UFL/COEL94/010 EBB TIDAL DELTA EVOLUTION AND NAVIGABILITY IN THE VICINITY OF COASTAL INLETS by
Michael Richard Dombrowski Thesis
1994
U
EBB TIDAL DELTA EVOLUTION AND NAVIGABILITY
IN THE VICINITY OF COASTAL INLETS
By
MICHAEL RICHARD DOMBROWSKI
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
would
like to
express
my sincere appreciation and
gratitude to
advisor and
supervisory committee chairman, Professor Ashish J. Mehta, for his continuous support, guidance
and friendship throughout my study at the University of Florida.
My thanks are also extended
to Drs.
Robert G.
Dean and Robert J.
Thieke for serving as members on my supervisory
committee.
Special thanks go to Dr. D. Max Sheppard for serving on my committee on such
short notice. Many thanks go to Yigong "Wally" Li for his computer programming expertise and to Al Browder for his secretarial skills.
I would also like to thank Brett Moore and Ken Humiston for their inspiration and
continued encouragement throughout this adventure.
Finally, I am most grateful to my wife, Pat,
for her patience and support trough these times.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii
S BB*C **SCBS**e** ..e.... SC*** CCC eS B** **SCBaS.SSS*BBBC.C*SBBB. .
LIST OF FIGURES ..................... ...................................................
LIST OF TABLES ..........................................................................
OSY TO SYMBOLS .......................................................................
S T .........................................
CHAPTERS
Navigability at Coastal Inlets. Seafloor Evolution ..............
Study Objectives and Tasks ...
LITERATURE REVIEW ...... Overv~iew~ ..a........a.a............... 
Ebb eta is ........................................................
Dean and Whealton (1973) .....................................
W'alton and Adauns (1976) ...................................
Marino (1986) ..................................................
Oertel (1988) .......
Hayter, Hemandez, Sediment Transport Studies
Atl zdOill(1 8 8) . .O .O . . .Q .Q .. ..
Atz and Sill (1988)...................
a S. 55***** . a BeO S S S S S SSIO 6e* Case
Gole, Tarapore and Brahme (1971) ........................
S arikaya (1973) ................................................
Galvin (1982) ...................................................
Buckingham (1984) ...........................................
Ozsoy (1986)
Walther and Douglas (1993) .................................
Inlet Stability Studies ...........
.............. ......*.*...... ...... 23
Bruun and Gerritsen (1960) ....... ........ ..... . .. .........
METHOD FOR DETERMINING DELTA VOLUME AND
G RO W TH .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ... ... .. .. ... .... .. .... .. .. .. .. ..
Databa.e .. .. . ..... .......... ... .. ..... 26
Ebb Del
Ebb Delta Volume ..............,..............................
Tidal Prism .....................................................
CrossSectional Area ..........................................
Significant Wave Height and Wave Period ...............
Spring Sea Tidal Ranges .................. ..... ... ...........
Ita molume Estimates..........................................
Ebb Delta Volume .............................................
Sensitivity
Analysis ..........
.. 0** **** S * * S * S * * S S * S S S S S S
Diagnostic Examination of Seafloor Evolution .....................
Model Development ...........................................
dModel Parameters ..............................................
Ebb delta area ........................................
Suspended sediment concentration ................
Friction factors .......................................
Sediment grain size ........... .......................
Deep water height and period .....................
Tidal inlet characteristics
Effects of Significant Physical Parameters on Delta Growth ....
Variation in Suspended Sediment Concentration .........
Variation in Sediment Grain Size ...........................
Variation in Deep Water Wave Height ....................
RESULTS .. .. .. .**.*..*....*............. .......*.......*.*.* .
Ebb Delta
Estimated Delta Volumes ..................
Delta Volume Sensitivity Analysis .........................
Delta Volume versus Tidal Prism ..........................
Time Evolution of Delta Volumes .........................
Jupiter Inlet ...........................................
SUouth Lak e Worth In let .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ... .
Boca Raton Inlet .....................................
Bakers Haulover Inlet . . . . . . . . . . . . .....
Influence of a on delta growth ...................
S
SSS..SSS..SSSSS.SS.S.SS.S.S SSO S SSOSSsS S OSS 5. OSsO St
Estimated Ebb Delta Volumes ...................
Ebb Delta Volume versus Tidal Prism ........ Effects of Significant Physical Parameters on Effects of c on Equilibrium Delta Volume ...
