Day 3. Then a quick discussion of future GenCade capabilities was given. The day concluded with a presentation and example of the new wave conversion tool.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Example_GenCade_setup.jpg|400px|thumb|left|Figure 2. Example GenCade Setup]]<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
'''POC:''' Ashley Frey<br />
<br\>Ashley.E.Frey@usace.army.mil <br />
<br\>601-634-2006 <br />
<br\>US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) <br />
<br\>Coastal and Hydraulics Lab (CHL) <br />
<br />
= GenCade Documentation =<br />
{|class=main width=99%<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33% | <!-- Left Column Portal --><br />
===Technical Documentation===<br />
----<br />
*Model Theory<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Assumptions|Basic Assumptions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Governing Equations|Governing Equations]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sand Transport Rates|Sand Transport Rates]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Empirical Parameters|Empirical Parameters]]<br />
*Wave Model<br />
**[[GenCade:Wave Calculation|Wave Calculation]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Internal Wave Transformation|Internal Wave Transformation]]<br />
*Model Structure<br />
**[[GenCade:Grid System|Grid System]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Boundary Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Numerical Stability|Numerical Stability]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Representation of Inlets|Representation of Inlets]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Structures|Structures]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sediment Sources and Sinks|Sediment Sources and Sinks]]<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Middle Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Interface and User Guide===<br />
----<br />
* [[GenCade_Users_Guide|User Guide]]<br />
*[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Getting_Started|Getting Started]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Preparing_Input_Files|Input and Output]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Conceptual Model|Conceptual Model]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Grid_Setup|Grid Setup]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#GenCade_Files.2C_Menu.2C_Model_Setup.2C_and_Execution|GenCade Files, Menu, Model Setup, and Execution]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Developing_Alternatives|Developing Alternatives]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Right Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Model Validation, Standard Benchmark Cases, and Examples===<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Executable|GenCade Executable]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Input_Files|Input Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Output_Files|Output Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Parameters|Parameters]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Example|GenCade Tutorial/Example]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Boundary_Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Wave_Input|Wave Input]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Applications|GenCade Applications]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Calibration|Model Calibration]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Tech_Documentation|Technical Documentation]]<br />
* [[GenCade_FAQs|Frequently Asked Questions]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=GenCade&diff=9571GenCade2013-03-04T14:08:00Z<p>Rdchltmb: /* Documentation */</p>
<hr />
<div>__notitle__<br />
__toc__<br />
=GenCade=<br />
GenCade is a 1D model that combines GENESIS and Cascade. It is operated within the Surface-water Modeling System (SMS) 11.1 interface. The model was officially released in April 2012. SMS 11.1 (beta) was released in October 2012. A user guide, examples of simple cases, applications, frequently asked questions, and important information will be posted here. A Technical Report is complete and should be published soon.<br />
<br />
[[Image:GENESIS_Cascade.jpg|400px|thumb|left|Figure 1. Combination of GENESIS and Cascade]]<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
GenCade was highlighted during two CIRP Workshops in 2011. The first took place in February in Jacksonville, FL. This was the first workshop to include GenCade. About 25 students listened to several GenCade presentations, watched a demonstration, and participated in a hands-on example. A full day session of GenCade was featured in San Diego in August.<br />
<br />
A full day session of GenCade was presented during the March 2012 CIRP Workshop in Philadelphia. The morning consisted of presentations and a hands-on demonstration. In the afternoon, students worked through an example independently while instructors walked around answering questions.<br />
<br />
The first GenCade webinar took place in October 2012. Each of the three days consisted of two hours of instruction. During Day 1, several presentations introducing students to GenCade, the SMS, and previous applications were given. A quick example showing input and output files and how to view results in the SMS was shown at the beginning of Day 2. Then a very simple example and a case highlighting beach fills and dredging were shown. A more complex example with structures was completed during Day 3. Then a quick discussion of future GenCade capabilities was given. The day concluded with a presentation and example of the new wave conversion tool.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Example_GenCade_setup.jpg|400px|thumb|left|Figure 2. Example GenCade Setup]]<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
'''POC:''' Ashley Frey<br />
<br\>Ashley.E.Frey@usace.army.mil <br />
<br\>601-634-2006 <br />
<br\>US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) <br />
<br\>Coastal and Hydraulics Lab (CHL) <br />
<br />
= GenCade Documentation =<br />
{|class=main width=99%<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33% | <!-- Left Column Portal --><br />
===Technical Documentation===<br />
----<br />
*Model Theory<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Assumptions|Basic Assumptions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Governing Equations|Governing Equations]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sand Transport Rates|Sand Transport Rates]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Empirical Parameters|Empirical Parameters]]<br />
*Wave Model<br />
**[[GenCade:Wave Calculation|Wave Calculation]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Internal Wave Transformation|Internal Wave Transformation]]<br />
*Model Structure<br />
**[[GenCade:Grid System|Grid System]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Boundary Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Numerical Stability|Numerical Stability]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Representation of Inlets|Representation of Inlets]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Structures|Structures]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sediment Sources and Sinks|Sediment Sources and Sinks]]<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Middle Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Interface and User Guide===<br />
----<br />
* [[GenCade_Users_Guide|User Guide]]<br />
*[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Getting_Started|Getting Started]]<br />
**[[GenCade_Users_Guide#Preparing_Input_Files|Input and Output]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Conceptual Model|Conceptual Model]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Grid_Setup|Grid Setup]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#GenCade_Files.2C_Menu.2C_Model_Setup.2C_and_Execution|GenCade Files, Menu, Model Setup, and Execution]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Developing_Alternatives|Developing Alternatives]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Right Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===Model Validation, Standard Benchmark Cases, and Examples===<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Executable|GenCade Executable]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Input_Files|Input Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Output_Files|Output Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Parameters|Parameters]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Example|GenCade Tutorial/Example]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Boundary_Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Wave_Input|Wave Input]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Applications|GenCade Applications]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Calibration|Model Calibration]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Tech_Documentation|Technical Documentation]]<br />
* [[GenCade_FAQs|Frequently Asked Questions]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=GenCade&diff=9570GenCade2013-03-04T13:59:25Z<p>Rdchltmb: /* Documentation */</p>
<hr />
<div>__notitle__<br />
__toc__<br />
=GenCade=<br />
GenCade is a 1D model that combines GENESIS and Cascade. It is operated within the Surface-water Modeling System (SMS) 11.1 interface. The model was officially released in April 2012. SMS 11.1 (beta) was released in October 2012. A user guide, examples of simple cases, applications, frequently asked questions, and important information will be posted here. A Technical Report is complete and should be published soon.<br />
<br />
[[Image:GENESIS_Cascade.jpg|400px|thumb|left|Figure 1. Combination of GENESIS and Cascade]]<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
GenCade was highlighted during two CIRP Workshops in 2011. The first took place in February in Jacksonville, FL. This was the first workshop to include GenCade. About 25 students listened to several GenCade presentations, watched a demonstration, and participated in a hands-on example. A full day session of GenCade was featured in San Diego in August.<br />
<br />
A full day session of GenCade was presented during the March 2012 CIRP Workshop in Philadelphia. The morning consisted of presentations and a hands-on demonstration. In the afternoon, students worked through an example independently while instructors walked around answering questions.<br />
<br />
The first GenCade webinar took place in October 2012. Each of the three days consisted of two hours of instruction. During Day 1, several presentations introducing students to GenCade, the SMS, and previous applications were given. A quick example showing input and output files and how to view results in the SMS was shown at the beginning of Day 2. Then a very simple example and a case highlighting beach fills and dredging were shown. A more complex example with structures was completed during Day 3. Then a quick discussion of future GenCade capabilities was given. The day concluded with a presentation and example of the new wave conversion tool.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Example_GenCade_setup.jpg|400px|thumb|left|Figure 2. Example GenCade Setup]]<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
'''POC:''' Ashley Frey<br />
<br\>Ashley.E.Frey@usace.army.mil <br />
<br\>601-634-2006 <br />
<br\>US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) <br />
<br\>Coastal and Hydraulics Lab (CHL) <br />
<br />
= Documentation =<br />
{|class=main width=99%<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33% | <!-- Left Column Portal --><br />
===Technical Documentation===<br />
----<br />
*Model Theory<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Assumptions|Basic Assumptions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Governing Equations|Governing Equations]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sand Transport Rates|Sand Transport Rates]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Empirical Parameters|Empirical Parameters]]<br />
*Wave Model<br />
**[[GenCade:Wave Calculation|Wave Calculation]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Internal Wave Transformation|Internal Wave Transformation]]<br />
*Model Structure<br />
**[[GenCade:Grid System|Grid System]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Boundary Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Numerical Stability|Numerical Stability]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Representation of Inlets|Representation of Inlets]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Structures|Structures]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Sediment Sources and Sinks|Sediment Sources and Sinks]]<br />
<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33%;border-left:1px solid #aaa;padding-left:1em| <!-- Middle Column Portal --><br />
<br />
===GenCade Interface and User Guide===<br />
----<br />
*Getting Started<br />
**[[GenCade:Input and Output|Input and Output]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Conceptual Model|Conceptual Model]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Users_Guide|User Guide]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Getting_Started|Getting Started]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Preparing_Input_Files|Preparing Input Files]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Grid_Setup|Grid Setup]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#GenCade_Files.2C_Menu.2C_Model_Setup.2C_and_Execution|GenCade Files, Menu, Model Setup, and Execution]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Developing_Alternatives|Developing Alternatives]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Executable|GenCade Executable]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Input_Files|Input Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Output_Files|Output Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Parameters|Parameters]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Example|GenCade Tutorial/Example]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Boundary_Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Wave_Input|Wave Input]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Applications|GenCade Applications]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Calibration|Model Calibration]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Tech_Documentation|Technical Documentation]]<br />
* [[GenCade_FAQs|Frequently Asked Questions]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=GenCade&diff=9569GenCade2013-03-04T13:40:14Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div>__notitle__<br />
__toc__<br />
=GenCade=<br />
GenCade is a 1D model that combines GENESIS and Cascade. It is operated within the Surface-water Modeling System (SMS) 11.1 interface. The model was officially released in April 2012. SMS 11.1 (beta) was released in October 2012. A user guide, examples of simple cases, applications, frequently asked questions, and important information will be posted here. A Technical Report is complete and should be published soon.<br />
<br />
[[Image:GENESIS_Cascade.jpg|400px|thumb|left|Figure 1. Combination of GENESIS and Cascade]]<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
GenCade was highlighted during two CIRP Workshops in 2011. The first took place in February in Jacksonville, FL. This was the first workshop to include GenCade. About 25 students listened to several GenCade presentations, watched a demonstration, and participated in a hands-on example. A full day session of GenCade was featured in San Diego in August.<br />
<br />
A full day session of GenCade was presented during the March 2012 CIRP Workshop in Philadelphia. The morning consisted of presentations and a hands-on demonstration. In the afternoon, students worked through an example independently while instructors walked around answering questions.<br />
<br />
The first GenCade webinar took place in October 2012. Each of the three days consisted of two hours of instruction. During Day 1, several presentations introducing students to GenCade, the SMS, and previous applications were given. A quick example showing input and output files and how to view results in the SMS was shown at the beginning of Day 2. Then a very simple example and a case highlighting beach fills and dredging were shown. A more complex example with structures was completed during Day 3. Then a quick discussion of future GenCade capabilities was given. The day concluded with a presentation and example of the new wave conversion tool.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Example_GenCade_setup.jpg|400px|thumb|left|Figure 2. Example GenCade Setup]]<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
'''POC:''' Ashley Frey<br />
<br\>Ashley.E.Frey@usace.army.mil <br />
<br\>601-634-2006 <br />
<br\>US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) <br />
<br\>Coastal and Hydraulics Lab (CHL) <br />
<br />
= Documentation =<br />
{|class=main width=99%<br />
|style=vertical-align:top;width:33% | <!-- Left Column Portal --><br />
===Technical Documentation===<br />
----<br />
*Model Theory<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic_Assumptions|Basic Assumptions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic_Gov_Eq|Governing Equations]]<br />
**[[GenCade:|Basic Assumptions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Assumptions|Basic Assumptions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Assumptions|Basic Assumptions]]<br />
**[[GenCade:Basic Assumptions|Basic Assumptions]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* [[GenCade_Users_Guide|User Guide]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Getting_Started|Getting Started]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Preparing_Input_Files|Preparing Input Files]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Grid_Setup|Grid Setup]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#GenCade_Files.2C_Menu.2C_Model_Setup.2C_and_Execution|GenCade Files, Menu, Model Setup, and Execution]]<br />
** [[GenCade_Users_Guide#Developing_Alternatives|Developing Alternatives]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Executable|GenCade Executable]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Input_Files|Input Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Output_Files|Output Files]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Parameters|Parameters]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Example|GenCade Tutorial/Example]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Boundary_Conditions|Boundary Conditions]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Wave_Input|Wave Input]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Applications|GenCade Applications]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Calibration|Model Calibration]]<br />
* [[GenCade_Tech_Documentation|Technical Documentation]]<br />
* [[GenCade_FAQs|Frequently Asked Questions]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=CMS-Flow:Grid_Generation&diff=8844CMS-Flow:Grid Generation2012-09-06T15:02:51Z<p>Rdchltmb: /* Telescoping Grid Generations */</p>
<hr />
<div>= Steps for Preprocessing Elevation Data=<br />
# Select the project horizontal and vertical datums and projections<br />
# If necessary, convert bathymetric/topographic input files to the correct projection and datums<br />
# If necessary, thin the input scatter sets so that they are more manageable to work with. This is especially important for dense data like LIDAR or mulibeam data. There are several ways of thinning the data, such as binning, merging nearby points, skipping points or using a critical slope. Keep all of the input files to less than a few hundred megabytes.<br />
# Checking data set coverages<br />
## Bring each bathymetric/topographic data set into SMS<br />
## If two data sets overlap make sure that the data sets match in the overlapping region. In many cases, they will not. If they do not match, select the data set taken closer to the simulation period or if both are from a similar time period, than select the more reliable dataset (usually the more dense also).<br />
## Delete the correct data set in the overlapping regions<br />
# Outlier removal<br />
## If available, bring in aerial photographs or satellite images into SMS. This is very helpful for orienting and determining outlier points. <br />
## Zoom-in to an individual data set<br />
## Set the contour color scheme for the scatter set to a narrow range so that outliers can easily be spotted. <br />
## Delete outlier points<br />
# Save individual data sets with a different name<br />
# Merge the processed input files into a single data set and save into a separate file.<br />
<br />
<br />
= Telescoping Grid Generation =<br />
# Telescoping Grid Generation [[http://cirp.usace.army.mil/CIRPwiki/images/8/82/Telescoping_Grid_Setup.pdf PDF]]<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
[[CMS#Documentation Portal | Documentation Portal]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=CMS-Flow:Grid_Generation&diff=8843CMS-Flow:Grid Generation2012-09-06T14:58:53Z<p>Rdchltmb: /* Telescoping Grid Generations */</p>
<hr />
<div>= Steps for Preprocessing Elevation Data=<br />
# Select the project horizontal and vertical datums and projections<br />
# If necessary, convert bathymetric/topographic input files to the correct projection and datums<br />
# If necessary, thin the input scatter sets so that they are more manageable to work with. This is especially important for dense data like LIDAR or mulibeam data. There are several ways of thinning the data, such as binning, merging nearby points, skipping points or using a critical slope. Keep all of the input files to less than a few hundred megabytes.<br />
# Checking data set coverages<br />
## Bring each bathymetric/topographic data set into SMS<br />
## If two data sets overlap make sure that the data sets match in the overlapping region. In many cases, they will not. If they do not match, select the data set taken closer to the simulation period or if both are from a similar time period, than select the more reliable dataset (usually the more dense also).<br />
## Delete the correct data set in the overlapping regions<br />
# Outlier removal<br />
## If available, bring in aerial photographs or satellite images into SMS. This is very helpful for orienting and determining outlier points. <br />
## Zoom-in to an individual data set<br />
## Set the contour color scheme for the scatter set to a narrow range so that outliers can easily be spotted. <br />
## Delete outlier points<br />
# Save individual data sets with a different name<br />
# Merge the processed input files into a single data set and save into a separate file.<br />
<br />
<br />
= Telescoping Grid Generations =<br />
# Telescoping Grid Generation [[http://cirp.usace.army.mil/CIRPwiki/images/8/82/Telescoping_Grid_Setup.pdf PDF]]<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
[[CMS#Documentation Portal | Documentation Portal]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=CMS-Flow:Grid_Generation&diff=8842CMS-Flow:Grid Generation2012-09-06T14:58:25Z<p>Rdchltmb: /* Telescoping Grid Generations */</p>
<hr />
<div>= Steps for Preprocessing Elevation Data=<br />
# Select the project horizontal and vertical datums and projections<br />
# If necessary, convert bathymetric/topographic input files to the correct projection and datums<br />
# If necessary, thin the input scatter sets so that they are more manageable to work with. This is especially important for dense data like LIDAR or mulibeam data. There are several ways of thinning the data, such as binning, merging nearby points, skipping points or using a critical slope. Keep all of the input files to less than a few hundred megabytes.<br />
# Checking data set coverages<br />
## Bring each bathymetric/topographic data set into SMS<br />
## If two data sets overlap make sure that the data sets match in the overlapping region. In many cases, they will not. If they do not match, select the data set taken closer to the simulation period or if both are from a similar time period, than select the more reliable dataset (usually the more dense also).<br />
## Delete the correct data set in the overlapping regions<br />
# Outlier removal<br />
## If available, bring in aerial photographs or satellite images into SMS. This is very helpful for orienting and determining outlier points. <br />
## Zoom-in to an individual data set<br />
## Set the contour color scheme for the scatter set to a narrow range so that outliers can easily be spotted. <br />
## Delete outlier points<br />
# Save individual data sets with a different name<br />
# Merge the processed input files into a single data set and save into a separate file.<br />
<br />
<br />
= Telescoping Grid Generations =<br />
# Telescoping Grid Generation [[http://cirp.usace.army.mil/CIRPwiki/images/8/82/Telescoping_Grid_Setup.pdf | PDF]]<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
[[CMS#Documentation Portal | Documentation Portal]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=CMS-Flow:Grid_Generation&diff=8841CMS-Flow:Grid Generation2012-09-06T14:57:35Z<p>Rdchltmb: /* Telescoping Grid Generations */</p>
<hr />
<div>= Steps for Preprocessing Elevation Data=<br />
# Select the project horizontal and vertical datums and projections<br />
# If necessary, convert bathymetric/topographic input files to the correct projection and datums<br />
# If necessary, thin the input scatter sets so that they are more manageable to work with. This is especially important for dense data like LIDAR or mulibeam data. There are several ways of thinning the data, such as binning, merging nearby points, skipping points or using a critical slope. Keep all of the input files to less than a few hundred megabytes.<br />
# Checking data set coverages<br />
## Bring each bathymetric/topographic data set into SMS<br />
## If two data sets overlap make sure that the data sets match in the overlapping region. In many cases, they will not. If they do not match, select the data set taken closer to the simulation period or if both are from a similar time period, than select the more reliable dataset (usually the more dense also).<br />
## Delete the correct data set in the overlapping regions<br />
# Outlier removal<br />
## If available, bring in aerial photographs or satellite images into SMS. This is very helpful for orienting and determining outlier points. <br />
## Zoom-in to an individual data set<br />
## Set the contour color scheme for the scatter set to a narrow range so that outliers can easily be spotted. <br />
## Delete outlier points<br />
# Save individual data sets with a different name<br />
# Merge the processed input files into a single data set and save into a separate file.<br />
<br />
<br />
= Telescoping Grid Generations =<br />
# Telescoping Grid Generation [[https://cirp.usace.army.mil/CIRPwiki/Telescoping_Grid_Setup.pdf | PDF]]<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
[[CMS#Documentation Portal | Documentation Portal]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=CMS-Flow:Grid_Generation&diff=8840CMS-Flow:Grid Generation2012-09-06T14:55:56Z<p>Rdchltmb: /* Telescoping Grid Generations */</p>
<hr />
<div>= Steps for Preprocessing Elevation Data=<br />
# Select the project horizontal and vertical datums and projections<br />
# If necessary, convert bathymetric/topographic input files to the correct projection and datums<br />
# If necessary, thin the input scatter sets so that they are more manageable to work with. This is especially important for dense data like LIDAR or mulibeam data. There are several ways of thinning the data, such as binning, merging nearby points, skipping points or using a critical slope. Keep all of the input files to less than a few hundred megabytes.<br />
# Checking data set coverages<br />
## Bring each bathymetric/topographic data set into SMS<br />
## If two data sets overlap make sure that the data sets match in the overlapping region. In many cases, they will not. If they do not match, select the data set taken closer to the simulation period or if both are from a similar time period, than select the more reliable dataset (usually the more dense also).<br />
## Delete the correct data set in the overlapping regions<br />
# Outlier removal<br />
## If available, bring in aerial photographs or satellite images into SMS. This is very helpful for orienting and determining outlier points. <br />
## Zoom-in to an individual data set<br />
## Set the contour color scheme for the scatter set to a narrow range so that outliers can easily be spotted. <br />
## Delete outlier points<br />
# Save individual data sets with a different name<br />
# Merge the processed input files into a single data set and save into a separate file.<br />
<br />
<br />
= Telescoping Grid Generations =<br />
# Telescoping Grid Generation [[cirp.usace.army.mmil/CIRPwiki/Telescoping_Grid_Setup.pdf | PDF]]<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
[[CMS#Documentation Portal | Documentation Portal]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=CMS-Flow:Grid_Generation&diff=8839CMS-Flow:Grid Generation2012-09-06T14:52:44Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div>= Steps for Preprocessing Elevation Data=<br />
# Select the project horizontal and vertical datums and projections<br />
# If necessary, convert bathymetric/topographic input files to the correct projection and datums<br />
# If necessary, thin the input scatter sets so that they are more manageable to work with. This is especially important for dense data like LIDAR or mulibeam data. There are several ways of thinning the data, such as binning, merging nearby points, skipping points or using a critical slope. Keep all of the input files to less than a few hundred megabytes.<br />
# Checking data set coverages<br />
## Bring each bathymetric/topographic data set into SMS<br />
## If two data sets overlap make sure that the data sets match in the overlapping region. In many cases, they will not. If they do not match, select the data set taken closer to the simulation period or if both are from a similar time period, than select the more reliable dataset (usually the more dense also).<br />
## Delete the correct data set in the overlapping regions<br />
# Outlier removal<br />
## If available, bring in aerial photographs or satellite images into SMS. This is very helpful for orienting and determining outlier points. <br />
## Zoom-in to an individual data set<br />
## Set the contour color scheme for the scatter set to a narrow range so that outliers can easily be spotted. <br />
## Delete outlier points<br />
# Save individual data sets with a different name<br />
# Merge the processed input files into a single data set and save into a separate file.<br />
<br />
<br />
= Telescoping Grid Generations =<br />
# Telescoping Grid Generation PDF: [[Image:Telescoping_Grid_Setup.pdf|thumb|right|300px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
[[CMS#Documentation Portal | Documentation Portal]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=File:Telescoping_Grid_Setup.pdf&diff=8838File:Telescoping Grid Setup.pdf2012-09-06T14:50:41Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=Inlets&diff=8486Inlets2012-02-29T19:39:28Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Inlet_States-blue.png|thumb|right|400px|]]<br />
<br />
The Inlets Geospatial Databases include different spatial datasets assembled and developed by the CIRP in support of inlet navigation channel research. The data are assembled from a wide range of sources from multiple US Government authorities and scientific studies over a significant temporal coverage. The sources used were determined to be high quality products that use appropriate and up-to-date scientific methods. Some data are the only account of the information available at a particular location. Use of this product may require additional research to original sources for verification and notice of any updated information.<br />
<br />
<big><br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<font color=blue><br />
*[[Inlet Database | Inlet Databases]]<br />
<br />
*[http://www.oceanscience.net/inletsonline/ Inlets Online]<br />
*[http://www.oceanscience.net/inletsonline/map/map.html Link to Inlets Online Google Map Viewer]<br />
*[http://oceanscience.net/inletsonline/map/berms_online.html Link to Berms Online Google Map Viewer]<br />
<br />
<br />
</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Back to CIRP [[Main_Page | Main Page]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=File:Inlet_States-blue.png&diff=8485File:Inlet States-blue.png2012-02-29T19:38:30Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography&diff=8484Inlet Geomorph Bibliography2012-02-29T17:20:32Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div><big><br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<font color=red>'''UNDER CONSTRUCTION'''</font><br />
<br />
<br />
A literature review of several topic papers on inlet geomorphic parameterization and classification are given in the below annotated bibliography. The Papers are categorized by subject matter: 1) Classification, 2) Processes, 3) Relationships, and 4) Structural Response.<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
[[Image:Inlet_geomorph_fig3_Hayes.png|thumb|right|400px]]<br />
<br />
'''1) [[Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography-Classification | Classification]]'''<br />
<br />
:*Shoreline classification based upon tide range<br />
:**Microtidal coasts (T.R. 0-2 meters) (wave dominated coasts)<br />
:**Mesotidal coasts (T.R. 2-4 meters)<br />
:**Macrotidal coasts (T.R. > 4 meters) (tide dominated coasts)<br />
<br />
:*Variation in inlet planform morphology can be caused by<br />
:**time variation of wave energy<br />
:**time variation of tidal energy (prism),<br />
:**space variation of tidal energy (prism), and<br />
:**evolution of ebb-tidal deltas and adjacent shorelines.<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
'''2) [[Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography-Processes | Processes]]'''<br />
<br />
:*Equilibrium properties of coastal structures exist over all time scales and can be used to simplify models and relationships.<br />
:*North Carolina and northern South Carolina are classified as microtidal wave dominated, southern South Carolina and Georgia as mesotidal tide-dominated, and the northeast coast of Florida as microtidal wave dominated.<br />
:*Physical and geological parameters impact tidal inlet variability.<br />
:*The tide dominated inlets are characterized by large ebb-tidal deltas extending far out from shore, well-defined deep main channels and inlet throats, and an absence of inner shoals, except where fresh water inflow induces stratification and landward bottom sediment transport.<br />
:*Sediment is bypassed at inlets through: <br />
:** Stable inlet processes<br />
:**Ebb-tidal delta breaching Inlet migration and spit breaching<br />
:**Outer channel shifting <br />
:**Spit platform breaching<br />
:**Bypassing at wave dominated inlets<br />
:**Jetty-weir bypassing<br />
:**Jettied inlet bypassing<br />
:**Outer channel shifting at jettied inlets<br />
:*Degree of sheltering at an inlet and the back bay environment can effect flood or ebb dominance and create a tidal velocity asymmetry at the inlet. This can, in turn, effect the morphology of the inlet.<br />
:*The direction of tidal forcing was the main parameter governing orientation of the main inlet channel and ebb delta.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
'''3) [[Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography-Relationships | Relationships]]'''<br />
<br />
:*The two main principles in bypassing of sand by natural action; bypassing on an offshore bar and bypassing by tidal flow action or a combination of these two methods.<br />
:*The ratio of Mmean/Qmax=r (magnitude of littoral drift) and quantity of flow through the inlet can assist in the identification of these mechanisms. If the ratio is high r>200-300, bar bypassing is predominant. A lower ratio, r<10-20 indicates tidal flow bypassing.<br />
:*A relationship between inlet area and tidal prism of the form A=CPn exists<br />
:*Symmetry is a product of (1) meandering of the channel thalweg, (2) inlet shoreline configuration, and (3) dominant longshore transport direction.<br />
:*A method called the “no-inlet contour method” has been introduced to calculate ebb shoal volumes<br />
:*A relationship is introduced between ebb shoal volume and tidal prism of the form V=aP<sup>b</sup> <br />
:*The ebb shoal volume appear to be a function of spring tidal prism, inlet area, tidal amplitude and the ratio of inlet width to depth (which arises as a result of the effect of wave induced sediment transport at varying depths over the ebb shoal). <br />
:*Delta growth is explained based upon an analysis of bottom shear stress from current and wave influence (Tb) and the critical stress for scour (Tcr) where, when Tb<< Tcr deposition occurs until they are approximately equal. At this point there is no further deposition and there is an equilibrium water depth above the delta and the delta reaches an equilibrium volume. The influence of wave energy would increase the delta volume (increased wave energy) or decrease the delta volume (decreased wave energy) and the shoal would move away from this equilibrium volume.<br />
:*A linear relationship between the average shoal bypassing event interval (I) and the tidal prism (Tp) was found of the form I=0.046Tp+4.56. It was found that larger inlets undergo shoal bypassing events less frequently than smaller inlets and that the variable I is related to the longshore sediment transport rate. <br />
:*A relationship of the form S=6.42Tp+113.4 has been used to describe the relationship between the average bypassing shoal volume (S) and the tidal prism (P).<br />
:*Four types of inlet instability have been identified: geographic, rotational, meandering and channel stretching.<br />
:*Inlet stability may be thought about in terms of (1) hydraulic parameters (width and length) and (2) positional parameters (migration).<br />
:*Relationships between tidal prism and the planview shape of the ebb shoal have been developed.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
'''4) [[Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography-Structural Responses | Structural Responses]]'''<br />
<br />
:*The introduction of jetties have caused ebb shoals to extend further offshore than previously with a more symmetrical shape.<br />
:*A methodology for determining a net drift direction at a project site was introduced that includes:<br />
:**Office examination of data<br />
:**Field visit with aerial over flight<br />
:**Discussions with specialists<br />
:**Review of wave records<br />
:**Collection of supplemental field data<br />
:*The Inlet reservoir Model (IRM), calculates sediment transport rates and volume change of identified morphologic features and bypassing rates for an inlet.<br />
:*The IRM can be used as an inlet management tool with a general methodology for simulating the evolution of different features and assessing consequences of interruption in sediment transport across inlets.<br />
:*When the combined shear stress (τb) is smaller than the critical shear stress (τcr) deposition will occur until the shear stresses are balanced τb=τcr , when equilibrium is reached. <br />
<br />
________________________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
<br />
*[[Inlet_Database | Inlet Database]] Page<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Back to [[Inlets | Inlets Geospatial Databases]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography&diff=8483Inlet Geomorph Bibliography2012-02-29T17:19:55Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div><big><br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<font color=red>'''UNDER CONSTRUCTION'''</font><br />
<br />
<br />
A literature review of several topic papers on inlet geomorphic parameterization and classification are given in the below annotated bibliography. The Papers are categorized by subject matter: 1) Classification, 2) Processes, 3) Relationships, and 4) Structural Response.<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
[[Image:Inlet_geomorph_fig3_Hayes.png|thumb|right|400px|Figure 2. Augmented Hayes (1979) diagram plotting 20 of his original 21 inlets and 89 additional inlets. Mixed energy tide-dominated and mixed energy waved-dominated classifications of the Hayes diagram are omitted. Original Hayes diagram lines covered mean wave heights to about 1.5 m for tide-dominated inlets and 2.5 m for wave-dominated inlets (solid lines). The dashed line indicates extension of the trend for this study.]]<br />
<br />
'''1) [[Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography-Classification | Classification]]'''<br />
<br />
:*Shoreline classification based upon tide range<br />
:**Microtidal coasts (T.R. 0-2 meters) (wave dominated coasts)<br />
:**Mesotidal coasts (T.R. 2-4 meters)<br />
:**Macrotidal coasts (T.R. > 4 meters) (tide dominated coasts)<br />
<br />
:*Variation in inlet planform morphology can be caused by<br />
:**time variation of wave energy<br />
:**time variation of tidal energy (prism),<br />
:**space variation of tidal energy (prism), and<br />
:**evolution of ebb-tidal deltas and adjacent shorelines.<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
'''2) [[Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography-Processes | Processes]]'''<br />
<br />
:*Equilibrium properties of coastal structures exist over all time scales and can be used to simplify models and relationships.<br />
:*North Carolina and northern South Carolina are classified as microtidal wave dominated, southern South Carolina and Georgia as mesotidal tide-dominated, and the northeast coast of Florida as microtidal wave dominated.<br />
:*Physical and geological parameters impact tidal inlet variability.<br />
:*The tide dominated inlets are characterized by large ebb-tidal deltas extending far out from shore, well-defined deep main channels and inlet throats, and an absence of inner shoals, except where fresh water inflow induces stratification and landward bottom sediment transport.<br />
:*Sediment is bypassed at inlets through: <br />
:** Stable inlet processes<br />
:**Ebb-tidal delta breaching Inlet migration and spit breaching<br />
:**Outer channel shifting <br />
:**Spit platform breaching<br />
:**Bypassing at wave dominated inlets<br />
:**Jetty-weir bypassing<br />
:**Jettied inlet bypassing<br />
:**Outer channel shifting at jettied inlets<br />
:*Degree of sheltering at an inlet and the back bay environment can effect flood or ebb dominance and create a tidal velocity asymmetry at the inlet. This can, in turn, effect the morphology of the inlet.<br />
:*The direction of tidal forcing was the main parameter governing orientation of the main inlet channel and ebb delta.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
'''3) [[Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography-Relationships | Relationships]]'''<br />
<br />
:*The two main principles in bypassing of sand by natural action; bypassing on an offshore bar and bypassing by tidal flow action or a combination of these two methods.<br />
:*The ratio of Mmean/Qmax=r (magnitude of littoral drift) and quantity of flow through the inlet can assist in the identification of these mechanisms. If the ratio is high r>200-300, bar bypassing is predominant. A lower ratio, r<10-20 indicates tidal flow bypassing.<br />
:*A relationship between inlet area and tidal prism of the form A=CPn exists<br />
:*Symmetry is a product of (1) meandering of the channel thalweg, (2) inlet shoreline configuration, and (3) dominant longshore transport direction.<br />
:*A method called the “no-inlet contour method” has been introduced to calculate ebb shoal volumes<br />
:*A relationship is introduced between ebb shoal volume and tidal prism of the form V=aP<sup>b</sup> <br />
:*The ebb shoal volume appear to be a function of spring tidal prism, inlet area, tidal amplitude and the ratio of inlet width to depth (which arises as a result of the effect of wave induced sediment transport at varying depths over the ebb shoal). <br />
:*Delta growth is explained based upon an analysis of bottom shear stress from current and wave influence (Tb) and the critical stress for scour (Tcr) where, when Tb<< Tcr deposition occurs until they are approximately equal. At this point there is no further deposition and there is an equilibrium water depth above the delta and the delta reaches an equilibrium volume. The influence of wave energy would increase the delta volume (increased wave energy) or decrease the delta volume (decreased wave energy) and the shoal would move away from this equilibrium volume.<br />
:*A linear relationship between the average shoal bypassing event interval (I) and the tidal prism (Tp) was found of the form I=0.046Tp+4.56. It was found that larger inlets undergo shoal bypassing events less frequently than smaller inlets and that the variable I is related to the longshore sediment transport rate. <br />
:*A relationship of the form S=6.42Tp+113.4 has been used to describe the relationship between the average bypassing shoal volume (S) and the tidal prism (P).<br />
:*Four types of inlet instability have been identified: geographic, rotational, meandering and channel stretching.<br />
:*Inlet stability may be thought about in terms of (1) hydraulic parameters (width and length) and (2) positional parameters (migration).<br />
:*Relationships between tidal prism and the planview shape of the ebb shoal have been developed.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
'''4) [[Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography-Structural Responses | Structural Responses]]'''<br />
<br />
:*The introduction of jetties have caused ebb shoals to extend further offshore than previously with a more symmetrical shape.<br />
:*A methodology for determining a net drift direction at a project site was introduced that includes:<br />
:**Office examination of data<br />
:**Field visit with aerial over flight<br />
:**Discussions with specialists<br />
:**Review of wave records<br />
:**Collection of supplemental field data<br />
:*The Inlet reservoir Model (IRM), calculates sediment transport rates and volume change of identified morphologic features and bypassing rates for an inlet.<br />
:*The IRM can be used as an inlet management tool with a general methodology for simulating the evolution of different features and assessing consequences of interruption in sediment transport across inlets.<br />
:*When the combined shear stress (τb) is smaller than the critical shear stress (τcr) deposition will occur until the shear stresses are balanced τb=τcr , when equilibrium is reached. <br />
<br />
________________________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
<br />
*[[Inlet_Database | Inlet Database]] Page<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Back to [[Inlets | Inlets Geospatial Databases]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=Inlet_Geomorphic_Analyses&diff=8482Inlet Geomorphic Analyses2012-02-29T17:19:10Z<p>Rdchltmb: /* Tidal Inlet Classification */</p>
<hr />
<div>Several geomorphic analyses of inlets have been conducted through the Geomorphic Evolution Work Unit of the CIRP. The goal of this type of research is to enhance our understanding of the natural and anthropogenically modified nature of tidal inlet systems and their navigation channels. The mission of the Geomorphic Evolution Work Unit is improve the knowledge of geomorphic properties and long-term evolution of inlets, and to develop useful tools in the management of this dynamic resource.<br />
<br />
Each study listed below focuses on a comparison of some balance between the natural forces and the resultant geometric shape and morphologic characteristics of tidal inlets. Because many of our managed tidal inlets are not natural, several distinctions are made in the geomorphic analyses given below. These variances allow for a clearer understanding of how natural and modified (e.g. jettied) tidal inlets behave.<br />
<br />
== Tidal Inlet Classification ==<br />
<br />
[[Image:Inlet_Hayes_Examples.jpg|thumb|left|500px|Figure 1. Examples of inlet type classified by inspection of aerial photographs in this study. A) Tide-dominated inlet, Boca Grande Inlet, Florida; B) Mixed energy (structured), Masonboro Inlet, North Carolina; C) Mixed energy inlet (without jetties), New Pass, Florida; and D) Wave-dominated stabilized inlet: Shinnecock Inlet, New York..]]<br />
<br />
Most studies of tidal inlets refer to the classification of Hayes (1979) to place the site into a geomorphic context. A tidal inlet is an opening in the shore that allows exchange of water between the ocean and bays, lagoons, and marsh and tidal creek systems, and for which the tidal current maintains the main channel of the inlet (FitzGerald 2005). The Hayes (1979) classification is aimed to identify geomorphic inlet type by tide range and mean wave height, and it has limiting states of tide dominated and wave dominated, with mixed states defined in between. The classification thus attempts to convey qualitative information about the plan-view geomorphology of a tidal inlet. Wave-dominated inlets are understood to have ebb deltas that are smaller in area and volume than tide-dominated inlets and are typically associated with micro-tidal ranges (range < 2 m, according to Davies 1964), whereas tide-dominated coasts have well-developed ebb deltas and are typically associated with meso-tidal ranges (2 m < range < 4 m). Davis and Hayes (1984) continue such discussion. Ebb deltas at wave-dominated tidal inlets typically have arcuate or horseshoe-shaped bypassing bars and a shoal in front of the ebb jet (the “ebb delta proper” following terminology of Kraus (2000)), and tide-dominated inlets tend to exhibit two shore-normal parallel channel margin bars, without an ebb delta proper. Because mixed-energy inlets can exhibit a wide range of varying energy forcing (both wave and tidal), their ebb deltas are not as easily defined and may exhibit a variety of morphologies (FitzGerald 1982). Typical morphologic features associated with mixed-energy ebb deltas include an updrift channel margin linear bar, a flood marginal channel along the updrift side of the delta, and a large and shallow bypassing platform along the downdrift side of the delta. <br />
<br />
Bruun and Gerritsen (1959) identified two mechanisms for natural sediment bypassing at tidal inlets: (1) wave-induced sand transport along the periphery of the ebb delta (bar bypassing), most applicable to wave-dominated inlets, (2) transport of sand in channels by tidal currents (tidal bypassing), most applicable at tide-dominated inlets. FitzGerald (1982) examined sediment bypassing at non-structured, mixed energy tide-dominated inlets and identified a discontinuous or episodic process of attachment of portions of the ebb delta to the downdrift shore (see Gaudiano and Kana (2000) for a case study). Such detachment or significant shoal migration as a collective feature (Sonu 1968) is also manifested in structured inlets as jetty tip shoals, sand bodies that migrate around, typically, the updrift jetty to deposit near or in the navigation channel. For design and management of inlets, especially those inlets stabilized by jetties and those to be dredged for navigation, a general classification scheme of inlets according to their wave environment, if valid, provides helpful information for both initial desk-top planning and in subsequent quantitative analysis. However, site experiences have revealed tidal inlets (structured and unstructured) that did not fall into the expected classification, motivating the present study.<br />
<br />
Eighty-nine inlets along the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico coasts of the United States were examined to assess their compatibility with the Hayes (1979) diagram. Following concepts and methods in Hayes (1979), the inlets were separated into three morphologic classes (wave dominated, tide dominated, and mixed energy) based on inspection of aerial imagery and nautical charts produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service (NOS). Fifty-seven inlets were classified as wave dominated, nine inlets were classified as tide dominated, and twenty-three inlets were classified as mixed energy. Figure 1 gives examples of inlet morphologic type determined from ebb delta morphology as evident in aerial photographs and to illustrate the authors’ decision process. In the figure, (A) is Boca Grande Inlet, Florida, exhibiting a tide-dominated morphology with large marginal linear shoals extending along the channel; (B) is Masonboro Inlet, North Carolina, exhibiting a mixed-energy morphology with jetties; (C) is New Pass, Florida, exhibiting a natural mixed-energy morphology with one updrift channel margin linear bar and a large downdrift bypassing platform; and (D) is Shinnecock Inlet, New York, exhibiting a wave-dominated inlet with a large arcuate bypassing bar characterizing the ebb delta.<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
[[Image:Inlet_geomorph_fig3_Hayes.png|thumb|right|400px|Figure 2. Augmented Hayes (1979) diagram plotting 20 of his original 21 inlets and 89 additional inlets. Mixed energy tide-dominated and mixed energy waved-dominated classifications of the Hayes diagram are omitted. Original Hayes diagram lines covered mean wave heights to about 1.5 m for tide-dominated inlets and 2.5 m for wave-dominated inlets (solid lines). The dashed line indicates extension of the trend for this study.]]<br />
<br />
The 89 data points assembled are plotted in Figure 2 together with 20 of the 21 original points of Hayes (1979) that could be identified. Based on lack of segregation of the data, there appears to be no justification for a classification describing mixed-energy tide-dominated and mixed-energy wave-dominated inlets. There is little separation of the tidal inlet morphologic type based on mean tide range, with three inlets clearly classified by visual inspection as wave dominated (Plum Island Sound, Essex Bay Inlet, and Newbury Port Harbor, all in Massachusetts), but lying close to the original line demarking tide dominated. Many inlets classified visually as tide dominated fall into the Hayes category of wave dominated (for example, New Pass, Lee County, Redfish Pass, Boca Grande Pass, Pensacola Bay Entrance and Bunces Pass, all in Florida; and Barataria Pass, Louisiana).<br />
<br />
The inlets presented in the original Hayes (1979) diagram were not typical barrier island inlets. Some of which were fjords, and Bristol Bay and the Copper River Delta in Alaska included in the original diagram may not be considered as tidal inlets (based upon the definition that the main inlet channel be maintained by the tidal current (FitzGerald (2005)), but rather as entrances to large bays. The Bay of Fundy, included in the original Hayes diagram is an entrance with an extremely large tidal range and a small mean wave height. Such sites differ from the more typical and less extreme barrier-inlet systems examined in the present study.<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
[[Image:Inlet_geomorph_fig4_PvsH-All.png|thumb|right|250px|Figure 3. Inlet morphology type plotted with tidal prism and mean wave height. No classification of morphology type is apparent. ]]<br />
<br />
It is concluded that, except for extremes of either tide range or wave height, the inlet classification approach of Hayes (1979) holds little utility. This finding extends the observations of Davis and Hayes (1984), who discuss other variables that might determine or limit the end state of inlet morphology, including physiography and stratigraphic sequences. They hypothesized that tidal prism, instead of tidal range, would provide improved prediction of inlet morphology type, stating “Exceptions to these stated generalizations are so numerous that wave energy and tidal prism must be included in characterizing coasts. It is possible to have wave-dominated coasts with virtually any tidal range and likewise possible to have tide-dominated coasts even with very small (tide) ranges.” However, Figure 3 plots the classification data against tidal prism and mean wave height, and no segregation of inlet morphologic type with tidal prism in lieu of tide range is found.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
== Geometric Properties ==<br />
<br />
Aerial photographs and nautical charts were analyzed to evaluate the seaward and downdrift longshore extents of ebb tidal deltas for a number of the inlets within the database. Non-rectified aerial photographs of different scales were consulted, with individual photograph scales determined through comparison of distance between two stationary objects, such as two jetties. On some photographs, the ebb delta could be identified through calm water. For other photographs, the location of the ebb delta had to be inferred by wave refraction and diffraction patterns (Gibeaut and Davis, 1993). Uncertainty is associated with the latter situation. If the ebb delta could not be readily identified, the photograph was eliminated from analysis. For some Pacific coast and highly wave-exposed Atlantic coasts, the location of the breaking waves for fair-weather waves is located landward of the terminal lobe of the ebb delta (due to their great depths), and therefore nautical charts were necessary for analysis.<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
[[Image:IDB_Fig8.png|thumb|right|600px|Figure 1. Definition of most seaward extent of ebb delta Ds and the distance to the downdrift attachment bar Dd. Moriches Inlet, New York. Date: 20 March 1995.]]<br />
Two geometric properties of the ebb-delta plan view shapes were obtained from interpreting the photographs or nautical charts: the distance to the most seaward extent of the ebb delta Ds, and the distance to the down-drift attachment bar Dd. Figure 1 illustrates Ds and Dd. Although measurements were made from one source for each inlet (most recent aerial photograph or nautical chart), several sources were reviewed for the inlet to ensure the determination was reliable. Uncertainties introduced for the distance measurements are estimated to be 25 to 150 m, depending on the scale, distortion, and parallax on the aerial photograph. Inlets selected for analysis were considered mature and assumed to be in quasi-equilibrium. <br />
<br />
The distance to the most seaward extent of the ebb delta Ds was measured from the water-beach interface. In aerial photographs, this distance was determined visually based on the identification of the ebb delta through tonal changes (Gibeaut and Davis 1993). Nautical charts were analyzed if aerial photographs were not available or if ebb delta plan views were not distinguishable on photographs, e.g., at Pacific coast inlets with greater ebb shoal extents. Distance to the seaward extent of the ebb delta on nautical charts was determined as the point at which the contour lines were oriented similar to offshore contours far from the inlet (Vincent and Corson 1981). This distance was visually clear and easily identified by assessment of the slopes at the terminal lobe of the ebb delta. Gentle contours were identified over the ebb delta, transitioning to greater slopes as the ebb delta met the continental shelf.<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
A consistent interpretation of the location of the shoreline from the aerial photographs and nautical charts was attempted. A baseline was determined with two end points located at the updrift and downdrift shorelines outside of the direct influence of the inlet or terminal structures. This methodology is similar to that of Gibeaut and Davis (1993), whose baseline end points were located where the ebb delta intersected the shoreline to obtain a shoreline trend from which their measurements could commence. Figure 1 shows an example of the shoreline trend utilized for measurement of the distance to the most seaward extent of the ebb delta. The identification of a baseline from which measurements are taken effectively eliminates ambiguity of an updrift and downdrift shoreline offset. For example, Grays Harbor, Washington, has a large shoreline offset (approximately 3 km), whereas Mason Inlet, North Carolina, has negligible offset. Shoreline offsets may be produced by coastal structures adjacent to the jetty or from the presence of the ebb delta attachment.<br />
<br />
The distance to the downdrift attachment bar Dd was measured along a straight baseline set parallel to the trend of the shoreline. The measurement began at the downdrift inlet shoreline (at the narrowest section of the inlet channel) and ended at the location of the ebb delta attachment to the downdrift shoreline. If the location of the narrowest section of the inlet channel was not located along the baseline, then the measurement origin was translated perpendicularly to begin along the baseline. An attempt was made to determine a distance to the updrift attachment bar as done by Carr and Kraus (2001) for a limited number of inlets, but identification was difficult at most of the additional inlets examined. Updrift bypassing bars were found to be rare at inlets stabilized by jetties, so this parameter was not analyzed.<br />
<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
[[Image:Inlet_geomorph_fig5_DsvsP-All.png|thumb|right|200px|Figure 2. Ds vs P for 88 inlets in the database. The best fit is Ds (km) = 8x10-9P + 1.0.]]<br />
'''Seaward Extent of Ebb Delta, Ds'''<br />
The seaward extent of an ebb delta is expected to be proportional to the magnitude of the tidal prism, based on experience with many inlet morphologic properties that correlate with prism (as summarized by Kraus 2009). Figure 2 plots the results for all inlets, and Figures 3 through 5 plot results for highly, moderately, and mildly wave-exposed coasts as defined by Walton and Adams (1976). Except for the moderately wave-exposed coasts, a visually drawn line for Figure 2 describes the data as Ds = 1 km for tidal prism with a range less than 108 m3, after which the line of correlation arcs upward linearly with P, indicating a notable change in behavior of the ebb delta for prism greater than 108 m3. The same general behavior holds true for Figures 3 and 5, with near-constant Ds for P < 108 m3. Evidently, there is a tipping point in tidal prism above which it dominates over other possible controlling factors such as wave direction, back-bay configuration, and tidal inlet channel alignment, that can contribute to determination of inlet plan-form morphology. Best-fit lines are plotted on Figures 3, 4, and 5 along with their associated equation and correlation coefficient. No correlation between Ds and tidal prism was found for moderately wave-exposed inlets (Figure 4).<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
{|<br />
| [[Image:Inlet_geomorph_fig6_DsvsP-High.png|thumb|center|200px|Figure 3. Ds vs P for 15 highly wave-exposed inlets. The best fit is Ds (km) = 8x10-9P + 0.5.]] || [[Image:Inlet_geomorph_fig7_DsvsP-Mid.png|thumb|center|200px|Figure 4. Ds vs P for 38 moderately wave-exposed inlets. No correlation is evident between Ds and tidal prism.]] ||| [[Image:Inlet_geomorph_fig8_DsvsP-Low.png|thumb|center|200px|Figure 5. Ds vs P for 36 mildly wave-exposed inlets. The best fit is Ds (km) = 1x10-8P + 0.8.]]<br />
|}<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
A stronger correlation of Ds and tidal prism was expected for highly wave-exposed inlets because greater wave energy limits the extent to which the ebb delta can grow offshore under a given tidal prism forcing. Mildly wave-exposed inlets with large tidal prisms are typically situated along wide continental shelves (which gradually dissipate wave energy) and tend to have a shallow offshore platform, for example, as that found at Boca Grande Pass, Florida and Sapelo Sound Inlet, Georgia. At such sites, the distance to the furthest seaward extent of the ebb delta may be a function of the accommodation space on the shelf and the shelf slope. At other inlets, such as Stono Inlet, South Carolina, and Willapa Bay Inlet, Washington, another controlling factor to Ds is the amount of available sediment to form large ebb deltas.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Inlet_geomorph_fig9_DsvsP-2Jettied.png|thumb|right|200px|Figure 6. Ds vs P for 30 dual-jettied inlets. The best fit is Ds (km) = 7x10-9 P + 0.7.]]<br />
Jetties constrict the ebb flow of an inlet, or its ebb jet, and are expected to cause sediment deposition further offshore than a natural inlet with the same tidal prism. Therefore, it was initially hypothesized that the seaward margin of the ebb delta at dual-jettied inlets would be located further offshore. Figure 6 does not indicate a correlation describing this pattern. As an example, the greatest seaward extent of an ebb delta with two jetties was 5 km, and yet the greatest seaward extent of all the inlets (Figure 2) was 11 km for San Francisco Inlet (no jetties). The ebb deltas with the greatest seaward extents were associated with inlets without jetties, which are large tidal inlets for which jetties are neither feasible to construct nor necessary (Mobile Bay Entrance, Alabama, Sapelo Sound Inlet, Georgia, and Willapa Bay Inlet, Washington).<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
'''Distance to Downdrift Attachment Bar, Dd'''<br />
Bruun (1995) discussed what he termed the “short” distance and “long” distance of shoreline recession at littoral barriers. The beach segment between the downdrift jetty of an inlet and its attachment bar represents the short distance and has been referred to as an “isolated” beach (Hanson and Kraus 2001). Longshore sediment transport input is limited to the isolated beach by the jetty and by the attachment bar, which acts as a groin, and such beaches experience chronic erosion. Further down drift, the long-term influence of the littoral barrier is manifested as a smaller rate of shoreline recession.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Inlet_geomorph_fig10_DdvsP-All.png|thumb|right|200px|Figure 7. Dd vs P for 86 inlets in the database. The best fit is Dd (km) = 6x10-9 P + 0.6.]]<br />
The distance to the down-drift attachment bar is, therefore, of great interest in defining the extent of the isolated beach and understanding the scale of coastal change of an inlet. This distance is represented by the quantity Dd. Figure 7 plots the results for all inlets, and Figures 8 through 10 plot results for highly, moderately, and mildly wave-exposed coasts. Similar to the findings in the previous section for Ds, the distance Dd remains approximately constant for tidal prism P < 108 m3, then increase linearly with P above this critical value. Trend lines are plotted on Figures 7 through 10 along with their associated equation and correlation coefficient.<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
{|<br />
| [[Image:Inlet_geomorph_fig11_DdvsP-High.png|thumb|center|200px|Figure 8. DDd vs P for 15 highly wave-exposed inlets. The best fit is Dd (km) = 6x10-9 P + 0.4.]] || [[Image:Inlet_geomorph_fig12_DdvsP-Mid.png|thumb|center|200px|Figure 9 Dd vs P for 38 moderately wave-exposed inlets. The best fit is Dd (km) = 1x10-8 P + 0.7, with weak correlation.]] ||| [[Image:Inlet_geomorph_fig13_DdvsP-Low.png|thumb|center|200px|Figure 10. Dd vs P for 34 mildly wave-exposed inlets. The best fit is Dd (km) = 8x10-9 P + 0.4.]]<br />
|}<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
As suggested by Bruun (1995), Dd is a characteristic parameter indicating the relative influence of wave and tidal energy forming the bypassing pathways and the associated down-drift attachment. In separating the amount of wave exposure, a reasonable correlation between Dd and tidal prism is found for highly and mildly wave-exposed inlets (Figures 11 and 13), with R2 of 0.95 and 0.72, respectively. However, moderately wave-exposed inlets exhibit weak correlation between Dd and P (Figure 12). A strong correlation of Dd and P was expected for highly wave-exposed inlets, similarly to Ds, because higher wave energy will modify the lateral extent of sediment bypassing pathways. It is not clear how the lateral extent of sediment transport is modified by tidal flow; it is speculated that the persistent higher wave energy, with greater refraction by large wave periods, dominates the morphology of the inlets through reducing the variation in directional wave exposure.<br />
<br />
== '''References''' ==<br />
<br />
* Bruun, P., and Gerritsen, F., 1959 Natural by-passing of sand at coastal inlets. Journal of the Waterways and Harbors Division WW4, pp. 75-107.<br />
<br />
* Bruun, P., 1995. The development of downdrift erosion. Journal of Coastal Research 11(4), pp. 1242-1257.<br />
<br />
* Buonaiuto, F.S., and Kraus, N.C., 2003. Limiting slopes and depths at ebb-tidal shoals. Coastal Engineering 48(1), pp. 51–65.<br />
<br />
* Carr de Betts, E.E., 1999. An examination of flood deltas at Florida’s tidal inlets. MS thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 125 p p.<br />
<br />
* Carr-Betts, E.E., 2002. Morphologic asymmetry of ebb deltas at tidal inlets. MS Thesis, Report Number UFL/COEL-2002/16. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 171 pp.<br />
<br />
* Carr, E.E., and Kraus, N.C., 2001. Morphologic asymmetries at entrances to tidal inlets. Coastal and Hydraulic Engineering Technical Note ERDC/CHL CHETN-IV-33, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. (http://chl.wes.army.mil/library/publications/chetn).<br />
<br />
* Davies, J.L., 1964, A morphogenic approach to world shorelines: Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie 8, pp. 27-42.<br />
<br />
* Davis, Jr., R.A., and Hayes, M.O., 1984. What is a wave dominated coast? Marine Geology 60, 313-329.<br />
<br />
* FitzGerald, D.M., 1982. Sediment bypassing at mixed energy tidal inlets. Proceedings 18th Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE Press, pp. 1094-1118.<br />
<br />
* FitzGerald, D. M., 2005. Tidal inlets. In: Encyclopedia of Coastal Science, Schwartz, M. (ed.), Springer, 958-685.<br />
<br />
* Gaudiano, D.J., and Kana, T.W., 2000. Shoal bypassing in South Carolina tidal inlets: Geomorphic variables and empirical predictions for nine mesoscale inlets. Journal of Coastal Research 17(2), 280-291.<br />
<br />
* Gibeaut, J.C., and Davis, R.A., 1993. Statistical geomorphic classification of ebb-tidal deltas along the west-central Florida coast. Journal of Coastal Research SI(18), 165-184. <br />
<br />
* Hanson, H., and Kraus, N.C., 2001. Chronic beach erosion adjacent to inlets and remediation by composite (T-head) groins. Coastal Engineering Technical Note CHETN-IV-36, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.<br />
<br />
* Hayes, M.O., 1979. Barrier island morphology as a function of tidal and wave regime. In: Barrier Islands form the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the Gulf of Mexico, S.P. Leatherman (Ed.). Academic Press, NY, pp. 1-27.<br />
<br />
* Jarrett, J.T., 1976. Tidal prism – inlet area relationships. GITI Report 3, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg MS. 55 pp.<br />
<br />
* Kraus, N.C., 2000. Reservoir model of ebb-tidal delta evolution and sand bypassing. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering 126(3), 305-313.<br />
<br />
* Kraus, N.C., 2009. Engineering of tidal inlets and morphologic consequences. In: Handbook of Coastal Engineering, Kim, Y. (ed.), Chapter 31, World Scientific Publishing, pp. 867-900.<br />
<br />
* Marino, J.N., and Mehta, A.J., 1987. Inlet ebb tide shoals related to coastal parameters. Proceedings Coastal Sediments 87, ASCE Press, pp. 1,608-1,622.<br />
<br />
* Sonu, C.J., 1968. Collective movement of sediment in littoral environment. Proceedings 11th Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE Press, pp. 373-398.<br />
<br />
* Vincent, C.L., and Corson, W.D., 1981. Geometry of tidal inlets: empirical equations. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Division, 107(1), pp. 1-9.<br />
<br />
* Walton, T.L., and Adams, W.D., 1976. Capacity of inlet outer bars to store sand. Proceedings 15th Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE Press, pp. 1919–1937.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br style="clear:both" /><br />
<br />
<br />
Back to [[Inlet Database]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography-Relationships&diff=8481Inlet Geomorph Bibliography-Relationships2012-02-29T16:17:15Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
<br />
'''Escoffier, F.F. The Stability of Tidal Inlets. Shore and Beach, October 1940, Volume VIII No. 4, pp. 114-115.'''<br />
<br />
:This short paper describes the computation of the mean velocity (Vm) with inlet and bay dimension and tidal range as knowns using an equation by Brown (1928). The computation assumes the flood and ebb current velocities are equal and Escoffier discusses a critical mean velocity (Vcr) which is sufficient for sediment entrainment. Escoffier assumes that for most beach sediments the value is 3ft/sec. The Brown equation for mean velocity of peak tidal current may be used to compare Vm to Vcr to determine if the inlet is self-filling, self-eroding or stationary in size. The paper then discusses inlet stability using the Brown equation and graphically represents stable and unstable cases with Vm vs channel size. The paper discusses how the theory can be utilized to determine inlet stability.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bruun, P., and Gerritsen, F., 1959 Natural By-Passing of Sand at Coastal Inlets. Journal of the Waterways and Harbors Division WW4, pp. 75-107.'''<br />
<br />
:Bruun and Gerritsen define the two main principles in bypassing of sand by natural action; bypassing on an offshore bar and bypassing by tidal flow action or a combination of these two methods. The ratio of Mmean/Qmax=r (magnitude of littoral drift) and quantity of flow through the inlet can assist in the identification of these mechanisms. If the ratio is high r>200-300, bar bypassing is predominant. A lower ratio, r<10-20 indicates tidal flow bypassing.<br />
<br />
:The authors discuss the principle included in bar bypassing and present examples of inlets with bypassing (including structured and improved inlets) and bar bypassing at harbors. They discuss the principals involved in bypassing by tidal flow action at improved and unimproved inlets and provide multiple physical examples of this mechanism, including at harbors. The authors touch on the influence (or lack thereof) of sediment grain size and identify a bypassing factor consisting of multiple constituent factors which influence bypassing. A discussion of the ratio of Mmean/Qmax is included. Littoral drift and Mmean values are presented in table form for multiple inlets.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Jarrett, J.T., 1976. Tidal Prism – Inlet Area Relationships. GITI Report 3, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg MS. 55 pp.'''<br />
<br />
:In this paper Jarrett discussed the works of LeConte (1905), O’Brien (1931), Nayak (1969 and 1971) and Johnson (1972). Jarrett obtained data from 108 inlets on all coasts of the United States and discusses the sources and methods of obtaining this information. Jarrett classified the inlets into three main categories (1) all inlets, (2) unjettied or single jettied inlets, and (3) inlets with jetties. He also classified them by coast. Jarrett identified a relationship between inlet area and tidal prism of the form A=CPn and presents the data in table and graph form within the paper. He also discussed the differences in the relationships between the different groups. This paper also contains referenced tables of tidal prism, cross sectional area, hydraulic radius, and tidal current data for the 108 inlets in his study.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Hughes, S.A., 2002. Equilibrium Cross-sectional Area at Tidal Inlets. Journal of Coastal Research, 18(1). West Palm Beach, FL., pp. 160-174.'''<br />
<br />
:The paper begins with a literature review and discussion of the relationship that exist between Hughes discusses the mathematical relationships between the minimum cross sectional area of a stable inlet (A) and tidal prism (P). He then presents a derivation of the A vs P relationships considering an equilibrium depth is associated with maximum discharge per unit width. The equation that is derived is then compared to field data from 102 US tidal inlets with good correspondence with most inlets having equilibrium areas larger than the minimum predicted. Additionally, there is good correspondence found to equilibrium results obtained from eighteen movable bed model experiments. Hughes includes a discussion of scaling in movable bed models and derives a movable-bed modeling relationship suitable for channel scour caused from bedload transport caused by tidal currents. The relationship is not valid for scour caused by waves.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Seabergh, W. C., 2003. Long-Term Coastal Inlet Channel Area Stability. In: Proceedings Coastal Sediments '03. 2003. CD-ROM Published by World Scientific Publishing Corp. and East Meets West Productions, Corpus Christi, Texas, USA. ISBN 981-238-422-7.'''<br />
<br />
:Seabergh applies the concept of equilibrium area of tidal inlets (LeConte, 1905 and O’Brien 1931 and 1969) to inlets that are not in equilibrium i.e. inlets with bays that do not fill completely but still exhibit fairly consistent channel flow over many years. Seabergh discusses work by others on inlet equilibrium which do not require complete bay infilling for maintenance of stable channels.<br />
<br />
:The Kulegan (1967) “K” repletion coefficient is introduced to define the percentage that the bay fills. A number of examples from US inlets with low K values are presented in table form. This is discussed in concert with the Escoffier (1940, 1977) equilibrium curve which requires complete bay filling, whereby the Escoffier analysis of tidal inlet cross-sectional area equilibrium for cases with existing low K values indicates that equilibrium area will be much larger than the existing area. However, the low K inlets may not expand their entrance cross-sectional area in the absence of anthropogenic changes (dredging, structure implementation, etc.).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Shigemura, T., 1981. Tidal Prism – Throat Width Relationships of the Bays of Japan. Shore & Beach, Volume 49, No. 3, pp. 34-39.'''<br />
<br />
:Shigemura studied 231 natural bays, to which no artificial works had been added, along the four major coasts of Japan. He defined the throat area as the cross-sectional area at the narrowest section, or throat, of a bay entrance. Previously Shigemura (1980) developed a relationship between the throat area and the tidal prism of the form A=CPn. In this paper he examines ten (10) external variables through a correlation analysis to determine which exerts the most significant influence on throat width. Based on this analysis, Shigemura arrives at basic correlation relationships, separated by coast (Pacific Coast, Japan Sea Coast, Kyushu West Coast, and Inland Sea Coast), of the form Wt=CPn. Because these initial relationships do not account for external variables such as littoral drift, geological or geometrical features, Shigemura refines the relationships based on seven “geometrical parameters.”<br />
<br />
:In order to evaluate the significance of the parameters, he defines a reliability parameter of the regression equation and performs a correlation analysis between the reliability parameter and the geometric parameters. He found that, of all the Wt-P equations, the parameter rwl (the ratio of the throat width to the shore length of the bay) had a high correlation with the reliability parameter and, based on this information, uses the rwl parameter further refine the correlations by classifying the bays into four groups. Additionally, the paper includes a discussion of equations other researchers have developed and provides the values for the C and n variables throughout the stages of refinement.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''FitzGerald, D.M., and FitzGerald, S.A., 1977. Factors Influencing Tidal Inlet Throat Geometry. Proceedings, Coastal Sediments 77 Conference, ASCE, pp. 563-581.'''<br />
<br />
:FitzGerald and FitzGerald define and assess the parameters that affect tidal inlet throat geometry. Initially, the work of previous researchers in the area of inlet throat geometry is discussed. FitzGerald and FitzGerald define the inlet throat as the part of the channel which is the narrowest and deepest and has the maximum hydraulic radius. The inlet throat has the minimum cross-sectional area and maximum current velocities. FitzGerald and FitzGerald discuss the size, depth, channel symmetry and sedimentological control of the inlet throat.<br />
<br />
:In this paper FitzGerald and FitzGerald investigated eight central South Carolina inlets (mesotidal inlets) to determine factors which influence the symmetry of the inlet throat. They discuss that symmetry is a product of (1) meandering of the channel thalweg, (2) inlet shoreline configuration, and (3) dominant longshore transport direction. Temporal variations in throat cross-section are developed. They discuss the variations in throat cross-sectional area and short-term changes at Price Inlet, SC and the long-term changes of Stono Breach, Dewees and Capers Inlets, SC. A table of historical changes in throat geometry is presented. They develop the relationship of cross-sectional area versus tidal range for Price Inlet of the form Y=947+119X. The paper discusses the channel response over a complete tidal cycle at Pierce Inlet in order to evaluate if the inlet throat cross-sectional area responds quickly to changing tidal conditions.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Fitzgerald, D.M., and Nummedal, D, 1983. Response Characteristics of an Ebb-Dominated Tidal Inlet Channel. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 53(3), pp. 833-845.'''<br />
<br />
:This paper details the study of changes in the main channel of Price Inlet, SC on timescales ranging from hours to years. Price Inlet is a barrier island inlet located on the mixed-energy South Carolina coast north of Charleston Harbor. The field work carried out for this research occurred between 1974 and 1977. Fitzgerald and Nummedal discuss water storage and tidal stage in the Price Inlet drainage basin including a discussion of water surface area in the back barrier and throat cross-sectional area over the tidal cycle. Migration and morphological changes of the tidal channel were also monitored at three cross-sections along the inlet channel. Cross-sectional area was measured on a bi-monthly basis measured at slack water.<br />
<br />
:It was concluded that the inlet cross-section is highly sensitive to changes in tidal range because of the relationship between tidal range and potential sediment transport. The paper also includes a discussion of channel change during one tidal cycle as it relates to sediment transport. The calculated magnitude of potential inlet sediment transport is high enough at Price Inlet to suggest that significant changes in inlet hydraulic geometry can be expected during a single tidal cycle. This hypothesis is tested over a single cycle on July 29, 1977 through monitoring of the throat cross-section and inlet flow parameters. Throat current velocities and cross-sectional areas were measured each hour and changes of the areas are discussed in the paper. Longer-term changes in the morphology of Price Inlet was found to be controlled by the growth of the ebb-tidal delta shoals and growth of the channel-margin linear bars. The bars reduce transport into the inlet and thus results in a larger channel equilibrium cross-sectional area.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Walton, T.L., and Adams, W.D., 1976. Capacity of Inlet Outer Bars to Store Sand. Proceedings, 1976 Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE, pp. 1919–1937.'''<br />
<br />
:Walton and Adams investigated the equilibrium storage volume of sand in the outer bar/shoal of newly cut inlets. Inlets were classified into highly exposed, moderately exposed and mildly exposed to offshore wave action based on the H2T2 (wave height)2 * (wave period)2 parameter. The paper considers the inlet as a sediment sink to the adjacent shorelines and utilizes the equilibrium shoal volume in their calculations as the point at which the erosional influence to the adjacent shorelines is diminished. Walton and Adams utilized the “no-inlet contour method” of Dean and Walton (1973) to calculate ebb shoal volumes for 44 inlets in assumed equilibrium within the United States. They developed a relationship of the form V=aPb and used liner regression to determine the value for b for inlets separated by exposure and for all inlets together. Walton and Adams also determined that the ebb shoal volume and the inlet channel cross-sectional area relate to one another in the form V=a’Ab’.<br />
<br />
:Walton and Adams identified that in areas of high wave activity there appears to be a well-defined limiting relationship to the amount stored in the offshore bar as a function of tidal prism. They noted that the volume of sand in an inlets outer bar is strongly correlated to tidal prism and cross sectional inlet throat area. They found that more sand is stored in the outer bar of a low energy coast than is stored in the outer bar of a high energy coast.<br />
<br />
:The paper also included references to a number of tidal prism and inlet cross-section values and identified that future work in this area should take into consideration longshore energy and size distribution of littoral material and examine inner bay storage.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Hayter, E.J.; Hernandez, D.L., Atz J.C., and Sill, B.L., 1988. Study of Ebb Tidal Delta Dynamics. Proceedings, 1988 Conference on Beach Preservation Technology, Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association, Tallahassee, FL, pp. 365-374.'''<br />
<br />
:This paper discusses ebb shoal mining and the infilling of ebb shoals. The study presents the results of a laboratory scale movable bed tidal inlet model to investigate both the effects of oscillatory flow and waves on ebb shoal formation as well as the effect of shoal mining on the inlet-shoal system. Details of the model are included. Best fit lines for shoal volume and G, a parameter including the effects of sediment size (D50), specific gravity of sand and water (ys, y) and average inlet area (Bh) was determined (G=Bhd50 (ys-y/y). Scale effects of models are discussed. The dimensionless empirical relationships between shoal volume, wave energy and tidal prism V/G=0.00048(P/G)-1340, V/G=0.00069(P/G)-1870, and V/G=0.00476R0.527 where V/G is the normalized shoal volume, P is the tidal prism, R is a dimensionless parameter R=P/GE, and E is dimensionless wave energy density (E=yH2s/8yh2) (Hs is the significant wave height) where h is the mean water depth in the inlet were used to predict prototype shoal volumes in order to test their ability to simulate inlet-shoal conditions. Data from 12 Florida east coast inlets were used for this analysis.<br />
<br />
:The defined relationships have confirmed that shoal size and shape is generally governed by ebb jet flow. Both the fixed bed and movable bed models utilized in this research confirm this conclusion. This study validates the use of a laboratory scale model in the investigation of ebb shoal mining.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Marino, J.N., and Mehta, A.J., 1987. Inlet Ebb Shoals Related to Coastal Parameters. Proceedings, 1987 Coastal Sediments Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 1608-1623.'''<br />
<br />
:In this paper, the evolution of ebb tidal shoals is introduced through a discussion of a history of St. Augustine Inlet (opened in 1941) including jetty construction and dredging history. Marino and Mehta examined eighteen inlets on Florida’s east coast, relating their ebb shoal volume to spring tidal prism, inlet cross-sectional area, inlet width, inlet depth and sprig tidal amplitude. Ebb shoal volumes were determined through the Dean and Walton method (1973). Published values, or estimates based on literature, were used for the values of cross-sectional area, width, depth, prism and wave data. A dimensional analysis was utilized to determine functional relationships which may relate to ebb shoal volume. The paper examined the ebb shoal volume vs spring tidal prism relationship of Walton and Adams (1976) to determine which parameters explain the scatter in the Walton and Adams data within the same energy range. The discussion also examines the influence of bed shear stress, current shear stress, wave shear stress and channel depth.<br />
<br />
:Conclusions of the paper contain estimates of the total amount of material found within the 18 examined ebb shoals and identifies a general trend of decreasing ebb shoal volume from north to south along the East coast of Florida. Marino and Mehta conclude that the ebb shoal volume appear to be a function of spring tidal prism, inlet area, tidal amplitude and the ratio of inlet width to depth (which arises as a result of the effect of wave induced sediment transport at varying depths over the ebb shoal).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Oertel, G.F., 1988. Processes of Sediment Exchange Between Tidal Inlets, Ebb Deltas and Barrier Islands. Lecture notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies, Volume 29, Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. NY, pp. 297-318.'''<br />
<br />
:The introduction of this paper includes a brief discussion of literature as it related to prism area relationships and bypassing of sediment and inlet stability. Hydraulics and sedimentary processes at inlets are then discussed, initially in the absence of sediment transport outside of the channel itself. The paper then turns to a discussion of the processes occurring at the ebb tidal delta. Formation of the delta and the differences between the ebb and flood flow processes. Following is a discussion on equilibrium delta budgets the amount of material stored in an ebb delta. Oertel then introduces the concept that material may originate from the inlet gorge or from the adjacent littoral drift. Focus was placed on the amount of material available from the inlet gorge.<br />
<br />
:In this study, nine tide-dominated inlets were examined. Their ebb delta volumes were determined through the Dean and Walton method (1975) and tidal prisms were either measured or found in literature. Based upon this data, two equations relating bar volume and prism (mean and spring prisms) were determined. The plots were compared to the Walton and Adams (1976) data for tidal prism. This comparison is discussed within the paper. Diversion of the inlet jet by longshore current is discussed along with the sediment transport implication this diversion created on the inlet channels (i.e. inlet migration). Georgia and North Carolina inlets were used as examples.<br />
<br />
:Four types of deltas (with varying degrees of longshore versus onshore currents) are discussed with regard to bypassing and channel migration. Illustrations of tidal inlets are included which identify channel orientations caused by different magnitudes of inlet migration and sediment bypassing. <br />
<br />
:Cobb Island in Virginia is presented as a case study in island sediment budgets and illustrations are included identifying cases where barrier island shorelines change but their budgets remain balanced i.e., stability by rollover, stability by spit growth, stability by migration, and stability with constant shoreline position (complete bypassing).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mehta, A.J.; Dombrowski, M.R., and Devine, P.T., 1996. Role of Waves in Inlet Ebb Delta Growth and Some Research Needs Related to Site Selection for Delta Mining. Journal of Coastal Research, SI 23, pp. 212-136.'''<br />
<br />
:A motive of this paper was to obtain an understanding of the processes occurring at the ebb delta in terms of deposition in order to assess how these processes affect ebb delta mining. The role of waves in modulating the growth of ebb tidal deltas has been examined for four Florida east coast entrances (Jupiter Inlet, South Lake Worth Inlet, Boca Raton Inlet and Bakers Haulover Inlet). Volumes of the ebb deltas were determined using the Dean and Walton method (1973).<br />
<br />
:A model is presented in this paper to explain delta growth based upon an analysis of bottom shear stress from current and wave influence (Tb) and the critical stress for scour (Tcr) where, when Tb<< Tcr deposition occurs until they are approximately equal. At this point there is no further deposition and there is an equilibrium water depth above the delta and the delta reaches an equilibrium volume. The influence of wave energy would increase the delta volume (increased wave energy) or decrease the delta volume (decreased wave energy) and the shoal would move away from this equilibrium volume. Details regarding these conditions and relating hydraulic and morphodynamic parameters to the delta area are then explained within the paper.<br />
<br />
:The four Florida entrances examined in this paper have mostly littoral transport components with minimal riverine influences. They are examined by the authors to assess the effects of waves compared with tidal currents as the deltas transition from the no inlet condition to equilibrium. The author’s utilized the O’brien ratio of wave power to tidal prism power and plotted growth rate curves over time based on the high and low values of this ration. The curves were then compared to the measured ebb volumes. The ebb delta volume growth curves grow monotonically, reaching an asymptotic condition (indicating a dynamic equilibrium of the ebb shoal). The equilibrium delta volume condition was also examined in this paper.<br />
<br />
:The focus of the paper then turned to examples of delta mining with examples from US entrances and a discussion of considerations of in mining site selection criteria.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Powell, M.A., Thieke, R.J., and Mehta, A.J. 2006. Morphodynamic Relationships for ebb and flood delta volumes at Florida’s tidal entrances. Ocean Dynamics, Volume 56, pp. 295-307.'''<br />
<br />
:This paper reviews relationships between cross sectional area, ebb delta volume, flood delta volume and tidal prism based on data from 67 sandy entrances in Florida. This paper contains a list of these 67 Atlantic and Gulf Coast inlets which include data of latitude, longitude, tidal range, wave energy, flux, grain size, depth, flow area, tidal prism, and ebb and flood volumes. The paper includes discussion of and multiple references to previous work. Powell, Thieke and Mehta plotted prism versus throat area for all inlets examined and found a best-fit equation of the form Ac=6.25x10-5P1.0. They further discussed ebb delta volume and tidal prism noting that the ebb delta volume is determined by tidal currents and waves. A review of the literature is included as part of the discussion on ebb delta volume and tidal prism. Additionally, the authors applied the previously defined equations to the data from the 67 Florida inlets studied. Further the authors identified relationships between flood delta volume and tidal prism and discussed the initial volume growth of the flood delta and perform a best-fit analysis as was done in the ebb delta case. At the terminus of the paper the authors include a case which identifies the effect of the closure of a storm induced breach near Matanzas Inlet, FL.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Sha, L.P. and Van den Berg, J.H., 1993. Variation in Ebb-Tidal Delta Geometry along the Coast of the Neatherlands and the German Bight., In: Journal of Coastal Research, Volume 9, No. 3 (Summer, 1993), pp. 730-746.'''<br />
<br />
:This paper discusses the geometry of ebb tidal deltas and associated hydraulic aspects using examples and data based upon the Dutch-German coastal barrier region. The paper discusses the tidal regime of the North Sea coasts and details the morphology of ebb tidal deltas of the area including historical information. The interaction of offshore and inshore tidal currents at the inlet mouth for ebb tidal deltas of the Wadden Sea and of the South Western Netherlands is discussed as is the importance of the wave versus tidal forces of the inlets in this region as the development of asymmetries and orientation depend upon those two factors. In a figure, the authors then relate the tidal range to the parameter of tidal prism over significant wave height squared (P/Hs)2 and identify a protrusion index which is the ratio of ebb tidal delta protrusion to inlet width and determined that delta protrusion is positively related to the ratio of tidal prism and wave action. This analysis includes data from US inlets, Friesian Island Inlets and Inlets of the SW Netherlands.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Buonaiuto, F.S., and Kraus, N.C., 2003. Limiting Slopes and depths at Ebb-tidal Shoals. Coastal Engineering 48(2003) pp. 51-65.'''<br />
<br />
:In this paper bathymetry at 13 small to medium US inlets were investigated using LIDAR and NOS bathymetric data to quantify limiting bottom slopes of ebb shoals at entrance channels. Buonaiuto and Kraus found a regression relationship between the maximum slope observed on the ebb shoal and significant wave height at the inlet. No correlation was found with limiting slope in their study for tidal prism, wave steepness and combined tidal prism and wave height.<br />
<br />
:At all inlet entrances the steepest slopes were found along shorelines, scour holes, around the seaward margin of the ebb shoals and along lateral walls of navigation channels. Channel slopes ranged from 6 to 8 degrees with stabilized inlets having greater slopes than unstabilized inlets. The authors found that the wave dominated environment has steeper slopes than tidally dominated environments. They also investigated the depth over the crest of the ebb shoal and devised the parameter (HsP)^1/4 relating incident wave height and tidal prism which correlated with the limiting depth over the ebb shoal.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Gaudiano, D.J., and Kana, T.W., 2001. Delta Bypassing in South Carolina Tidal Inlets: Geomorphic Variables and Empirical Predictions for Nine Mesotidal Inlets. Journal of Coastal Research, 17(3), pp. 280-291.'''<br />
<br />
:Nine South Carolina (mixed energy coast) tidal inlets (2 stabilized and 7 not stabilized) were examined to determine the relationship between the volume of sand in the ebb-delta and the individual bypassing shoals, the time interval between bypassing events and the tidal prism. A conceptual model of shoal bypassing was validated. The paper includes a literature review of ebb breaching. Aerial photographs over a 53-58 year time period were digitized and examined to identify bypassing events. The inlets included in the evaluation were: Midway, Pawleys, North, Pierce, Capers, Dewees, Breach, Stono and Captain Sams Inlets. The shoal volumes were determined from the aerial photographs by measuring the plan area of the shoals and then multiplying by an estimated thickness of three meters. This method assumed vertical sides on the shoal so, a scaling factor was introduced to account for the missing volume. Following this analysis, the average annual contribution from the delta to the adjacent beaches was computed from which the local annual sediment transport was calculated.<br />
<br />
:Gaudiano and Kana also included the results of field studies conducted to measure inlet throat cross sections and tidal prisms for seven of the nine inlets. A linear relationship between the average shoal bypassing event interval (I) and the tidal prism (Tp) was found of the form I=0.046Tp+4.56. They were able to identify that larger inlets undergo shoal bypassing events less frequently than smaller inlets and that the variable I is related to the longshore sediment transport rate. Gaudiano and Kana developed a relationship of the form S=6.42Tp+113.4 which describes the relationship between the average bypassing shoal volume (S) and the tidal prism (P). Gaudiano and Kana described qualitatively a point in the quantity of sediment supply to the system which will induce bypassing.<br />
<br />
:Additionally, Gaudiano and Kana plotted the shoal volume/tidal prism data obtained from the seven inlets they examined onto the Walton and Adams (1976) best fit line. Gaudiano and Kana determined that the seven South Carolina Inlets all plotted above the Walton and Adams best-fit line. They postulated that a greater influence of the tides in South Carolina may be the cause of this difference.<br />
<br />
:Gaudiano and Kana identified that the shoal bypassing mechanisms identified by FitzGerald (1978) were present with the South Carolina inlets. They identified inlet migration and spit breaching, periodic landward migration of swash bars and ebb-tidal delta breaching. The paper describes the breaching process at each of the inlets examined.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Vincent, C.L., and Corson, W.D., 1981. Geometry of Tidal Inlets: Empirical Equations. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Division, 107(1), pp. 1-9.'''<br />
<br />
:In this paper 67 inlets were studied along the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf Coasts of the US. The objective of the research was to develop a quantitative database of stability characteristics for the 67 inlets. The authors relied on aerial photographs to measure their parameters. Four stability indices were defined and measured (minimum inlet width, W and channel length, L. Change in the geographical position and orientation of the inlet channel were defined by two indices. The authors determined that stability of an inlet is, to a large degree, determined by inlet size and use. They examined inlet stability utilizing two different method.<br />
<br />
:The first was definition of six relative stability parameters which were measured at these inlets. The second method was to express inlet change in terms of absolute parameters that measure change in terms of magnitude (not normalized by inlet size). The relative parameters include three hydraulic parameters (width, length and a product of the first two). The other three parameters are geographical parameters measuring potential movement in the channel, changes in orientation and a product of the first two. Combinations of the six parameters were used to display various stability characteristics. The inlets were classified as stable or unstable based upon a limit selected by the authors. The absolute parameters related inlet width and channel length changes and changes in position and orientation. <br />
<br />
:The authors conclude that there are a range of inlet instabilities. They found a lack of correlation for inlet response in inlets with regionally homogeneous wave climates which suggests that morphology and hydraulics at specific inlets have a large influence on inlet responses.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Vincent, C.L., Corson, W.D., and Gingrich, K.J., 1991. Stability of Selected United States Tidal Inlets. USACE GITI Report 21. Vicksburg, MS. 167p.'''<br />
<br />
:The motivation of this study was continuation of the USACE funded initiative of promoting safe navigation through tidal entrances. Vincent, Corson and Gingrich studied 51 US tidal inlets through a series of historical aerial photographs to examine tidal inlet stability. The paper includes a discussion of previous research on this topic. Vincent, Corson and Gingrich identify four types of inlet instability: geographic, rotational, meandering and channel stretching. They introduce hydraulic parameters (width and length) and positional parameters (migration) related to inlet stability. Stability indices are then derived. The paper discusses stability analysis based on a photographic analysis performed by the authors of the minimum channel width, channel traces and the channels seaward end point. The authors review inlet variability over time to determine the variability of the 51 inlets in the channel width, length, channel position and throat. Relationships among time variant characteristics are added in table form for all combinations of channel width, length, channel position and throat in combinations of time variant properties (random variation, cyclic short period variation, cyclic long period variation and trend variation). Vincent, Corson and Gingrich discuss stability of the 51 inlets examined utilizing relative hydraulic and relative geographic stability parameters. Regional patterns and trends identified through examination of the 51 inlets are described. Appendices include aerial photograph dates, a listing of stability indices (position orientation, width and length) throughout time for the inlets studied, and plots of temporal variations in channel position and orientation, channel width and traces for all inlets studied.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Carr, E.E., and Kraus, N.C., 2001. Morphologic Asymmetries at Entrances to Tidal Inlets. Report Number ERDC/CHL CHETN-IV-33, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.'''<br />
<br />