Delta Growth ....
P. .. .. .. .. .. .S. . *S..
APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C
 EBB DELTA DATABASE .... ... .............. ... . ....... .. ....
 FORTRAN MODEL ALGORITHM AND INPUT FORMAT
 DATA USED TO CORRELATE TIDAL PRISMBASED AREA, A,, TO MEASURED DELTA DEPOSITION AREA, AD
LIST OF FIGURES
General sectional view of an inlet channel through a barrier island and associated ebb delta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....
General characteristic of an ebb jet and delta ......................
Schematic of three "noinlet" contour conditions in estimating
ebb delta volumes.
Seaward exaggerated contours,
A (dashed
lines),
"bestfit" contours
, B (solid lines) and landward
exaggerated contours,
Schematic of the initial grid and enlarged grid cell patterns used in estimating ebb delta volumes ...........................
Seafloor growth diagrams illustrating the evolution of an ebb delta: A) initial condition, B) transient condition and C) equilibrium condition .................................................
Plan view of A) tidal prismbased area, A,, and B) delta deposition, AD ....................................................
Crosssectional view and plan view through the inlet and idealized ebb delta ................................. ..... ...... ....
Ebb delta area, AD,
versus tidal prism based area,
A,, for
twentyone inlets based on data of Davis and Gibeaut (1990)
Ebb delta volume versus time comparing the effects of three
... 40
suspended sediment concentrations,
C,, 0.00005,
0.00010 and
0.00020 kg/m3
Runs 1
2 and3 ..
Ebb delta volume versus time comparing the effects of three
grain size diameters, dso, 0.2, and 6 ..............................
0.3 and 0.4 mm.
Runs 4,
Ebb delta volume versus time comparing the effects of three
deep water wave heights, and 9 ............
0.0, 0.4 and 0.8 m.
Runs 7
Ebb delta volume versus tidal prism for moderate energy coasts (3030 m s) .............................................................
Ebb delta volumes versus year with modelcalculated volume ranges for Jupiter Inlet ...............................................
Ebb delta volumes versus year with modelcalculated volume ranges for South Lake Worth Inlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
Ebb delta volumes versus year with modelcalculated volume ranges for Boca Raton Inlet......... ...... ...... . ......... . ........
IV6
Ebb delta volumes versus year with modelcalculated volume ranges for Bakers Haulover ... .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . . . . . . ... .
Ebb delta volumes versus wave to tidal power ratio,
a ..........
LIST OF TABLES
Coefficients of Eqn. 2.1 obtained by linear regression for the relationship of tidal prism with ebb delta volume ..............
Bruun's
stability criterion of sandy coastal inlets related to
ebb delta size and bypassing ........
Initial input parameters for examining the effects of variation
in suspended sediment concentrations,
C,, grain size diameter,
d5o, and deep water wave height, Ho on ebb delta growth
Ebb delta volume for the "bestfit"
"noinlet" contours
Ebb delta volumes and percent differences due to changes in the "nonlet"co tu s.................. ......
Ebb delta volumes and percent differences due to changes in the grid cell size
Initial input parameters and resulting wave to tidal energy
ratio,
a
S.C......eeoS *t S ee *o . .. ........ ... .55
a, and the corresponding
Comparison of wave to tidal energy ebb delta volumes ............. .......
Ebb delta related parameters for coastal entrances along the
Florida coast ..
5S* *** Se t eeeee *.. .c.*e.* * C~tcc*S**C S Se.... S S 66
Ebb delta related parameters for coastal entrances along the
Georgia coast ..................
.............. *................... 74
Ebb delta related parameters for coastal entrances along the
South Carolina coast .........
55S****** et ** c s.c..... cc.. .c.c..*s *4S* '75
Ebb delta related parameters for miscellaneous coastal entrances along the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean coasts ........................
Data used to correlate tidal prism area, A,, to measured ebb
KEY TO SYMBOLS crosssectional area at the inlet throat ebb delta area based on tidal prism
ebb delta area based on regression analysis
regression coefficients,
Eqns.
2.1 and 3.1
, respectively
spring sea tidal amplitude
exponential correlation coefficients, Eqns.