:This paper discusses characteristics of selected symmetries in morphological forms at tidal entrances and begins with a listing of potential applications for the research. The sediment bypassing processes and associated morphologic features are identified and discussed. The concept of ebb shoal symmetry/asymmetry is introduced as are the three asymmetry indicators that have been measured at the tidal inlets considered in this study. The asymmetry indicator measurements (WA1, WA2, and L) are utilized to describe the degree of asymmetry in the ebb shoal. WA1 is defined as the distance to the updrift point where the ebb shoal complex attaches to the shoreline. WA2 is defined as the distance where the ebb shoal complex attaches to the shoreline. The variable L is defined as the distance of the offshore extent of the ebb shoal. The measurements of the ebb shoal asymmetry indicators were taken from various aerial photographs and NOS nautical charts. Examples of ebb shoal symmetry and asymmetry from specific inlets are included.<br />
<br />
:Relationships of the form WA1,WA2=aPb, where P is tidal prism, were developed through linear regression analysis. The data was separated by number of jetties at each inlet to determine the coefficients of each case. The seaward extent of the ebb shoal, L, was similarly related to tidal prism, P.<br />
<br />
:Finally, temporal changes in the asymmetry indicators are discussed using a case study of St. Augustine Inlet, FL based upon changes from the 1950’s to 1999. A brief discussion on asymmetries of inlet channels is also included.<br />
<br />
<br />
______________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
Back to [[Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography | Inlet Geomorphic Annotated Bibliography]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography-Structural_Responses&diff=8480Inlet Geomorph Bibliography-Structural Responses2012-02-29T16:03:16Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Tomlinson, R.B. 1991. Processes of Sediment Transport and Ebb Tidal Delta Development at a Jettied Inlet. Proceedings of Coastal Sediments ‘91, pp. 1404-1146.'''<br />
<br />
:The paper begins with a short discussion of sediment transport processes due to anthropogenic modifications to inlets. The paper focuses on the development of the ebb tidal delta following the extension of jetties at the Tweed River entrance in northern New South Wales, Australia. A database of coastal processes of this area (Tomlinson and Foster, 1986) formed the basis of this study. The paper provides background information on the study area including history of the structuring of the inlet and river. A model of the ebb delta morphology was developed for the time period beginning in 1873 prior to the 1902 jetty construction and prior to the 1962 extensions.<br />
<br />
:The impact on the coastal processes and ebb delta development due to the extension of the jetties is discussed. Introduction of the jetties caused the shoal to be established further offshore than previously and with a more symmetrical shape.<br />
<br />
:The authors were able to determine the temporal delta volume beginning in 1978 from bathymetric surveys. Discussion of the changes in sediment deposition and a prediction of the ultimate size of the ebb delta (using Walton and Adams, 1976) is included. The paper concludes with the evaluation that the delta development transitioned from deposition dominated by tidal flow to a state of dynamic equilibrium between the tidal flow and the wave-induced transport across the delta.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Hansen, M. and Knowles, S., Ebb-Tidal Delta Response to Jetty Construction at Three South Carolina Inlets, Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies, Vol. 29. D.G. Aubrey, L. Weishar (Eds.), Hydrodynamics and Sediment Dynamics of Tidal Inlets, Springer-Verlag, New York, Inc. 1988.'''<br />
<br />
:Hansen and Knowles examine three inlets; Charleston Harbor, Murrells Inlet and Little River Inlet in South Carolina. Tidal inlets along South Carolina are considered transitional between wave dominated inlets of the Outer Banks of North Carolina and the tide dominated inlets of southern South Carolina and Georgia (Hubbard, et al., 1977). These South Carolina inlets are within the transitional zone, between wave and tide dominated. These inlets have a semidiurnal tidal range of 1.5 meters, which identifies them as microtidal based on Davies (1964) classification system. All three inlets have rubblemound jetties with parallel ends and weir structures included in their design. The following identifying information was provided about the jetty dimensions.<br />
<br />
:::{| border="1"<br />
! Name !! NE Jetty Extent (m) !! SE Jetty Extent (m) !! Jetty Tips (m) <br />
|-<br />
| Charleston Harbor || 4,700 || 5,800 || 884<br />
|-<br />
| Murrells Inlet || 1,053 || 1,011 || 198<br />
|-<br />
| Little River Inlet || 1,001 || 1,167 || 305<br />
|}<br />
<br />
:The paper discusses the way in which construction of the jetties impacted each of the inlets. At Charleston Harbor Entrance the jetties dissected the ebb tidal shoal and diverted the main ebb flow seaward. Geomorphology remained essentially the same as prior to construction. The swash platform migrated seaward. At Murrells Inlet implementation of the jetties created a landward migration of the swash bars. Bar migration and welding of the shoal south of the jetties occurred within 4 years. A small lagoon was formed downdrift of the south jetty and a new ebb delta began forming seaward of the constructed jetties. Less than 5 years of data was available for Little River Inlet but the data indicated swash bar migration with lagoon formation, similar to the changes seen at Murrells Inlet.<br />
<br />
:The paper indicates that jetty construction at Murrells Inlet and Little River Inlet showed a rapid response, in comparison to Charleston Harbor. The response at the smaller inlets was similar to the response seen in the situation of ebb delta breaching. Confinement of the channel by the jetties created an effect of wave dominance of the ebb deltas in all three cases. Hansen and Knowles identify that at the smaller inlets the channel confinement and shoal migration has, in the time period analyzed, eliminated the typical morphological expressions of ebb deltas.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Pope, J. 1991. Ebb Delta and Shoreline Response to Inlet Stabilization, Examples from the Southeast Atlantic Coast. Proceedings, 1991 Coastal Zone, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, pp. 643-654.'''<br />
<br />
:This paper studies four stabilized natural inlets along an ebb-tide dominated barrier island and the coastal and offshore response to jetty construction. Pope reviewed a combination of historic bathymetric change information, shoreline movement data, geomorphic assessments, wave refraction studies and sediment budgets in order to evaluate the impacts of entrance channel jetties on sediment supply, ebb delta modification and inshore erosion rates. The inlets examined are located on beach ridge barrier islands in an area with high tide ranges and low wave energies where, generally, inlets are formed and maintained by tidal currents and not closed by wave-induced longshore sediment transport.<br />
<br />
:The four inlets examined were: Little River Inlet (NC/SC), Charleston Harbor Entrance (SC), Murrells Inlet (SC), and St. Mary’s Entrance (GA/FL). Murrells Inlet and Little River Inlet have been monitored since construction and have one kilometer long jetties. In comparison the inlets of St. Mary’s and Charleston Harbor are larger with jetties 5 kilometers and 6 kilometers long, respectively. The paper provides details about each inlet and system including histories and details of the studies performed. Based on these observations, Pope developed a conceptual model of inlet evolution in response to stabilization. She concludes that, at these inlets, there is initial thalweg channelization and fillet trapping followed by a fairly rapid collapse of the natural ebb-delta lobe and a steepening of the ebb delta platform. Included in this paper are figures of long term and short term response to jetty construction. It is noted that there appears to be a direct correlation between inlet size and response time of inlet morphology changes.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Galvin, C. 1982. Shoaling with Bypassing for Channels at Tidal Inlets. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE, New York, NY., Vol. II, pp. 1496-1513.'''<br />
<br />
:An initial description of sand bypassing, basic tidal inlet function and cross-section is presented. Focus of the paper is on the rate of shoaling and a technique to estimate duration of project depth (tp) (the minimum depth for practical navigation by the design vessel) at the controlling section in the dredged channel. An illustrative graph is presented of the effect of bypassing on channel shoaling for three dredged channels. Bypassing mechanisms are also described. Examples of practical scenarios (bypassing and shoaling) are presented along with a table of duration of project depth. The example for shoaling presents a permanent shallow draft tidal inlet in a relatively sheltered site on a large bay. In this example case, there are desired improvements (dredging) a local company wishes to make and the question is the shipper only wants to dredge once a year, at the end of the monsoon season, how deep must the channel be dredged given the parameters required. In this case, the equation for the duration of project depth (tp) is used to find the solution. A second example of bypassing is presented in the paper utilizing the same information from the shoaling example the question is asked to determine the maximum reduction in bypassing rate due to the trapping of sand in the dredged channel. The maximum trapping rate right after dredging is calculated to find the solution.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bruun, P., 1995. The Development of Downdrift Erosion. Journal of Coastal Research 11(4), pp. 1242-1257'''<br />
<br />
:Bruun addresses the question: How is erosion, due to loss of sand, distributed downdrift as a function of time? He identifies the length of the downdrift shoreline, the cross-sectional retreat of the erosion cut and the rate of expansion of erosion and its distribution downdrift as functions of time. Previous research related to these areas is included in Bruuns discussion. Bruun defines short term and long term erosion effects where the short term effect is a coastal geomorphological feature and the long distance erosion is a materials deficit feature. Bruun presents examples of downdrift shoreline developments at various global locations with a variety of histories and anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic influences these locations are:<br />
<br />
:* Port Canaveral, FL<br />
:* Port St. Lucie, FL<br />
:* Lagos Nigeria<br />
:* Hirtshals, Denmark<br />
:* Indian River, Delaware<br />
:* The southwest coast of France<br />
:* Nile Delta<br />
:* Skasen Denmark<br />
:* Rollover Pass, TX<br />
:* Cape May Inlet to Cape May Point, NJ<br />
:* Sebastian Inlet, FL<br />
:* Ft. Pierce Inlet, FL<br />
:* South Lake Worth Inlet, FL<br />
:* Iioka Port and Beach, Japan<br />
:* Oarai Port and Beach, Japan<br />
:* Ocean City Inlet, MD<br />
:* Charleston Harbor, SC<br />
<br />
:The short and long term disturbance effects of the erosion is quantified at these inlets and the connection between the short and long term distance development of downdrift erosion is discussed and quantified through example and explanation of models developed by Perlin and Dean (1978). Also discussed is a zero or slowdown area which is an area of near zero erosion which occasionally exists between the areas of short and long distance development.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Inman_Dolan. 1989. The Outer Banks of North Carolina- Budget of Sediment and Inlet Dynamics Along a Migrating Barrier System. Journal of Coastal Research 5(2), pp. 193-237.'''<br />
<br />
:Inman and Dolan discuss the inlets along the Outer Banks of North Carolina and include a focus on Oregon Inlet. The paper discusses the coastal processes along the Hatteras littoral cell and the dynamics of Oregon Inlet and the nearshore sedimentary processes of the outer banks including multiple references in their discussion. They also discuss sea level rise and barrier transgression, sediment transport, and seasonal and long term changes of the barrier islands in the study area.<br />
<br />
:The paper focuses on Oregon inlet, history, inlet dynamics, a discussion of channel cross-sectional area and tidal prism, wind and waves, pathways of sediment transport and sediment volume. Inman and Dolan discuss longshore transport relations and include transport rates along the Hatteras littoral cell in table form. They discuss a sediment budget and its application for the area and develop a continuity model for shoreline change to investigate sediment processes and associated volume fluxes of sand.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Dabees, M.A., and Kraus, N.C., 2008. Cumulative Effects of Channel and Ebb Shoal Dredging on Inlet Evolution in Southwest Florida. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on coastal Engineering, 2008, W.S., 2303-2315.'''<br />
<br />
:Dabees and Kraus utilize a case study for Longboat Pass in southwest Florida to examine natural inlet evolution and changes in the inlet and ebb shoal following inlet navigation improvements. This paper provided a detailed history of the inlet and its processes. The authors relied upon regional modeling of previous authors which extend 100 km along shore along the Gulf of Mexico coastline which included 10 inlets connecting the bays to the Gulf. Modeling consisted of regional hydrodynamics, detailed or local-process of waves, flow, and sediment transport, and long-term morphology change. The authors applied the Inlet reservoir Model (IRM), which calculates sediment transport rates and volume change of identified morphologic features and bypassing rates for an inlet, to Longboat Pass.<br />
<br />
:The IRM assumes that each feature has a maximum (equilibrium) sand-retention capacity that cannot be exceeded. Once the feature has reached its capacity, all additional sediment transport arriving to this feature will bypass to the next feature and so forth until the sediment is bypasses past the inlet. Using the IRM the authors predicted the transport rates of Longboat Pass and calculated ebb shoal volumes and volumes adjacent to the inlet on the upland beaches of Anna Maria Island and Longboat Key. The authors utilized actual measured volume calculations to verify the results. Their intention is to utilize the IRM as an inlet management tool with a general methodology for simulating the evolution of different features and assessing consequences of interruption in sediment transport across inlets.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Stauble, D. K., and Morang, A., 1992. Using Morphology to Determine Net Littoral Drift Directions in Complex Coastal Systems. Coastal Engineering Technical Note, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS. 8p.'''<br />
<br />
:The authors provide guidance in the use of morphologic indicators to determine the net littoral drift direction along coastal areas. They caution making assumptions based on large regional scale indicators for a number of reasons including that transport may be affected by temporal variations.<br />
<br />
:They recommend a methodology for determining a net drift direction at a project site that includes:<br />
:: 1. Office examination of data<br />
:: 2. Field visit with aerial over flight<br />
:: 3. Discussions with specialists<br />
:: 4. Review of wave records<br />
:: 5. Collection of supplemental field data.<br />
<br />
:They discuss longshore drift and provide nine examples of morphologic indicators including diagrams to increase clarity. The nine indicators are:<br />
:: 1. Headland<br />
:: 2. Tidal Inlet or Stream<br />
:: 3. Spit<br />
:: 4. Beach Ridge Headlands<br />
:: 5. Groins<br />
:: 6. Jetties<br />
:: 7. Seawall<br />
:: 8. Shore connected breakwater and<br />
:: 9. Detached breakwater<br />
<br />
:They also discuss natural and/or man-made influences on drift indicators and provide two case studies (Bethune Beach, FL and East Pass, FL).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Dombrowski, M.R., and Mehta, A.J., 1996. Ebb Tidal Delta Evolution of Coastal Inlets. In: Coastal Engineering, pp. 3270-3283.'''<br />
<br />
:Dombrowski and Mehta examined the influence of effects of currents and waves on ebb delta growth rates and developed diagnostic approach. Their initial condition was a new inlet with no delta present. The model calculated combined shear stress (τb) from tidal currents and superimposed waves to evaluate delta accumulation height. The model determined the delta volume when the seafloor reaches an equilibrium elevation due to a balance in shear stresses and the estimate of the time for equilibrium to occur.<br />
<br />
:When the combined shear stress (τb) is smaller than the critical shear stress (τcr) deposition will occur until the shear stresses are balanced τb=τcr , when equilibrium is reached. Dombrowski and Mehta determined a governing equation for ebb delta height variation with time. With model parameters of ebb delta area (AD), suspended sediment concentration (Cs), sediment grain size (D50), deep water wave height and period (H), friction factors fw (due to waves), and fc (due to current), tidal prism and spring tidal range.<br />
<br />
:Illustrations of influence of suspended sediment concentrations, sediment grain size diameters and deep water waves on calculated delta growth rate are presented. The authors discuss the time-evolution of sand volumes of five selected Florida east coast deltas (Jupiter Inlet, S. Lake Worth Inlet, Boca Raton Inlet, Bakers Haulover Inlet, and Sebastian Inlet). They utilized the wave energy to tidal energy ratio, α, and plotted the influence of α on delta growth. They found that, as α increases, ebb delta volume has a tendency to decrease and vice versa. Finally, they evaluated delta volume vs. maximum wave height for Sebastian inlet and found that the delta volume is in a quazi-equilibrium condition due to variations in sea conditions and the sink being not available to accumulate more sand.<br />
<br />
:They found that an increase in the suspended sediment concentration increases the rate of approach to equilibrium, but does not result in a change in the equilibrium volume. On the other hand, a change in sediment size and the deep water wave height affect both the rate of growth and the equilibrium volume. Thus, an increase in the sediment diameter increases the rate of growth due to the dependence of the particle fall velocity on sediment size, and increases the critical shear stress resulting in an increase in the equilibrium volume. An increase in the deep water wave height increases the near-bed orbital velocity at the site of the delta, hence decreases the rate of growth. The equilibrium delta volume likewise decreases.<br />
<br />
:It was also shown that through application of the model to five Florida inlets, there is a dependence between the ebb delta volume and the wave to tidal energy ratio, α. The growth of the delta is determined by the rate at which the sand, supplied by the littoral system, is deposited by the ebb tidal flow. As wave action increases, thus increasing α value, the delta growth rate decreases as wave and current induced bottom shear stress scours sand deposited on the delta. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Byrnes, M. R. and Li, F., 1998. Regional Analysis of Sediment Transport and Dredged Material Dispersal Patterns, Columbia River Mouth, Washington/Oregon, and Adjacent Shores. Applied Coastal Research and Engineering. Mashpee, MA, pp46.'''<br />
<br />
:Byrnes and Li conducted a regional analysis of shoreline and bathymetry change between 1868 and 1994 at the Columbia River entrance to evaluate sediment transport dynamics associated with natural processes and engineering activities. They found that shoreline change data for the periods 1868/74 to 1926 and 1926 to 1950/57 illustrate net shoreline advance throughout the study area. However, significant shoreline retreat zones were found to be present along the northern 5 km of Clatsop Spit (5.6 m/yr) and the northern 17 km of Long Beach Peninsula (3.6 m/yr; 1926 to 1950/57). From 1868/74 to 1950/57, average shoreline change north of the Columbia River entrance was found to be 2.2 m/yr. South of the entrance jetty, and net shoreline advance was documented at 5.5 m/yr.<br />
<br />
:The authors compiled three bathymetry surfaces in order to quantify geomorphic change. The authors were able to identify four distinct depositional trends for the area.<br />
<br />
:: 1) The modern ebb-tidal delta developed as a result of jetty construction<br />
:: 2) The center of deposition for sedimentation on the ebb shoal is to the north of center, and it migrates to the north with time<br />
:: 3) Northward-directed sediment transport from the entrance has resulted in net accretion along the shoreline and on the continental shelf seaward of Long Beach Peninsula; and<br />
:: 4) Erosion south of the south jetty is the result of sediment blocking by the jetty and subsequent transport towards the ebb shoal and onto the continental shelf.<br />
<br />
:The authors utilized the information they obtained in their study to recommend areas for future sediment deposition.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
______________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
Back to [[Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography | Inlet Geomorphic Annotated Bibliography]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography-Structural_Responses&diff=8479Inlet Geomorph Bibliography-Structural Responses2012-02-29T16:01:43Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Tomlinson, R.B. 1991. Processes of Sediment Transport and Ebb Tidal Delta Development at a Jettied Inlet. Proceedings of Coastal Sediments ‘91, pp. 1404-1146.'''<br />
<br />
:The paper begins with a short discussion of sediment transport processes due to anthropogenic modifications to inlets. The paper focuses on the development of the ebb tidal delta following the extension of jetties at the Tweed River entrance in northern New South Wales, Australia. A database of coastal processes of this area (Tomlinson and Foster, 1986) formed the basis of this study. The paper provides background information on the study area including history of the structuring of the inlet and river. A model of the ebb delta morphology was developed for the time period beginning in 1873 prior to the 1902 jetty construction and prior to the 1962 extensions.<br />
<br />
:The impact on the coastal processes and ebb delta development due to the extension of the jetties is discussed. Introduction of the jetties caused the shoal to be established further offshore than previously and with a more symmetrical shape.<br />
<br />
:The authors were able to determine the temporal delta volume beginning in 1978 from bathymetric surveys. Discussion of the changes in sediment deposition and a prediction of the ultimate size of the ebb delta (using Walton and Adams, 1976) is included. The paper concludes with the evaluation that the delta development transitioned from deposition dominated by tidal flow to a state of dynamic equilibrium between the tidal flow and the wave-induced transport across the delta.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Hansen, M. and Knowles, S., Ebb-Tidal Delta Response to Jetty Construction at Three South Carolina Inlets, Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies, Vol. 29. D.G. Aubrey, L. Weishar (Eds.), Hydrodynamics and Sediment Dynamics of Tidal Inlets, Springer-Verlag, New York, Inc. 1988.'''<br />
<br />
:Hansen and Knowles examine three inlets; Charleston Harbor, Murrells Inlet and Little River Inlet in South Carolina. Tidal inlets along South Carolina are considered transitional between wave dominated inlets of the Outer Banks of North Carolina and the tide dominated inlets of southern South Carolina and Georgia (Hubbard, et al., 1977). These South Carolina inlets are within the transitional zone, between wave and tide dominated. These inlets have a semidiurnal tidal range of 1.5 meters, which identifies them as microtidal based on Davies (1964) classification system. All three inlets have rubblemound jetties with parallel ends and weir structures included in their design. The following identifying information was provided about the jetty dimensions.<br />
<br />
<br />
:::{| border="1"<br />
! Name !! NE Jetty Extent (m) !! SE Jetty Extent (m) !! Jetty Tips (m) <br />
|-<br />
| Charleston Harbor || 4,700 || 5,800 || 884<br />
|-<br />
| Murrells Inlet || 1,053 || 1,011 || 198<br />
|-<br />
| Little River Inlet || 1,001 || 1,167 || 305<br />
|}<br />
<br />
:The paper discusses the way in which construction of the jetties impacted each of the inlets. At Charleston Harbor Entrance the jetties dissected the ebb tidal shoal and diverted the main ebb flow seaward. Geomorphology remained essentially the same as prior to construction. The swash platform migrated seaward. At Murrells Inlet implementation of the jetties created a landward migration of the swash bars. Bar migration and welding of the shoal south of the jetties occurred within 4 years. A small lagoon was formed downdrift of the south jetty and a new ebb delta began forming seaward of the constructed jetties. Less than 5 years of data was available for Little River Inlet but the data indicated swash bar migration with lagoon formation, similar to the changes seen at Murrells Inlet.<br />
<br />
:The paper indicates that jetty construction at Murrells Inlet and Little River Inlet showed a rapid response, in comparison to Charleston Harbor. The response at the smaller inlets was similar to the response seen in the situation of ebb delta breaching. Confinement of the channel by the jetties created an effect of wave dominance of the ebb deltas in all three cases. Hansen and Knowles identify that at the smaller inlets the channel confinement and shoal migration has, in the time period analyzed, eliminated the typical morphological expressions of ebb deltas.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Pope, J. 1991. Ebb Delta and Shoreline Response to Inlet Stabilization, Examples from the Southeast Atlantic Coast. Proceedings, 1991 Coastal Zone, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, pp. 643-654.'''<br />
<br />
:This paper studies four stabilized natural inlets along an ebb-tide dominated barrier island and the coastal and offshore response to jetty construction. Pope reviewed a combination of historic bathymetric change information, shoreline movement data, geomorphic assessments, wave refraction studies and sediment budgets in order to evaluate the impacts of entrance channel jetties on sediment supply, ebb delta modification and inshore erosion rates. The inlets examined are located on beach ridge barrier islands in an area with high tide ranges and low wave energies where, generally, inlets are formed and maintained by tidal currents and not closed by wave-induced longshore sediment transport.<br />
<br />
:The four inlets examined were: Little River Inlet (NC/SC), Charleston Harbor Entrance (SC), Murrells Inlet (SC), and St. Mary’s Entrance (GA/FL). Murrells Inlet and Little River Inlet have been monitored since construction and have one kilometer long jetties. In comparison the inlets of St. Mary’s and Charleston Harbor are larger with jetties 5 kilometers and 6 kilometers long, respectively. The paper provides details about each inlet and system including histories and details of the studies performed. Based on these observations, Pope developed a conceptual model of inlet evolution in response to stabilization. She concludes that, at these inlets, there is initial thalweg channelization and fillet trapping followed by a fairly rapid collapse of the natural ebb-delta lobe and a steepening of the ebb delta platform. Included in this paper are figures of long term and short term response to jetty construction. It is noted that there appears to be a direct correlation between inlet size and response time of inlet morphology changes.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Galvin, C. 1982. Shoaling with Bypassing for Channels at Tidal Inlets. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE, New York, NY., Vol. II, pp. 1496-1513.'''<br />
<br />
:An initial description of sand bypassing, basic tidal inlet function and cross-section is presented. Focus of the paper is on the rate of shoaling and a technique to estimate duration of project depth (tp) (the minimum depth for practical navigation by the design vessel) at the controlling section in the dredged channel. An illustrative graph is presented of the effect of bypassing on channel shoaling for three dredged channels. Bypassing mechanisms are also described. Examples of practical scenarios (bypassing and shoaling) are presented along with a table of duration of project depth. The example for shoaling presents a permanent shallow draft tidal inlet in a relatively sheltered site on a large bay. In this example case, there are desired improvements (dredging) a local company wishes to make and the question is the shipper only wants to dredge once a year, at the end of the monsoon season, how deep must the channel be dredged given the parameters required. In this case, the equation for the duration of project depth (tp) is used to find the solution. A second example of bypassing is presented in the paper utilizing the same information from the shoaling example the question is asked to determine the maximum reduction in bypassing rate due to the trapping of sand in the dredged channel. The maximum trapping rate right after dredging is calculated to find the solution.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bruun, P., 1995. The Development of Downdrift Erosion. Journal of Coastal Research 11(4), pp. 1242-1257'''<br />
<br />
:Bruun addresses the question: How is erosion, due to loss of sand, distributed downdrift as a function of time? He identifies the length of the downdrift shoreline, the cross-sectional retreat of the erosion cut and the rate of expansion of erosion and its distribution downdrift as functions of time. Previous research related to these areas is included in Bruuns discussion. Bruun defines short term and long term erosion effects where the short term effect is a coastal geomorphological feature and the long distance erosion is a materials deficit feature. Bruun presents examples of downdrift shoreline developments at various global locations with a variety of histories and anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic influences these locations are:<br />
<br />
· Port Canaveral, FL<br />
· Port St. Lucie, FL<br />
· Lagos Nigeria<br />
· Hirtshals, Denmark<br />
· Indian River, Delaware<br />
· The southwest coast of France<br />
· Nile Delta<br />
· Skasen Denmark<br />
· Rollover Pass, TX<br />
· Cape May Inlet to Cape May Point, NJ<br />
· Sebastian Inlet, FL<br />
· Ft. Pierce Inlet, FL<br />
· South Lake Worth Inlet, FL<br />
· Iioka Port and Beach, Japan<br />
· Oarai Port and Beach, Japan<br />
· Ocean City Inlet, MD<br />
· Charleston Harbor<br />
<br />
:The short and long term disturbance effects of the erosion is quantified at these inlets and the connection between the short and long term distance development of downdrift erosion is discussed and quantified through example and explanation of models developed by Perlin and Dean (1978). Also discussed is a zero or slowdown area which is an area of near zero erosion which occasionally exists between the areas of short and long distance development.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Inman_Dolan. 1989. The Outer Banks of North Carolina- Budget of Sediment and Inlet Dynamics Along a Migrating Barrier System. Journal of Coastal Research 5(2), pp. 193-237.'''<br />
<br />
:Inman and Dolan discuss the inlets along the Outer Banks of North Carolina and include a focus on Oregon Inlet. The paper discusses the coastal processes along the Hatteras littoral cell and the dynamics of Oregon Inlet and the nearshore sedimentary processes of the outer banks including multiple references in their discussion. They also discuss sea level rise and barrier transgression, sediment transport, and seasonal and long term changes of the barrier islands in the study area.<br />
<br />
:The paper focuses on Oregon inlet, history, inlet dynamics, a discussion of channel cross-sectional area and tidal prism, wind and waves, pathways of sediment transport and sediment volume. Inman and Dolan discuss longshore transport relations and include transport rates along the Hatteras littoral cell in table form. They discuss a sediment budget and its application for the area and develop a continuity model for shoreline change to investigate sediment processes and associated volume fluxes of sand.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Dabees, M.A., and Kraus, N.C., 2008. Cumulative Effects of Channel and Ebb Shoal Dredging on Inlet Evolution in Southwest Florida. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on coastal Engineering, 2008, W.S., 2303-2315.'''<br />
<br />
:Dabees and Kraus utilize a case study for Longboat Pass in southwest Florida to examine natural inlet evolution and changes in the inlet and ebb shoal following inlet navigation improvements. This paper provided a detailed history of the inlet and its processes. The authors relied upon regional modeling of previous authors which extend 100 km along shore along the Gulf of Mexico coastline which included 10 inlets connecting the bays to the Gulf. Modeling consisted of regional hydrodynamics, detailed or local-process of waves, flow, and sediment transport, and long-term morphology change. The authors applied the Inlet reservoir Model (IRM), which calculates sediment transport rates and volume change of identified morphologic features and bypassing rates for an inlet, to Longboat Pass.<br />
<br />
:The IRM assumes that each feature has a maximum (equilibrium) sand-retention capacity that cannot be exceeded. Once the feature has reached its capacity, all additional sediment transport arriving to this feature will bypass to the next feature and so forth until the sediment is bypasses past the inlet. Using the IRM the authors predicted the transport rates of Longboat Pass and calculated ebb shoal volumes and volumes adjacent to the inlet on the upland beaches of Anna Maria Island and Longboat Key. The authors utilized actual measured volume calculations to verify the results. Their intention is to utilize the IRM as an inlet management tool with a general methodology for simulating the evolution of different features and assessing consequences of interruption in sediment transport across inlets.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Stauble, D. K., and Morang, A., 1992. Using Morphology to Determine Net Littoral Drift Directions in Complex Coastal Systems. Coastal Engineering Technical Note, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS. 8p.'''<br />
<br />
:The authors provide guidance in the use of morphologic indicators to determine the net littoral drift direction along coastal areas. They caution making assumptions based on large regional scale indicators for a number of reasons including that transport may be affected by temporal variations.<br />
<br />
:They recommend a methodology for determining a net drift direction at a project site that includes:<br />
:: 1. Office examination of data<br />
:: 2. Field visit with aerial over flight<br />
:: 3. Discussions with specialists<br />
:: 4. Review of wave records<br />
:: 5. Collection of supplemental field data.<br />
<br />
:They discuss longshore drift and provide nine examples of morphologic indicators including diagrams to increase clarity. The nine indicators are:<br />
:: 1. Headland<br />
:: 2. Tidal Inlet or Stream<br />
:: 3. Spit<br />
:: 4. Beach Ridge Headlands<br />
:: 5. Groins<br />
:: 6. Jetties<br />
:: 7. Seawall<br />
:: 8. Shore connected breakwater and<br />
:: 9. Detached breakwater<br />
<br />
:They also discuss natural and/or man-made influences on drift indicators and provide two case studies (Bethune Beach, FL and East Pass, FL).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Dombrowski, M.R., and Mehta, A.J., 1996. Ebb Tidal Delta Evolution of Coastal Inlets. In: Coastal Engineering, pp. 3270-3283.'''<br />
<br />
:Dombrowski and Mehta examined the influence of effects of currents and waves on ebb delta growth rates and developed diagnostic approach. Their initial condition was a new inlet with no delta present. The model calculated combined shear stress (τb) from tidal currents and superimposed waves to evaluate delta accumulation height. The model determined the delta volume when the seafloor reaches an equilibrium elevation due to a balance in shear stresses and the estimate of the time for equilibrium to occur.<br />
<br />
:When the combined shear stress (τb) is smaller than the critical shear stress (τcr) deposition will occur until the shear stresses are balanced τb=τcr , when equilibrium is reached. Dombrowski and Mehta determined a governing equation for ebb delta height variation with time. With model parameters of ebb delta area (AD), suspended sediment concentration (Cs), sediment grain size (D50), deep water wave height and period (H), friction factors fw (due to waves), and fc (due to current), tidal prism and spring tidal range.<br />
<br />
:Illustrations of influence of suspended sediment concentrations, sediment grain size diameters and deep water waves on calculated delta growth rate are presented. The authors discuss the time-evolution of sand volumes of five selected Florida east coast deltas (Jupiter Inlet, S. Lake Worth Inlet, Boca Raton Inlet, Bakers Haulover Inlet, and Sebastian Inlet). They utilized the wave energy to tidal energy ratio, α, and plotted the influence of α on delta growth. They found that, as α increases, ebb delta volume has a tendency to decrease and vice versa. Finally, they evaluated delta volume vs. maximum wave height for Sebastian inlet and found that the delta volume is in a quazi-equilibrium condition due to variations in sea conditions and the sink being not available to accumulate more sand.<br />
<br />
:They found that an increase in the suspended sediment concentration increases the rate of approach to equilibrium, but does not result in a change in the equilibrium volume. On the other hand, a change in sediment size and the deep water wave height affect both the rate of growth and the equilibrium volume. Thus, an increase in the sediment diameter increases the rate of growth due to the dependence of the particle fall velocity on sediment size, and increases the critical shear stress resulting in an increase in the equilibrium volume. An increase in the deep water wave height increases the near-bed orbital velocity at the site of the delta, hence decreases the rate of growth. The equilibrium delta volume likewise decreases.<br />
<br />
:It was also shown that through application of the model to five Florida inlets, there is a dependence between the ebb delta volume and the wave to tidal energy ratio, α. The growth of the delta is determined by the rate at which the sand, supplied by the littoral system, is deposited by the ebb tidal flow. As wave action increases, thus increasing α value, the delta growth rate decreases as wave and current induced bottom shear stress scours sand deposited on the delta. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Byrnes, M. R. and Li, F., 1998. Regional Analysis of Sediment Transport and Dredged Material Dispersal Patterns, Columbia River Mouth, Washington/Oregon, and Adjacent Shores. Applied Coastal Research and Engineering. Mashpee, MA, pp46.'''<br />
<br />
:Byrnes and Li conducted a regional analysis of shoreline and bathymetry change between 1868 and 1994 at the Columbia River entrance to evaluate sediment transport dynamics associated with natural processes and engineering activities. They found that shoreline change data for the periods 1868/74 to 1926 and 1926 to 1950/57 illustrate net shoreline advance throughout the study area. However, significant shoreline retreat zones were found to be present along the northern 5 km of Clatsop Spit (5.6 m/yr) and the northern 17 km of Long Beach Peninsula (3.6 m/yr; 1926 to 1950/57). From 1868/74 to 1950/57, average shoreline change north of the Columbia River entrance was found to be 2.2 m/yr. South of the entrance jetty, and net shoreline advance was documented at 5.5 m/yr.<br />
<br />
:The authors compiled three bathymetry surfaces in order to quantify geomorphic change. The authors were able to identify four distinct depositional trends for the area.<br />
<br />
:: 1) The modern ebb-tidal delta developed as a result of jetty construction<br />
:: 2) The center of deposition for sedimentation on the ebb shoal is to the north of center, and it migrates to the north with time<br />
:: 3) Northward-directed sediment transport from the entrance has resulted in net accretion along the shoreline and on the continental shelf seaward of Long Beach Peninsula; and<br />
:: 4) Erosion south of the south jetty is the result of sediment blocking by the jetty and subsequent transport towards the ebb shoal and onto the continental shelf.<br />
<br />
:The authors utilized the information they obtained in their study to recommend areas for future sediment deposition.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
______________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
Back to [[Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography | Inlet Geomorphic Annotated Bibliography]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography-Structural_Responses&diff=8478Inlet Geomorph Bibliography-Structural Responses2012-02-29T16:01:25Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Tomlinson, R.B. 1991. Processes of Sediment Transport and Ebb Tidal Delta Development at a Jettied Inlet. Proceedings of Coastal Sediments ‘91, pp. 1404-1146.'''<br />
<br />
:The paper begins with a short discussion of sediment transport processes due to anthropogenic modifications to inlets. The paper focuses on the development of the ebb tidal delta following the extension of jetties at the Tweed River entrance in northern New South Wales, Australia. A database of coastal processes of this area (Tomlinson and Foster, 1986) formed the basis of this study. The paper provides background information on the study area including history of the structuring of the inlet and river. A model of the ebb delta morphology was developed for the time period beginning in 1873 prior to the 1902 jetty construction and prior to the 1962 extensions.<br />
<br />
:The impact on the coastal processes and ebb delta development due to the extension of the jetties is discussed. Introduction of the jetties caused the shoal to be established further offshore than previously and with a more symmetrical shape.<br />
<br />
:The authors were able to determine the temporal delta volume beginning in 1978 from bathymetric surveys. Discussion of the changes in sediment deposition and a prediction of the ultimate size of the ebb delta (using Walton and Adams, 1976) is included. The paper concludes with the evaluation that the delta development transitioned from deposition dominated by tidal flow to a state of dynamic equilibrium between the tidal flow and the wave-induced transport across the delta.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Hansen, M. and Knowles, S., Ebb-Tidal Delta Response to Jetty Construction at Three South Carolina Inlets, Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies, Vol. 29. D.G. Aubrey, L. Weishar (Eds.), Hydrodynamics and Sediment Dynamics of Tidal Inlets, Springer-Verlag, New York, Inc. 1988.'''<br />
<br />
:Hansen and Knowles examine three inlets; Charleston Harbor, Murrells Inlet and Little River Inlet in South Carolina. Tidal inlets along South Carolina are considered transitional between wave dominated inlets of the Outer Banks of North Carolina and the tide dominated inlets of southern South Carolina and Georgia (Hubbard, et al., 1977). These South Carolina inlets are within the transitional zone, between wave and tide dominated. These inlets have a semidiurnal tidal range of 1.5 meters, which identifies them as microtidal based on Davies (1964) classification system. All three inlets have rubblemound jetties with parallel ends and weir structures included in their design. The following identifying information was provided about the jetty dimensions.<br />
<br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
! Name !! NE Jetty Extent (m) !! SE Jetty Extent (m) !! Jetty Tips (m) <br />
|-<br />
| Charleston Harbor || 4,700 || 5,800 || 884<br />
|-<br />
| Murrells Inlet || 1,053 || 1,011 || 198<br />
|-<br />
| Little River Inlet || 1,001 || 1,167 || 305<br />
|}<br />
<br />
:The paper discusses the way in which construction of the jetties impacted each of the inlets. At Charleston Harbor Entrance the jetties dissected the ebb tidal shoal and diverted the main ebb flow seaward. Geomorphology remained essentially the same as prior to construction. The swash platform migrated seaward. At Murrells Inlet implementation of the jetties created a landward migration of the swash bars. Bar migration and welding of the shoal south of the jetties occurred within 4 years. A small lagoon was formed downdrift of the south jetty and a new ebb delta began forming seaward of the constructed jetties. Less than 5 years of data was available for Little River Inlet but the data indicated swash bar migration with lagoon formation, similar to the changes seen at Murrells Inlet.<br />
<br />
:The paper indicates that jetty construction at Murrells Inlet and Little River Inlet showed a rapid response, in comparison to Charleston Harbor. The response at the smaller inlets was similar to the response seen in the situation of ebb delta breaching. Confinement of the channel by the jetties created an effect of wave dominance of the ebb deltas in all three cases. Hansen and Knowles identify that at the smaller inlets the channel confinement and shoal migration has, in the time period analyzed, eliminated the typical morphological expressions of ebb deltas.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Pope, J. 1991. Ebb Delta and Shoreline Response to Inlet Stabilization, Examples from the Southeast Atlantic Coast. Proceedings, 1991 Coastal Zone, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, pp. 643-654.'''<br />
<br />
:This paper studies four stabilized natural inlets along an ebb-tide dominated barrier island and the coastal and offshore response to jetty construction. Pope reviewed a combination of historic bathymetric change information, shoreline movement data, geomorphic assessments, wave refraction studies and sediment budgets in order to evaluate the impacts of entrance channel jetties on sediment supply, ebb delta modification and inshore erosion rates. The inlets examined are located on beach ridge barrier islands in an area with high tide ranges and low wave energies where, generally, inlets are formed and maintained by tidal currents and not closed by wave-induced longshore sediment transport.<br />
<br />
:The four inlets examined were: Little River Inlet (NC/SC), Charleston Harbor Entrance (SC), Murrells Inlet (SC), and St. Mary’s Entrance (GA/FL). Murrells Inlet and Little River Inlet have been monitored since construction and have one kilometer long jetties. In comparison the inlets of St. Mary’s and Charleston Harbor are larger with jetties 5 kilometers and 6 kilometers long, respectively. The paper provides details about each inlet and system including histories and details of the studies performed. Based on these observations, Pope developed a conceptual model of inlet evolution in response to stabilization. She concludes that, at these inlets, there is initial thalweg channelization and fillet trapping followed by a fairly rapid collapse of the natural ebb-delta lobe and a steepening of the ebb delta platform. Included in this paper are figures of long term and short term response to jetty construction. It is noted that there appears to be a direct correlation between inlet size and response time of inlet morphology changes.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Galvin, C. 1982. Shoaling with Bypassing for Channels at Tidal Inlets. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE, New York, NY., Vol. II, pp. 1496-1513.'''<br />
<br />
:An initial description of sand bypassing, basic tidal inlet function and cross-section is presented. Focus of the paper is on the rate of shoaling and a technique to estimate duration of project depth (tp) (the minimum depth for practical navigation by the design vessel) at the controlling section in the dredged channel. An illustrative graph is presented of the effect of bypassing on channel shoaling for three dredged channels. Bypassing mechanisms are also described. Examples of practical scenarios (bypassing and shoaling) are presented along with a table of duration of project depth. The example for shoaling presents a permanent shallow draft tidal inlet in a relatively sheltered site on a large bay. In this example case, there are desired improvements (dredging) a local company wishes to make and the question is the shipper only wants to dredge once a year, at the end of the monsoon season, how deep must the channel be dredged given the parameters required. In this case, the equation for the duration of project depth (tp) is used to find the solution. A second example of bypassing is presented in the paper utilizing the same information from the shoaling example the question is asked to determine the maximum reduction in bypassing rate due to the trapping of sand in the dredged channel. The maximum trapping rate right after dredging is calculated to find the solution.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bruun, P., 1995. The Development of Downdrift Erosion. Journal of Coastal Research 11(4), pp. 1242-1257'''<br />
<br />
:Bruun addresses the question: How is erosion, due to loss of sand, distributed downdrift as a function of time? He identifies the length of the downdrift shoreline, the cross-sectional retreat of the erosion cut and the rate of expansion of erosion and its distribution downdrift as functions of time. Previous research related to these areas is included in Bruuns discussion. Bruun defines short term and long term erosion effects where the short term effect is a coastal geomorphological feature and the long distance erosion is a materials deficit feature. Bruun presents examples of downdrift shoreline developments at various global locations with a variety of histories and anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic influences these locations are:<br />
<br />
· Port Canaveral, FL<br />
· Port St. Lucie, FL<br />
· Lagos Nigeria<br />
· Hirtshals, Denmark<br />
· Indian River, Delaware<br />
· The southwest coast of France<br />
· Nile Delta<br />
· Skasen Denmark<br />
· Rollover Pass, TX<br />
· Cape May Inlet to Cape May Point, NJ<br />
· Sebastian Inlet, FL<br />
· Ft. Pierce Inlet, FL<br />
· South Lake Worth Inlet, FL<br />
· Iioka Port and Beach, Japan<br />
· Oarai Port and Beach, Japan<br />
· Ocean City Inlet, MD<br />
· Charleston Harbor<br />
<br />
:The short and long term disturbance effects of the erosion is quantified at these inlets and the connection between the short and long term distance development of downdrift erosion is discussed and quantified through example and explanation of models developed by Perlin and Dean (1978). Also discussed is a zero or slowdown area which is an area of near zero erosion which occasionally exists between the areas of short and long distance development.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Inman_Dolan. 1989. The Outer Banks of North Carolina- Budget of Sediment and Inlet Dynamics Along a Migrating Barrier System. Journal of Coastal Research 5(2), pp. 193-237.'''<br />
<br />
:Inman and Dolan discuss the inlets along the Outer Banks of North Carolina and include a focus on Oregon Inlet. The paper discusses the coastal processes along the Hatteras littoral cell and the dynamics of Oregon Inlet and the nearshore sedimentary processes of the outer banks including multiple references in their discussion. They also discuss sea level rise and barrier transgression, sediment transport, and seasonal and long term changes of the barrier islands in the study area.<br />
<br />
:The paper focuses on Oregon inlet, history, inlet dynamics, a discussion of channel cross-sectional area and tidal prism, wind and waves, pathways of sediment transport and sediment volume. Inman and Dolan discuss longshore transport relations and include transport rates along the Hatteras littoral cell in table form. They discuss a sediment budget and its application for the area and develop a continuity model for shoreline change to investigate sediment processes and associated volume fluxes of sand.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Dabees, M.A., and Kraus, N.C., 2008. Cumulative Effects of Channel and Ebb Shoal Dredging on Inlet Evolution in Southwest Florida. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on coastal Engineering, 2008, W.S., 2303-2315.'''<br />
<br />
:Dabees and Kraus utilize a case study for Longboat Pass in southwest Florida to examine natural inlet evolution and changes in the inlet and ebb shoal following inlet navigation improvements. This paper provided a detailed history of the inlet and its processes. The authors relied upon regional modeling of previous authors which extend 100 km along shore along the Gulf of Mexico coastline which included 10 inlets connecting the bays to the Gulf. Modeling consisted of regional hydrodynamics, detailed or local-process of waves, flow, and sediment transport, and long-term morphology change. The authors applied the Inlet reservoir Model (IRM), which calculates sediment transport rates and volume change of identified morphologic features and bypassing rates for an inlet, to Longboat Pass.<br />
<br />
:The IRM assumes that each feature has a maximum (equilibrium) sand-retention capacity that cannot be exceeded. Once the feature has reached its capacity, all additional sediment transport arriving to this feature will bypass to the next feature and so forth until the sediment is bypasses past the inlet. Using the IRM the authors predicted the transport rates of Longboat Pass and calculated ebb shoal volumes and volumes adjacent to the inlet on the upland beaches of Anna Maria Island and Longboat Key. The authors utilized actual measured volume calculations to verify the results. Their intention is to utilize the IRM as an inlet management tool with a general methodology for simulating the evolution of different features and assessing consequences of interruption in sediment transport across inlets.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Stauble, D. K., and Morang, A., 1992. Using Morphology to Determine Net Littoral Drift Directions in Complex Coastal Systems. Coastal Engineering Technical Note, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS. 8p.'''<br />
<br />
:The authors provide guidance in the use of morphologic indicators to determine the net littoral drift direction along coastal areas. They caution making assumptions based on large regional scale indicators for a number of reasons including that transport may be affected by temporal variations.<br />
<br />
:They recommend a methodology for determining a net drift direction at a project site that includes:<br />
:: 1. Office examination of data<br />
:: 2. Field visit with aerial over flight<br />
:: 3. Discussions with specialists<br />
:: 4. Review of wave records<br />
:: 5. Collection of supplemental field data.<br />
<br />
:They discuss longshore drift and provide nine examples of morphologic indicators including diagrams to increase clarity. The nine indicators are:<br />
:: 1. Headland<br />
:: 2. Tidal Inlet or Stream<br />
:: 3. Spit<br />
:: 4. Beach Ridge Headlands<br />
:: 5. Groins<br />
:: 6. Jetties<br />
:: 7. Seawall<br />
:: 8. Shore connected breakwater and<br />
:: 9. Detached breakwater<br />
<br />
:They also discuss natural and/or man-made influences on drift indicators and provide two case studies (Bethune Beach, FL and East Pass, FL).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Dombrowski, M.R., and Mehta, A.J., 1996. Ebb Tidal Delta Evolution of Coastal Inlets. In: Coastal Engineering, pp. 3270-3283.'''<br />
<br />
:Dombrowski and Mehta examined the influence of effects of currents and waves on ebb delta growth rates and developed diagnostic approach. Their initial condition was a new inlet with no delta present. The model calculated combined shear stress (τb) from tidal currents and superimposed waves to evaluate delta accumulation height. The model determined the delta volume when the seafloor reaches an equilibrium elevation due to a balance in shear stresses and the estimate of the time for equilibrium to occur.<br />
<br />
:When the combined shear stress (τb) is smaller than the critical shear stress (τcr) deposition will occur until the shear stresses are balanced τb=τcr , when equilibrium is reached. Dombrowski and Mehta determined a governing equation for ebb delta height variation with time. With model parameters of ebb delta area (AD), suspended sediment concentration (Cs), sediment grain size (D50), deep water wave height and period (H), friction factors fw (due to waves), and fc (due to current), tidal prism and spring tidal range.<br />
<br />
:Illustrations of influence of suspended sediment concentrations, sediment grain size diameters and deep water waves on calculated delta growth rate are presented. The authors discuss the time-evolution of sand volumes of five selected Florida east coast deltas (Jupiter Inlet, S. Lake Worth Inlet, Boca Raton Inlet, Bakers Haulover Inlet, and Sebastian Inlet). They utilized the wave energy to tidal energy ratio, α, and plotted the influence of α on delta growth. They found that, as α increases, ebb delta volume has a tendency to decrease and vice versa. Finally, they evaluated delta volume vs. maximum wave height for Sebastian inlet and found that the delta volume is in a quazi-equilibrium condition due to variations in sea conditions and the sink being not available to accumulate more sand.<br />
<br />
:They found that an increase in the suspended sediment concentration increases the rate of approach to equilibrium, but does not result in a change in the equilibrium volume. On the other hand, a change in sediment size and the deep water wave height affect both the rate of growth and the equilibrium volume. Thus, an increase in the sediment diameter increases the rate of growth due to the dependence of the particle fall velocity on sediment size, and increases the critical shear stress resulting in an increase in the equilibrium volume. An increase in the deep water wave height increases the near-bed orbital velocity at the site of the delta, hence decreases the rate of growth. The equilibrium delta volume likewise decreases.<br />
<br />
:It was also shown that through application of the model to five Florida inlets, there is a dependence between the ebb delta volume and the wave to tidal energy ratio, α. The growth of the delta is determined by the rate at which the sand, supplied by the littoral system, is deposited by the ebb tidal flow. As wave action increases, thus increasing α value, the delta growth rate decreases as wave and current induced bottom shear stress scours sand deposited on the delta. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Byrnes, M. R. and Li, F., 1998. Regional Analysis of Sediment Transport and Dredged Material Dispersal Patterns, Columbia River Mouth, Washington/Oregon, and Adjacent Shores. Applied Coastal Research and Engineering. Mashpee, MA, pp46.'''<br />
<br />
:Byrnes and Li conducted a regional analysis of shoreline and bathymetry change between 1868 and 1994 at the Columbia River entrance to evaluate sediment transport dynamics associated with natural processes and engineering activities. They found that shoreline change data for the periods 1868/74 to 1926 and 1926 to 1950/57 illustrate net shoreline advance throughout the study area. However, significant shoreline retreat zones were found to be present along the northern 5 km of Clatsop Spit (5.6 m/yr) and the northern 17 km of Long Beach Peninsula (3.6 m/yr; 1926 to 1950/57). From 1868/74 to 1950/57, average shoreline change north of the Columbia River entrance was found to be 2.2 m/yr. South of the entrance jetty, and net shoreline advance was documented at 5.5 m/yr.<br />
<br />
:The authors compiled three bathymetry surfaces in order to quantify geomorphic change. The authors were able to identify four distinct depositional trends for the area.<br />
<br />
:: 1) The modern ebb-tidal delta developed as a result of jetty construction<br />
:: 2) The center of deposition for sedimentation on the ebb shoal is to the north of center, and it migrates to the north with time<br />
:: 3) Northward-directed sediment transport from the entrance has resulted in net accretion along the shoreline and on the continental shelf seaward of Long Beach Peninsula; and<br />
:: 4) Erosion south of the south jetty is the result of sediment blocking by the jetty and subsequent transport towards the ebb shoal and onto the continental shelf.<br />
<br />
:The authors utilized the information they obtained in their study to recommend areas for future sediment deposition.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
______________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
Back to [[Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography | Inlet Geomorphic Annotated Bibliography]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography-Structural_Responses&diff=8477Inlet Geomorph Bibliography-Structural Responses2012-02-29T15:59:39Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Tomlinson, R.B. 1991. Processes of Sediment Transport and Ebb Tidal Delta Development at a Jettied Inlet. Proceedings of Coastal Sediments ‘91, pp. 1404-1146.'''<br />
<br />
:The paper begins with a short discussion of sediment transport processes due to anthropogenic modifications to inlets. The paper focuses on the development of the ebb tidal delta following the extension of jetties at the Tweed River entrance in northern New South Wales, Australia. A database of coastal processes of this area (Tomlinson and Foster, 1986) formed the basis of this study. The paper provides background information on the study area including history of the structuring of the inlet and river. A model of the ebb delta morphology was developed for the time period beginning in 1873 prior to the 1902 jetty construction and prior to the 1962 extensions.<br />
<br />
:The impact on the coastal processes and ebb delta development due to the extension of the jetties is discussed. Introduction of the jetties caused the shoal to be established further offshore than previously and with a more symmetrical shape.<br />
<br />
:The authors were able to determine the temporal delta volume beginning in 1978 from bathymetric surveys. Discussion of the changes in sediment deposition and a prediction of the ultimate size of the ebb delta (using Walton and Adams, 1976) is included. The paper concludes with the evaluation that the delta development transitioned from deposition dominated by tidal flow to a state of dynamic equilibrium between the tidal flow and the wave-induced transport across the delta.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Hansen, M. and Knowles, S., Ebb-Tidal Delta Response to Jetty Construction at Three South Carolina Inlets, Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies, Vol. 29. D.G. Aubrey, L. Weishar (Eds.), Hydrodynamics and Sediment Dynamics of Tidal Inlets, Springer-Verlag, New York, Inc. 1988.'''<br />
<br />
:Hansen and Knowles examine three inlets; Charleston Harbor, Murrells Inlet and Little River Inlet in South Carolina. Tidal inlets along South Carolina are considered transitional between wave dominated inlets of the Outer Banks of North Carolina and the tide dominated inlets of southern South Carolina and Georgia (Hubbard, et al., 1977). These South Carolina inlets are within the transitional zone, between wave and tide dominated. These inlets have a semidiurnal tidal range of 1.5 meters, which identifies them as microtidal based on Davies (1964) classification system. All three inlets have rubblemound jetties with parallel ends and weir structures included in their design. The following identifying information was provided about the jetty dimensions.<br />
<br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
! Parameter !! Value<br />
|-<br />
| Name || NE Jetty Extent (m) || SE Jetty Extent (m) || Jetty Tips (m)<br />
|-<br />
| Charleston Harbor || 4,700 || 5,800 || 884<br />
|-<br />
| Murrells Inlet || 1,053 || 1,011 || 198<br />
|-<br />
| Little River Inlet || 1,001 || 1,167 || 305<br />
|}<br />
<br />
:The paper discusses the way in which construction of the jetties impacted each of the inlets. At Charleston Harbor Entrance the jetties dissected the ebb tidal shoal and diverted the main ebb flow seaward. Geomorphology remained essentially the same as prior to construction. The swash platform migrated seaward. At Murrells Inlet implementation of the jetties created a landward migration of the swash bars. Bar migration and welding of the shoal south of the jetties occurred within 4 years. A small lagoon was formed downdrift of the south jetty and a new ebb delta began forming seaward of the constructed jetties. Less than 5 years of data was available for Little River Inlet but the data indicated swash bar migration with lagoon formation, similar to the changes seen at Murrells Inlet.<br />
<br />
:The paper indicates that jetty construction at Murrells Inlet and Little River Inlet showed a rapid response, in comparison to Charleston Harbor. The response at the smaller inlets was similar to the response seen in the situation of ebb delta breaching. Confinement of the channel by the jetties created an effect of wave dominance of the ebb deltas in all three cases. Hansen and Knowles identify that at the smaller inlets the channel confinement and shoal migration has, in the time period analyzed, eliminated the typical morphological expressions of ebb deltas.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Pope, J. 1991. Ebb Delta and Shoreline Response to Inlet Stabilization, Examples from the Southeast Atlantic Coast. Proceedings, 1991 Coastal Zone, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, pp. 643-654.'''<br />
<br />
:This paper studies four stabilized natural inlets along an ebb-tide dominated barrier island and the coastal and offshore response to jetty construction. Pope reviewed a combination of historic bathymetric change information, shoreline movement data, geomorphic assessments, wave refraction studies and sediment budgets in order to evaluate the impacts of entrance channel jetties on sediment supply, ebb delta modification and inshore erosion rates. The inlets examined are located on beach ridge barrier islands in an area with high tide ranges and low wave energies where, generally, inlets are formed and maintained by tidal currents and not closed by wave-induced longshore sediment transport.<br />
<br />
:The four inlets examined were: Little River Inlet (NC/SC), Charleston Harbor Entrance (SC), Murrells Inlet (SC), and St. Mary’s Entrance (GA/FL). Murrells Inlet and Little River Inlet have been monitored since construction and have one kilometer long jetties. In comparison the inlets of St. Mary’s and Charleston Harbor are larger with jetties 5 kilometers and 6 kilometers long, respectively. The paper provides details about each inlet and system including histories and details of the studies performed. Based on these observations, Pope developed a conceptual model of inlet evolution in response to stabilization. She concludes that, at these inlets, there is initial thalweg channelization and fillet trapping followed by a fairly rapid collapse of the natural ebb-delta lobe and a steepening of the ebb delta platform. Included in this paper are figures of long term and short term response to jetty construction. It is noted that there appears to be a direct correlation between inlet size and response time of inlet morphology changes.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Galvin, C. 1982. Shoaling with Bypassing for Channels at Tidal Inlets. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE, New York, NY., Vol. II, pp. 1496-1513.'''<br />
<br />
:An initial description of sand bypassing, basic tidal inlet function and cross-section is presented. Focus of the paper is on the rate of shoaling and a technique to estimate duration of project depth (tp) (the minimum depth for practical navigation by the design vessel) at the controlling section in the dredged channel. An illustrative graph is presented of the effect of bypassing on channel shoaling for three dredged channels. Bypassing mechanisms are also described. Examples of practical scenarios (bypassing and shoaling) are presented along with a table of duration of project depth. The example for shoaling presents a permanent shallow draft tidal inlet in a relatively sheltered site on a large bay. In this example case, there are desired improvements (dredging) a local company wishes to make and the question is the shipper only wants to dredge once a year, at the end of the monsoon season, how deep must the channel be dredged given the parameters required. In this case, the equation for the duration of project depth (tp) is used to find the solution. A second example of bypassing is presented in the paper utilizing the same information from the shoaling example the question is asked to determine the maximum reduction in bypassing rate due to the trapping of sand in the dredged channel. The maximum trapping rate right after dredging is calculated to find the solution.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bruun, P., 1995. The Development of Downdrift Erosion. Journal of Coastal Research 11(4), pp. 1242-1257'''<br />
<br />
:Bruun addresses the question: How is erosion, due to loss of sand, distributed downdrift as a function of time? He identifies the length of the downdrift shoreline, the cross-sectional retreat of the erosion cut and the rate of expansion of erosion and its distribution downdrift as functions of time. Previous research related to these areas is included in Bruuns discussion. Bruun defines short term and long term erosion effects where the short term effect is a coastal geomorphological feature and the long distance erosion is a materials deficit feature. Bruun presents examples of downdrift shoreline developments at various global locations with a variety of histories and anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic influences these locations are:<br />
<br />
· Port Canaveral, FL<br />
· Port St. Lucie, FL<br />
· Lagos Nigeria<br />
· Hirtshals, Denmark<br />
· Indian River, Delaware<br />
· The southwest coast of France<br />
· Nile Delta<br />
· Skasen Denmark<br />
· Rollover Pass, TX<br />
· Cape May Inlet to Cape May Point, NJ<br />
· Sebastian Inlet, FL<br />
· Ft. Pierce Inlet, FL<br />
· South Lake Worth Inlet, FL<br />
· Iioka Port and Beach, Japan<br />
· Oarai Port and Beach, Japan<br />
· Ocean City Inlet, MD<br />
· Charleston Harbor<br />
<br />
:The short and long term disturbance effects of the erosion is quantified at these inlets and the connection between the short and long term distance development of downdrift erosion is discussed and quantified through example and explanation of models developed by Perlin and Dean (1978). Also discussed is a zero or slowdown area which is an area of near zero erosion which occasionally exists between the areas of short and long distance development.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Inman_Dolan. 1989. The Outer Banks of North Carolina- Budget of Sediment and Inlet Dynamics Along a Migrating Barrier System. Journal of Coastal Research 5(2), pp. 193-237.'''<br />
<br />
:Inman and Dolan discuss the inlets along the Outer Banks of North Carolina and include a focus on Oregon Inlet. The paper discusses the coastal processes along the Hatteras littoral cell and the dynamics of Oregon Inlet and the nearshore sedimentary processes of the outer banks including multiple references in their discussion. They also discuss sea level rise and barrier transgression, sediment transport, and seasonal and long term changes of the barrier islands in the study area.<br />
<br />
:The paper focuses on Oregon inlet, history, inlet dynamics, a discussion of channel cross-sectional area and tidal prism, wind and waves, pathways of sediment transport and sediment volume. Inman and Dolan discuss longshore transport relations and include transport rates along the Hatteras littoral cell in table form. They discuss a sediment budget and its application for the area and develop a continuity model for shoreline change to investigate sediment processes and associated volume fluxes of sand.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Dabees, M.A., and Kraus, N.C., 2008. Cumulative Effects of Channel and Ebb Shoal Dredging on Inlet Evolution in Southwest Florida. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on coastal Engineering, 2008, W.S., 2303-2315.'''<br />
<br />
:Dabees and Kraus utilize a case study for Longboat Pass in southwest Florida to examine natural inlet evolution and changes in the inlet and ebb shoal following inlet navigation improvements. This paper provided a detailed history of the inlet and its processes. The authors relied upon regional modeling of previous authors which extend 100 km along shore along the Gulf of Mexico coastline which included 10 inlets connecting the bays to the Gulf. Modeling consisted of regional hydrodynamics, detailed or local-process of waves, flow, and sediment transport, and long-term morphology change. The authors applied the Inlet reservoir Model (IRM), which calculates sediment transport rates and volume change of identified morphologic features and bypassing rates for an inlet, to Longboat Pass.<br />
<br />
:The IRM assumes that each feature has a maximum (equilibrium) sand-retention capacity that cannot be exceeded. Once the feature has reached its capacity, all additional sediment transport arriving to this feature will bypass to the next feature and so forth until the sediment is bypasses past the inlet. Using the IRM the authors predicted the transport rates of Longboat Pass and calculated ebb shoal volumes and volumes adjacent to the inlet on the upland beaches of Anna Maria Island and Longboat Key. The authors utilized actual measured volume calculations to verify the results. Their intention is to utilize the IRM as an inlet management tool with a general methodology for simulating the evolution of different features and assessing consequences of interruption in sediment transport across inlets.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Stauble, D. K., and Morang, A., 1992. Using Morphology to Determine Net Littoral Drift Directions in Complex Coastal Systems. Coastal Engineering Technical Note, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS. 8p.'''<br />
<br />
:The authors provide guidance in the use of morphologic indicators to determine the net littoral drift direction along coastal areas. They caution making assumptions based on large regional scale indicators for a number of reasons including that transport may be affected by temporal variations.<br />
<br />
:They recommend a methodology for determining a net drift direction at a project site that includes:<br />
:: 1. Office examination of data<br />
:: 2. Field visit with aerial over flight<br />
:: 3. Discussions with specialists<br />
:: 4. Review of wave records<br />
:: 5. Collection of supplemental field data.<br />
<br />
:They discuss longshore drift and provide nine examples of morphologic indicators including diagrams to increase clarity. The nine indicators are:<br />
:: 1. Headland<br />
:: 2. Tidal Inlet or Stream<br />
:: 3. Spit<br />
:: 4. Beach Ridge Headlands<br />
:: 5. Groins<br />
:: 6. Jetties<br />
:: 7. Seawall<br />
:: 8. Shore connected breakwater and<br />
:: 9. Detached breakwater<br />
<br />
:They also discuss natural and/or man-made influences on drift indicators and provide two case studies (Bethune Beach, FL and East Pass, FL).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Dombrowski, M.R., and Mehta, A.J., 1996. Ebb Tidal Delta Evolution of Coastal Inlets. In: Coastal Engineering, pp. 3270-3283.'''<br />
<br />
:Dombrowski and Mehta examined the influence of effects of currents and waves on ebb delta growth rates and developed diagnostic approach. Their initial condition was a new inlet with no delta present. The model calculated combined shear stress (τb) from tidal currents and superimposed waves to evaluate delta accumulation height. The model determined the delta volume when the seafloor reaches an equilibrium elevation due to a balance in shear stresses and the estimate of the time for equilibrium to occur.<br />
<br />
:When the combined shear stress (τb) is smaller than the critical shear stress (τcr) deposition will occur until the shear stresses are balanced τb=τcr , when equilibrium is reached. Dombrowski and Mehta determined a governing equation for ebb delta height variation with time. With model parameters of ebb delta area (AD), suspended sediment concentration (Cs), sediment grain size (D50), deep water wave height and period (H), friction factors fw (due to waves), and fc (due to current), tidal prism and spring tidal range.<br />
<br />
:Illustrations of influence of suspended sediment concentrations, sediment grain size diameters and deep water waves on calculated delta growth rate are presented. The authors discuss the time-evolution of sand volumes of five selected Florida east coast deltas (Jupiter Inlet, S. Lake Worth Inlet, Boca Raton Inlet, Bakers Haulover Inlet, and Sebastian Inlet). They utilized the wave energy to tidal energy ratio, α, and plotted the influence of α on delta growth. They found that, as α increases, ebb delta volume has a tendency to decrease and vice versa. Finally, they evaluated delta volume vs. maximum wave height for Sebastian inlet and found that the delta volume is in a quazi-equilibrium condition due to variations in sea conditions and the sink being not available to accumulate more sand.<br />
<br />
:They found that an increase in the suspended sediment concentration increases the rate of approach to equilibrium, but does not result in a change in the equilibrium volume. On the other hand, a change in sediment size and the deep water wave height affect both the rate of growth and the equilibrium volume. Thus, an increase in the sediment diameter increases the rate of growth due to the dependence of the particle fall velocity on sediment size, and increases the critical shear stress resulting in an increase in the equilibrium volume. An increase in the deep water wave height increases the near-bed orbital velocity at the site of the delta, hence decreases the rate of growth. The equilibrium delta volume likewise decreases.<br />
<br />
:It was also shown that through application of the model to five Florida inlets, there is a dependence between the ebb delta volume and the wave to tidal energy ratio, α. The growth of the delta is determined by the rate at which the sand, supplied by the littoral system, is deposited by the ebb tidal flow. As wave action increases, thus increasing α value, the delta growth rate decreases as wave and current induced bottom shear stress scours sand deposited on the delta. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Byrnes, M. R. and Li, F., 1998. Regional Analysis of Sediment Transport and Dredged Material Dispersal Patterns, Columbia River Mouth, Washington/Oregon, and Adjacent Shores. Applied Coastal Research and Engineering. Mashpee, MA, pp46.'''<br />
<br />
:Byrnes and Li conducted a regional analysis of shoreline and bathymetry change between 1868 and 1994 at the Columbia River entrance to evaluate sediment transport dynamics associated with natural processes and engineering activities. They found that shoreline change data for the periods 1868/74 to 1926 and 1926 to 1950/57 illustrate net shoreline advance throughout the study area. However, significant shoreline retreat zones were found to be present along the northern 5 km of Clatsop Spit (5.6 m/yr) and the northern 17 km of Long Beach Peninsula (3.6 m/yr; 1926 to 1950/57). From 1868/74 to 1950/57, average shoreline change north of the Columbia River entrance was found to be 2.2 m/yr. South of the entrance jetty, and net shoreline advance was documented at 5.5 m/yr.<br />
<br />
:The authors compiled three bathymetry surfaces in order to quantify geomorphic change. The authors were able to identify four distinct depositional trends for the area.<br />
<br />
:: 1) The modern ebb-tidal delta developed as a result of jetty construction<br />
:: 2) The center of deposition for sedimentation on the ebb shoal is to the north of center, and it migrates to the north with time<br />
:: 3) Northward-directed sediment transport from the entrance has resulted in net accretion along the shoreline and on the continental shelf seaward of Long Beach Peninsula; and<br />
:: 4) Erosion south of the south jetty is the result of sediment blocking by the jetty and subsequent transport towards the ebb shoal and onto the continental shelf.<br />
<br />
:The authors utilized the information they obtained in their study to recommend areas for future sediment deposition.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
______________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
Back to [[Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography | Inlet Geomorphic Annotated Bibliography]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography-Structural_Responses&diff=8476Inlet Geomorph Bibliography-Structural Responses2012-02-29T15:56:17Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''Tomlinson, R.B. 1991. Processes of Sediment Transport and Ebb Tidal Delta Development at a Jettied Inlet. Proceedings of Coastal Sediments ‘91, pp. 1404-1146.'''<br />
<br />
:The paper begins with a short discussion of sediment transport processes due to anthropogenic modifications to inlets. The paper focuses on the development of the ebb tidal delta following the extension of jetties at the Tweed River entrance in northern New South Wales, Australia. A database of coastal processes of this area (Tomlinson and Foster, 1986) formed the basis of this study. The paper provides background information on the study area including history of the structuring of the inlet and river. A model of the ebb delta morphology was developed for the time period beginning in 1873 prior to the 1902 jetty construction and prior to the 1962 extensions.<br />
<br />
:The impact on the coastal processes and ebb delta development due to the extension of the jetties is discussed. Introduction of the jetties caused the shoal to be established further offshore than previously and with a more symmetrical shape.<br />
<br />
:The authors were able to determine the temporal delta volume beginning in 1978 from bathymetric surveys. Discussion of the changes in sediment deposition and a prediction of the ultimate size of the ebb delta (using Walton and Adams, 1976) is included. The paper concludes with the evaluation that the delta development transitioned from deposition dominated by tidal flow to a state of dynamic equilibrium between the tidal flow and the wave-induced transport across the delta.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Hansen, M. and Knowles, S., Ebb-Tidal Delta Response to Jetty Construction at Three South Carolina Inlets, Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies, Vol. 29. D.G. Aubrey, L. Weishar (Eds.), Hydrodynamics and Sediment Dynamics of Tidal Inlets, Springer-Verlag, New York, Inc. 1988.'''<br />
<br />
:Hansen and Knowles examine three inlets; Charleston Harbor, Murrells Inlet and Little River Inlet in South Carolina. Tidal inlets along South Carolina are considered transitional between wave dominated inlets of the Outer Banks of North Carolina and the tide dominated inlets of southern South Carolina and Georgia (Hubbard, et al., 1977). These South Carolina inlets are within the transitional zone, between wave and tide dominated. These inlets have a semidiurnal tidal range of 1.5 meters, which identifies them as microtidal based on Davies (1964) classification system. All three inlets have rubblemound jetties with parallel ends and weir structures included in their design. The following identifying information was provided about the jetty dimensions.<br />
<br />
Name<br />
<br />
NE Jetty Extent (m)<br />
<br />
SE Jetty Extent (m)<br />
<br />
Jetty Tips (m)<br />
<br />
Charleston Harbor<br />
<br />
4,700<br />
<br />
5,800<br />
<br />
884<br />
<br />
Murrells Inlet<br />
<br />
1,053<br />
<br />
1,011<br />
<br />
198<br />
<br />
Little River Inlet<br />
<br />
1,001<br />
<br />
1,167<br />
<br />
305<br />
<br />
:The paper discusses the way in which construction of the jetties impacted each of the inlets. At Charleston Harbor Entrance the jetties dissected the ebb tidal shoal and diverted the main ebb flow seaward. Geomorphology remained essentially the same as prior to construction. The swash platform migrated seaward. At Murrells Inlet implementation of the jetties created a landward migration of the swash bars. Bar migration and welding of the shoal south of the jetties occurred within 4 years. A small lagoon was formed downdrift of the south jetty and a new ebb delta began forming seaward of the constructed jetties. Less than 5 years of data was available for Little River Inlet but the data indicated swash bar migration with lagoon formation, similar to the changes seen at Murrells Inlet.<br />
<br />
:The paper indicates that jetty construction at Murrells Inlet and Little River Inlet showed a rapid response, in comparison to Charleston Harbor. The response at the smaller inlets was similar to the response seen in the situation of ebb delta breaching. Confinement of the channel by the jetties created an effect of wave dominance of the ebb deltas in all three cases. Hansen and Knowles identify that at the smaller inlets the channel confinement and shoal migration has, in the time period analyzed, eliminated the typical morphological expressions of ebb deltas.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Pope, J. 1991. Ebb Delta and Shoreline Response to Inlet Stabilization, Examples from the Southeast Atlantic Coast. Proceedings, 1991 Coastal Zone, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, pp. 643-654.'''<br />
<br />
:This paper studies four stabilized natural inlets along an ebb-tide dominated barrier island and the coastal and offshore response to jetty construction. Pope reviewed a combination of historic bathymetric change information, shoreline movement data, geomorphic assessments, wave refraction studies and sediment budgets in order to evaluate the impacts of entrance channel jetties on sediment supply, ebb delta modification and inshore erosion rates. The inlets examined are located on beach ridge barrier islands in an area with high tide ranges and low wave energies where, generally, inlets are formed and maintained by tidal currents and not closed by wave-induced longshore sediment transport.<br />
<br />
:The four inlets examined were: Little River Inlet (NC/SC), Charleston Harbor Entrance (SC), Murrells Inlet (SC), and St. Mary’s Entrance (GA/FL). Murrells Inlet and Little River Inlet have been monitored since construction and have one kilometer long jetties. In comparison the inlets of St. Mary’s and Charleston Harbor are larger with jetties 5 kilometers and 6 kilometers long, respectively. The paper provides details about each inlet and system including histories and details of the studies performed. Based on these observations, Pope developed a conceptual model of inlet evolution in response to stabilization. She concludes that, at these inlets, there is initial thalweg channelization and fillet trapping followed by a fairly rapid collapse of the natural ebb-delta lobe and a steepening of the ebb delta platform. Included in this paper are figures of long term and short term response to jetty construction. It is noted that there appears to be a direct correlation between inlet size and response time of inlet morphology changes.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Galvin, C. 1982. Shoaling with Bypassing for Channels at Tidal Inlets. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE, New York, NY., Vol. II, pp. 1496-1513.'''<br />
<br />
:An initial description of sand bypassing, basic tidal inlet function and cross-section is presented. Focus of the paper is on the rate of shoaling and a technique to estimate duration of project depth (tp) (the minimum depth for practical navigation by the design vessel) at the controlling section in the dredged channel. An illustrative graph is presented of the effect of bypassing on channel shoaling for three dredged channels. Bypassing mechanisms are also described. Examples of practical scenarios (bypassing and shoaling) are presented along with a table of duration of project depth. The example for shoaling presents a permanent shallow draft tidal inlet in a relatively sheltered site on a large bay. In this example case, there are desired improvements (dredging) a local company wishes to make and the question is the shipper only wants to dredge once a year, at the end of the monsoon season, how deep must the channel be dredged given the parameters required. In this case, the equation for the duration of project depth (tp) is used to find the solution. A second example of bypassing is presented in the paper utilizing the same information from the shoaling example the question is asked to determine the maximum reduction in bypassing rate due to the trapping of sand in the dredged channel. The maximum trapping rate right after dredging is calculated to find the solution.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bruun, P., 1995. The Development of Downdrift Erosion. Journal of Coastal Research 11(4), pp. 1242-1257'''<br />
<br />
:Bruun addresses the question: How is erosion, due to loss of sand, distributed downdrift as a function of time? He identifies the length of the downdrift shoreline, the cross-sectional retreat of the erosion cut and the rate of expansion of erosion and its distribution downdrift as functions of time. Previous research related to these areas is included in Bruuns discussion. Bruun defines short term and long term erosion effects where the short term effect is a coastal geomorphological feature and the long distance erosion is a materials deficit feature. Bruun presents examples of downdrift shoreline developments at various global locations with a variety of histories and anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic influences these locations are:<br />
<br />
· Port Canaveral, FL<br />
· Port St. Lucie, FL<br />
· Lagos Nigeria<br />
· Hirtshals, Denmark<br />
· Indian River, Delaware<br />
· The southwest coast of France<br />
· Nile Delta<br />
· Skasen Denmark<br />
· Rollover Pass, TX<br />
· Cape May Inlet to Cape May Point, NJ<br />
· Sebastian Inlet, FL<br />
· Ft. Pierce Inlet, FL<br />
· South Lake Worth Inlet, FL<br />
· Iioka Port and Beach, Japan<br />
· Oarai Port and Beach, Japan<br />
· Ocean City Inlet, MD<br />
· Charleston Harbor<br />
<br />
:The short and long term disturbance effects of the erosion is quantified at these inlets and the connection between the short and long term distance development of downdrift erosion is discussed and quantified through example and explanation of models developed by Perlin and Dean (1978). Also discussed is a zero or slowdown area which is an area of near zero erosion which occasionally exists between the areas of short and long distance development.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Inman_Dolan. 1989. The Outer Banks of North Carolina- Budget of Sediment and Inlet Dynamics Along a Migrating Barrier System. Journal of Coastal Research 5(2), pp. 193-237.'''<br />
<br />
:Inman and Dolan discuss the inlets along the Outer Banks of North Carolina and include a focus on Oregon Inlet. The paper discusses the coastal processes along the Hatteras littoral cell and the dynamics of Oregon Inlet and the nearshore sedimentary processes of the outer banks including multiple references in their discussion. They also discuss sea level rise and barrier transgression, sediment transport, and seasonal and long term changes of the barrier islands in the study area.<br />
<br />
:The paper focuses on Oregon inlet, history, inlet dynamics, a discussion of channel cross-sectional area and tidal prism, wind and waves, pathways of sediment transport and sediment volume. Inman and Dolan discuss longshore transport relations and include transport rates along the Hatteras littoral cell in table form. They discuss a sediment budget and its application for the area and develop a continuity model for shoreline change to investigate sediment processes and associated volume fluxes of sand.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Dabees, M.A., and Kraus, N.C., 2008. Cumulative Effects of Channel and Ebb Shoal Dredging on Inlet Evolution in Southwest Florida. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on coastal Engineering, 2008, W.S., 2303-2315.'''<br />
<br />
:Dabees and Kraus utilize a case study for Longboat Pass in southwest Florida to examine natural inlet evolution and changes in the inlet and ebb shoal following inlet navigation improvements. This paper provided a detailed history of the inlet and its processes. The authors relied upon regional modeling of previous authors which extend 100 km along shore along the Gulf of Mexico coastline which included 10 inlets connecting the bays to the Gulf. Modeling consisted of regional hydrodynamics, detailed or local-process of waves, flow, and sediment transport, and long-term morphology change. The authors applied the Inlet reservoir Model (IRM), which calculates sediment transport rates and volume change of identified morphologic features and bypassing rates for an inlet, to Longboat Pass.<br />
<br />
:The IRM assumes that each feature has a maximum (equilibrium) sand-retention capacity that cannot be exceeded. Once the feature has reached its capacity, all additional sediment transport arriving to this feature will bypass to the next feature and so forth until the sediment is bypasses past the inlet. Using the IRM the authors predicted the transport rates of Longboat Pass and calculated ebb shoal volumes and volumes adjacent to the inlet on the upland beaches of Anna Maria Island and Longboat Key. The authors utilized actual measured volume calculations to verify the results. Their intention is to utilize the IRM as an inlet management tool with a general methodology for simulating the evolution of different features and assessing consequences of interruption in sediment transport across inlets.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Stauble, D. K., and Morang, A., 1992. Using Morphology to Determine Net Littoral Drift Directions in Complex Coastal Systems. Coastal Engineering Technical Note, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS. 8p.'''<br />
<br />
:The authors provide guidance in the use of morphologic indicators to determine the net littoral drift direction along coastal areas. They caution making assumptions based on large regional scale indicators for a number of reasons including that transport may be affected by temporal variations.<br />
<br />
:They recommend a methodology for determining a net drift direction at a project site that includes:<br />
:: 1. Office examination of data<br />
:: 2. Field visit with aerial over flight<br />
:: 3. Discussions with specialists<br />
:: 4. Review of wave records<br />
:: 5. Collection of supplemental field data.<br />
<br />
:They discuss longshore drift and provide nine examples of morphologic indicators including diagrams to increase clarity. The nine indicators are:<br />
:: 1. Headland<br />
:: 2. Tidal Inlet or Stream<br />
:: 3. Spit<br />
:: 4. Beach Ridge Headlands<br />
:: 5. Groins<br />
:: 6. Jetties<br />
:: 7. Seawall<br />
:: 8. Shore connected breakwater and<br />
:: 9. Detached breakwater<br />
<br />
:They also discuss natural and/or man-made influences on drift indicators and provide two case studies (Bethune Beach, FL and East Pass, FL).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Dombrowski, M.R., and Mehta, A.J., 1996. Ebb Tidal Delta Evolution of Coastal Inlets. In: Coastal Engineering, pp. 3270-3283.'''<br />
<br />
:Dombrowski and Mehta examined the influence of effects of currents and waves on ebb delta growth rates and developed diagnostic approach. Their initial condition was a new inlet with no delta present. The model calculated combined shear stress (τb) from tidal currents and superimposed waves to evaluate delta accumulation height. The model determined the delta volume when the seafloor reaches an equilibrium elevation due to a balance in shear stresses and the estimate of the time for equilibrium to occur.<br />
<br />
:When the combined shear stress (τb) is smaller than the critical shear stress (τcr) deposition will occur until the shear stresses are balanced τb=τcr , when equilibrium is reached. Dombrowski and Mehta determined a governing equation for ebb delta height variation with time. With model parameters of ebb delta area (AD), suspended sediment concentration (Cs), sediment grain size (D50), deep water wave height and period (H), friction factors fw (due to waves), and fc (due to current), tidal prism and spring tidal range.<br />
<br />
:Illustrations of influence of suspended sediment concentrations, sediment grain size diameters and deep water waves on calculated delta growth rate are presented. The authors discuss the time-evolution of sand volumes of five selected Florida east coast deltas (Jupiter Inlet, S. Lake Worth Inlet, Boca Raton Inlet, Bakers Haulover Inlet, and Sebastian Inlet). They utilized the wave energy to tidal energy ratio, α, and plotted the influence of α on delta growth. They found that, as α increases, ebb delta volume has a tendency to decrease and vice versa. Finally, they evaluated delta volume vs. maximum wave height for Sebastian inlet and found that the delta volume is in a quazi-equilibrium condition due to variations in sea conditions and the sink being not available to accumulate more sand.<br />
<br />
:They found that an increase in the suspended sediment concentration increases the rate of approach to equilibrium, but does not result in a change in the equilibrium volume. On the other hand, a change in sediment size and the deep water wave height affect both the rate of growth and the equilibrium volume. Thus, an increase in the sediment diameter increases the rate of growth due to the dependence of the particle fall velocity on sediment size, and increases the critical shear stress resulting in an increase in the equilibrium volume. An increase in the deep water wave height increases the near-bed orbital velocity at the site of the delta, hence decreases the rate of growth. The equilibrium delta volume likewise decreases.<br />
<br />
:It was also shown that through application of the model to five Florida inlets, there is a dependence between the ebb delta volume and the wave to tidal energy ratio, α. The growth of the delta is determined by the rate at which the sand, supplied by the littoral system, is deposited by the ebb tidal flow. As wave action increases, thus increasing α value, the delta growth rate decreases as wave and current induced bottom shear stress scours sand deposited on the delta. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Byrnes, M. R. and Li, F., 1998. Regional Analysis of Sediment Transport and Dredged Material Dispersal Patterns, Columbia River Mouth, Washington/Oregon, and Adjacent Shores. Applied Coastal Research and Engineering. Mashpee, MA, pp46.'''<br />
<br />
:Byrnes and Li conducted a regional analysis of shoreline and bathymetry change between 1868 and 1994 at the Columbia River entrance to evaluate sediment transport dynamics associated with natural processes and engineering activities. They found that shoreline change data for the periods 1868/74 to 1926 and 1926 to 1950/57 illustrate net shoreline advance throughout the study area. However, significant shoreline retreat zones were found to be present along the northern 5 km of Clatsop Spit (5.6 m/yr) and the northern 17 km of Long Beach Peninsula (3.6 m/yr; 1926 to 1950/57). From 1868/74 to 1950/57, average shoreline change north of the Columbia River entrance was found to be 2.2 m/yr. South of the entrance jetty, and net shoreline advance was documented at 5.5 m/yr.<br />
<br />
:The authors compiled three bathymetry surfaces in order to quantify geomorphic change. The authors were able to identify four distinct depositional trends for the area.<br />
<br />
:: 1) The modern ebb-tidal delta developed as a result of jetty construction<br />
:: 2) The center of deposition for sedimentation on the ebb shoal is to the north of center, and it migrates to the north with time<br />
:: 3) Northward-directed sediment transport from the entrance has resulted in net accretion along the shoreline and on the continental shelf seaward of Long Beach Peninsula; and<br />
:: 4) Erosion south of the south jetty is the result of sediment blocking by the jetty and subsequent transport towards the ebb shoal and onto the continental shelf.<br />
<br />
:The authors utilized the information they obtained in their study to recommend areas for future sediment deposition.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
______________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
Back to [[Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography | Inlet Geomorphic Annotated Bibliography]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography-Structural_Responses&diff=8475Inlet Geomorph Bibliography-Structural Responses2012-02-29T15:55:19Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
<br />
'''Tomlinson, R.B. 1991. Processes of Sediment Transport and Ebb Tidal Delta Development at a Jettied Inlet. Proceedings of Coastal Sediments ‘91, pp. 1404-1146.'''<br />
<br />
:The paper begins with a short discussion of sediment transport processes due to anthropogenic modifications to inlets. The paper focuses on the development of the ebb tidal delta following the extension of jetties at the Tweed River entrance in northern New South Wales, Australia. A database of coastal processes of this area (Tomlinson and Foster, 1986) formed the basis of this study. The paper provides background information on the study area including history of the structuring of the inlet and river. A model of the ebb delta morphology was developed for the time period beginning in 1873 prior to the 1902 jetty construction and prior to the 1962 extensions.<br />
<br />
:The impact on the coastal processes and ebb delta development due to the extension of the jetties is discussed. Introduction of the jetties caused the shoal to be established further offshore than previously and with a more symmetrical shape.<br />
<br />
:The authors were able to determine the temporal delta volume beginning in 1978 from bathymetric surveys. Discussion of the changes in sediment deposition and a prediction of the ultimate size of the ebb delta (using Walton and Adams, 1976) is included. The paper concludes with the evaluation that the delta development transitioned from deposition dominated by tidal flow to a state of dynamic equilibrium between the tidal flow and the wave-induced transport across the delta.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Hansen, M. and Knowles, S., Ebb-Tidal Delta Response to Jetty Construction at Three South Carolina Inlets, Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies, Vol. 29. D.G. Aubrey, L. Weishar (Eds.), Hydrodynamics and Sediment Dynamics of Tidal Inlets, Springer-Verlag, New York, Inc. 1988.'''<br />
<br />
:Hansen and Knowles examine three inlets; Charleston Harbor, Murrells Inlet and Little River Inlet in South Carolina. Tidal inlets along South Carolina are considered transitional between wave dominated inlets of the Outer Banks of North Carolina and the tide dominated inlets of southern South Carolina and Georgia (Hubbard, et al., 1977). These South Carolina inlets are within the transitional zone, between wave and tide dominated. These inlets have a semidiurnal tidal range of 1.5 meters, which identifies them as microtidal based on Davies (1964) classification system. All three inlets have rubblemound jetties with parallel ends and weir structures included in their design. The following identifying information was provided about the jetty dimensions.<br />
<br />
Name<br />
<br />
NE Jetty Extent (m)<br />
<br />
SE Jetty Extent (m)<br />
<br />
Jetty Tips (m)<br />
<br />
Charleston Harbor<br />
<br />
4,700<br />
<br />
5,800<br />
<br />
884<br />
<br />
Murrells Inlet<br />
<br />
1,053<br />
<br />
1,011<br />
<br />
198<br />
<br />
Little River Inlet<br />
<br />
1,001<br />
<br />
1,167<br />
<br />
305<br />
<br />