1 and 3.1
, respectively
distance between two adjacent deep water wave rays distance between two adjacent nearshore wave rays shallow water wave celerity CICh
concentration of suspended sediment entering the settling basin drag coefficient deep water wave celerity depthaveraged suspended sediment concentration delta accumulation height delta equilibrium height incremental change in delta height median grain size dimensionless wave energy density, Eqn. 2.7 tidal energy parameter
sediment settling flux friction factor due to current friction factor due to the combined current and waves friction factor due to waves acceleration due to gravity
parameter including the effects of ds, Ac,
and specific gravity, Eqn. 2.4
water depth at time, t
water depth adjacent to the dredged channel water depth in the dredged channel equilibrium water depth
incremental change in the water depth initial water depth at the inlet throat and over the seafloor design project depth reference water depth shoaled nearshore wave height deep water wave height referenced wave height
significant deep water wave height timestep subscript
intermediate RungeKutta method steps
wave number
empirical coefficient, Eqn.
coefficient of actual sedimentation to effective sediment load length of dredged channel
wave
ength
,m' empirical coefficients,
Eqns.
2.12 and
15, respectively
annual average littoral drift reaching the inlet
Manning's
probability of sediment deposition spring tidal prism
bed stability parameter
total wave power
littoral transport rate
predredging littoral transport rate
fraction of Q which reaches the dredged channel
onehalf the distance from the entrance mouth to the outer edge of Ap
sediment removal ratio
wave Reynolds number
net sedimentation load
shoaling rate
incremental time in number of tidal periods time interval for an overdredged channel to shoal to a design project depth wave period
sediment transport ratio
tidal period
alongshore current velocity adjacent to the dredged channel current velocity nearbed current velocity critical velocity for erosion
flow velocity in the x1 direction
average inlet velocity over onehalf tidal cycle
maximum velocity through the inlet entrance for a spring tide
characteristic velocity over the delta deposition area
total current velocity due to current and waves
orbital velocity due to waves
maximum nearbed orbital velocity due to waves
ebb delta volume
shoaling rate
width at the inlet throat
dredged channel width
particle settling velocity
effective settling velocity of the particles
settling velocity of a particle that reaches the seafloor at a distance from the inlet
vertical distance from the bottom
distance in direction of mean flow
distance above the profile origin
theoretical origin of the logarithmic profile
wave to tidal energy ratio
turbulent diffusion coefficient
crosssectional average of the turbulent diffusion coefficient
kinematic viscosity of seawater
angle between current direction and wave direction
unit weight of seawater dry bed density particle density density of seawater shear stress due to waves superimposed on current critical shear stress maximum nearbed horizontal excursion
Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Master of Science
EBB TIDAL DELTA EVOLUTION AND NAVIGABILITY
IN THE VICINITY OF COASTAL INLETS By
Michael Richard Dombrowski
December 1994
Chairperson: Ashish J.
Mehta, Ph.D
Major Department: Department of Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering
For maintaining safe conditions for navigation in the vicinity of coastal inlets,
delta is frequently dredged.
the ebb
Previous investigations have established the dependence of the delta
volume on wave energy and tidal energy at sandy inlets.
In this study, this dependence was
examined with respect to the rate of delta growth and the final equilibrium delta volume starting with the opening of a new inlet when no delta is present.
A careful examination of the method to estimate delta volumes showed that the choice
of the
"noinlet" bathymetric contours and the grid cell
volume can measurably influence the volume obtained.
selected for estimating the delta
In general,
the greater the complexity
of the bathymetry, the larger the variation in the estimate.
A diagnostic model was developed for examining the influence of the ratio of wave
energy to tidal energy on delta growth.
Model sensitivity tests showed that increasing the
suspended sediment concentration in the littoral zone caused the delta to approach equilibrium
of approach to equilibrium but decreased the volume.
Finally
increasing the sand size increased
the growth rate as well as the equilibrium volume.
The model was applied to four Florida inlets.
It was shown that the observed variability
in the delta volume can be due to the delta not achieving equilibrium and to the degree of
dominance of the wave energy relative to the tidal energy.
This dominance also therefore
characterizes navigational access to the inlet.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Navigability at Coastal Inlets
Navigation issues at coastal inlets for commercial and military purposes dates back to at
least 6,000 B.P
(Bruun and Gerritsen, 1960),
and within modern times another consideration for
safe navigation has been added, namely recreation.
Since early times naturally protected harbors
have been constructed to moor waterborne vessels and load and unload cargo and passengers. Safe access is provided by inlet entrance channels from deep water through seaward protective
works such as
jetties and breakwaters.