:The paper discusses the way in which construction of the jetties impacted each of the inlets. At Charleston Harbor Entrance the jetties dissected the ebb tidal shoal and diverted the main ebb flow seaward. Geomorphology remained essentially the same as prior to construction. The swash platform migrated seaward. At Murrells Inlet implementation of the jetties created a landward migration of the swash bars. Bar migration and welding of the shoal south of the jetties occurred within 4 years. A small lagoon was formed downdrift of the south jetty and a new ebb delta began forming seaward of the constructed jetties. Less than 5 years of data was available for Little River Inlet but the data indicated swash bar migration with lagoon formation, similar to the changes seen at Murrells Inlet.<br />
<br />
:The paper indicates that jetty construction at Murrells Inlet and Little River Inlet showed a rapid response, in comparison to Charleston Harbor. The response at the smaller inlets was similar to the response seen in the situation of ebb delta breaching. Confinement of the channel by the jetties created an effect of wave dominance of the ebb deltas in all three cases. Hansen and Knowles identify that at the smaller inlets the channel confinement and shoal migration has, in the time period analyzed, eliminated the typical morphological expressions of ebb deltas.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Pope, J. 1991. Ebb Delta and Shoreline Response to Inlet Stabilization, Examples from the Southeast Atlantic Coast. Proceedings, 1991 Coastal Zone, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, pp. 643-654.'''<br />
<br />
:This paper studies four stabilized natural inlets along an ebb-tide dominated barrier island and the coastal and offshore response to jetty construction. Pope reviewed a combination of historic bathymetric change information, shoreline movement data, geomorphic assessments, wave refraction studies and sediment budgets in order to evaluate the impacts of entrance channel jetties on sediment supply, ebb delta modification and inshore erosion rates. The inlets examined are located on beach ridge barrier islands in an area with high tide ranges and low wave energies where, generally, inlets are formed and maintained by tidal currents and not closed by wave-induced longshore sediment transport.<br />
<br />
:The four inlets examined were: Little River Inlet (NC/SC), Charleston Harbor Entrance (SC), Murrells Inlet (SC), and St. Mary’s Entrance (GA/FL). Murrells Inlet and Little River Inlet have been monitored since construction and have one kilometer long jetties. In comparison the inlets of St. Mary’s and Charleston Harbor are larger with jetties 5 kilometers and 6 kilometers long, respectively. The paper provides details about each inlet and system including histories and details of the studies performed. Based on these observations, Pope developed a conceptual model of inlet evolution in response to stabilization. She concludes that, at these inlets, there is initial thalweg channelization and fillet trapping followed by a fairly rapid collapse of the natural ebb-delta lobe and a steepening of the ebb delta platform. Included in this paper are figures of long term and short term response to jetty construction. It is noted that there appears to be a direct correlation between inlet size and response time of inlet morphology changes.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Galvin, C. 1982. Shoaling with Bypassing for Channels at Tidal Inlets. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE, New York, NY., Vol. II, pp. 1496-1513.'''<br />
<br />
:An initial description of sand bypassing, basic tidal inlet function and cross-section is presented. Focus of the paper is on the rate of shoaling and a technique to estimate duration of project depth (tp) (the minimum depth for practical navigation by the design vessel) at the controlling section in the dredged channel. An illustrative graph is presented of the effect of bypassing on channel shoaling for three dredged channels. Bypassing mechanisms are also described. Examples of practical scenarios (bypassing and shoaling) are presented along with a table of duration of project depth. The example for shoaling presents a permanent shallow draft tidal inlet in a relatively sheltered site on a large bay. In this example case, there are desired improvements (dredging) a local company wishes to make and the question is the shipper only wants to dredge once a year, at the end of the monsoon season, how deep must the channel be dredged given the parameters required. In this case, the equation for the duration of project depth (tp) is used to find the solution. A second example of bypassing is presented in the paper utilizing the same information from the shoaling example the question is asked to determine the maximum reduction in bypassing rate due to the trapping of sand in the dredged channel. The maximum trapping rate right after dredging is calculated to find the solution.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bruun, P., 1995. The Development of Downdrift Erosion. Journal of Coastal Research 11(4), pp. 1242-1257'''<br />
<br />
:Bruun addresses the question: How is erosion, due to loss of sand, distributed downdrift as a function of time? He identifies the length of the downdrift shoreline, the cross-sectional retreat of the erosion cut and the rate of expansion of erosion and its distribution downdrift as functions of time. Previous research related to these areas is included in Bruuns discussion. Bruun defines short term and long term erosion effects where the short term effect is a coastal geomorphological feature and the long distance erosion is a materials deficit feature. Bruun presents examples of downdrift shoreline developments at various global locations with a variety of histories and anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic influences these locations are:<br />
<br />
· Port Canaveral, FL<br />
· Port St. Lucie, FL<br />
· Lagos Nigeria<br />
· Hirtshals, Denmark<br />
· Indian River, Delaware<br />
· The southwest coast of France<br />
· Nile Delta<br />
· Skasen Denmark<br />
· Rollover Pass, TX<br />
· Cape May Inlet to Cape May Point, NJ<br />
· Sebastian Inlet, FL<br />
· Ft. Pierce Inlet, FL<br />
· South Lake Worth Inlet, FL<br />
· Iioka Port and Beach, Japan<br />
· Oarai Port and Beach, Japan<br />
· Ocean City Inlet, MD<br />
· Charleston Harbor<br />
<br />
:The short and long term disturbance effects of the erosion is quantified at these inlets and the connection between the short and long term distance development of downdrift erosion is discussed and quantified through example and explanation of models developed by Perlin and Dean (1978). Also discussed is a zero or slowdown area which is an area of near zero erosion which occasionally exists between the areas of short and long distance development.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Inman_Dolan. 1989. The Outer Banks of North Carolina- Budget of Sediment and Inlet Dynamics Along a Migrating Barrier System. Journal of Coastal Research 5(2), pp. 193-237.'''<br />
<br />
:Inman and Dolan discuss the inlets along the Outer Banks of North Carolina and include a focus on Oregon Inlet. The paper discusses the coastal processes along the Hatteras littoral cell and the dynamics of Oregon Inlet and the nearshore sedimentary processes of the outer banks including multiple references in their discussion. They also discuss sea level rise and barrier transgression, sediment transport, and seasonal and long term changes of the barrier islands in the study area.<br />
<br />
:The paper focuses on Oregon inlet, history, inlet dynamics, a discussion of channel cross-sectional area and tidal prism, wind and waves, pathways of sediment transport and sediment volume. Inman and Dolan discuss longshore transport relations and include transport rates along the Hatteras littoral cell in table form. They discuss a sediment budget and its application for the area and develop a continuity model for shoreline change to investigate sediment processes and associated volume fluxes of sand.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Dabees, M.A., and Kraus, N.C., 2008. Cumulative Effects of Channel and Ebb Shoal Dredging on Inlet Evolution in Southwest Florida. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on coastal Engineering, 2008, W.S., 2303-2315.'''<br />
<br />
:Dabees and Kraus utilize a case study for Longboat Pass in southwest Florida to examine natural inlet evolution and changes in the inlet and ebb shoal following inlet navigation improvements. This paper provided a detailed history of the inlet and its processes. The authors relied upon regional modeling of previous authors which extend 100 km along shore along the Gulf of Mexico coastline which included 10 inlets connecting the bays to the Gulf. Modeling consisted of regional hydrodynamics, detailed or local-process of waves, flow, and sediment transport, and long-term morphology change. The authors applied the Inlet reservoir Model (IRM), which calculates sediment transport rates and volume change of identified morphologic features and bypassing rates for an inlet, to Longboat Pass.<br />
<br />
:The IRM assumes that each feature has a maximum (equilibrium) sand-retention capacity that cannot be exceeded. Once the feature has reached its capacity, all additional sediment transport arriving to this feature will bypass to the next feature and so forth until the sediment is bypasses past the inlet. Using the IRM the authors predicted the transport rates of Longboat Pass and calculated ebb shoal volumes and volumes adjacent to the inlet on the upland beaches of Anna Maria Island and Longboat Key. The authors utilized actual measured volume calculations to verify the results. Their intention is to utilize the IRM as an inlet management tool with a general methodology for simulating the evolution of different features and assessing consequences of interruption in sediment transport across inlets.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Stauble, D. K., and Morang, A., 1992. Using Morphology to Determine Net Littoral Drift Directions in Complex Coastal Systems. Coastal Engineering Technical Note, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS. 8p.'''<br />
<br />
:The authors provide guidance in the use of morphologic indicators to determine the net littoral drift direction along coastal areas. They caution making assumptions based on large regional scale indicators for a number of reasons including that transport may be affected by temporal variations.<br />
<br />
:They recommend a methodology for determining a net drift direction at a project site that includes:<br />
:: 1. Office examination of data<br />
:: 2. Field visit with aerial over flight<br />
:: 3. Discussions with specialists<br />
:: 4. Review of wave records<br />
:: 5. Collection of supplemental field data.<br />
<br />
:They discuss longshore drift and provide nine examples of morphologic indicators including diagrams to increase clarity. The nine indicators are:<br />
:: 1. Headland<br />
:: 2. Tidal Inlet or Stream<br />
:: 3. Spit<br />
:: 4. Beach Ridge Headlands<br />
:: 5. Groins<br />
:: 6. Jetties<br />
:: 7. Seawall<br />
:: 8. Shore connected breakwater and<br />
:: 9. Detached breakwater<br />
<br />
:They also discuss natural and/or man-made influences on drift indicators and provide two case studies (Bethune Beach, FL and East Pass, FL).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Dombrowski, M.R., and Mehta, A.J., 1996. Ebb Tidal Delta Evolution of Coastal Inlets. In: Coastal Engineering, pp. 3270-3283.'''<br />
<br />
:Dombrowski and Mehta examined the influence of effects of currents and waves on ebb delta growth rates and developed diagnostic approach. Their initial condition was a new inlet with no delta present. The model calculated combined shear stress (τb) from tidal currents and superimposed waves to evaluate delta accumulation height. The model determined the delta volume when the seafloor reaches an equilibrium elevation due to a balance in shear stresses and the estimate of the time for equilibrium to occur.<br />
<br />
:When the combined shear stress (τb) is smaller than the critical shear stress (τcr) deposition will occur until the shear stresses are balanced τb=τcr , when equilibrium is reached. Dombrowski and Mehta determined a governing equation for ebb delta height variation with time. With model parameters of ebb delta area (AD), suspended sediment concentration (Cs), sediment grain size (D50), deep water wave height and period (H), friction factors fw (due to waves), and fc (due to current), tidal prism and spring tidal range.<br />
<br />
:Illustrations of influence of suspended sediment concentrations, sediment grain size diameters and deep water waves on calculated delta growth rate are presented. The authors discuss the time-evolution of sand volumes of five selected Florida east coast deltas (Jupiter Inlet, S. Lake Worth Inlet, Boca Raton Inlet, Bakers Haulover Inlet, and Sebastian Inlet). They utilized the wave energy to tidal energy ratio, α, and plotted the influence of α on delta growth. They found that, as α increases, ebb delta volume has a tendency to decrease and vice versa. Finally, they evaluated delta volume vs. maximum wave height for Sebastian inlet and found that the delta volume is in a quazi-equilibrium condition due to variations in sea conditions and the sink being not available to accumulate more sand.<br />
<br />
:They found that an increase in the suspended sediment concentration increases the rate of approach to equilibrium, but does not result in a change in the equilibrium volume. On the other hand, a change in sediment size and the deep water wave height affect both the rate of growth and the equilibrium volume. Thus, an increase in the sediment diameter increases the rate of growth due to the dependence of the particle fall velocity on sediment size, and increases the critical shear stress resulting in an increase in the equilibrium volume. An increase in the deep water wave height increases the near-bed orbital velocity at the site of the delta, hence decreases the rate of growth. The equilibrium delta volume likewise decreases.<br />
<br />
:It was also shown that through application of the model to five Florida inlets, there is a dependence between the ebb delta volume and the wave to tidal energy ratio, α. The growth of the delta is determined by the rate at which the sand, supplied by the littoral system, is deposited by the ebb tidal flow. As wave action increases, thus increasing α value, the delta growth rate decreases as wave and current induced bottom shear stress scours sand deposited on the delta. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Byrnes, M. R. and Li, F., 1998. Regional Analysis of Sediment Transport and Dredged Material Dispersal Patterns, Columbia River Mouth, Washington/Oregon, and Adjacent Shores. Applied Coastal Research and Engineering. Mashpee, MA, pp46.'''<br />
<br />
Byrnes and Li conducted a regional analysis of shoreline and bathymetry change between 1868 and 1994 at the Columbia River entrance to evaluate sediment transport dynamics associated with natural processes and engineering activities. They found that shoreline change data for the periods 1868/74 to 1926 and 1926 to 1950/57 illustrate net shoreline advance throughout the study area. However, significant shoreline retreat zones were found to be present along the northern 5 km of Clatsop Spit (5.6 m/yr) and the northern 17 km of Long Beach Peninsula (3.6 m/yr; 1926 to 1950/57). From 1868/74 to 1950/57, average shoreline change north of the Columbia River entrance was found to be 2.2 m/yr. South of the entrance jetty, and net shoreline advance was documented at 5.5 m/yr.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The authors compiled three bathymetry surfaces in order to quantify geomorphic change. The authors were able to identify four distinct depositional trends for the area.<br />
<br />
(1) The modern ebb-tidal delta developed as a result of jetty construction;<br />
<br />
(2) The center of deposition for sedimentation on the ebb shoal is to the north of center, and it migrates to the north with time;<br />
<br />
(3) Northward-directed sediment transport from the entrance has resulted in net accretion along the shoreline and on the continental shelf seaward of Long Beach Peninsula; and<br />
<br />
(4) Erosion south of the south jetty is the result of sediment blocking by the jetty and subsequent transport towards the ebb shoal and onto the continental shelf.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The authors utilized the information they obtained in their study to recommend areas for future sediment deposition.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
______________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
Back to [[Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography | Inlet Geomorphic Annotated Bibliography]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography-Structural_Responses&diff=8474Inlet Geomorph Bibliography-Structural Responses2012-02-29T15:50:01Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
<br />
<br />
Tomlinson, R.B. 1991. Processes of Sediment Transport and Ebb Tidal Delta Development at a Jettied Inlet. Proceedings of Coastal Sediments ‘91, pp. 1404-1146.<br />
<br />
The paper begins with a short discussion of sediment transport processes due to anthropogenic modifications to inlets. The paper focuses on the development of the ebb tidal delta following the extension of jetties at the Tweed River entrance in northern New South Wales, Australia. A database of coastal processes of this area (Tomlinson and Foster, 1986) formed the basis of this study. The paper provides background information on the study area including history of the structuring of the inlet and river. A model of the ebb delta morphology was developed for the time period beginning in 1873 prior to the 1902 jetty construction and prior to the 1962 extensions.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The impact on the coastal processes and ebb delta development due to the extension of the jetties is discussed. Introduction of the jetties caused the shoal to be established further offshore than previously and with a more symmetrical shape.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The authors were able to determine the temporal delta volume beginning in 1978 from bathymetric surveys. Discussion of the changes in sediment deposition and a prediction of the ultimate size of the ebb delta (using Walton and Adams, 1976) is included. The paper concludes with the evaluation that the delta development transitioned from deposition dominated by tidal flow to a state of dynamic equilibrium between the tidal flow and the wave-induced transport across the delta.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Hansen, M. and Knowles, S., Ebb-Tidal Delta Response to Jetty Construction at Three South Carolina Inlets, Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies, Vol. 29. D.G. Aubrey, L. Weishar (Eds.), Hydrodynamics and Sediment Dynamics of Tidal Inlets, Springer-Verlag, New York, Inc. 1988.<br />
<br />
Hansen and Knowles examine three inlets; Charleston Harbor, Murrells Inlet and Little River Inlet in South Carolina. Tidal inlets along South Carolina are considered transitional between wave dominated inlets of the Outer Banks of North Carolina and the tide dominated inlets of southern South Carolina and Georgia (Hubbard, et al., 1977). These South Carolina inlets are within the transitional zone, between wave and tide dominated. These inlets have a semidiurnal tidal range of 1.5 meters, which identifies them as microtidal based on Davies (1964) classification system. All three inlets have rubblemound jetties with parallel ends and weir structures included in their design. The following identifying information was provided about the jetty dimensions.<br />
<br />
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE<br />
<br />
Name<br />
<br />
NE Jetty Extent (m)<br />
<br />
SE Jetty Extent (m)<br />
<br />
Jetty Tips (m)<br />
<br />
Charleston Harbor<br />
<br />
4,700<br />
<br />
5,800<br />
<br />
884<br />
<br />
Murrells Inlet<br />
<br />
1,053<br />
<br />
1,011<br />
<br />
198<br />
<br />
Little River Inlet<br />
<br />
1,001<br />
<br />
1,167<br />
<br />
305<br />
<br />
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE<br />
<br />
The paper discusses the way in which construction of the jetties impacted each of the inlets. At Charleston Harbor Entrance the jetties dissected the ebb tidal shoal and diverted the main ebb flow seaward. Geomorphology remained essentially the same as prior to construction. The swash platform migrated seaward. At Murrells Inlet implementation of the jetties created a landward migration of the swash bars. Bar migration and welding of the shoal south of the jetties occurred within 4 years. A small lagoon was formed downdrift of the south jetty and a new ebb delta began forming seaward of the constructed jetties. Less than 5 years of data was available for Little River Inlet but the data indicated swash bar migration with lagoon formation, similar to the changes seen at Murrells Inlet.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The paper indicates that jetty construction at Murrells Inlet and Little River Inlet showed a rapid response, in comparison to Charleston Harbor. The response at the smaller inlets was similar to the response seen in the situation of ebb delta breaching. Confinement of the channel by the jetties created an effect of wave dominance of the ebb deltas in all three cases. Hansen and Knowles identify that at the smaller inlets the channel confinement and shoal migration has, in the time period analyzed, eliminated the typical morphological expressions of ebb deltas.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Pope, J. 1991. Ebb Delta and Shoreline Response to Inlet Stabilization, Examples from the Southeast Atlantic Coast. Proceedings, 1991 Coastal Zone, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, pp. 643-654.<br />
<br />
This paper studies four stabilized natural inlets along an ebb-tide dominated barrier island and the coastal and offshore response to jetty construction. Pope reviewed a combination of historic bathymetric change information, shoreline movement data, geomorphic assessments, wave refraction studies and sediment budgets in order to evaluate the impacts of entrance channel jetties on sediment supply, ebb delta modification and inshore erosion rates. The inlets examined are located on beach ridge barrier islands in an area with high tide ranges and low wave energies where, generally, inlets are formed and maintained by tidal currents and not closed by wave-induced longshore sediment transport.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The four inlets examined were: Little River Inlet (NC/SC), Charleston Harbor Entrance (SC), Murrells Inlet (SC), and St. Mary’s Entrance (GA/FL). Murrells Inlet and Little River Inlet have been monitored since construction and have one kilometer long jetties. In comparison the inlets of St. Mary’s and Charleston Harbor are larger with jetties 5 kilometers and 6 kilometers long, respectively. The paper provides details about each inlet and system including histories and details of the studies performed. Based on these observations, Pope developed a conceptual model of inlet evolution in response to stabilization. She concludes that, at these inlets, there is initial thalweg channelization and fillet trapping followed by a fairly rapid collapse of the natural ebb-delta lobe and a steepening of the ebb delta platform. Included in this paper are figures of long term and short term response to jetty construction. It is noted that there appears to be a direct correlation between inlet size and response time of inlet morphology changes.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Galvin, C. 1982. Shoaling with Bypassing for Channels at Tidal Inlets. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE, New York, NY., Vol. II, pp. 1496-1513.<br />
<br />
An initial description of sand bypassing, basic tidal inlet function and cross-section is presented. Focus of the paper is on the rate of shoaling and a technique to estimate duration of project depth (tp) (the minimum depth for practical navigation by the design vessel) at the controlling section in the dredged channel. An illustrative graph is presented of the effect of bypassing on channel shoaling for three dredged channels. Bypassing mechanisms are also described. Examples of practical scenarios (bypassing and shoaling) are presented along with a table of duration of project depth. The example for shoaling presents a permanent shallow draft tidal inlet in a relatively sheltered site on a large bay. In this example case, there are desired improvements (dredging) a local company wishes to make and the question is the shipper only wants to dredge once a year, at the end of the monsoon season, how deep must the channel be dredged given the parameters required. In this case, the equation for the duration of project depth (tp) is used to find the solution. A second example of bypassing is presented in the paper utilizing the same information from the shoaling example the question is asked to determine the maximum reduction in bypassing rate due to the trapping of sand in the dredged channel. The maximum trapping rate right after dredging is calculated to find the solution.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Bruun, P., 1995. The Development of Downdrift Erosion. Journal of Coastal Research 11(4), pp. 1242-1257<br />
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE<br />
<br />
Bruun addresses the question: How is erosion, due to loss of sand, distributed downdrift as a function of time? He identifies the length of the downdrift shoreline, the cross-sectional retreat of the erosion cut and the rate of expansion of erosion and its distribution downdrift as functions of time. Previous research related to these areas is included in Bruuns discussion. Bruun defines short term and long term erosion effects where the short term effect is a coastal geomorphological feature and the long distance erosion is a materials deficit feature. Bruun presents examples of downdrift shoreline developments at various global locations with a variety of histories and anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic influences these locations are:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
· Port Canaveral, FL<br />
<br />
· Port St. Lucie, FL<br />
<br />
· Lagos Nigeria<br />
<br />
· Hirtshals, Denmark<br />
<br />
· Indian River, Delaware<br />
<br />
· The southwest coast of France<br />
<br />
· Nile Delta<br />
<br />
· Skasen Denmark<br />
<br />
· Rollover Pass, TX<br />
<br />
· Cape May Inlet to Cape May Point, NJ<br />
<br />
· Sebastian Inlet, FL<br />
<br />
· Ft. Pierce Inlet, FL<br />
<br />
· South Lake Worth Inlet, FL<br />
<br />
· Iioka Port and Beach, Japan<br />
<br />
· Oarai Port and Beach, Japan<br />
<br />
· Ocean City Inlet, MD<br />
<br />
· Charleston Harbor<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The short and long term disturbance effects of the erosion is quantified at these inlets and the connection between the short and long term distance development of downdrift erosion is discussed and quantified through example and explanation of models developed by Perlin and Dean (1978). Also discussed is a zero or slowdown area which is an area of near zero erosion which occasionally exists between the areas of short and long distance development.<br />
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE<br />
<br />
Inman_Dolan. 1989. The Outer Banks of North Carolina- Budget of Sediment and Inlet Dynamics Along a Migrating Barrier System. Journal of Coastal Research 5(2), pp. 193-237.<br />
<br />
Inman and Dolan discuss the inlets along the Outer Banks of North Carolina and include a focus on Oregon Inlet. The paper discusses the coastal processes along the Hatteras littoral cell and the dynamics of Oregon Inlet and the nearshore sedimentary processes of the outer banks including multiple references in their discussion. They also discuss sea level rise and barrier transgression, sediment transport, and seasonal and long term changes of the barrier islands in the study area.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The paper focuses on Oregon inlet, history, inlet dynamics, a discussion of channel cross-sectional area and tidal prism, wind and waves, pathways of sediment transport and sediment volume. Inman and Dolan discuss longshore transport relations and include transport rates along the Hatteras littoral cell in table form. They discuss a sediment budget and its application for the area and develop a continuity model for shoreline change to investigate sediment processes and associated volume fluxes of sand.<br />
<br />
<br />
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE<br />
<br />
Dabees, M.A., and Kraus, N.C., 2008. Cumulative Effects of Channel and Ebb Shoal Dredging on Inlet Evolution in Southwest Florida. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on coastal Engineering, 2008, W.S., 2303-2315.<br />
<br />
Dabees and Kraus utilize a case study for Longboat Pass in southwest Florida to examine natural inlet evolution and changes in the inlet and ebb shoal following inlet navigation improvements. This paper provided a detailed history of the inlet and its processes. The authors relied upon regional modeling of previous authors which extend 100 km along shore along the Gulf of Mexico coastline which included 10 inlets connecting the bays to the Gulf. Modeling consisted of regional hydrodynamics, detailed or local-process of waves, flow, and sediment transport, and long-term morphology change. The authors applied the Inlet reservoir Model (IRM), which calculates sediment transport rates and volume change of identified morphologic features and bypassing rates for an inlet, to Longboat Pass.<br />
The IRM assumes that each feature has a maximum (equilibrium) sand-retention capacity that cannot be exceeded. Once the feature has reached its capacity, all additional sediment transport arriving to this feature will bypass to the next feature and so forth until the sediment is bypasses past the inlet. Using the IRM the authors predicted the transport rates of Longboat Pass and calculated ebb shoal volumes and volumes adjacent to the inlet on the upland beaches of Anna Maria Island and Longboat Key. The authors utilized actual measured volume calculations to verify the results. Their intention is to utilize the IRM as an inlet management tool with a general methodology for simulating the evolution of different features and assessing consequences of interruption in sediment transport across inlets.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Stauble, D. K., and Morang, A., 1992. Using Morphology to Determine Net Littoral Drift Directions in Complex Coastal Systems. Coastal Engineering Technical Note, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS. 8p.<br />
<br />
The authors provide guidance in the use of morphologic indicators to determine the net littoral drift direction along coastal areas. They caution making assumptions based on large regional scale indicators for a number of reasons including that transport may be affected by temporal variations.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
They recommend a methodology for determining a net drift direction at a project site that includes:<br />
<br />
1. Office examination of data<br />
<br />
2. Field visit with aerial over flight<br />
<br />
3. Discussions with specialists<br />
<br />
4. Review of wave records<br />
<br />
5. Collection of supplemental field data.<br />
<br />
They discuss longshore drift and provide nine examples of morphologic indicators including diagrams to increase clarity. The nine indicators are:<br />
<br />
a. Headland;<br />
<br />
b. Tidal Inlet or Stream,<br />
<br />
c. Spit;<br />
<br />
d. Beach Ridge Headlands;.<br />
<br />
e. Groins;<br />
<br />
f. Jetties;<br />
<br />
g. Seawall;<br />
<br />
h. Shore connected breakwater and;<br />
<br />
i. Detached breakwater<br />
<br />
They also discuss natural and/or man-made influences on drift indicators and provide two case studies (Bethune Beach, FL and East Pass, FL).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Dombrowski, M.R., and Mehta, A.J., 1996. Ebb Tidal Delta Evolution of Coastal Inlets. In: Coastal Engineering, pp. 3270-3283.<br />
<br />
Dombrowski and Mehta examined the influence of effects of currents and waves on ebb delta growth rates and developed diagnostic approach. Their initial condition was a new inlet with no delta present. The model calculated combined shear stress (τb) from tidal currents and superimposed waves to evaluate delta accumulation height. The model determined the delta volume when the seafloor reaches an equilibrium elevation due to a balance in shear stresses and the estimate of the time for equilibrium to occur.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
When the combined shear stress (τb) is smaller than the critical shear stress (τcr) deposition will occur until the shear stresses are balanced τb=τcr , when equilibrium is reached. Dombrowski and Mehta determined a governing equation for ebb delta height variation with time. With model parameters of ebb delta area (AD), suspended sediment concentration (Cs), sediment grain size (D50), deep water wave height and period (H), friction factors fw (due to waves), and fc (due to current), tidal prism and spring tidal range.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Illustrations of influence of suspended sediment concentrations, sediment grain size diameters and deep water waves on calculated delta growth rate are presented. The authors discuss the time-evolution of sand volumes of five selected Florida east coast deltas (Jupiter Inlet, S. Lake Worth Inlet, Boca Raton Inlet, Bakers Haulover Inlet, and Sebastian Inlet). They utilized the wave energy to tidal energy ratio, α, and plotted the influence of α on delta growth. They found that, as α increases, ebb delta volume has a tendency to decrease and vice versa. Finally, they evaluated delta volume vs. maximum wave height for Sebastian inlet and found that the delta volume is in a quazi-equilibrium condition due to variations in sea conditions and the sink being not available to accumulate more sand.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
They found that an increase in the suspended sediment concentration increases the rate of approach to equilibrium, but does not result in a change in the equilibrium volume. On the other hand, a change in sediment size and the deep water wave height affect both the rate of growth and the equilibrium volume. Thus, an increase in the sediment diameter increases the rate of growth due to the dependence of the particle fall velocity on sediment size, and increases the critical shear stress resulting in an increase in the equilibrium volume. An increase in the deep water wave height increases the near-bed orbital velocity at the site of the delta, hence decreases the rate of growth. The equilibrium delta volume likewise decreases.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
It was also shown that through application of the model to five Florida inlets, there is a dependence between the ebb delta volume and the wave to tidal energy ratio, α. The growth of the delta is determined by the rate at which the sand, supplied by the littoral system, is deposited by the ebb tidal flow. As wave action increases, thus increasing α value, the delta growth rate decreases as wave and current induced bottom shear stress scours sand deposited on the delta. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Byrnes, M. R. and Li, F., 1998. Regional Analysis of Sediment Transport and Dredged Material Dispersal Patterns, Columbia River Mouth, Washington/Oregon, and Adjacent Shores. Applied Coastal Research and Engineering. Mashpee, MA, pp46.<br />
<br />
Byrnes and Li conducted a regional analysis of shoreline and bathymetry change between 1868 and 1994 at the Columbia River entrance to evaluate sediment transport dynamics associated with natural processes and engineering activities. They found that shoreline change data for the periods 1868/74 to 1926 and 1926 to 1950/57 illustrate net shoreline advance throughout the study area. However, significant shoreline retreat zones were found to be present along the northern 5 km of Clatsop Spit (5.6 m/yr) and the northern 17 km of Long Beach Peninsula (3.6 m/yr; 1926 to 1950/57). From 1868/74 to 1950/57, average shoreline change north of the Columbia River entrance was found to be 2.2 m/yr. South of the entrance jetty, and net shoreline advance was documented at 5.5 m/yr.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The authors compiled three bathymetry surfaces in order to quantify geomorphic change. The authors were able to identify four distinct depositional trends for the area.<br />
<br />
(1) The modern ebb-tidal delta developed as a result of jetty construction;<br />
<br />
(2) The center of deposition for sedimentation on the ebb shoal is to the north of center, and it migrates to the north with time;<br />
<br />
(3) Northward-directed sediment transport from the entrance has resulted in net accretion along the shoreline and on the continental shelf seaward of Long Beach Peninsula; and<br />
<br />
(4) Erosion south of the south jetty is the result of sediment blocking by the jetty and subsequent transport towards the ebb shoal and onto the continental shelf.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The authors utilized the information they obtained in their study to recommend areas for future sediment deposition.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
______________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
Back to [[Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography | Inlet Geomorphic Annotated Bibliography]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography-Relationships&diff=8473Inlet Geomorph Bibliography-Relationships2012-02-29T15:47:48Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
<br />
<br />
Escoffier, F.F. The Stability of Tidal Inlets. Shore and Beach, October 1940, Volume VIII No. 4, pp. 114-115.<br />
<br />
This short paper describes the computation of the mean velocity (Vm) with inlet and bay dimension and tidal range as knowns using an equation by Brown (1928). The computation assumes the flood and ebb current velocities are equal and Escoffier discusses a critical mean velocity (Vcr) which is sufficient for sediment entrainment. Escoffier assumes that for most beach sediments the value is 3ft/sec. The Brown equation for mean velocity of peak tidal current may be used to compare Vm to Vcr to determine if the inlet is self-filling, self-eroding or stationary in size. The paper then discusses inlet stability using the Brown equation and graphically represents stable and unstable cases with Vm vs channel size. The paper discusses how the theory can be utilized to determine inlet stability.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Bruun, P., and Gerritsen, F., 1959 Natural By-Passing of Sand at Coastal Inlets. Journal of the Waterways and Harbors Division WW4, pp. 75-107.<br />
<br />
Bruun and Gerritsen define the two main principles in bypassing of sand by natural action; bypassing on an offshore bar and bypassing by tidal flow action or a combination of these two methods. The ratio of Mmean/Qmax=r (magnitude of littoral drift) and quantity of flow through the inlet can assist in the identification of these mechanisms. If the ratio is high r>200-300, bar bypassing is predominant. A lower ratio, r<10-20 indicates tidal flow bypassing.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The authors discuss the principle included in bar bypassing and present examples of inlets with bypassing (including structured and improved inlets) and bar bypassing at harbors. They discuss the principals involved in bypassing by tidal flow action at improved and unimproved inlets and provide multiple physical examples of this mechanism, including at harbors. The authors touch on the influence (or lack thereof) of sediment grain size and identify a bypassing factor consisting of multiple constituent factors which influence bypassing. A discussion of the ratio of Mmean/Qmax is included. Littoral drift and Mmean values are presented in table form for multiple inlets.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Jarrett, J.T., 1976. Tidal Prism – Inlet Area Relationships. GITI Report 3, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg MS. 55 pp.<br />
<br />
In this paper Jarrett discussed the works of LeConte (1905), O’Brien (1931), Nayak (1969 and 1971) and Johnson (1972). Jarrett obtained data from 108 inlets on all coasts of the United States and discusses the sources and methods of obtaining this information. Jarrett classified the inlets into three main categories (1) all inlets, (2) unjettied or single jettied inlets, and (3) inlets with jetties. He also classified them by coast. Jarrett identified a relationship between inlet area and tidal prism of the form A=CPn and presents the data in table and graph form within the paper. He also discussed the differences in the relationships between the different groups. This paper also contains referenced tables of tidal prism, cross sectional area, hydraulic radius, and tidal current data for the 108 inlets in his study.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Hughes, S.A., 2002. Equilibrium Cross-sectional Area at Tidal Inlets. Journal of Coastal Research, 18(1). West Palm Beach, FL., pp. 160-174.<br />
<br />
The paper begins with a literature review and discussion of the relationship that exist between Hughes discusses the mathematical relationships between the minimum cross sectional area of a stable inlet (A) and tidal prism (P). He then presents a derivation of the A vs P relationships considering an equilibrium depth is associated with maximum discharge per unit width. The equation that is derived is then compared to field data from 102 US tidal inlets with good correspondence with most inlets having equilibrium areas larger than the minimum predicted. Additionally, there is good correspondence found to equilibrium results obtained from eighteen movable bed model experiments. Hughes includes a discussion of scaling in movable bed models and derives a movable-bed modeling relationship suitable for channel scour caused from bedload transport caused by tidal currents. The relationship is not valid for scour caused by waves.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Seabergh, W. C., 2003. Long-Term Coastal Inlet Channel Area Stability. In: Proceedings Coastal Sediments '03. 2003. CD-ROM Published by World Scientific Publishing Corp. and East Meets West Productions, Corpus Christi, Texas, USA. ISBN 981-238-422-7.<br />
<br />
Seabergh applies the concept of equilibrium area of tidal inlets (LeConte, 1905 and O’Brien 1931 and 1969) to inlets that are not in equilibrium i.e. inlets with bays that do not fill completely but still exhibit fairly consistent channel flow over many years. Seabergh discusses work by others on inlet equilibrium which do not require complete bay infilling for maintenance of stable channels.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The Kulegan (1967) “K” repletion coefficient is introduced to define the percentage that the bay fills. A number of examples from US inlets with low K values are presented in table form. This is discussed in concert with the Escoffier (1940, 1977) equilibrium curve which requires complete bay filling, whereby the Escoffier analysis of tidal inlet cross-sectional area equilibrium for cases with existing low K values indicates that equilibrium area will be much larger than the existing area. However, the low K inlets may not expand their entrance cross-sectional area in the absence of anthropogenic changes (dredging, structure implementation, etc.).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Shigemura, T., 1981. Tidal Prism – Throat Width Relationships of the Bays of Japan. Shore & Beach, Volume 49, No. 3, pp. 34-39.<br />
<br />
Shigemura studied 231 natural bays, to which no artificial works had been added, along the four major coasts of Japan. He defined the throat area as the cross-sectional area at the narrowest section, or throat, of a bay entrance. Previously Shigemura (1980) developed a relationship between the throat area and the tidal prism of the form A=CPn. In this paper he examines ten (10) external variables through a correlation analysis to determine which exerts the most significant influence on throat width. Based on this analysis, Shigemura arrives at basic correlation relationships, separated by coast (Pacific Coast, Japan Sea Coast, Kyushu West Coast, and Inland Sea Coast), of the form Wt=CPn. Because these initial relationships do not account for external variables such as littoral drift, geological or geometrical features Shigemura refines the relationships based on seven “geometrical parameters.” In order to evaluate the significance of the parameters, he defines a reliability parameter of the regression equation and performs a correlation analysis between the reliability parameter and the geometric parameters. He found that, of all the Wt-P equations, the parameter rwl (the ratio of the throat width to the shore length of the bay) had a high correlation with the reliability parameter and, based on this information, uses the rwl parameter further refine the correlations by classifying the bays into four groups. Additionally, the paper includes a discussion of equations other researchers have developed and provides the values for the C and n variables throughout the stages of refinement.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
FitzGerald, D.M., and FitzGerald, S.A., 1977. Factors Influencing Tidal Inlet Throat Geometry. Proceedings, Coastal Sediments 77 Conference, ASCE, pp. 563-581.<br />
<br />
FitzGerald and FitzGerald define and assess the parameters that affect tidal inlet throat geometry. Initially, the work of previous researchers in the area of inlet throat geometry is discussed. FitzGerald and FitzGerald define the inlet throat as the part of the channel which is the narrowest and deepest and has the maximum hydraulic radius. The inlet throat has the minimum cross-sectional area and maximum current velocities. FitzGerald and FitzGerald discuss the size, depth, channel symmetry and sedimentological control of the inlet throat. In this paper FitzGerald and FitzGerald investigated eight central South Carolina inlets (mesotidal inlets) to determine factors which influence the symmetry of the inlet throat. They discuss that symmetry is a product of (1) meandering of the channel thalweg, (2) inlet shoreline configuration, and (3) dominant longshore transport direction. Temporal variations in throat cross-section are developed. They discuss the variations in throat cross-sectional area and short-term changes at Price Inlet, SC and the long-term changes of Stono Breach, Dewees and Capers Inlets, SC. A table of historical changes in throat geometry is presented. They develop the relationship of cross-sectional area versus tidal range for Price Inlet of the form Y=947+119X. The paper discusses the channel response over a complete tidal cycle at Pierce Inlet in order to evaluate if the inlet throat cross-sectional area responds quickly to changing tidal conditions.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Fitzgerald, D.M., and Nummedal, D, 1983. Response Characteristics of an Ebb-Dominated Tidal Inlet Channel. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 53(3), pp. 833-845.<br />
<br />
This paper details the study of changes in the main channel of Price Inlet, SC on timescales ranging from hours to years. Price Inlet is a barrier island inlet located on the mixed-energy South Carolina coast north of Charleston Harbor. The field work carried out for this research occurred between 1974 and 1977. Fitzgerald and Nummedal discuss water storage and tidal stage in the Price Inlet drainage basin including a discussion of water surface area in the back barrier and throat cross-sectional area over the tidal cycle. Migration and morphological changes of the tidal channel were also monitored at three cross-sections along the inlet channel. Cross-sectional area was measured on a bi-monthly basis measured at slack water.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
It was concluded that the inlet cross-section is highly sensitive to changes in tidal range because of the relationship between tidal range and potential sediment transport. The paper also includes a discussion of channel change during one tidal cycle as it relates to sediment transport. The calculated magnitude of potential inlet sediment transport is high enough at Price Inlet to suggest that significant changes in inlet hydraulic geometry can be expected during a single tidal cycle. This hypothesis is tested over a single cycle on July 29, 1977 through monitoring of the throat cross-section and inlet flow parameters. Throat current velocities and cross-sectional areas were measured each hour and changes of the areas are discussed in the paper. Longer-term changes in the morphology of Price Inlet was found to be controlled by the growth of the ebb-tidal delta shoals and growth of the channel-margin linear bars. The bars reduce transport into the inlet and thus results in a larger channel equilibrium cross-sectional area.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Walton, T.L., and Adams, W.D., 1976. Capacity of Inlet Outer Bars to Store Sand. Proceedings, 1976 Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE, pp. 1919–1937.<br />
<br />
Walton and Adams investigated the equilibrium storage volume of sand in the outer bar/shoal of newly cut inlets. Inlets were classified into highly exposed, moderately exposed and mildly exposed to offshore wave action based on the H2T2 (wave height)2 * (wave period)2 parameter. The paper considers the inlet as a sediment sink to the adjacent shorelines and utilizes the equilibrium shoal volume in their calculations as the point at which the erosional influence to the adjacent shorelines is diminished. Walton and Adams utilized the “no-inlet contour method” of Dean and Walton (1973) to calculate ebb shoal volumes for 44 inlets in assumed equilibrium within the United States. They developed a relationship of the form V=aPb and used liner regression to determine the value for b for inlets separated by exposure and for all inlets together. Walton and Adams also determined that the ebb shoal volume and the inlet channel cross-sectional area relate to one another in the form V=a’Ab’.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Walton and Adams identified that in areas of high wave activity there appears to be a well-defined limiting relationship to the amount stored in the offshore bar as a function of tidal prism. They noted that the volume of sand in an inlets outer bar is strongly correlated to tidal prism and cross sectional inlet throat area. They found that more sand is stored in the outer bar of a low energy coast than is stored in the outer bar of a high energy coast.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The paper also included references to a number of tidal prism and inlet cross-section values and identified that future work in this area should take into consideration longshore energy and size distribution of littoral material and examine inner bay storage.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Hayter, E.J.; Hernandez, D.L., Atz J.C., and Sill, B.L., 1988. Study of Ebb Tidal Delta Dynamics. Proceedings, 1988 Conference on Beach Preservation Technology, Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association, Tallahassee, FL, pp. 365-374.<br />
<br />
This paper discusses ebb shoal mining and the infilling of ebb shoals. The study presents the results of a laboratory scale movable bed tidal inlet model to investigate both the effects of oscillatory flow and waves on ebb shoal formation as well as the effect of shoal mining on the inlet-shoal system. Details of the model are included. Best fit lines for shoal volume and G, a parameter including the effects of sediment size (D50), specific gravity of sand and water (ys, y) and average inlet area (Bh) was determined (G=Bhd50 (ys-y/y). Scale effects of models are discussed. The dimensionless empirical relationships between shoal volume, wave energy and tidal prism V/G=0.00048(P/G)-1340, V/G=0.00069(P/G)-1870, and V/G=0.00476R0.527 where V/G is the normalized shoal volume, P is the tidal prism, R is a dimensionless parameter R=P/GE, and E is dimensionless wave energy density (E=yH2s/8yh2) (Hs is the significant wave height) where h is the mean water depth in the inlet were used to predict prototype shoal volumes in order to test their ability to simulate inlet-shoal conditions. Data from 12 Florida east coast inlets were used for this analysis.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The defined relationships have confirmed that shoal size and shape is generally governed by ebb jet flow. Both the fixed bed and movable bed models utilized in this research confirm this conclusion. This study validates the use of a laboratory scale model in the investigation of ebb shoal mining.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Marino, J.N., and Mehta, A.J., 1987. Inlet Ebb Shoals Related to Coastal Parameters. Proceedings, 1987 Coastal Sediments Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 1608-1623.<br />
<br />
In this paper, the evolution of ebb tidal shoals is introduced through a discussion of a history of St. Augustine Inlet (opened in 1941) including jetty construction and dredging history. Marino and Mehta examined eighteen inlets on Florida’s east coast, relating their ebb shoal volume to spring tidal prism, inlet cross-sectional area, inlet width, inlet depth and sprig tidal amplitude. Ebb shoal volumes were determined through the Dean and Walton method (1973). Published values, or estimates based on literature, were used for the values of cross-sectional area, width, depth, prism and wave data. A dimensional analysis was utilized to determine functional relationships which may relate to ebb shoal volume. The paper examined the ebb shoal volume vs spring tidal prism relationship of Walton and Adams (1976) to determine which parameters explain the scatter in the Walton and Adams data within the same energy range. The discussion also examines the influence of bed shear stress, current shear stress, wave shear stress and channel depth.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Conclusions of the paper contain estimates of the total amount of material found within the 18 examined ebb shoals and identifies a general trend of decreasing ebb shoal volume from north to south along the East coast of Florida. Marino and Mehta conclude that the ebb shoal volume appear to be a function of spring tidal prism, inlet area, tidal amplitude and the ratio of inlet width to depth (which arises as a result of the effect of wave induced sediment transport at varying depths over the ebb shoal).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Oertel, G.F., 1988. Processes of Sediment Exchange Between Tidal Inlets, Ebb Deltas and Barrier Islands. Lecture notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies, Volume 29, Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. NY, pp. 297-318<br />
<br />
The introduction of this paper includes a brief discussion of literature as it related to prism area relationships and bypassing of sediment and inlet stability. Hydraulics and sedimentary processes at inlets are then discussed, initially in the absence of sediment transport outside of the channel itself. The paper then turns to a discussion of the processes occurring at the ebb tidal delta. Formation of the delta and the differences between the ebb and flood flow processes. Following is a discussion on equilibrium delta budgets the amount of material stored in an ebb delta. Oertel then introduces the concept that material may originate from the inlet gorge or from the adjacent littoral drift. Focus was placed on the amount of material available from the inlet gorge.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In this study, nine tide-dominated inlets were examined. Their ebb delta volumes were determined through the Dean and Walton method (1975) and tidal prisms were either measured or found in literature. Based upon this data, two equations relating bar volume and prism (mean and spring prisms) were determined. The plots were compared to the Walton and Adams (1976) data for tidal prism. This comparison is discussed within the paper. Diversion of the inlet jet by longshore current is discussed along with the sediment transport implication this diversion created on the inlet channels (i.e. inlet migration). Georgia and North Carolina inlets were used as examples.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Four types of deltas (with varying degrees of longshore versus onshore currents) are discussed with regard to bypassing and channel migration. Illustrations of tidal inlets are included which identify channel orientations caused by different magnitudes of inlet migration and sediment bypassing. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Cobb Island in Virginia is presented as a case study in island sediment budgets and illustrations are included identifying cases where barrier island shorelines change but their budgets remain balanced i.e., stability by rollover, stability by spit growth, stability by migration, and stability with constant shoreline position (complete bypassing).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Mehta, A.J.; Dombrowski, M.R., and Devine, P.T., 1996. Role of Waves in Inlet Ebb Delta Growth and Some Research Needs Related to Site Selection for Delta Mining. Journal of Coastal Research, SI 23, pp. 212-136.<br />
<br />
A motive of this paper was to obtain an understanding of the processes occurring at the ebb delta in terms of deposition in order to assess how these processes affect ebb delta mining. The role of waves in modulating the growth of ebb tidal deltas has been examined for four Florida east coast entrances (Jupiter Inlet, South Lake Worth Inlet, Boca Raton Inlet and Bakers Haulover Inlet). Volumes of the ebb deltas were determined using the Dean and Walton method (1973).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
A model is presented in this paper to explain delta growth based upon an analysis of bottom shear stress from current and wave influence (Tb) and the critical stress for scour (Tcr) where, when Tb<< Tcr deposition occurs until they are approximately equal. At this point there is no further deposition and there is an equilibrium water depth above the delta and the delta reaches an equilibrium volume. The influence of wave energy would increase the delta volume (increased wave energy) or decrease the delta volume (decreased wave energy) and the shoal would move away from this equilibrium volume. Details regarding these conditions and relating hydraulic and morphodynamic parameters to the delta area are then explained within the paper.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The four Florida entrances examined in this paper have mostly littoral transport components with minimal riverine influences. They are examined by the authors to assess the effects of waves compared with tidal currents as the deltas transition from the no inlet condition to equilibrium. The author’s utilized the O’brien ratio of wave power to tidal prism power and plotted growth rate curves over time based on the high and low values of this ration. The curves were then compared to the measured ebb volumes. The ebb delta volume growth curves grow monotonically, reaching an asymptotic condition (indicating a dynamic equilibrium of the ebb shoal). The equilibrium delta volume condition was also examined in this paper.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The focus of the paper then turned to examples of delta mining with examples from US entrances and a discussion of considerations of in mining site selection criteria.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Powell, M.A., Thieke, R.J., and Mehta, A.J. 2006. Morphodynamic Relationships for ebb and flood delta volumes at Florida’s tidal entrances. Ocean Dynamics, Volume 56, pp. 295-307.<br />
<br />
This paper reviews relationships between cross sectional area, ebb delta volume, flood delta volume and tidal prism based on data from 67 sandy entrances in Florida. This paper contains a list of these 67 Atlantic and Gulf Coast inlets which include data of latitude, longitude, tidal range, wave energy, flux, grain size, depth, flow area, tidal prism, and ebb and flood volumes. The paper includes discussion of and multiple references to previous work. Powell, Thieke and Mehta plotted prism versus throat area for all inlets examined and found a best-fit equation of the form Ac=6.25x10-5P1.0. They further discussed ebb delta volume and tidal prism noting that the ebb delta volume is determined by tidal currents and waves. A review of the literature is included as part of the discussion on ebb delta volume and tidal prism. Additionally, the authors applied the previously defined equations to the data from the 67 Florida inlets studied. Further the authors identified relationships between flood delta volume and tidal prism and discussed the initial volume growth of the flood delta and perform a best-fit analysis as was done in the ebb delta case. At the terminus of the paper the authors include a case which identifies the effect of the closure of a storm induced breach near Matanzas Inlet, FL.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Sha, L.P. and Van den Berg, J.H., 1993. Variation in Ebb-Tidal Delta Geometry along the Coast of the Neatherlands and the German Bight., In: Journal of Coastal Research, Volume 9, No. 3 (Summer, 1993), pp. 730-746.<br />
<br />
This paper discusses the geometry of ebb tidal deltas and associated hydraulic aspects using examples and data based upon the Dutch-German coastal barrier region. The paper discusses the tidal regime of the North Sea coasts and details the morphology of ebb tidal deltas of the area including historical information. The interaction of offshore and inshore tidal currents at the inlet mouth for ebb tidal deltas of the Wadden Sea and of the South Western Netherlands is discussed as is the importance of the wave versus tidal forces of the inlets in this region as the development of asymmetries and orientation depend upon those two factors. In a figure, the authors then relate the tidal range to the parameter of tidal prism over significant wave height squared (P/Hs)2 and identify a protrusion index which is the ratio of ebb tidal delta protrusion to inlet width and determined that delta protrusion is positively related to the ratio of tidal prism and wave action. This analysis includes data from US inlets, Friesian Island Inlets and Inlets of the SW Netherlands.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Buonaiuto, F.S., and Kraus, N.C., 2003. Limiting Slopes and depths at Ebb-tidal Shoals. Coastal Engineering 48(2003) pp. 51-65.<br />
<br />
In this paper bathymetry at 13 small to medium US inlets were investigated using LIDAR and NOS bathymetric data to quantify limiting bottom slopes of ebb shoals at entrance channels. Buonaiuto and Kraus found a regression relationship between the maximum slope observed on the ebb shoal and significant wave height at the inlet. No correlation was found with limiting slope in their study for tidal prism, wave steepness and combined tidal prism and wave height.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
At all inlet entrances the steepest slopes were found along shorelines, scour holes, around the seaward margin of the ebb shoals and along lateral walls of navigation channels. Channel slopes ranged from 6 to 8 degrees with stabilized inlets having greater slopes than unstabilized inlets. The authors found that the wave dominated environment has steeper slopes than tidally dominated environments. They also investigated the depth over the crest of the ebb shoal and devised the parameter (HsP)^1/4 relating incident wave height and tidal prism which correlated with the limiting depth over the ebb shoal.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Gaudiano, D.J., and Kana, T.W., 2001. Delta Bypassing in South Carolina Tidal Inlets: Geomorphic Variables and Empirical Predictions for Nine Mesotidal Inlets. Journal of Coastal Research, 17(3), pp. 280-291.<br />
<br />
Nine South Carolina (mixed energy coast) tidal inlets (2 stabilized and 7 not stabilized) were examined to determine the relationship between the volume of sand in the ebb-delta and the individual bypassing shoals, the time interval between bypassing events and the tidal prism. A conceptual model of shoal bypassing was validated. The paper includes a literature review of ebb breaching. Aerial photographs over a 53-58 year time period were digitized and examined to identify bypassing events. The inlets included in the evaluation were: Midway, Pawleys, North, Pierce, Capers, Dewees, Breach, Stono and Captain Sams Inlets. The shoal volumes were determined from the aerial photographs by measuring the plan area of the shoals and then multiplying by an estimated thickness of three meters. This method assumed vertical sides on the shoal so, a scaling factor was introduced to account for the missing volume. Following this analysis, the average annual contribution from the delta to the adjacent beaches was computed from which the local annual sediment transport was calculated. Gaudiano and Kana also included the results of field studies conducted to measure inlet throat cross sections and tidal prisms for seven of the nine inlets. A linear relationship between the average shoal bypassing event interval (I) and the tidal prism (Tp) was found of the form I=0.046Tp+4.56. They were able to identify that larger inlets undergo shoal bypassing events less frequently than smaller inlets and that the variable I is related to the longshore sediment transport rate. Gaudiano and Kana developed a relationship of the form S=6.42Tp+113.4 which describes the relationship between the average bypassing shoal volume (S) and the tidal prism (P). Gaudiano and Kana described qualitatively a point in the quantity of sediment supply to the system which will induce bypassing.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Additionally, Gaudiano and Kana plotted the shoal volume/tidal prism data obtained from the seven inlets they examined onto the Walton and Adams (1976) best fit line. Gaudiano and Kana determined that the seven South Carolina Inlets all plotted above the Walton and Adams best-fit line. They postulated that a greater influence of the tides in South Carolina may be the cause of this difference.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Gaudiano and Kana identified that the shoal bypassing mechanisms identified by FitzGerald (1978) were present with the South Carolina inlets. They identified inlet migration and spit breaching, periodic landward migration of swash bars and ebb-tidal delta breaching. The paper describes the breaching process at each of the inlets examined.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Vincent, C.L., and Corson, W.D., 1981. Geometry of Tidal Inlets: Empirical Equations. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Division, 107(1), pp. 1-9.<br />
<br />
In this paper 67 inlets were studied along the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf Coasts of the US. The objective of the research was to develop a quantitative database of stability characteristics for the 67 inlets. The authors relied on aerial photographs to measure their parameters. Four stability indices were defined and measured (minimum inlet width, W and channel length, L. Change in the geographical position and orientation of the inlet channel were defined by two indices. The authors determined that stability of an inlet is, to a large degree, determined by inlet size and use. They examined inlet stability utilizing two different method. The first was definition of six relative stability parameters which were measured at these inlets. The second method was to express inlet change in terms of absolute parameters that measure change in terms of magnitude (not normalized by inlet size). The relative parameters include three hydraulic parameters (width, length and a product of the first two). The other three parameters are geographical parameters measuring potential movement in the channel, changes in orientation and a product of the first two. Combinations of the six parameters were used to display various stability characteristics. The inlets were classified as stable or unstable based upon a limit selected by the authors. The absolute parameters related inlet width and channel length changes and changes in position and orientation. The authors conclude that there are a range of inlet instabilities. They found a lack of correlation for inlet response in inlets with regionally homogeneous wave climates which suggests that morphology and hydraulics at specific inlets have a large influence on inlet responses.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Vincent, C.L., Corson, W.D., and Gingrich, K.J., 1991. Stability of Selected United States Tidal Inlets. USACE GITI Report 21. Vicksburg, MS. 167p.<br />
<br />
The motivation of this study was continuation of the USACE funded initiative of promoting safe navigation through tidal entrances. Vincent, Corson and Gingrich studied 51 US tidal inlets through a series of historical aerial photographs to examine tidal inlet stability. The paper includes a discussion of previous research on this topic. Vincent, Corson and Gingrich identify four types of inlet instability: geographic, rotational, meandering and channel stretching. They introduce hydraulic parameters (width and length) and positional parameters (migration) related to inlet stability. Stability indices are then derived. The paper discusses stability analysis based on a photographic analysis performed by the authors of the minimum channel width, channel traces and the channels seaward end point. The authors review inlet variability over time to determine the variability of the 51 inlets in the channel width, length, channel position and throat. Relationships among time variant characteristics are added in table form for all combinations of channel width, length, channel position and throat in combinations of time variant properties (random variation, cyclic short period variation, cyclic long period variation and trend variation). Vincent, Corson and Gingrich discuss stability of the 51 inlets examined utilizing relative hydraulic and relative geographic stability parameters. Regional patterns and trends identified through examination of the 51 inlets are described. Appendices include aerial photograph dates, a listing of stability indices (position orientation, width and length) throughout time for the inlets studied, and plots of temporal variations in channel position and orientation, channel width and traces for all inlets studied.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Carr, E.E., and Kraus, N.C., 2001. Morphologic Asymmetries at Entrances to Tidal Inlets. Report Number ERDC/CHL CHETN-IV-33, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.<br />
<br />
This paper discusses characteristics of selected symmetries in morphological forms at tidal entrances and begins with a listing of potential applications for the research. The sediment bypassing processes and associated morphologic features are identified and discussed. The concept of ebb shoal symmetry/asymmetry is introduced as are the three asymmetry indicators that have been measured at the tidal inlets considered in this study. The asymmetry indicator measurements (WA1, WA2, and L) are utilized to describe the degree of asymmetry in the ebb shoal. WA1 is defined as the distance to the updrift point where the ebb shoal complex attaches to the shoreline. WA2 is defined as the distance where the ebb shoal complex attaches to the shoreline. The variable L is defined as the distance of the offshore extent of the ebb shoal. The measurements of the ebb shoal asymmetry indicators were taken from various aerial photographs and NOS nautical charts. Examples of ebb shoal symmetry and asymmetry from specific inlets are included.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Relationships of the form WA1,WA2=aPb, where P is tidal prism, were developed through linear regression analysis. The data was separated by number of jetties at each inlet to determine the coefficients of each case. The seaward extent of the ebb shoal, L, was similarly related to tidal prism, P.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Finally, temporal changes in the asymmetry indicators are discussed using a case study of St. Augustine Inlet, FL based upon changes from the 1950’s to 1999. A brief discussion on asymmetries of inlet channels is also included.<br />
<br />
<br />
______________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
Back to [[Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography | Inlet Geomorphic Annotated Bibliography]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography-Structural_Responses&diff=8472Inlet Geomorph Bibliography-Structural Responses2012-02-29T15:47:12Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
______________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
Back to [[Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography | Inlet Geomorphic Annotated Bibliography]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography-Relationships&diff=8471Inlet Geomorph Bibliography-Relationships2012-02-29T15:47:00Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
______________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
Back to [[Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography | Inlet Geomorphic Annotated Bibliography]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography-Classification&diff=8470Inlet Geomorph Bibliography-Classification2012-02-29T15:46:50Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Hayes, M.O., 1979. Barrier Island Morphology as a Function of Tidal and Wave Regime. In: Barrier Islands form the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the Gulf of Mexico, S.P. Leatherman (Ed.). Academic Press, NY, pp. 1-27.'''<br />
<br />
:In this paper, Hayes identifies two factors, wave energy and tidal current energy control geomorphology of depositional coasts and describes that both of these are related to tide range (T.R.). Hayes discusses Davies (1964) classification of shorelines based on tide range:<br />
:*Microtidal coasts (T.R. 0-2 meters) (wave dominated coasts)<br />
:*Mesotidal coasts (T.R. 2-4 meters)<br />
:*Macrotidal coasts (T.R. > 4 meters) (tide dominated coasts)<br />
<br />
:Hayes provides inlets which are examples of each case with the associated references but focuses on coasts with medium wave energy (Mean Significant Wave Height (MSH) = 60-150 cm). Additionally, Hayes provides the geomorphologic differences of the mesotidal and microtidal cases in table form and discussion within the table.<br />
<br />
:Hayes classified and plotted 21 barrier island shorelines based upon mean tidal range and mean wave height and into five morphological types: wave dominated, mixed-energy wave dominant, mixed-energy tide dominant, tide-dominated (high) and tide-dominated (low). Hayes concludes that, for coasts with medium wave energy, the tidal classification of Davies (1964) needed refinement and that the boundary between microtidal and mesotidal as thought to be too high. Hayes added the classification of low-mesotidal for areas where the tide rages are between 1-2 meters for coasts of medium wave energy.<br />
<br />
:Hayes also discusses the relationship between shoreline morphology and shoreline embayments and the effects of climate on barrier morphology.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Gibeaut, J.C., and Davis, R.A., 1993. Statistical Geomorphic Classification of Ebb-Tidal Deltas along the West-Central Florida Coast. Journal of Coastal Research SI(18), 165-184.'''<br />
<br />
:This paper describes morphologic type of tidal inlets on the west central Florida barrier island chain. Gibeaut and Davis utilized aerial photographs to analyze the ebb tidal delta planform shape for 9 inlets (Longboat Pass, Redfish Pass, Dunedin Pass, Captiva, New Pass, Big Sarasota Pass, Stump Pass, Midnight Pass and Gasparilla Pass). They utilized a number of historical non rectified vertical aerial photographs for each inlet and digitized the swash platform, the shoreline landward of the swash platform, and the outline of the main ebb channel thalweg. In the paper probability functions are utilized to describe the seaward outline of the ebb-delta terminal lobe for the inlets examined. The sources of error in the digitization process are described.<br />
<br />
:A cluster analysis of morphological parameters (ebb delta area, left shoreline offset, right shoreline offset, channel position and channel angle) was performed. The cluster analysis showed inlet configurations to be a continuum with characteristic inlet types identifiable at the end points in the continuum. The groupings that were defined in the cluster analysis were separated by tidal classifications (wave dominated, mixed energy, mixed energy with large shoreline offset and large asymmetry and tide dominated).<br />
<br />
:A discussion of controls on inlet form and size is included within this paper along with a discussion of how natural and anthropogenic changes (i.e., changes in prism, dredging, tide, waves, etc.) cause changes in inlet morphology. They conclude by identifying four factors which cause variation in inlet planform morphology: 1) time variation of wave energy, (2) time variation of tidal energy (prism), (3) space variation of tidal energy (prism), and (4) evolution of ebb-tidal deltas and adjacent shorelines.<br />
<br />
<br />
______________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
Back to [[Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography | Inlet Geomorphic Annotated Bibliography]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography-Processes&diff=8469Inlet Geomorph Bibliography-Processes2012-02-29T15:46:36Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Kraus, N.C., 2001. On Equilibrium Properties in Predictive Modeling of Coastal Morphology Change. Proceedings, Coastal Dynamics 01 Conference, ASCE, pp. 1-15.'''<br />
<br />
:This paper discusses the benefit of incorporating equilibrium properties in coastal morphology. Equilibrium properties of coastal systems exist over small, intermediate and large time scales. Kraus discussed that the equilibrium properties can constrain basic physics calculations which, for coastal processes calculations, may be very difficult to determine. Constraining these equations with the condition of equilibrium may make these problems solvable. Kraus includes definitions of key terms; closed/open system, steady state and static equilibrium, dynamic equilibrium, unstable equilibrium, asymptotic equilibrium (saturation) and liberation.<br />
<br />
:Kraus discusses equilibrium at beaches (profile equilibration) and equilibrium relationships for tidal inlets (with a tabulated literature review included). The author then extends upon the reservoir model (Kraus, 2000) and presents an example of its application at Shinnecock inlet and shows the sediment pathways which should be included within the reservoir model for this example inlet with focus on the use of equilibrium to describe transport processes at inlets.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Price, W.A. 1963. Patterns of Flow and Channeling in Tidal Inlets. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 279-290.'''<br />
<br />
:Price examined the hydrodynamic nature of currents which flow through the inlet. Five types of tidal openings are investigated in this paper: tidal inlets with deltas; tidal inlets with one or both deltas absent but with bottom channeling, openings in coral reefs where channeling is present, mouths of wide shallow estuaries obstructed by bars, straights of continental shelves. All of these tidal opening types are slot shaped where their widths exceed their depths. A range of tidal inlets example locations with and without delta development are provided. Flow patterns through the deltas and inlet trough are discussed comparing ebb and flood flows. A discussion of flow reversals is also included. Price also presents information on the tidal jet, the nature of jet flow and associated sediment deposition in both deep and shallow passageways.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''FitzGerald, D.M., 1982. Sediment Bypassing at Mixed Energy Tidal Inlets. Proceedings 18th Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE Press, pp. 1094-1118.'''<br />
<br />
:FitzGerald examines inlet sediment bypassing through stable inlet processes and ebb delta breaching at six mixed energy (tide-dominated) coasts at non-structured tidal inlets. As an introduction, the work by Bruun and Gerritsen (1959) is discussed whereby the type of bypassing processes at an inlet can be determined by the ratio between longshore sediment transport and maximum discharge at the inlet under spring tidal conditions.<br />
<br />
:FitzGerald describes the new landward sediment transport due to landward directed currents over the ebb shoals terminal lobe which retard ebb currents and enhance flood currents. Additionally, the model of bar migration up the shore face with associated stacking of the swash bars is shown. Ebb tidal delta breaching caused by a dominant direction of longshore sediment transport is discussed. This, in turn, results in downdrift migration of the main ebb channel, eventually breaching of the shoal to form a new, more hydraulically efficient channel and bar migration onshore.<br />
<br />
:Examples of bypassing from five regions are discussed: Maine coast, central South Carolina, East Friesian Islands along the West German North Sea, the southern New Jersey coast, the Virginia coast and the Gulf of Alaska Cooper River Delta.<br />
<br />
:The location of the bar welding is discussed as it influences erosional and depositional patterns along the barrier island. The bar welding location is affected by the inlet size, wave versus tide dominance and channel orientation.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''FitzGerald, D.M., 1996. Geomorphic Variability and Morphologic Sedimentologic Controls on Tidal Inlets. Journal of Coastal Research, SI 23, pp.47-71.'''<br />
<br />
:Geomorphic variability at tidal inlets is discussed in this paper. FitzGerald defines a tidal inlet as an opening in the shoreline through which water penetrates land, connecting the ocean and bays, lagoons, marsh and tidal creek systems. He describes that the main channel of the tidal inlet is maintained by tidal currents, distinguishing a tidal inlet from open embayments or rock bound passages where there is little or no mobilized sediment.<br />
<br />
:FitzGerald describes a history of morphologic models for inlet shoreline alignment, ebb tidal shoal processes, hydrographic regime and temporal changes at inlets and includes graphical depictions of the models described. FitzGerald then summarizes geomorphic and sedimentologic controls on tidal inlets. These include: sediment supply, basin geometry, regional stratography, occurrence of bedrock, riverine discharge and sea level changes. He also describes secondary controls with interaction of two or more of the factors previously mentioned.<br />
<br />
:Ebb tidal and inlet throat morphology is discussed as is the relationship to waves and tidal prism and the effects of deltas on the inlet shoreline. A table of tidal ranges and wave heights and prisms of mixed energy (tide dominated) shorelines of the world is included within this paper. Relationships between tidal prism and throat are and literature on the topic is discussed in this paper as is the dynamic relationship between tidal prism and inlet throat cross-sectional area.<br />
<br />
:Case studies of backbarrier processes in the East Friesian Islands, central Couth Carolina and in Chatham Harbor, Cape Cod are discussed. Additionally, a case study at the Saco River estuary and Kennebec River estuary in Maine are included in a discussion of estuary/inlet interaction and salinity effects.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Nummedal, D., Oertel, G.F., Hubbard, D.K., and Hine, A.C., 1977. Tidal Inlet Variability- Cape Hatteras to Cape Canaveral. Proceedings, 1977 Coastal Sediments Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 543-562'''<br />
<br />
:A discussion of tidal range along the east coast study area begins this paper. It classifies North Carolina and northern South Carolina as microtidal wave dominated, southern South Carolina and Georgia as mesotidal tide-dominated, and the northeast coast of Florida as microtidal wave dominated. The paper builds on studies of tidal range to include wave energy, inner shelf slope and hydrologic properties of the inlets associated lagoon.<br />
<br />
:Physical parameters such as wave action and tidal current are illustrated on a graph with wave action increasing and tidal velocity decreasing from north to south. The authors then turn to a discussion of geological parameters. These include total lagoon area, open water area, percent open water area to total maximum throat depth, ebb tidal delta area, inner shoal area, maximum offshore distance of ebb tidal delta, distance to the 18 foot offshore depth contour and inner shelf slope. These values are provided for representative inlets in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. Physical parameters are compared and discussed for the inlets in each of the states examined. The authors preformed a qualitative analysis of sediment transport mechanisms in a zone of wave and current interactions to improve understanding of tidal inlet process-response characteristics. A figure of states vs physical and geological parameters is included with the discussion.<br />
<br />
:They conclude that wave dominated inlets typically have small ebb-tidal deltas, pushed up against shore, wide throats with multiple sand bodies, and significant inner shoals. The tide dominated inlets are characterized by large ebb-tidal deltas extending far out from shore, well-defined deep main channels and inlet throats, and an absence of inner shoals, except where fresh water inflow induces stratification and landward bottom sediment transport. Further, the authors discuss that the regional variation identified in the paper is due to changes in the nearshore wave energy and tidal range from north to south. The tidal range increases and the wave energy decreases toward the apex of the Georgia Bight due to widening of the shelf and a decrease in nearshore slope and deep water wave action. The authors indicate that the ratio between open water and marsh in most Georgia and South Carolina inlets is such that inlet flow becomes dominant. The large open water areas relative to the marsh for North Carolina inlets may create flood dominance at these inlets. The existence of large inner shoals in ebb-dominated inlets can be attributed to the mechanics of wave-current interaction which produces higher suspended sediment concentrations at flooding than at ebbing tide.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Fitzgerald, D.M., Kraus, N.C., and Hands, E.B. 2001. Natural Mechanisms of Sediment Bypassing at Tidal Inlets. ERDC/CHL CHETN-IV-30, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.'''<br />
<br />
:In this paper, Fitzgerald, Kraus, and Hands present sediment bypassing at natural and modified inlets. They identify bypassing through examination of sequences of aerial photographs and bathymetric maps. The mechanisms identified include:<br />
<br />
:*Stable inlet processes – This is the case of stable inlets with non-migrating throats and stable main ebb channel position through the ebb delta. At these inlets bypassing occurs through formation of large bar complexes which migrate and attach to the downdrift shoreline.<br />
:*Ebb-tidal delta breaching – In this case, the throat is stable and the main ebb channel cyclically migrates downdrift.<br />
:*Inlet migration and spit breaching – In this case, throat constriction is caused by longshore transport and bar breaching reestablishes a new, more hydraulically efficient channel. This type of movement can be identified by the presence of an updrift spit and elongation of the tidal channel. The new inlet channel may be opened due to differences in the tidal phase and tidal range between the ocean and the back barrier. The new inlet may form during a storm. The old (migrated) inlet is increasingly less hydraulically efficient and closes.<br />
:*Outer channel shifting – This type of bypassing is limited to the seaward end of the main ebb channel and involves smaller sediment volumes than the ebb-tidal delta breaching model. The outer channel is deflected downdrift while the main channel remains fixed. As the outer channel becomes more and more deflected, it becomes hydraulically inefficient.<br />
:*Spit platform breaching – This type of bypassing occurs at migrating inlets where asymmetric channel configurations form due to the influence of the updrift barrier spit. The new channel is breached through the spit platform under this mechanism. This is analogous to flow through a river meander bend. In this form, secondary channels may be created.<br />
:*Bypassing at wave dominated inlets - Wave dominated inlets form arcuate ebb shoals close to shore and transport of sediment occurs continuously along the periphery of the delta over the shallow distal portion (especially at high tide).<br />
:*Jetty-weir bypassing - Jetty-weir bypassing occurs at inlets with one or two weirs and no settling basin. Transport into the weirs is most active during storms. The sediment in the weir can be transported seaward by ebb currents. This type of bypassing occurs most at inlets when ebb currents are strong enough to transport sands out of the channel.<br />
:*Jettied inlet bypassing – Sediment bypassing at jettied inlets occurs when excess sediment accumulated on the updrift beach. The amount of sediment accumulation and bypassing is dependent upon the jetty length, inlet size, channel depth, total current strength, and ebb shoal morphology. In this case, the jetties funnel ebb discharge and displaces the ebb shoal further offshore thus reducing the effects of waves retarding the formation of bar complexes. Transport along the outer bar by wave action occurs primarily during storms.<br />
:*Outer channel shifting at jettied inlets. In this form of bypassing deflection of the outer channel and shoal breaching, to produce a more hydraulically efficient channel. Sediment from the relic shoal is transported onshore due to wave action.<br />
<br />
:These types of bypassing mechanisms are discussed in this paper along with the volume of sediment transported through each of these mechanisms and bypassing frequency.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Riedel, H.P., and Gourlay, M.R. 1980, Inlets/Estuaries Discharging Into Sheltered Waters. Coastal Engineering, pp. 2550-2564.'''<br />
<br />
:The study was motivated by the design of a new international airport in Australia. During this design process an existing stable creek (Serpentine Creek) was reclaimed and flood waters were diverted into an artificial inlet (Moreton Bay). In order to design this reclamation and diversion, Riedel and Gourlay investigated characteristics of inlets and estuaries discharging into sheltered waters.<br />
<br />
:This area of Australia has a mild wave climate with low wave heights and small waver periods. Also, this area has low littoral drift rates. Although a literature review of the relationships previously derived for tidal inlets on open coasts are included in this paper, Riedel and Gourlay acknowledge that these relationships are not likely to apply in this case.<br />
<br />
:A literature search of Australian studies was performed for this research and a short discussion of this literature is included in this paper. Field studies were undertaken to obtain relationships. Tide, current and limited hydrographic data was obtained for four inlets and their estuaries in South East Queensland (Beelbi Creek in Hervey Bay, Tingalpa, Serpentine and Burpengary creeks in Moreton Bay). These were selected because of their similarity to the proposed artificial inlet (including sediment similarity). The data obtained consisted of: Tide records, tidal velocities, hydrographic surveys to define cross-sectional areas and tidal prisms.<br />
<br />
:Riedel and Gourlay identified that there are differences between the stability characteristics of small inlets discharging into sheltered waters and large systems connected through an exposed shoreline but that the difference is purely in turns of scale. For a given cross-sectional area of the inlet entrance the tidal prism for the exposed coast inlets is approximately 2 to 3 times those of sheltered inlets. Sheltered inlets have smaller littoral drift rates and cross sectional areas of sheltered entrances are larger than for exposed inlets for a given prism and velocities will be lower. Riedel and Gourlay also included a discussion of the relationship between cross sectional area and tidal prism for estuaries.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Hubbard, D.K., Barwis, J.H., and Nummedal, D., 1977. Sediment Transport in Four South Carolina Inlets. Proceedings, Coastal Sediments 1977. pp. 582-601.'''<br />
<br />
:This paper presents hydrographic studies at four South Carolina inlets (Fripp, Stono, Murrells, and Little River) to investigate sediment transport patterns through the inlet throat and across adjacent shoals. This work builds upon research on the variability in inlet types. Also included is a discussion of a model for ebb tidal delta circulation. As part of this research, current velocities and tidal lengths were measured hourly for 26 hours at each of the four inlets. During the studies the researchers noted the importance of wave induced sediment transport. A more detailed study was begun at Murrells inlet. Wave observations were taken over an 8 day period. Suspended sediment samples were collected over four days to determine sediment transport rates. Swash bar migration rates were also measured to estimate bedload transport. Tidal current processes in the main channel, swash platforms, swash bars and channel margin bars of the four inlets are discussed in this paper along with the sediment transport processes associated with each case.<br />
<br />
:The authors observed that degree of marsh development controls the ebb and flood dominance at the inlet and that the relative elevation of the water at the maximum flood and ebb flows effects channel flow through the inlet. The features of swash platforms and swash bars are described in this paper. Swash bar surfaces are dominated by landward flow. This dominance can result in time velocity asymmetry from topographic influences and wave input. Each influences are discussed. The authors also describe how wave processes effect sediment transport in tidal inlets. At Murrels inlet, the waves break in much shallower water (relative to wave heights) on flood than on ebb due to the effects of the currents. This process effects sediment transport on the bar. Previously established sediment transport rates from CIRC (1973) were compared to the measured data collected as part of this research. It was concluded that the theoretical relationships, based on fluvial or flume data may have questionable application in the tidal environment.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Dean, R.G., and Walton, T.L., 1973. Sediment Transport Processes in the Vicinity of Inlets with Special Reference to Sand Trapping. Estuarine Research, Volume II, pp. 129-149.'''<br />
<br />
:Dean and Walton focus on the sand trapped within the outer shoals of Florida inlets. They discuss flow processes at inlets and interaction between flow and inlet outer bars at inlets and the effects of wave energy on limiting shoal volumes. The material in the outré shoal can be thought of as being acted upon by (1) tidal forces which act offshore and (2) wave forces which act to return the material to the inlet. When these forces are balanced, the shoal has reached equilibrium. The authors also discuss the processes of migration as it relates to equilibrium of inner and outer shoal volumes. They provide examples of inlets with improvements (jetty construction and dredging) and discuss how these improvements effect sedimentary processes around inlets and modify the sediment budgets. The authors describe jetties with and without wiers. Jetties confine an inlet’s current and cause sand deposits to je “jettied” out to deeper water. Dean and Walton suggest that the areas of moderate wave action, where net littoral drift is substantial and the navigation channel is greater than 20 feet, natural processes are not likely to be effective in reestablishing natural bypassing after jetty construction. They describe examples of Hillsboro Inlet, Florida and Masonboro Inlet, NC. Dean and Walton also discuss dredging of the outer bar and the interruption to littoral drift and lowering of elevations in the entire bar formation that it causes. Specific examples of 23 Florida inlets are provided along with tables of the volumes of material deposited in the outer inlet and bay shoals. This paper concludes with an evaluation of the relationship between the volume maintained within the inlet shoals and the current erosion rate in Florida.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Walton, T. L. Jr. (2002). Tidal Velocity Asymmetry at Inlets, ERDC/CHL CHETN IV-47. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.''' http://chl.wes.army.mil/library/publications/chetn<br />
<br />
:In this paper the types of inlet asymmetries are discussed and specific focus is given to channel tidal velocity asymmetry which drives sediment transport. Two possible types of inlet tidal velocity asymmetry are presented here; flood dominant asymmetry and ebb dominant asymmetry. The relationship between bay tide, hb(t) and channel velocity, u(t) (from Kulegan 1967), u(t) =(Ab/Ac)*dhb(t)/dt where Ab is the cross sectional area of the bay and Ac is the cross sectional area of the channel leads to a discussion of tidal forcing by tidal harmonic constituents and asymmetry caused by them. He discusses the relationship developed by Boon and Byrne (1981), based on Kulegan (1967), who presented a bay tide relationship of hb=AM2cos(ωt)+AM4 cos(2ωt-gM4) where flood dominance exists if π ≤ gM4 ≤ 2π and ebb dominance exists if 0 ≤ gM4 ≤ π and the greater the ratio of AM4/AM2 the greater the flood or ebb dominance. Walton discusses other causes of tidal asymmetry as well, including asymmetry caused by friction (asymmetry generated by tidal interactions with estuarine/inlet channel geometry) asymmetry generated by basin hypsometry (the vertical distribution of bay surface area with wave height). He also presents asymmetry examples at five flood dominant inlets and four ebb dominant inlets.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Boon, J. D., and Byrne, R.J., 1981. On Basin Hypsometry and the Morphodynamic Response of Coastal Inlet Systems. In Marine Geology, 40 (1981), Elsever Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp. 27-48.'''<br />
<br />
:The aim of the paper is to expand upon previous research into the tidal hydraulic processes which contribute toward flood or ebb dominance in inlet transport regimes. The authors introduce the concept of basin hypsometry which is the distribution of basin surface area with height in lieu of the term basin geometry which, as they discuss, refers to three special dimensions. Basin hypsometry involves only two special dimensions and id directly associated with the continuity equation which is used in tidal-flow computations. This allows for the simulation of the tidal hydraulic response in a basin and inlet system where the basin fills through sedimentation aided by marsh development.<br />
<br />
:Boone and Byrne utilize the INLET2 numerical model to examine the interaction between basin hypsometry and inlet channel hydraulics utilizing a large marsh basin complex near Wachapreague, VA and Swash bay, an individual marsh within the larger complex, as an example case. The authors show that both channel configuration and basin hypsometry are controlling factors in determining the characteristics of the mean vertical tide within the basin and the mean horizontal tide in the main channel:<br />
<br />
::(1) A mature or sediment-filled basin (ϒ = 1.8, 2.5) having adequate communication with the sea produces positive tidal duration differences. The latter are conductive of greater peak discharge and greater peak velocity during ebb.<br />
::(2) An open basin (ϒ = 3.5, 5.0) produces negative tidal duration differences associated with greater peak discharge during flood. Peak channel velocities are dependent upon the degree of tidal range reduction and position within the conveyance channel.<br />
::(3) Major reductions in channel cross-sectional area lead to a reduction in basin tidal range which tends to eliminate the effect of varying basin hypsometry. The tidal duration difference becomes strongly negative for highly restricted channels.<br />
::(4) A filled marsh basin (ϒ = 1.8) appears to reach a condition in which positive duration differences are progressively reduced as the channel cross-sectional area nears maximum values. It follows that the right side of the curve for ϒ = 1.8 may represent a region favoring dynamic equilibrium; namely, one in which the ebb transport potential or channel flushing capacity seaward varies inversely with channel cross-sectional area. The present Swash Bay system lies within this region.<br />
::(5) As a given basin fills with sediment, its potential tidal prism is continually made smaller. Thus the four basin configurations presented in Figure 8 this paper represent four different magnitudes of water volume seeking to pass through a given channel area indicated on the abscissa. The greater the volume, the greater the effect of channel impedance in reducing the portion that is admitted to the basin. The paper indicates that, for this reason, filled basins have a delayed reduction in tidal range as the channel cross-sectional area nears minimum values.<br />
<br />
:The authors discuss the tidal harmonic signatures M2, the fundamental harmonic period, taken as 12.42 mean solar hours, the period of the principle lunar semidiurnal constituent, and M4, the first-harmonic term representing the lunar quaterdiurnal constituent, a shallow water tide with a period of 6.21 solar hours. The addition of the M2 and M4 tidal harmonics produce a fixed distortion in the mean semidiurnal tide. Channel velocity and tidal harmonic relationships are then discussed in terms of ebb and flood dominance for three east coast basin and inlet systems. The authors use harmonic information to identify some of the morphodynamic differences seen at these inlets.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Dissanayake et al., 2009 Modeled Channel Patterns in a Schematized Tidal Inlet. Coastal Engineering 56 (2009) pp. 1069-1083.'''<br />
<br />
:This paper describes the process-based Delft3D (2DH) modeling performed for inlets in the Dutch Wadden Sea. The model used is forced by tides only and both short and long term simulations are run with morphology similar to Ameland Inlet.<br />
<br />
:The inlets in the Dutch Wadden Sea are mixed energy tide dominated. The Ameland inlet has a westward oriented main channel and ebb tidal delta. The reason for this orientation is hypothesized and then investigated using the model. The model domain is discussed along with details of model setup and sensitivity runs and model runs from a variety of different scenarios (inlet width, tidal asymmetry and direction, transport formulation and relative location of the tidal basin). Short term simulations were carried out over a few tidal cycles using M1 and M2 tidal forcing parameters.<br />
<br />
:The outputs of the short and long term model runs are discussed along with channel and ebb shoal asymmetry. The authors found that the direction of tidal forcing was the main parameter governing orientation of the main inlet channel and ebb delta.<br />
<br />
______________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
Back to [[Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography | Inlet Geomorphic Annotated Bibliography]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography-Processes&diff=8468Inlet Geomorph Bibliography-Processes2012-02-29T15:46:09Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Kraus, N.C., 2001. On Equilibrium Properties in Predictive Modeling of Coastal Morphology Change. Proceedings, Coastal Dynamics 01 Conference, ASCE, pp. 1-15.'''<br />
<br />
:This paper discusses the benefit of incorporating equilibrium properties in coastal morphology. Equilibrium properties of coastal systems exist over small, intermediate and large time scales. Kraus discussed that the equilibrium properties can constrain basic physics calculations which, for coastal processes calculations, may be very difficult to determine. Constraining these equations with the condition of equilibrium may make these problems solvable. Kraus includes definitions of key terms; closed/open system, steady state and static equilibrium, dynamic equilibrium, unstable equilibrium, asymptotic equilibrium (saturation) and liberation.<br />
<br />
:Kraus discusses equilibrium at beaches (profile equilibration) and equilibrium relationships for tidal inlets (with a tabulated literature review included). The author then extends upon the reservoir model (Kraus, 2000) and presents an example of its application at Shinnecock inlet and shows the sediment pathways which should be included within the reservoir model for this example inlet with focus on the use of equilibrium to describe transport processes at inlets.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Price, W.A. 1963. Patterns of Flow and Channeling in Tidal Inlets. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 279-290.'''<br />
<br />
:Price examined the hydrodynamic nature of currents which flow through the inlet. Five types of tidal openings are investigated in this paper: tidal inlets with deltas; tidal inlets with one or both deltas absent but with bottom channeling, openings in coral reefs where channeling is present, mouths of wide shallow estuaries obstructed by bars, straights of continental shelves. All of these tidal opening types are slot shaped where their widths exceed their depths. A range of tidal inlets example locations with and without delta development are provided. Flow patterns through the deltas and inlet trough are discussed comparing ebb and flood flows. A discussion of flow reversals is also included. Price also presents information on the tidal jet, the nature of jet flow and associated sediment deposition in both deep and shallow passageways.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''FitzGerald, D.M., 1982. Sediment Bypassing at Mixed Energy Tidal Inlets. Proceedings 18th Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE Press, pp. 1094-1118.'''<br />
<br />
:FitzGerald examines inlet sediment bypassing through stable inlet processes and ebb delta breaching at six mixed energy (tide-dominated) coasts at non-structured tidal inlets. As an introduction, the work by Bruun and Gerritsen (1959) is discussed whereby the type of bypassing processes at an inlet can be determined by the ratio between longshore sediment transport and maximum discharge at the inlet under spring tidal conditions.<br />
<br />
:FitzGerald describes the new landward sediment transport due to landward directed currents over the ebb shoals terminal lobe which retard ebb currents and enhance flood currents. Additionally, the model of bar migration up the shore face with associated stacking of the swash bars is shown. Ebb tidal delta breaching caused by a dominant direction of longshore sediment transport is discussed. This, in turn, results in downdrift migration of the main ebb channel, eventually breaching of the shoal to form a new, more hydraulically efficient channel and bar migration onshore.<br />
<br />
:Examples of bypassing from five regions are discussed: Maine coast, central South Carolina, East Friesian Islands along the West German North Sea, the southern New Jersey coast, the Virginia coast and the Gulf of Alaska Cooper River Delta.<br />
<br />
:The location of the bar welding is discussed as it influences erosional and depositional patterns along the barrier island. The bar welding location is affected by the inlet size, wave versus tide dominance and channel orientation.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''FitzGerald, D.M., 1996. Geomorphic Variability and Morphologic Sedimentologic Controls on Tidal Inlets. Journal of Coastal Research, SI 23, pp.47-71.'''<br />
<br />
:Geomorphic variability at tidal inlets is discussed in this paper. FitzGerald defines a tidal inlet as an opening in the shoreline through which water penetrates land, connecting the ocean and bays, lagoons, marsh and tidal creek systems. He describes that the main channel of the tidal inlet is maintained by tidal currents, distinguishing a tidal inlet from open embayments or rock bound passages where there is little or no mobilized sediment.<br />
<br />
:FitzGerald describes a history of morphologic models for inlet shoreline alignment, ebb tidal shoal processes, hydrographic regime and temporal changes at inlets and includes graphical depictions of the models described. FitzGerald then summarizes geomorphic and sedimentologic controls on tidal inlets. These include: sediment supply, basin geometry, regional stratography, occurrence of bedrock, riverine discharge and sea level changes. He also describes secondary controls with interaction of two or more of the factors previously mentioned.<br />
<br />
:Ebb tidal and inlet throat morphology is discussed as is the relationship to waves and tidal prism and the effects of deltas on the inlet shoreline. A table of tidal ranges and wave heights and prisms of mixed energy (tide dominated) shorelines of the world is included within this paper. Relationships between tidal prism and throat are and literature on the topic is discussed in this paper as is the dynamic relationship between tidal prism and inlet throat cross-sectional area.<br />
<br />
:Case studies of backbarrier processes in the East Friesian Islands, central Couth Carolina and in Chatham Harbor, Cape Cod are discussed. Additionally, a case study at the Saco River estuary and Kennebec River estuary in Maine are included in a discussion of estuary/inlet interaction and salinity effects.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Nummedal, D., Oertel, G.F., Hubbard, D.K., and Hine, A.C., 1977. Tidal Inlet Variability- Cape Hatteras to Cape Canaveral. Proceedings, 1977 Coastal Sediments Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 543-562'''<br />
<br />
:A discussion of tidal range along the east coast study area begins this paper. It classifies North Carolina and northern South Carolina as microtidal wave dominated, southern South Carolina and Georgia as mesotidal tide-dominated, and the northeast coast of Florida as microtidal wave dominated. The paper builds on studies of tidal range to include wave energy, inner shelf slope and hydrologic properties of the inlets associated lagoon.<br />
<br />
:Physical parameters such as wave action and tidal current are illustrated on a graph with wave action increasing and tidal velocity decreasing from north to south. The authors then turn to a discussion of geological parameters. These include total lagoon area, open water area, percent open water area to total maximum throat depth, ebb tidal delta area, inner shoal area, maximum offshore distance of ebb tidal delta, distance to the 18 foot offshore depth contour and inner shelf slope. These values are provided for representative inlets in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. Physical parameters are compared and discussed for the inlets in each of the states examined. The authors preformed a qualitative analysis of sediment transport mechanisms in a zone of wave and current interactions to improve understanding of tidal inlet process-response characteristics. A figure of states vs physical and geological parameters is included with the discussion.<br />
<br />
:They conclude that wave dominated inlets typically have small ebb-tidal deltas, pushed up against shore, wide throats with multiple sand bodies, and significant inner shoals. The tide dominated inlets are characterized by large ebb-tidal deltas extending far out from shore, well-defined deep main channels and inlet throats, and an absence of inner shoals, except where fresh water inflow induces stratification and landward bottom sediment transport. Further, the authors discuss that the regional variation identified in the paper is due to changes in the nearshore wave energy and tidal range from north to south. The tidal range increases and the wave energy decreases toward the apex of the Georgia Bight due to widening of the shelf and a decrease in nearshore slope and deep water wave action. The authors indicate that the ratio between open water and marsh in most Georgia and South Carolina inlets is such that inlet flow becomes dominant. The large open water areas relative to the marsh for North Carolina inlets may create flood dominance at these inlets. The existence of large inner shoals in ebb-dominated inlets can be attributed to the mechanics of wave-current interaction which produces higher suspended sediment concentrations at flooding than at ebbing tide.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Fitzgerald, D.M., Kraus, N.C., and Hands, E.B. 2001. Natural Mechanisms of Sediment Bypassing at Tidal Inlets. ERDC/CHL CHETN-IV-30, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.'''<br />
<br />
:In this paper, Fitzgerald, Kraus, and Hands present sediment bypassing at natural and modified inlets. They identify bypassing through examination of sequences of aerial photographs and bathymetric maps. The mechanisms identified include:<br />
<br />
:*Stable inlet processes – This is the case of stable inlets with non-migrating throats and stable main ebb channel position through the ebb delta. At these inlets bypassing occurs through formation of large bar complexes which migrate and attach to the downdrift shoreline.<br />
:*Ebb-tidal delta breaching – In this case, the throat is stable and the main ebb channel cyclically migrates downdrift.<br />
:*Inlet migration and spit breaching – In this case, throat constriction is caused by longshore transport and bar breaching reestablishes a new, more hydraulically efficient channel. This type of movement can be identified by the presence of an updrift spit and elongation of the tidal channel. The new inlet channel may be opened due to differences in the tidal phase and tidal range between the ocean and the back barrier. The new inlet may form during a storm. The old (migrated) inlet is increasingly less hydraulically efficient and closes.<br />
:*Outer channel shifting – This type of bypassing is limited to the seaward end of the main ebb channel and involves smaller sediment volumes than the ebb-tidal delta breaching model. The outer channel is deflected downdrift while the main channel remains fixed. As the outer channel becomes more and more deflected, it becomes hydraulically inefficient.<br />
:*Spit platform breaching – This type of bypassing occurs at migrating inlets where asymmetric channel configurations form due to the influence of the updrift barrier spit. The new channel is breached through the spit platform under this mechanism. This is analogous to flow through a river meander bend. In this form, secondary channels may be created.<br />
:*Bypassing at wave dominated inlets - Wave dominated inlets form arcuate ebb shoals close to shore and transport of sediment occurs continuously along the periphery of the delta over the shallow distal portion (especially at high tide).<br />
:*Jetty-weir bypassing - Jetty-weir bypassing occurs at inlets with one or two weirs and no settling basin. Transport into the weirs is most active during storms. The sediment in the weir can be transported seaward by ebb currents. This type of bypassing occurs most at inlets when ebb currents are strong enough to transport sands out of the channel.<br />
:*Jettied inlet bypassing – Sediment bypassing at jettied inlets occurs when excess sediment accumulated on the updrift beach. The amount of sediment accumulation and bypassing is dependent upon the jetty length, inlet size, channel depth, total current strength, and ebb shoal morphology. In this case, the jetties funnel ebb discharge and displaces the ebb shoal further offshore thus reducing the effects of waves retarding the formation of bar complexes. Transport along the outer bar by wave action occurs primarily during storms.<br />
:*Outer channel shifting at jettied inlets. In this form of bypassing deflection of the outer channel and shoal breaching, to produce a more hydraulically efficient channel. Sediment from the relic shoal is transported onshore due to wave action.<br />
<br />
:These types of bypassing mechanisms are discussed in this paper along with the volume of sediment transported through each of these mechanisms and bypassing frequency.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Riedel, H.P., and Gourlay, M.R. 1980, Inlets/Estuaries Discharging Into Sheltered Waters. Coastal Engineering, pp. 2550-2564.'''<br />
<br />
:The study was motivated by the design of a new international airport in Australia. During this design process an existing stable creek (Serpentine Creek) was reclaimed and flood waters were diverted into an artificial inlet (Moreton Bay). In order to design this reclamation and diversion, Riedel and Gourlay investigated characteristics of inlets and estuaries discharging into sheltered waters.<br />
<br />
:This area of Australia has a mild wave climate with low wave heights and small waver periods. Also, this area has low littoral drift rates. Although a literature review of the relationships previously derived for tidal inlets on open coasts are included in this paper, Riedel and Gourlay acknowledge that these relationships are not likely to apply in this case.<br />
<br />
:A literature search of Australian studies was performed for this research and a short discussion of this literature is included in this paper. Field studies were undertaken to obtain relationships. Tide, current and limited hydrographic data was obtained for four inlets and their estuaries in South East Queensland (Beelbi Creek in Hervey Bay, Tingalpa, Serpentine and Burpengary creeks in Moreton Bay). These were selected because of their similarity to the proposed artificial inlet (including sediment similarity). The data obtained consisted of: Tide records, tidal velocities, hydrographic surveys to define cross-sectional areas and tidal prisms.<br />
<br />
:Riedel and Gourlay identified that there are differences between the stability characteristics of small inlets discharging into sheltered waters and large systems connected through an exposed shoreline but that the difference is purely in turns of scale. For a given cross-sectional area of the inlet entrance the tidal prism for the exposed coast inlets is approximately 2 to 3 times those of sheltered inlets. Sheltered inlets have smaller littoral drift rates and cross sectional areas of sheltered entrances are larger than for exposed inlets for a given prism and velocities will be lower. Riedel and Gourlay also included a discussion of the relationship between cross sectional area and tidal prism for estuaries.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Hubbard, D.K., Barwis, J.H., and Nummedal, D., 1977. Sediment Transport in Four South Carolina Inlets. Proceedings, Coastal Sediments 1977. pp. 582-601.'''<br />
<br />
:This paper presents hydrographic studies at four South Carolina inlets (Fripp, Stono, Murrells, and Little River) to investigate sediment transport patterns through the inlet throat and across adjacent shoals. This work builds upon research on the variability in inlet types. Also included is a discussion of a model for ebb tidal delta circulation. As part of this research, current velocities and tidal lengths were measured hourly for 26 hours at each of the four inlets. During the studies the researchers noted the importance of wave induced sediment transport. A more detailed study was begun at Murrells inlet. Wave observations were taken over an 8 day period. Suspended sediment samples were collected over four days to determine sediment transport rates. Swash bar migration rates were also measured to estimate bedload transport. Tidal current processes in the main channel, swash platforms, swash bars and channel margin bars of the four inlets are discussed in this paper along with the sediment transport processes associated with each case.<br />
<br />
:The authors observed that degree of marsh development controls the ebb and flood dominance at the inlet and that the relative elevation of the water at the maximum flood and ebb flows effects channel flow through the inlet. The features of swash platforms and swash bars are described in this paper. Swash bar surfaces are dominated by landward flow. This dominance can result in time velocity asymmetry from topographic influences and wave input. Each influences are discussed. The authors also describe how wave processes effect sediment transport in tidal inlets. At Murrels inlet, the waves break in much shallower water (relative to wave heights) on flood than on ebb due to the effects of the currents. This process effects sediment transport on the bar. Previously established sediment transport rates from CIRC (1973) were compared to the measured data collected as part of this research. It was concluded that the theoretical relationships, based on fluvial or flume data may have questionable application in the tidal environment.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Dean, R.G., and Walton, T.L., 1973. Sediment Transport Processes in the Vicinity of Inlets with Special Reference to Sand Trapping. Estuarine Research, Volume II, pp. 129-149.'''<br />
<br />
:Dean and Walton focus on the sand trapped within the outer shoals of Florida inlets. They discuss flow processes at inlets and interaction between flow and inlet outer bars at inlets and the effects of wave energy on limiting shoal volumes. The material in the outré shoal can be thought of as being acted upon by (1) tidal forces which act offshore and (2) wave forces which act to return the material to the inlet. When these forces are balanced, the shoal has reached equilibrium. The authors also discuss the processes of migration as it relates to equilibrium of inner and outer shoal volumes. They provide examples of inlets with improvements (jetty construction and dredging) and discuss how these improvements effect sedimentary processes around inlets and modify the sediment budgets. The authors describe jetties with and without wiers. Jetties confine an inlet’s current and cause sand deposits to je “jettied” out to deeper water. Dean and Walton suggest that the areas of moderate wave action, where net littoral drift is substantial and the navigation channel is greater than 20 feet, natural processes are not likely to be effective in reestablishing natural bypassing after jetty construction. They describe examples of Hillsboro Inlet, Florida and Masonboro Inlet, NC. Dean and Walton also discuss dredging of the outer bar and the interruption to littoral drift and lowering of elevations in the entire bar formation that it causes. Specific examples of 23 Florida inlets are provided along with tables of the volumes of material deposited in the outer inlet and bay shoals. This paper concludes with an evaluation of the relationship between the volume maintained within the inlet shoals and the current erosion rate in Florida.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Walton, T. L. Jr. (2002). Tidal Velocity Asymmetry at Inlets, ERDC/CHL CHETN IV-47. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.''' http://chl.wes.army.mil/library/publications/chetn<br />
<br />
:In this paper the types of inlet asymmetries are discussed and specific focus is given to channel tidal velocity asymmetry which drives sediment transport. Two possible types of inlet tidal velocity asymmetry are presented here; flood dominant asymmetry and ebb dominant asymmetry. The relationship between bay tide, hb(t) and channel velocity, u(t) (from Kulegan 1967), u(t) =(Ab/Ac)*dhb(t)/dt where Ab is the cross sectional area of the bay and Ac is the cross sectional area of the channel leads to a discussion of tidal forcing by tidal harmonic constituents and asymmetry caused by them. He discusses the relationship developed by Boon and Byrne (1981), based on Kulegan (1967), who presented a bay tide relationship of hb=AM2cos(ωt)+AM4 cos(2ωt-gM4) where flood dominance exists if π ≤ gM4 ≤ 2π and ebb dominance exists if 0 ≤ gM4 ≤ π and the greater the ratio of AM4/AM2 the greater the flood or ebb dominance. Walton discusses other causes of tidal asymmetry as well, including asymmetry caused by friction (asymmetry generated by tidal interactions with estuarine/inlet channel geometry) asymmetry generated by basin hypsometry (the vertical distribution of bay surface area with wave height). He also presents asymmetry examples at five flood dominant inlets and four ebb dominant inlets.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Boon, J. D., and Byrne, R.J., 1981. On Basin Hypsometry and the Morphodynamic Response of Coastal Inlet Systems. In Marine Geology, 40 (1981), Elsever Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp. 27-48.'''<br />
<br />
:The aim of the paper is to expand upon previous research into the tidal hydraulic processes which contribute toward flood or ebb dominance in inlet transport regimes. The authors introduce the concept of basin hypsometry which is the distribution of basin surface area with height in lieu of the term basin geometry which, as they discuss, refers to three special dimensions. Basin hypsometry involves only two special dimensions and id directly associated with the continuity equation which is used in tidal-flow computations. This allows for the simulation of the tidal hydraulic response in a basin and inlet system where the basin fills through sedimentation aided by marsh development.<br />
<br />
:Boone and Byrne utilize the INLET2 numerical model to examine the interaction between basin hypsometry and inlet channel hydraulics utilizing a large marsh basin complex near Wachapreague, VA and Swash bay, an individual marsh within the larger complex, as an example case. The authors show that both channel configuration and basin hypsometry are controlling factors in determining the characteristics of the mean vertical tide within the basin and the mean horizontal tide in the main channel:<br />
<br />
::(1) A mature or sediment-filled basin (ϒ = 1.8, 2.5) having adequate communication with the sea produces positive tidal duration differences. The latter are conductive of greater peak discharge and greater peak velocity during ebb.<br />
::(2) An open basin (ϒ = 3.5, 5.0) produces negative tidal duration differences associated with greater peak discharge during flood. Peak channel velocities are dependent upon the degree of tidal range reduction and position within the conveyance channel.<br />
::(3) Major reductions in channel cross-sectional area lead to a reduction in basin tidal range which tends to eliminate the effect of varying basin hypsometry. The tidal duration difference becomes strongly negative for highly restricted channels.<br />
::(4) A filled marsh basin (ϒ = 1.8) appears to reach a condition in which positive duration differences are progressively reduced as the channel cross-sectional area nears maximum values. It follows that the right side of the curve for ϒ = 1.8 may represent a region favoring dynamic equilibrium; namely, one in which the ebb transport potential or channel flushing capacity seaward varies inversely with channel cross-sectional area. The present Swash Bay system lies within this region.<br />
::(5) As a given basin fills with sediment, its potential tidal prism is continually made smaller. Thus the four basin configurations presented in Figure 8 this paper represent four different magnitudes of water volume seeking to pass through a given channel area indicated on the abscissa. The greater the volume, the greater the effect of channel impedance in reducing the portion that is admitted to the basin. The paper indicates that, for this reason, filled basins have a delayed reduction in tidal range as the channel cross-sectional area nears minimum values.<br />
<br />
:The authors discuss the tidal harmonic signatures M2, the fundamental harmonic period, taken as 12.42 mean solar hours, the period of the principle lunar semidiurnal constituent, and M4, the first-harmonic term representing the lunar quaterdiurnal constituent, a shallow water tide with a period of 6.21 solar hours. The addition of the M2 and M4 tidal harmonics produce a fixed distortion in the mean semidiurnal tide. Channel velocity and tidal harmonic relationships are then discussed in terms of ebb and flood dominance for three east coast basin and inlet systems. The authors use harmonic information to identify some of the morphodynamic differences seen at these inlets.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Dissanayake et al., 2009 Modeled Channel Patterns in a Schematized Tidal Inlet. Coastal Engineering 56 (2009) pp. 1069-1083.'''<br />
<br />
:This paper describes the process-based Delft3D (2DH) modeling performed for inlets in the Dutch Wadden Sea. The model used is forced by tides only and both short and long term simulations are run with morphology similar to Ameland Inlet.<br />
<br />
:The inlets in the Dutch Wadden Sea are mixed energy tide dominated. The Ameland inlet has a westward oriented main channel and ebb tidal delta. The reason for this orientation is hypothesized and then investigated using the model. The model domain is discussed along with details of model setup and sensitivity runs and model runs from a variety of different scenarios (inlet width, tidal asymmetry and direction, transport formulation and relative location of the tidal basin). Short term simulations were carried out over a few tidal cycles using M1 and M2 tidal forcing parameters.<br />
<br />
:The outputs of the short and long term model runs are discussed along with channel and ebb shoal asymmetry. The authors found that the direction of tidal forcing was the main parameter governing orientation of the main inlet channel and ebb delta.<br />
<br />
______________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
Back to [[Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography | Inlet & Coastal Geomorphic Annotated Bibliography]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography-Processes&diff=8467Inlet Geomorph Bibliography-Processes2012-02-29T15:42:43Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Kraus, N.C., 2001. On Equilibrium Properties in Predictive Modeling of Coastal Morphology Change. Proceedings, Coastal Dynamics 01 Conference, ASCE, pp. 1-15.'''<br />
<br />
:This paper discusses the benefit of incorporating equilibrium properties in coastal morphology. Equilibrium properties of coastal systems exist over small, intermediate and large time scales. Kraus discussed that the equilibrium properties can constrain basic physics calculations which, for coastal processes calculations, may be very difficult to determine. Constraining these equations with the condition of equilibrium may make these problems solvable. Kraus includes definitions of key terms; closed/open system, steady state and static equilibrium, dynamic equilibrium, unstable equilibrium, asymptotic equilibrium (saturation) and liberation.<br />
<br />
:Kraus discusses equilibrium at beaches (profile equilibration) and equilibrium relationships for tidal inlets (with a tabulated literature review included). The author then extends upon the reservoir model (Kraus, 2000) and presents an example of its application at Shinnecock inlet and shows the sediment pathways which should be included within the reservoir model for this example inlet with focus on the use of equilibrium to describe transport processes at inlets.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Price, W.A. 1963. Patterns of Flow and Channeling in Tidal Inlets. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 279-290.'''<br />
<br />
:Price examined the hydrodynamic nature of currents which flow through the inlet. Five types of tidal openings are investigated in this paper: tidal inlets with deltas; tidal inlets with one or both deltas absent but with bottom channeling, openings in coral reefs where channeling is present, mouths of wide shallow estuaries obstructed by bars, straights of continental shelves. All of these tidal opening types are slot shaped where their widths exceed their depths. A range of tidal inlets example locations with and without delta development are provided. Flow patterns through the deltas and inlet trough are discussed comparing ebb and flood flows. A discussion of flow reversals is also included. Price also presents information on the tidal jet, the nature of jet flow and associated sediment deposition in both deep and shallow passageways.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''FitzGerald, D.M., 1982. Sediment Bypassing at Mixed Energy Tidal Inlets. Proceedings 18th Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE Press, pp. 1094-1118.'''<br />
<br />
:FitzGerald examines inlet sediment bypassing through stable inlet processes and ebb delta breaching at six mixed energy (tide-dominated) coasts at non-structured tidal inlets. As an introduction, the work by Bruun and Gerritsen (1959) is discussed whereby the type of bypassing processes at an inlet can be determined by the ratio between longshore sediment transport and maximum discharge at the inlet under spring tidal conditions.<br />
<br />
:FitzGerald describes the new landward sediment transport due to landward directed currents over the ebb shoals terminal lobe which retard ebb currents and enhance flood currents. Additionally, the model of bar migration up the shore face with associated stacking of the swash bars is shown. Ebb tidal delta breaching caused by a dominant direction of longshore sediment transport is discussed. This, in turn, results in downdrift migration of the main ebb channel, eventually breaching of the shoal to form a new, more hydraulically efficient channel and bar migration onshore.<br />
<br />
:Examples of bypassing from five regions are discussed: Maine coast, central South Carolina, East Friesian Islands along the West German North Sea, the southern New Jersey coast, the Virginia coast and the Gulf of Alaska Cooper River Delta.<br />
<br />
:The location of the bar welding is discussed as it influences erosional and depositional patterns along the barrier island. The bar welding location is affected by the inlet size, wave versus tide dominance and channel orientation.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''FitzGerald, D.M., 1996. Geomorphic Variability and Morphologic Sedimentologic Controls on Tidal Inlets. Journal of Coastal Research, SI 23, pp.47-71.'''<br />
<br />
:Geomorphic variability at tidal inlets is discussed in this paper. FitzGerald defines a tidal inlet as an opening in the shoreline through which water penetrates land, connecting the ocean and bays, lagoons, marsh and tidal creek systems. He describes that the main channel of the tidal inlet is maintained by tidal currents, distinguishing a tidal inlet from open embayments or rock bound passages where there is little or no mobilized sediment.<br />
<br />
:FitzGerald describes a history of morphologic models for inlet shoreline alignment, ebb tidal shoal processes, hydrographic regime and temporal changes at inlets and includes graphical depictions of the models described. FitzGerald then summarizes geomorphic and sedimentologic controls on tidal inlets. These include: sediment supply, basin geometry, regional stratography, occurrence of bedrock, riverine discharge and sea level changes. He also describes secondary controls with interaction of two or more of the factors previously mentioned.<br />
<br />
:Ebb tidal and inlet throat morphology is discussed as is the relationship to waves and tidal prism and the effects of deltas on the inlet shoreline. A table of tidal ranges and wave heights and prisms of mixed energy (tide dominated) shorelines of the world is included within this paper. Relationships between tidal prism and throat are and literature on the topic is discussed in this paper as is the dynamic relationship between tidal prism and inlet throat cross-sectional area.<br />
<br />
:Case studies of backbarrier processes in the East Friesian Islands, central Couth Carolina and in Chatham Harbor, Cape Cod are discussed. Additionally, a case study at the Saco River estuary and Kennebec River estuary in Maine are included in a discussion of estuary/inlet interaction and salinity effects.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Nummedal, D., Oertel, G.F., Hubbard, D.K., and Hine, A.C., 1977. Tidal Inlet Variability- Cape Hatteras to Cape Canaveral. Proceedings, 1977 Coastal Sediments Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 543-562'''<br />
<br />
:A discussion of tidal range along the east coast study area begins this paper. It classifies North Carolina and northern South Carolina as microtidal wave dominated, southern South Carolina and Georgia as mesotidal tide-dominated, and the northeast coast of Florida as microtidal wave dominated. The paper builds on studies of tidal range to include wave energy, inner shelf slope and hydrologic properties of the inlets associated lagoon.<br />
<br />
:Physical parameters such as wave action and tidal current are illustrated on a graph with wave action increasing and tidal velocity decreasing from north to south. The authors then turn to a discussion of geological parameters. These include total lagoon area, open water area, percent open water area to total maximum throat depth, ebb tidal delta area, inner shoal area, maximum offshore distance of ebb tidal delta, distance to the 18 foot offshore depth contour and inner shelf slope. These values are provided for representative inlets in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. Physical parameters are compared and discussed for the inlets in each of the states examined. The authors preformed a qualitative analysis of sediment transport mechanisms in a zone of wave and current interactions to improve understanding of tidal inlet process-response characteristics. A figure of states vs physical and geological parameters is included with the discussion.<br />
<br />
:They conclude that wave dominated inlets typically have small ebb-tidal deltas, pushed up against shore, wide throats with multiple sand bodies, and significant inner shoals. The tide dominated inlets are characterized by large ebb-tidal deltas extending far out from shore, well-defined deep main channels and inlet throats, and an absence of inner shoals, except where fresh water inflow induces stratification and landward bottom sediment transport. Further, the authors discuss that the regional variation identified in the paper is due to changes in the nearshore wave energy and tidal range from north to south. The tidal range increases and the wave energy decreases toward the apex of the Georgia Bight due to widening of the shelf and a decrease in nearshore slope and deep water wave action. The authors indicate that the ratio between open water and marsh in most Georgia and South Carolina inlets is such that inlet flow becomes dominant. The large open water areas relative to the marsh for North Carolina inlets may create flood dominance at these inlets. The existence of large inner shoals in ebb-dominated inlets can be attributed to the mechanics of wave-current interaction which produces higher suspended sediment concentrations at flooding than at ebbing tide.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Fitzgerald, D.M., Kraus, N.C., and Hands, E.B. 2001. Natural Mechanisms of Sediment Bypassing at Tidal Inlets. ERDC/CHL CHETN-IV-30, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.'''<br />
<br />
:In this paper, Fitzgerald, Kraus, and Hands present sediment bypassing at natural and modified inlets. They identify bypassing through examination of sequences of aerial photographs and bathymetric maps. The mechanisms identified include:<br />
<br />
:*Stable inlet processes – This is the case of stable inlets with non-migrating throats and stable main ebb channel position through the ebb delta. At these inlets bypassing occurs through formation of large bar complexes which migrate and attach to the downdrift shoreline.<br />
:*Ebb-tidal delta breaching – In this case, the throat is stable and the main ebb channel cyclically migrates downdrift.<br />
:*Inlet migration and spit breaching – In this case, throat constriction is caused by longshore transport and bar breaching reestablishes a new, more hydraulically efficient channel. This type of movement can be identified by the presence of an updrift spit and elongation of the tidal channel. The new inlet channel may be opened due to differences in the tidal phase and tidal range between the ocean and the back barrier. The new inlet may form during a storm. The old (migrated) inlet is increasingly less hydraulically efficient and closes.<br />
:*Outer channel shifting – This type of bypassing is limited to the seaward end of the main ebb channel and involves smaller sediment volumes than the ebb-tidal delta breaching model. The outer channel is deflected downdrift while the main channel remains fixed. As the outer channel becomes more and more deflected, it becomes hydraulically inefficient.<br />
:*Spit platform breaching – This type of bypassing occurs at migrating inlets where asymmetric channel configurations form due to the influence of the updrift barrier spit. The new channel is breached through the spit platform under this mechanism. This is analogous to flow through a river meander bend. In this form, secondary channels may be created.<br />
:*Bypassing at wave dominated inlets - Wave dominated inlets form arcuate ebb shoals close to shore and transport of sediment occurs continuously along the periphery of the delta over the shallow distal portion (especially at high tide).<br />
:*Jetty-weir bypassing - Jetty-weir bypassing occurs at inlets with one or two weirs and no settling basin. Transport into the weirs is most active during storms. The sediment in the weir can be transported seaward by ebb currents. This type of bypassing occurs most at inlets when ebb currents are strong enough to transport sands out of the channel.<br />
:*Jettied inlet bypassing – Sediment bypassing at jettied inlets occurs when excess sediment accumulated on the updrift beach. The amount of sediment accumulation and bypassing is dependent upon the jetty length, inlet size, channel depth, total current strength, and ebb shoal morphology. In this case, the jetties funnel ebb discharge and displaces the ebb shoal further offshore thus reducing the effects of waves retarding the formation of bar complexes. Transport along the outer bar by wave action occurs primarily during storms.<br />
:*Outer channel shifting at jettied inlets. In this form of bypassing deflection of the outer channel and shoal breaching, to produce a more hydraulically efficient channel. Sediment from the relic shoal is transported onshore due to wave action.<br />
<br />
:These types of bypassing mechanisms are discussed in this paper along with the volume of sediment transported through each of these mechanisms and bypassing frequency.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Riedel, H.P., and Gourlay, M.R. 1980, Inlets/Estuaries Discharging Into Sheltered Waters. Coastal Engineering, pp. 2550-2564.'''<br />
<br />
:The study was motivated by the design of a new international airport in Australia. During this design process an existing stable creek (Serpentine Creek) was reclaimed and flood waters were diverted into an artificial inlet (Moreton Bay). In order to design this reclamation and diversion, Riedel and Gourlay investigated characteristics of inlets and estuaries discharging into sheltered waters.<br />
<br />
:This area of Australia has a mild wave climate with low wave heights and small waver periods. Also, this area has low littoral drift rates. Although a literature review of the relationships previously derived for tidal inlets on open coasts are included in this paper, Riedel and Gourlay acknowledge that these relationships are not likely to apply in this case.<br />
<br />
:A literature search of Australian studies was performed for this research and a short discussion of this literature is included in this paper. Field studies were undertaken to obtain relationships. Tide, current and limited hydrographic data was obtained for four inlets and their estuaries in South East Queensland (Beelbi Creek in Hervey Bay, Tingalpa, Serpentine and Burpengary creeks in Moreton Bay). These were selected because of their similarity to the proposed artificial inlet (including sediment similarity). The data obtained consisted of: Tide records, tidal velocities, hydrographic surveys to define cross-sectional areas and tidal prisms.<br />
<br />
:Riedel and Gourlay identified that there are differences between the stability characteristics of small inlets discharging into sheltered waters and large systems connected through an exposed shoreline but that the difference is purely in turns of scale. For a given cross-sectional area of the inlet entrance the tidal prism for the exposed coast inlets is approximately 2 to 3 times those of sheltered inlets. Sheltered inlets have smaller littoral drift rates and cross sectional areas of sheltered entrances are larger than for exposed inlets for a given prism and velocities will be lower. Riedel and Gourlay also included a discussion of the relationship between cross sectional area and tidal prism for estuaries.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Hubbard, D.K., Barwis, J.H., and Nummedal, D., 1977. Sediment Transport in Four South Carolina Inlets. Proceedings, Coastal Sediments 1977. pp. 582-601.'''<br />
<br />
:This paper presents hydrographic studies at four South Carolina inlets (Fripp, Stono, Murrells, and Little River) to investigate sediment transport patterns through the inlet throat and across adjacent shoals. This work builds upon research on the variability in inlet types. Also included is a discussion of a model for ebb tidal delta circulation. As part of this research, current velocities and tidal lengths were measured hourly for 26 hours at each of the four inlets. During the studies the researchers noted the importance of wave induced sediment transport. A more detailed study was begun at Murrells inlet. Wave observations were taken over an 8 day period. Suspended sediment samples were collected over four days to determine sediment transport rates. Swash bar migration rates were also measured to estimate bedload transport. Tidal current processes in the main channel, swash platforms, swash bars and channel margin bars of the four inlets are discussed in this paper along with the sediment transport processes associated with each case.<br />
<br />
:The authors observed that degree of marsh development controls the ebb and flood dominance at the inlet and that the relative elevation of the water at the maximum flood and ebb flows effects channel flow through the inlet. The features of swash platforms and swash bars are described in this paper. Swash bar surfaces are dominated by landward flow. This dominance can result in time velocity asymmetry from topographic influences and wave input. Each influences are discussed. The authors also describe how wave processes effect sediment transport in tidal inlets. At Murrels inlet, the waves break in much shallower water (relative to wave heights) on flood than on ebb due to the effects of the currents. This process effects sediment transport on the bar. Previously established sediment transport rates from CIRC (1973) were compared to the measured data collected as part of this research. It was concluded that the theoretical relationships, based on fluvial or flume data may have questionable application in the tidal environment.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Dean, R.G., and Walton, T.L., 1973. Sediment Transport Processes in the Vicinity of Inlets with Special Reference to Sand Trapping. Estuarine Research, Volume II, pp. 129-149.'''<br />
<br />
:Dean and Walton focus on the sand trapped within the outer shoals of Florida inlets. They discuss flow processes at inlets and interaction between flow and inlet outer bars at inlets and the effects of wave energy on limiting shoal volumes. The material in the outré shoal can be thought of as being acted upon by (1) tidal forces which act offshore and (2) wave forces which act to return the material to the inlet. When these forces are balanced, the shoal has reached equilibrium. The authors also discuss the processes of migration as it relates to equilibrium of inner and outer shoal volumes. They provide examples of inlets with improvements (jetty construction and dredging) and discuss how these improvements effect sedimentary processes around inlets and modify the sediment budgets. The authors describe jetties with and without wiers. Jetties confine an inlet’s current and cause sand deposits to je “jettied” out to deeper water. Dean and Walton suggest that the areas of moderate wave action, where net littoral drift is substantial and the navigation channel is greater than 20 feet, natural processes are not likely to be effective in reestablishing natural bypassing after jetty construction. They describe examples of Hillsboro Inlet, Florida and Masonboro Inlet, NC. Dean and Walton also discuss dredging of the outer bar and the interruption to littoral drift and lowering of elevations in the entire bar formation that it causes. Specific examples of 23 Florida inlets are provided along with tables of the volumes of material deposited in the outer inlet and bay shoals. This paper concludes with an evaluation of the relationship between the volume maintained within the inlet shoals and the current erosion rate in Florida.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Walton, T. L. Jr. (2002). Tidal Velocity Asymmetry at Inlets, ERDC/CHL CHETN IV-47. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.''' http://chl.wes.army.mil/library/publications/chetn<br />
<br />
:In this paper the types of inlet asymmetries are discussed and specific focus is given to channel tidal velocity asymmetry which drives sediment transport. Two possible types of inlet tidal velocity asymmetry are presented here; flood dominant asymmetry and ebb dominant asymmetry. The relationship between bay tide, hb(t) and channel velocity, u(t) (from Kulegan 1967), u(t) =(Ab/Ac)*dhb(t)/dt where Ab is the cross sectional area of the bay and Ac is the cross sectional area of the channel leads to a discussion of tidal forcing by tidal harmonic constituents and asymmetry caused by them. He discusses the relationship developed by Boon and Byrne (1981), based on Kulegan (1967), who presented a bay tide relationship of hb=AM2cos(ωt)+AM4 cos(2ωt-gM4) where flood dominance exists if π ≤ gM4 ≤ 2π and ebb dominance exists if 0 ≤ gM4 ≤ π and the greater the ratio of AM4/AM2 the greater the flood or ebb dominance. Walton discusses other causes of tidal asymmetry as well, including asymmetry caused by friction (asymmetry generated by tidal interactions with estuarine/inlet channel geometry) asymmetry generated by basin hypsometry (the vertical distribution of bay surface area with wave height). He also presents asymmetry examples at five flood dominant inlets and four ebb dominant inlets.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Boon, J. D., and Byrne, R.J., 1981. On Basin Hypsometry and the Morphodynamic Response of Coastal Inlet Systems. In Marine Geology, 40 (1981), Elsever Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp. 27-48.'''<br />
<br />
:The aim of the paper is to expand upon previous research into the tidal hydraulic processes which contribute toward flood or ebb dominance in inlet transport regimes. The authors introduce the concept of basin hypsometry which is the distribution of basin surface area with height in lieu of the term basin geometry which, as they discuss, refers to three special dimensions. Basin hypsometry involves only two special dimensions and id directly associated with the continuity equation which is used in tidal-flow computations. This allows for the simulation of the tidal hydraulic response in a basin and inlet system where the basin fills through sedimentation aided by marsh development.<br />
<br />
:Boone and Byrne utilize the INLET2 numerical model to examine the interaction between basin hypsometry and inlet channel hydraulics utilizing a large marsh basin complex near Wachapreague, VA and Swash bay, an individual marsh within the larger complex, as an example case. The authors show that both channel configuration and basin hypsometry are controlling factors in determining the characteristics of the mean vertical tide within the basin and the mean horizontal tide in the main channel:<br />
<br />
:(1) A mature or sediment-filled basin (ϒ = 1.8, 2.5) having adequate communication with the sea produces positive tidal duration differences. The latter are conductive of greater peak discharge and greater peak velocity during ebb.<br />
<br />
:(2) An open basin (ϒ = 3.5, 5.0) produces negative tidal duration differences associated with greater peak discharge during flood. Peak channel velocities are dependent upon the degree of tidal range reduction and position within the conveyance channel.<br />
<br />
:(3) Major reductions in channel cross-sectional area lead to a reduction in basin tidal range which tends to eliminate the effect of varying basin hypsometry. The tidal duration difference becomes strongly negative for highly restricted channels.<br />
<br />
:(4) A filled marsh basin (ϒ = 1.8) appears to reach a condition in which positive duration differences are progressively reduced as the channel cross-sectional area nears maximum values. It follows that the right side of the curve for ϒ = 1.8 may represent a region favoring dynamic equilibrium; namely, one in which the ebb transport potential or channel flushing capacity seaward varies inversely with channel cross-sectional area. The present Swash Bay system lies within this region.<br />
<br />
:(5) As a given basin fills with sediment, its potential tidal prism is continually made smaller. Thus the four basin configurations presented in Figure 8 this paper represent four different magnitudes of water volume seeking to pass through a given channel area indicated on the abscissa. The greater the volume, the greater the effect of channel impedance in reducing the portion that is admitted to the basin. The paper indicates that, for this reason, filled basins have a delayed reduction in tidal range as the channel cross-sectional area nears minimum values.<br />
<br />
:The authors discuss the tidal harmonic signatures M2, the fundamental harmonic period, taken as 12.42 mean solar hours, the period of the principle lunar semidiurnal constituent, and M4, the first-harmonic term representing the lunar quaterdiurnal constituent, a shallow water tide with a period of 6.21 solar hours. The addition of the M2 and M4 tidal harmonics produce a fixed distortion in the mean semidiurnal tide. Channel velocity and tidal harmonic relationships are then discussed in terms of ebb and flood dominance for three east coast basin and inlet systems. The authors use harmonic information to identify some of the morphodynamic differences seen at these inlets.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Dissanayake et al., 2009 Modeled Channel Patterns in a Schematized Tidal Inlet. Coastal Engineering 56 (2009) pp. 1069-1083.'''<br />
<br />
:This paper describes the process-based Delft3D (2DH) modeling performed for inlets in the Dutch Wadden Sea. The model used is forced by tides only and both short and long term simulations are run with morphology similar to Ameland Inlet.<br />
<br />
:The inlets in the Dutch Wadden Sea are mixed energy tide dominated. The Ameland inlet has a westward oriented main channel and ebb tidal delta. The reason for this orientation is hypothesized and then investigated using the model. The model domain is discussed along with details of model setup and sensitivity runs and model runs from a variety of different scenarios (inlet width, tidal asymmetry and direction, transport formulation and relative location of the tidal basin). Short term simulations were carried out over a few tidal cycles using M1 and M2 tidal forcing parameters.<br />
<br />
:The outputs of the short and long term model runs are discussed along with channel and ebb shoal asymmetry. The authors found that the direction of tidal forcing was the main parameter governing orientation of the main inlet channel and ebb delta.<br />
<br />
______________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
*[[Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography | Inlet & Coastal Geomorphic Annotated Bibliography]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography-Processes&diff=8466Inlet Geomorph Bibliography-Processes2012-02-29T15:39:53Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Kraus, N.C., 2001. On Equilibrium Properties in Predictive Modeling of Coastal Morphology Change. Proceedings, Coastal Dynamics 01 Conference, ASCE, pp. 1-15.'''<br />
<br />
:This paper discusses the benefit of incorporating equilibrium properties in coastal morphology. Equilibrium properties of coastal systems exist over small, intermediate and large time scales. Kraus discussed that the equilibrium properties can constrain basic physics calculations which, for coastal processes calculations, may be very difficult to determine. Constraining these equations with the condition of equilibrium may make these problems solvable. Kraus includes definitions of key terms; closed/open system, steady state and static equilibrium, dynamic equilibrium, unstable equilibrium, asymptotic equilibrium (saturation) and liberation.<br />
<br />
:Kraus discusses equilibrium at beaches (profile equilibration) and equilibrium relationships for tidal inlets (with a tabulated literature review included). The author then extends upon the reservoir model (Kraus, 2000) and presents an example of its application at Shinnecock inlet and shows the sediment pathways which should be included within the reservoir model for this example inlet with focus on the use of equilibrium to describe transport processes at inlets.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Price, W.A. 1963. Patterns of Flow and Channeling in Tidal Inlets. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 279-290.'''<br />
<br />
:Price examined the hydrodynamic nature of currents which flow through the inlet. Five types of tidal openings are investigated in this paper: tidal inlets with deltas; tidal inlets with one or both deltas absent but with bottom channeling, openings in coral reefs where channeling is present, mouths of wide shallow estuaries obstructed by bars, straights of continental shelves. All of these tidal opening types are slot shaped where their widths exceed their depths. A range of tidal inlets example locations with and without delta development are provided. Flow patterns through the deltas and inlet trough are discussed comparing ebb and flood flows. A discussion of flow reversals is also included. Price also presents information on the tidal jet, the nature of jet flow and associated sediment deposition in both deep and shallow passageways.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''FitzGerald, D.M., 1982. Sediment Bypassing at Mixed Energy Tidal Inlets. Proceedings 18th Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE Press, pp. 1094-1118.'''<br />
<br />
:FitzGerald examines inlet sediment bypassing through stable inlet processes and ebb delta breaching at six mixed energy (tide-dominated) coasts at non-structured tidal inlets. As an introduction, the work by Bruun and Gerritsen (1959) is discussed whereby the type of bypassing processes at an inlet can be determined by the ratio between longshore sediment transport and maximum discharge at the inlet under spring tidal conditions.<br />
<br />
:FitzGerald describes the new landward sediment transport due to landward directed currents over the ebb shoals terminal lobe which retard ebb currents and enhance flood currents. Additionally, the model of bar migration up the shore face with associated stacking of the swash bars is shown. Ebb tidal delta breaching caused by a dominant direction of longshore sediment transport is discussed. This, in turn, results in downdrift migration of the main ebb channel, eventually breaching of the shoal to form a new, more hydraulically efficient channel and bar migration onshore.<br />
<br />
:Examples of bypassing from five regions are discussed: Maine coast, central South Carolina, East Friesian Islands along the West German North Sea, the southern New Jersey coast, the Virginia coast and the Gulf of Alaska Cooper River Delta.<br />
<br />
:The location of the bar welding is discussed as it influences erosional and depositional patterns along the barrier island. The bar welding location is affected by the inlet size, wave versus tide dominance and channel orientation.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''FitzGerald, D.M., 1996. Geomorphic Variability and Morphologic Sedimentologic Controls on Tidal Inlets. Journal of Coastal Research, SI 23, pp.47-71.'''<br />
<br />
:Geomorphic variability at tidal inlets is discussed in this paper. FitzGerald defines a tidal inlet as an opening in the shoreline through which water penetrates land, connecting the ocean and bays, lagoons, marsh and tidal creek systems. He describes that the main channel of the tidal inlet is maintained by tidal currents, distinguishing a tidal inlet from open embayments or rock bound passages where there is little or no mobilized sediment.<br />
<br />
:FitzGerald describes a history of morphologic models for inlet shoreline alignment, ebb tidal shoal processes, hydrographic regime and temporal changes at inlets and includes graphical depictions of the models described. FitzGerald then summarizes geomorphic and sedimentologic controls on tidal inlets. These include: sediment supply, basin geometry, regional stratography, occurrence of bedrock, riverine discharge and sea level changes. He also describes secondary controls with interaction of two or more of the factors previously mentioned.<br />
<br />
:Ebb tidal and inlet throat morphology is discussed as is the relationship to waves and tidal prism and the effects of deltas on the inlet shoreline. A table of tidal ranges and wave heights and prisms of mixed energy (tide dominated) shorelines of the world is included within this paper. Relationships between tidal prism and throat are and literature on the topic is discussed in this paper as is the dynamic relationship between tidal prism and inlet throat cross-sectional area.<br />
<br />
:Case studies of backbarrier processes in the East Friesian Islands, central Couth Carolina and in Chatham Harbor, Cape Cod are discussed. Additionally, a case study at the Saco River estuary and Kennebec River estuary in Maine are included in a discussion of estuary/inlet interaction and salinity effects.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Nummedal, D., Oertel, G.F., Hubbard, D.K., and Hine, A.C., 1977. Tidal Inlet Variability- Cape Hatteras to Cape Canaveral. Proceedings, 1977 Coastal Sediments Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 543-562'''<br />
<br />
:A discussion of tidal range along the east coast study area begins this paper. It classifies North Carolina and northern South Carolina as microtidal wave dominated, southern South Carolina and Georgia as mesotidal tide-dominated, and the northeast coast of Florida as microtidal wave dominated. The paper builds on studies of tidal range to include wave energy, inner shelf slope and hydrologic properties of the inlets associated lagoon.<br />
<br />
:Physical parameters such as wave action and tidal current are illustrated on a graph with wave action increasing and tidal velocity decreasing from north to south. The authors then turn to a discussion of geological parameters. These include total lagoon area, open water area, percent open water area to total maximum throat depth, ebb tidal delta area, inner shoal area, maximum offshore distance of ebb tidal delta, distance to the 18 foot offshore depth contour and inner shelf slope. These values are provided for representative inlets in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. Physical parameters are compared and discussed for the inlets in each of the states examined. The authors preformed a qualitative analysis of sediment transport mechanisms in a zone of wave and current interactions to improve understanding of tidal inlet process-response characteristics. A figure of states vs physical and geological parameters is included with the discussion.<br />
<br />
:They conclude that wave dominated inlets typically have small ebb-tidal deltas, pushed up against shore, wide throats with multiple sand bodies, and significant inner shoals. The tide dominated inlets are characterized by large ebb-tidal deltas extending far out from shore, well-defined deep main channels and inlet throats, and an absence of inner shoals, except where fresh water inflow induces stratification and landward bottom sediment transport. Further, the authors discuss that the regional variation identified in the paper is due to changes in the nearshore wave energy and tidal range from north to south. The tidal range increases and the wave energy decreases toward the apex of the Georgia Bight due to widening of the shelf and a decrease in nearshore slope and deep water wave action. The authors indicate that the ratio between open water and marsh in most Georgia and South Carolina inlets is such that inlet flow becomes dominant. The large open water areas relative to the marsh for North Carolina inlets may create flood dominance at these inlets. The existence of large inner shoals in ebb-dominated inlets can be attributed to the mechanics of wave-current interaction which produces higher suspended sediment concentrations at flooding than at ebbing tide.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Fitzgerald, D.M., Kraus, N.C., and Hands, E.B. 2001. Natural Mechanisms of Sediment Bypassing at Tidal Inlets. ERDC/CHL CHETN-IV-30, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.'''<br />
<br />
:In this paper, Fitzgerald, Kraus, and Hands present sediment bypassing at natural and modified inlets. They identify bypassing through examination of sequences of aerial photographs and bathymetric maps. The mechanisms identified include:<br />
<br />
:*Stable inlet processes – This is the case of stable inlets with non-migrating throats and stable main ebb channel position through the ebb delta. At these inlets bypassing occurs through formation of large bar complexes which migrate and attach to the downdrift shoreline.<br />
:*Ebb-tidal delta breaching – In this case, the throat is stable and the main ebb channel cyclically migrates downdrift.<br />
:*Inlet migration and spit breaching – In this case, throat constriction is caused by longshore transport and bar breaching reestablishes a new, more hydraulically efficient channel. This type of movement can be identified by the presence of an updrift spit and elongation of the tidal channel. The new inlet channel may be opened due to differences in the tidal phase and tidal range between the ocean and the back barrier. The new inlet may form during a storm. The old (migrated) inlet is increasingly less hydraulically efficient and closes.<br />
:*Outer channel shifting – This type of bypassing is limited to the seaward end of the main ebb channel and involves smaller sediment volumes than the ebb-tidal delta breaching model. The outer channel is deflected downdrift while the main channel remains fixed. As the outer channel becomes more and more deflected, it becomes hydraulically inefficient.<br />
:*Spit platform breaching – This type of bypassing occurs at migrating inlets where asymmetric channel configurations form due to the influence of the updrift barrier spit. The new channel is breached through the spit platform under this mechanism. This is analogous to flow through a river meander bend. In this form, secondary channels may be created.<br />
:*Bypassing at wave dominated inlets - Wave dominated inlets form arcuate ebb shoals close to shore and transport of sediment occurs continuously along the periphery of the delta over the shallow distal portion (especially at high tide).<br />
:*Jetty-weir bypassing - Jetty-weir bypassing occurs at inlets with one or two weirs and no settling basin. Transport into the weirs is most active during storms. The sediment in the weir can be transported seaward by ebb currents. This type of bypassing occurs most at inlets when ebb currents are strong enough to transport sands out of the channel.<br />
:*Jettied inlet bypassing – Sediment bypassing at jettied inlets occurs when excess sediment accumulated on the updrift beach. The amount of sediment accumulation and bypassing is dependent upon the jetty length, inlet size, channel depth, total current strength, and ebb shoal morphology. In this case, the jetties funnel ebb discharge and displaces the ebb shoal further offshore thus reducing the effects of waves retarding the formation of bar complexes. Transport along the outer bar by wave action occurs primarily during storms.<br />
:*Outer channel shifting at jettied inlets. In this form of bypassing deflection of the outer channel and shoal breaching, to produce a more hydraulically efficient channel. Sediment from the relic shoal is transported onshore due to wave action.<br />
<br />
:These types of bypassing mechanisms are discussed in this paper along with the volume of sediment transported through each of these mechanisms and bypassing frequency.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Riedel, H.P., and Gourlay, M.R. 1980, Inlets/Estuaries Discharging Into Sheltered Waters. Coastal Engineering, pp. 2550-2564.'''<br />
<br />
The study was motivated by the design of a new international airport in Australia. During this design process an existing stable creek (Serpentine Creek) was reclaimed and flood waters were diverted into an artificial inlet (Moreton Bay). In order to design this reclamation and diversion, Riedel and Gourlay investigated characteristics of inlets and estuaries discharging into sheltered waters.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
This area of Australia has a mild wave climate with low wave heights and small waver periods. Also, this area has low littoral drift rates. Although a literature review of the relationships previously derived for tidal inlets on open coasts are included in this paper, Riedel and Gourlay acknowledge that these relationships are not likely to apply in this case.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
A literature search of Australian studies was performed for this research and a short discussion of this literature is included in this paper. Field studies were undertaken to obtain relationships. Tide, current and limited hydrographic data was obtained for four inlets and their estuaries in South East Queensland (Beelbi Creek in Hervey Bay, Tingalpa, Serpentine and Burpengary creeks in Moreton Bay). These were selected because of their similarity to the proposed artificial inlet (including sediment similarity). The data obtained consisted of: Tide records, tidal velocities, hydrographic surveys to define cross-sectional areas and tidal prisms.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Riedel and Gourlay identified that there are differences between the stability characteristics of small inlets discharging into sheltered waters and large systems connected through an exposed shoreline but that the difference is purely in turns of scale. For a given cross-sectional area of the inlet entrance the tidal prism for the exposed coast inlets is approximately 2 to 3 times those of sheltered inlets. Sheltered inlets have smaller littoral drift rates and cross sectional areas of sheltered entrances are larger than for exposed inlets for a given prism and velocities will be lower. Riedel and Gourlay also included a discussion of the relationship between cross sectional area and tidal prism for estuaries.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Hubbard, D.K., Barwis, J.H., and Nummedal, D., 1977. Sediment Transport in Four South Carolina Inlets. Proceedings, Coastal Sediments 1977. pp. 582-601.<br />
<br />
This paper presents hydrographic studies at four South Carolina inlets (Fripp, Stono, Murrells, and Little River) to investigate sediment transport patterns through the inlet throat and across adjacent shoals. This work builds upon research on the variability in inlet types. Also included is a discussion of a model for ebb tidal delta circulation. As part of this research, current velocities and tidal lengths were measured hourly for 26 hours at each of the four inlets. During the studies the researchers noted the importance of wave induced sediment transport. A more detailed study was begun at Murrells inlet. Wave observations were taken over an 8 day period. Suspended sediment samples were collected over four days to determine sediment transport rates. Swash bar migration rates were also measured to estimate bedload transport. Tidal current processes in the main channel, swash platforms, swash bars and channel margin bars of the four inlets are discussed in this paper along with the sediment transport processes associated with each case.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The authors observed that degree of marsh development controls the ebb and flood dominance at the inlet and that the relative elevation of the water at the maximum flood and ebb flows effects channel flow through the inlet. The features of swash platforms and swash bars are described in this paper. Swash bar surfaces are dominated by landward flow. This dominance can result in time velocity asymmetry from topographic influences and wave input. Each influences are discussed. The authors also describe how wave processes effect sediment transport in tidal inlets. At Murrels inlet, the waves break in much shallower water (relative to wave heights) on flood than on ebb due to the effects of the currents. This process effects sediment transport on the bar. Previously established sediment transport rates from CIRC (1973) were compared to the measured data collected as part of this research. It was concluded that the theoretical relationships, based on fluvial or flume data may have questionable application in the tidal environment.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Dean, R.G., and Walton, T.L., 1973. Sediment Transport Processes in the Vicinity of Inlets with Special Reference to Sand Trapping. Estuarine Research, Volume II, pp. 129-149.<br />
<br />
Dean and Walton focus on the sand trapped within the outer shoals of Florida inlets. They discuss flow processes at inlets and interaction between flow and inlet outer bars at inlets and the effects of wave energy on limiting shoal volumes. The material in the outré shoal can be thought of as being acted upon by (1) tidal forces which act offshore and (2) wave forces which act to return the material to the inlet. When these forces are balanced, the shoal has reached equilibrium. The authors also discuss the processes of migration as it relates to equilibrium of inner and outer shoal volumes. They provide examples of inlets with improvements (jetty construction and dredging) and discuss how these improvements effect sedimentary processes around inlets and modify the sediment budgets. The authors describe jetties with and without wiers. Jetties confine an inlet’s current and cause sand deposits to je “jettied” out to deeper water. Dean and Walton suggest that the areas of moderate wave action, where net littoral drift is substantial and the navigation channel is greater than 20 feet, natural processes are not likely to be effective in reestablishing natural bypassing after jetty construction. They describe examples of Hillsboro Inlet, Florida and Masonboro Inlet, NC. Dean and Walton also discuss dredging of the outer bar and the interruption to littoral drift and lowering of elevations in the entire bar formation that it causes. Specific examples of 23 Florida inlets are provided along with tables of the volumes of material deposited in the outer inlet and bay shoals. This paper concludes with an evaluation of the relationship between the volume maintained within the inlet shoals and the current erosion rate in Florida.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Walton, T. L. Jr. (2002). Tidal Velocity Asymmetry at Inlets, ERDC/CHL CHETN IV-47. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.<br />
<br />
http://chl.wes.army.mil/library/publications/chetn<br />
<br />
In this paper the types of inlet asymmetries are discussed and specific focus is given to channel tidal velocity asymmetry which drives sediment transport. Two possible types of inlet tidal velocity asymmetry are presented here; flood dominant asymmetry and ebb dominant asymmetry. The relationship between bay tide, hb(t) and channel velocity, u(t) (from Kulegan 1967), u(t) =(Ab/Ac)*dhb(t)/dt where Ab is the cross sectional area of the bay and Ac is the cross sectional area of the channel leads to a discussion of tidal forcing by tidal harmonic constituents and asymmetry caused by them. He discusses the relationship developed by Boon and Byrne (1981), based on Kulegan (1967), who presented a bay tide relationship of hb=AM2cos(ωt)+AM4 cos(2ωt-gM4) where flood dominance exists if π ≤ gM4 ≤ 2π and ebb dominance exists if 0 ≤ gM4 ≤ π and the greater the ratio of AM4/AM2 the greater the flood or ebb dominance. Walton discusses other causes of tidal asymmetry as well, including asymmetry caused by friction (asymmetry generated by tidal interactions with estuarine/inlet channel geometry) asymmetry generated by basin hypsometry (the vertical distribution of bay surface area with wave height). He also presents asymmetry examples at five flood dominant inlets and four ebb dominant inlets.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Boon, J. D., and Byrne, R.J., 1981. On Basin Hypsometry and the Morphodynamic Response of Coastal Inlet Systems. In Marine Geology, 40 (1981), Elsever Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp. 27-48.<br />
<br />
The aim of the paper is to expand upon previous research into the tidal hydraulic processes which contribute toward flood or ebb dominance in inlet transport regimes. The authors introduce the concept of basin hypsometry which is the distribution of basin surface area with height in lieu of the term basin geometry which, as they discuss, refers to three special dimensions. Basin hypsometry involves only two special dimensions and id directly associated with the continuity equation which is used in tidal-flow computations. This allows for the simulation of the tidal hydraulic response in a basin and inlet system where the basin fills through sedimentation aided by marsh development.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Boone and Byrne utilize the INLET2 numerical model to examine the interaction between basin hypsometry and inlet channel hydraulics utilizing a large marsh basin complex near Wachapreague, VA and Swash bay, an individual marsh within the larger complex, as an example case. The authors show that both channel configuration and basin hypsometry are controlling factors in determining the characteristics of the mean vertical tide within the basin and the mean horizontal tide in the main channel:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
(1) A mature or sediment-filled basin (ϒ = 1.8, 2.5) having adequate communication with the sea produces positive tidal duration differences. The latter are conductive of greater peak discharge and greater peak velocity during ebb.<br />
<br />
(2) An open basin (ϒ = 3.5, 5.0) produces negative tidal duration differences associated with greater peak discharge during flood. Peak channel velocities are dependent upon the degree of tidal range reduction and position within the conveyance channel.<br />
<br />
(3) Major reductions in channel cross-sectional area lead to a reduction in basin tidal range which tends to eliminate the effect of varying basin hypsometry. The tidal duration difference becomes strongly negative for highly restricted channels.<br />
<br />
(4) A filled marsh basin (ϒ = 1.8) appears to reach a condition in which positive duration differences are progressively reduced as the channel cross-sectional area nears maximum values. It follows that the right side of the curve for ϒ = 1.8 may represent a region favoring dynamic equilibrium; namely, one in which the ebb transport potential or channel flushing capacity seaward varies inversely with channel cross-sectional area. The present Swash Bay system lies within this region.<br />
<br />
(5) As a given basin fills with sediment, its potential tidal prism is continually made smaller. Thus the four basin configurations presented in Figure 8 this paper represent four different magnitudes of water volume seeking to pass through a given channel area indicated on the abscissa. The greater the volume, the greater the effect of channel impedance in reducing the portion that is admitted to the basin. The paper indicates that, for this reason, filled basins have a delayed reduction in tidal range as the channel cross-sectional area nears minimum values.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The authors discuss the tidal harmonic signatures M2, the fundamental harmonic period, taken as 12.42 mean solar hours, the period of the principle lunar semidiurnal constituent, and M4, the first-harmonic term representing the lunar quaterdiurnal constituent, a shallow water tide with a period of 6.21 solar hours. The addition of the M2 and M4 tidal harmonics produce a fixed distortion in the mean semidiurnal tide. Channel velocity and tidal harmonic relationships are then discussed in terms of ebb and flood dominance for three east coast basin and inlet systems. The authors use harmonic information to identify some of the morphodynamic differences seen at these inlets.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Dissanayake et al., 2009 Modeled Channel Patterns in a Schematized Tidal Inlet. Coastal Engineering 56 (2009) pp. 1069-1083.<br />
<br />
This paper describes the process-based Delft3D (2DH) modeling performed for inlets in the Dutch Wadden Sea. The model used is forced by tides only and both short and long term simulations are run with morphology similar to Ameland Inlet.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The inlets in the Dutch Wadden Sea are mixed energy tide dominated. The Ameland inlet has a westward oriented main channel and ebb tidal delta. The reason for this orientation is hypothesized and then investigated using the model. The model domain is discussed along with details of model setup and sensitivity runs and model runs from a variety of different scenarios (inlet width, tidal asymmetry and direction, transport formulation and relative location of the tidal basin). Short term simulations were carried out over a few tidal cycles using M1 and M2 tidal forcing parameters.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The outputs of the short and long term model runs are discussed along with channel and ebb shoal asymmetry. The authors found that the direction of tidal forcing was the main parameter governing orientation of the main inlet channel and ebb delta.<br />
<br />
______________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
*[[Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography | Inlet & Coastal Geomorphic Annotated Bibliography]]</div>Rdchltmbhttps://cirpwiki.info/index.php?title=Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography-Processes&diff=8465Inlet Geomorph Bibliography-Processes2012-02-29T15:37:17Z<p>Rdchltmb: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''Kraus, N.C., 2001. On Equilibrium Properties in Predictive Modeling of Coastal Morphology Change. Proceedings, Coastal Dynamics 01 Conference, ASCE, pp. 1-15.'''<br />
<br />
:This paper discusses the benefit of incorporating equilibrium properties in coastal morphology. Equilibrium properties of coastal systems exist over small, intermediate and large time scales. Kraus discussed that the equilibrium properties can constrain basic physics calculations which, for coastal processes calculations, may be very difficult to determine. Constraining these equations with the condition of equilibrium may make these problems solvable. Kraus includes definitions of key terms; closed/open system, steady state and static equilibrium, dynamic equilibrium, unstable equilibrium, asymptotic equilibrium (saturation) and liberation.<br />
<br />
:Kraus discusses equilibrium at beaches (profile equilibration) and equilibrium relationships for tidal inlets (with a tabulated literature review included). The author then extends upon the reservoir model (Kraus, 2000) and presents an example of its application at Shinnecock inlet and shows the sediment pathways which should be included within the reservoir model for this example inlet with focus on the use of equilibrium to describe transport processes at inlets.<br />
<br />
'''Price, W.A. 1963. Patterns of Flow and Channeling in Tidal Inlets. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 279-290.'''<br />
<br />
:Price examined the hydrodynamic nature of currents which flow through the inlet. Five types of tidal openings are investigated in this paper: tidal inlets with deltas; tidal inlets with one or both deltas absent but with bottom channeling, openings in coral reefs where channeling is present, mouths of wide shallow estuaries obstructed by bars, straights of continental shelves. All of these tidal opening types are slot shaped where their widths exceed their depths. A range of tidal inlets example locations with and without delta development are provided. Flow patterns through the deltas and inlet trough are discussed comparing ebb and flood flows. A discussion of flow reversals is also included. Price also presents information on the tidal jet, the nature of jet flow and associated sediment deposition in both deep and shallow passageways.<br />
<br />
'''FitzGerald, D.M., 1982. Sediment Bypassing at Mixed Energy Tidal Inlets. Proceedings 18th Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE Press, pp. 1094-1118.'''<br />
<br />
:FitzGerald examines inlet sediment bypassing through stable inlet processes and ebb delta breaching at six mixed energy (tide-dominated) coasts at non-structured tidal inlets. As an introduction, the work by Bruun and Gerritsen (1959) is discussed whereby the type of bypassing processes at an inlet can be determined by the ratio between longshore sediment transport and maximum discharge at the inlet under spring tidal conditions.<br />
<br />
:FitzGerald describes the new landward sediment transport due to landward directed currents over the ebb shoals terminal lobe which retard ebb currents and enhance flood currents. Additionally, the model of bar migration up the shore face with associated stacking of the swash bars is shown. Ebb tidal delta breaching caused by a dominant direction of longshore sediment transport is discussed. This, in turn, results in downdrift migration of the main ebb channel, eventually breaching of the shoal to form a new, more hydraulically efficient channel and bar migration onshore.<br />
<br />
:Examples of bypassing from five regions are discussed: Maine coast, central South Carolina, East Friesian Islands along the West German North Sea, the southern New Jersey coast, the Virginia coast and the Gulf of Alaska Cooper River Delta.<br />
<br />
:The location of the bar welding is discussed as it influences erosional and depositional patterns along the barrier island. The bar welding location is affected by the inlet size, wave versus tide dominance and channel orientation.<br />
<br />
'''FitzGerald, D.M., 1996. Geomorphic Variability and Morphologic Sedimentologic Controls on Tidal Inlets. Journal of Coastal Research, SI 23, pp.47-71.'''<br />
<br />
:Geomorphic variability at tidal inlets is discussed in this paper. FitzGerald defines a tidal inlet as an opening in the shoreline through which water penetrates land, connecting the ocean and bays, lagoons, marsh and tidal creek systems. He describes that the main channel of the tidal inlet is maintained by tidal currents, distinguishing a tidal inlet from open embayments or rock bound passages where there is little or no mobilized sediment.<br />
<br />
:FitzGerald describes a history of morphologic models for inlet shoreline alignment, ebb tidal shoal processes, hydrographic regime and temporal changes at inlets and includes graphical depictions of the models described. FitzGerald then summarizes geomorphic and sedimentologic controls on tidal inlets. These include: sediment supply, basin geometry, regional stratography, occurrence of bedrock, riverine discharge and sea level changes. He also describes secondary controls with interaction of two or more of the factors previously mentioned.<br />
<br />
:Ebb tidal and inlet throat morphology is discussed as is the relationship to waves and tidal prism and the effects of deltas on the inlet shoreline. A table of tidal ranges and wave heights and prisms of mixed energy (tide dominated) shorelines of the world is included within this paper. Relationships between tidal prism and throat are and literature on the topic is discussed in this paper as is the dynamic relationship between tidal prism and inlet throat cross-sectional area.<br />
<br />
:Case studies of backbarrier processes in the East Friesian Islands, central Couth Carolina and in Chatham Harbor, Cape Cod are discussed. Additionally, a case study at the Saco River estuary and Kennebec River estuary in Maine are included in a discussion of estuary/inlet interaction and salinity effects.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Nummedal, D., Oertel, G.F., Hubbard, D.K., and Hine, A.C., 1977. Tidal Inlet Variability- Cape Hatteras to Cape Canaveral. Proceedings, 1977 Coastal Sediments Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 543-562<br />
<br />
A discussion of tidal range along the east coast study area begins this paper. It classifies North Carolina and northern South Carolina as microtidal wave dominated, southern South Carolina and Georgia as mesotidal tide-dominated, and the northeast coast of Florida as microtidal wave dominated. The paper builds on studies of tidal range to include wave energy, inner shelf slope and hydrologic properties of the inlets associated lagoon. Physical parameters such as wave action and tidal current are illustrated on a graph with wave action increasing and tidal velocity decreasing from north to south. The authors then turn to a discussion of geological parameters. These include total lagoon area, open water area, percent open water area to total maximum throat depth, ebb tidal delta area, inner shoal area, maximum offshore distance of ebb tidal delta, distance to the 18 foot offshore depth contour and inner shelf slope. These values are provided for representative inlets in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. Physical parameters are compared and discussed for the inlets in each of the states examined. The authors preformed a qualitative analysis of sediment transport mechanisms in a zone of wave and current interactions to improve understanding of tidal inlet process-response characteristics. A figure of states vs physical and geological parameters is included with the discussion.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
They conclude that wave dominated inlets typically have small ebb-tidal deltas, pushed up against shore, wide throats with multiple sand bodies, and significant inner shoals. The tide dominated inlets are characterized by large ebb-tidal deltas extending far out from shore, well-defined deep main channels and inlet throats, and an absence of inner shoals, except where fresh water inflow induces stratification and landward bottom sediment transport. Further, the authors discuss that the regional variation identified in the paper is due to changes in the nearshore wave energy and tidal range from north to south. The tidal range increases and the wave energy decreases toward the apex of the Georgia Bight due to widening of the shelf and a decrease in nearshore slope and deep water wave action. The authors indicate that the ratio between open water and marsh in most Georgia and South Carolina inlets is such that inlet flow becomes dominant. The large open water areas relative to the marsh for North Carolina inlets may create flood dominance at these inlets. The existence of large inner shoals in ebb-dominated inlets can be attributed to the mechanics of wave-current interaction which produces higher suspended sediment concentrations at flooding than at ebbing tide.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Fitzgerald, D.M., Kraus, N.C., and Hands, E.B. 2001. Natural Mechanisms of Sediment Bypassing at Tidal Inlets. ERDC/CHL CHETN-IV-30, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.<br />
<br />
In this paper, Fitzgerald, Kraus, and Hands present sediment bypassing at natural and modified inlets. They identify bypassing through examination of sequences of aerial photographs and bathymetric maps. The mechanisms identified include:<br />
<br />
· Stable inlet processes – This is the case of stable inlets with non-migrating throats and stable main ebb channel position through the ebb delta. At these inlets bypassing occurs through formation of large bar complexes which migrate and attach to the downdrift shoreline.<br />
<br />
· Ebb-tidal delta breaching – In this case, the throat is stable and the main ebb channel cyclically migrates downdrift.<br />
<br />
· Inlet migration and spit breaching – In this case, throat constriction is caused by longshore transport and bar breaching reestablishes a new, more hydraulically efficient channel. This type of movement can be identified by the presence of an updrift spit and elongation of the tidal channel. The new inlet channel may be opened due to differences in the tidal phase and tidal range between the ocean and the back barrier. The new inlet may form during a storm. The old (migrated) inlet is increasingly less hydraulically efficient and closes.<br />
<br />
· Outer channel shifting – This type of bypassing is limited to the seaward end of the main ebb channel and involves smaller sediment volumes than the ebb-tidal delta breaching model. The outer channel is deflected downdrift while the main channel remains fixed. As the outer channel becomes more and more deflected, it becomes hydraulically inefficient.<br />
<br />
· Spit platform breaching – This type of bypassing occurs at migrating inlets where asymmetric channel configurations form due to the influence of the updrift barrier spit. The new channel is breached through the spit platform under this mechanism. This is analogous to flow through a river meander bend. In this form, secondary channels may be created.<br />
<br />
· Bypassing at wave dominated inlets - Wave dominated inlets form arcuate ebb shoals close to shore and transport of sediment occurs continuously along the periphery of the delta over the shallow distal portion (especially at high tide).<br />
<br />
· Jetty-weir bypassing - Jetty-weir bypassing occurs at inlets with one or two weirs and no settling basin. Transport into the weirs is most active during storms. The sediment in the weir can be transported seaward by ebb currents. This type of bypassing occurs most at inlets when ebb currents are strong enough to transport sands out of the channel.<br />
<br />
· Jettied inlet bypassing – Sediment bypassing at jettied inlets occurs when excess sediment accumulated on the updrift beach. The amount of sediment accumulation and bypassing is dependent upon the jetty length, inlet size, channel depth, total current strength, and ebb shoal morphology. In this case, the jetties funnel ebb discharge and displaces the ebb shoal further offshore thus reducing the effects of waves retarding the formation of bar complexes. Transport along the outer bar by wave action occurs primarily during storms.<br />
<br />
· Outer channel shifting at jettied inlets. In this form of bypassing deflection of the outer channel and shoal breaching, to produce a more hydraulically efficient channel. Sediment from the relic shoal is transported onshore due to wave action.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
These types of bypassing mechanisms are discussed in this paper along with the volume of sediment transported through each of these mechanisms and bypassing frequency.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Riedel, H.P., and Gourlay, M.R. 1980, Inlets/Estuaries Discharging Into Sheltered Waters. Coastal Engineering, pp. 2550-2564.<br />
<br />
The study was motivated by the design of a new international airport in Australia. During this design process an existing stable creek (Serpentine Creek) was reclaimed and flood waters were diverted into an artificial inlet (Moreton Bay). In order to design this reclamation and diversion, Riedel and Gourlay investigated characteristics of inlets and estuaries discharging into sheltered waters.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
This area of Australia has a mild wave climate with low wave heights and small waver periods. Also, this area has low littoral drift rates. Although a literature review of the relationships previously derived for tidal inlets on open coasts are included in this paper, Riedel and Gourlay acknowledge that these relationships are not likely to apply in this case.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
A literature search of Australian studies was performed for this research and a short discussion of this literature is included in this paper. Field studies were undertaken to obtain relationships. Tide, current and limited hydrographic data was obtained for four inlets and their estuaries in South East Queensland (Beelbi Creek in Hervey Bay, Tingalpa, Serpentine and Burpengary creeks in Moreton Bay). These were selected because of their similarity to the proposed artificial inlet (including sediment similarity). The data obtained consisted of: Tide records, tidal velocities, hydrographic surveys to define cross-sectional areas and tidal prisms.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Riedel and Gourlay identified that there are differences between the stability characteristics of small inlets discharging into sheltered waters and large systems connected through an exposed shoreline but that the difference is purely in turns of scale. For a given cross-sectional area of the inlet entrance the tidal prism for the exposed coast inlets is approximately 2 to 3 times those of sheltered inlets. Sheltered inlets have smaller littoral drift rates and cross sectional areas of sheltered entrances are larger than for exposed inlets for a given prism and velocities will be lower. Riedel and Gourlay also included a discussion of the relationship between cross sectional area and tidal prism for estuaries.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Hubbard, D.K., Barwis, J.H., and Nummedal, D., 1977. Sediment Transport in Four South Carolina Inlets. Proceedings, Coastal Sediments 1977. pp. 582-601.<br />
<br />
This paper presents hydrographic studies at four South Carolina inlets (Fripp, Stono, Murrells, and Little River) to investigate sediment transport patterns through the inlet throat and across adjacent shoals. This work builds upon research on the variability in inlet types. Also included is a discussion of a model for ebb tidal delta circulation. As part of this research, current velocities and tidal lengths were measured hourly for 26 hours at each of the four inlets. During the studies the researchers noted the importance of wave induced sediment transport. A more detailed study was begun at Murrells inlet. Wave observations were taken over an 8 day period. Suspended sediment samples were collected over four days to determine sediment transport rates. Swash bar migration rates were also measured to estimate bedload transport. Tidal current processes in the main channel, swash platforms, swash bars and channel margin bars of the four inlets are discussed in this paper along with the sediment transport processes associated with each case.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The authors observed that degree of marsh development controls the ebb and flood dominance at the inlet and that the relative elevation of the water at the maximum flood and ebb flows effects channel flow through the inlet. The features of swash platforms and swash bars are described in this paper. Swash bar surfaces are dominated by landward flow. This dominance can result in time velocity asymmetry from topographic influences and wave input. Each influences are discussed. The authors also describe how wave processes effect sediment transport in tidal inlets. At Murrels inlet, the waves break in much shallower water (relative to wave heights) on flood than on ebb due to the effects of the currents. This process effects sediment transport on the bar. Previously established sediment transport rates from CIRC (1973) were compared to the measured data collected as part of this research. It was concluded that the theoretical relationships, based on fluvial or flume data may have questionable application in the tidal environment.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Dean, R.G., and Walton, T.L., 1973. Sediment Transport Processes in the Vicinity of Inlets with Special Reference to Sand Trapping. Estuarine Research, Volume II, pp. 129-149.<br />
<br />
Dean and Walton focus on the sand trapped within the outer shoals of Florida inlets. They discuss flow processes at inlets and interaction between flow and inlet outer bars at inlets and the effects of wave energy on limiting shoal volumes. The material in the outré shoal can be thought of as being acted upon by (1) tidal forces which act offshore and (2) wave forces which act to return the material to the inlet. When these forces are balanced, the shoal has reached equilibrium. The authors also discuss the processes of migration as it relates to equilibrium of inner and outer shoal volumes. They provide examples of inlets with improvements (jetty construction and dredging) and discuss how these improvements effect sedimentary processes around inlets and modify the sediment budgets. The authors describe jetties with and without wiers. Jetties confine an inlet’s current and cause sand deposits to je “jettied” out to deeper water. Dean and Walton suggest that the areas of moderate wave action, where net littoral drift is substantial and the navigation channel is greater than 20 feet, natural processes are not likely to be effective in reestablishing natural bypassing after jetty construction. They describe examples of Hillsboro Inlet, Florida and Masonboro Inlet, NC. Dean and Walton also discuss dredging of the outer bar and the interruption to littoral drift and lowering of elevations in the entire bar formation that it causes. Specific examples of 23 Florida inlets are provided along with tables of the volumes of material deposited in the outer inlet and bay shoals. This paper concludes with an evaluation of the relationship between the volume maintained within the inlet shoals and the current erosion rate in Florida.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Walton, T. L. Jr. (2002). Tidal Velocity Asymmetry at Inlets, ERDC/CHL CHETN IV-47. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.<br />
<br />
http://chl.wes.army.mil/library/publications/chetn<br />
<br />
In this paper the types of inlet asymmetries are discussed and specific focus is given to channel tidal velocity asymmetry which drives sediment transport. Two possible types of inlet tidal velocity asymmetry are presented here; flood dominant asymmetry and ebb dominant asymmetry. The relationship between bay tide, hb(t) and channel velocity, u(t) (from Kulegan 1967), u(t) =(Ab/Ac)*dhb(t)/dt where Ab is the cross sectional area of the bay and Ac is the cross sectional area of the channel leads to a discussion of tidal forcing by tidal harmonic constituents and asymmetry caused by them. He discusses the relationship developed by Boon and Byrne (1981), based on Kulegan (1967), who presented a bay tide relationship of hb=AM2cos(ωt)+AM4 cos(2ωt-gM4) where flood dominance exists if π ≤ gM4 ≤ 2π and ebb dominance exists if 0 ≤ gM4 ≤ π and the greater the ratio of AM4/AM2 the greater the flood or ebb dominance. Walton discusses other causes of tidal asymmetry as well, including asymmetry caused by friction (asymmetry generated by tidal interactions with estuarine/inlet channel geometry) asymmetry generated by basin hypsometry (the vertical distribution of bay surface area with wave height). He also presents asymmetry examples at five flood dominant inlets and four ebb dominant inlets.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Boon, J. D., and Byrne, R.J., 1981. On Basin Hypsometry and the Morphodynamic Response of Coastal Inlet Systems. In Marine Geology, 40 (1981), Elsever Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp. 27-48.<br />
<br />
The aim of the paper is to expand upon previous research into the tidal hydraulic processes which contribute toward flood or ebb dominance in inlet transport regimes. The authors introduce the concept of basin hypsometry which is the distribution of basin surface area with height in lieu of the term basin geometry which, as they discuss, refers to three special dimensions. Basin hypsometry involves only two special dimensions and id directly associated with the continuity equation which is used in tidal-flow computations. This allows for the simulation of the tidal hydraulic response in a basin and inlet system where the basin fills through sedimentation aided by marsh development.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Boone and Byrne utilize the INLET2 numerical model to examine the interaction between basin hypsometry and inlet channel hydraulics utilizing a large marsh basin complex near Wachapreague, VA and Swash bay, an individual marsh within the larger complex, as an example case. The authors show that both channel configuration and basin hypsometry are controlling factors in determining the characteristics of the mean vertical tide within the basin and the mean horizontal tide in the main channel:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
(1) A mature or sediment-filled basin (ϒ = 1.8, 2.5) having adequate communication with the sea produces positive tidal duration differences. The latter are conductive of greater peak discharge and greater peak velocity during ebb.<br />
<br />
(2) An open basin (ϒ = 3.5, 5.0) produces negative tidal duration differences associated with greater peak discharge during flood. Peak channel velocities are dependent upon the degree of tidal range reduction and position within the conveyance channel.<br />
<br />
(3) Major reductions in channel cross-sectional area lead to a reduction in basin tidal range which tends to eliminate the effect of varying basin hypsometry. The tidal duration difference becomes strongly negative for highly restricted channels.<br />
<br />
(4) A filled marsh basin (ϒ = 1.8) appears to reach a condition in which positive duration differences are progressively reduced as the channel cross-sectional area nears maximum values. It follows that the right side of the curve for ϒ = 1.8 may represent a region favoring dynamic equilibrium; namely, one in which the ebb transport potential or channel flushing capacity seaward varies inversely with channel cross-sectional area. The present Swash Bay system lies within this region.<br />
<br />
(5) As a given basin fills with sediment, its potential tidal prism is continually made smaller. Thus the four basin configurations presented in Figure 8 this paper represent four different magnitudes of water volume seeking to pass through a given channel area indicated on the abscissa. The greater the volume, the greater the effect of channel impedance in reducing the portion that is admitted to the basin. The paper indicates that, for this reason, filled basins have a delayed reduction in tidal range as the channel cross-sectional area nears minimum values.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The authors discuss the tidal harmonic signatures M2, the fundamental harmonic period, taken as 12.42 mean solar hours, the period of the principle lunar semidiurnal constituent, and M4, the first-harmonic term representing the lunar quaterdiurnal constituent, a shallow water tide with a period of 6.21 solar hours. The addition of the M2 and M4 tidal harmonics produce a fixed distortion in the mean semidiurnal tide. Channel velocity and tidal harmonic relationships are then discussed in terms of ebb and flood dominance for three east coast basin and inlet systems. The authors use harmonic information to identify some of the morphodynamic differences seen at these inlets.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Dissanayake et al., 2009 Modeled Channel Patterns in a Schematized Tidal Inlet. Coastal Engineering 56 (2009) pp. 1069-1083.<br />
<br />
This paper describes the process-based Delft3D (2DH) modeling performed for inlets in the Dutch Wadden Sea. The model used is forced by tides only and both short and long term simulations are run with morphology similar to Ameland Inlet.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The inlets in the Dutch Wadden Sea are mixed energy tide dominated. The Ameland inlet has a westward oriented main channel and ebb tidal delta. The reason for this orientation is hypothesized and then investigated using the model. The model domain is discussed along with details of model setup and sensitivity runs and model runs from a variety of different scenarios (inlet width, tidal asymmetry and direction, transport formulation and relative location of the tidal basin). Short term simulations were carried out over a few tidal cycles using M1 and M2 tidal forcing parameters.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The outputs of the short and long term model runs are discussed along with channel and ebb shoal asymmetry. The authors found that the direction of tidal forcing was the main parameter governing orientation of the main inlet channel and ebb delta.<br />
<br />
______________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
*[[Inlet_Geomorph_Bibliography | Inlet & Coastal Geomorphic Annotated Bibliography]]</div>Rdchltmb