The purpose of these structures is not only wave
attenuation for the protection of vessels during passage through the channel, but also to stabilize the channel and interrupt excessive littoral drift from decreasing the channel depth. This problem
of depth decrease is of course not limited to improved channels,
since it is also necessary for
unimproved inlet channels to have depths that are sufficient for the navigability of vessels.
in general,
Thus,
the problem of littoral sediment accumulation at inlets is linked to that of navigability
of the channel.
At the seafloor in the immediate vicinity of the inlet the interrupted littoral sediment tends
to accumulate and raise the floor, leading to the formation of an ebb delta.
Thus, the conditions
for navigation, specifically in terms of water depths and wave action, are contingent upon the size
and shape of the ebb delta.
At new inlets, or ones which have been closed for a period of time,
conditions, availability of littoral sediment and geologic setting.
Thus, from the standpoint of the
requirements for designing and maintaining the entrance channel, it is necessary to develop an
understanding of the mechanisms and means by which delta evolution occurs. The aim of this study is therefore to examine the interdependence between significant physical parameters governing sediment transport and the rate of delta formation at coastal inlets. The focus is
restricted to those cases where the bottom material is in the sand
range.
1.2 Seafloor Evolution
As noted, ebb deltas are accumulations of material at the seaward side of coastal inlets
(Figure I1)
the development of these deltas is typically a product of littoral suspended sediment
acted on by tidal and wave forces.
Walton and Adams (1976) found that flood deltas on the bay
side of the inlet tend to reach an equilibrium volume over a period of time, and indicated that ebb
deltas volumes also achieve an equilibrium state.
At the same time these investigators recognized
that due to changing wave and
energy
conditions,
the volume of
ebb delta
episodically influenced, thus resulting in the growth of the delta at a new inlet approaching and
fluctuating about some equilibrium volume.
Walton and Adams (1976) found the equilibrium
volume
to be
dependent on
prism
furthermore,
empirical
coefficients
characterizing this relationship were themselves found to depend on the wave energy.
given tidal prism, the equilibrium yolume decreased with increasing wave energy.
For a
To examine
this important issue of the influence of wave and tideinduced forces on the rate of growth of
sandy ebb deltas, a semiquantitative approach has been attempted in this study.
To begin, the
underlying issues in ebb delta development are described first.
3
associated with the storm surge and waves is transported across the barrier island, consequently
eroding the beach,
the dune system and providing a low relief where tideinduced currents may
contain enough energy to maintain a permanent channel across the barrier island.
There are also
cases where coastal inlets are intentionally relocated for the purpose of erosion control along the downdrift shoreline (Kana and Mason, 1988).
Barr
Is land
Ebb
De Ita
Inlet
Channe
Figure I1.
General sectional view of an inlet channel through a barrier island and
associated ebb delta.
Although barrier island breakthrough is the primary reason for the natural opening of tidal inlets, many of the resultant openings tend to be unstable, and lead to closure after a
comparatively short period of time.
Escoffier (1940) considered the relationship between the
maximum flow velocity through the inlet throat and the throat crosssectional area to determine
if the inlet is stable or unstable.
This criterion was based on the sediment depositional conditions
which would either enlarge or reduce the initial crosssectional area.
Bruun and Gerritsen (1960)
proposed a stability criterion in which the ability of the channel current to remove the littoral drift
deposited in the channel is considered for the condition for the inlet to remain open.
The ratio
of the spring tidal prism to the littoral drift, P/M,
is thus a measure of inlet stability.
Bruun
4
noted that wavetransported material deposited near a coastal inlet may close the inlet depending
on the relative strengths of wave and tidal forces.
close a larger inlet than a smal
A greater wave energy would be required to
one due to the larger tidal prism of the former.
The essential approach to describing the evolution of a ebb delta is to begin with a new
inlet or one that has been closed for a period of time and therefore has no delta.
As noted
breakthrough of a barrier island by a storm event or artificial means provides an initial opening
between the back barrier bay or lagoon and open water.
Once the inlet breaksthrough, a free
jet forms on the seaward side of the inlet as a result of tidal current (Oertel and Dunstan, 1981).
A free jet may also form on the landward side if it discharges into an unrestricted basin.
event, due to the initial opening and the formation of the jets,
In any
an initial accumulation of material
both on the landward side (flood delta) and the seaward side (ebb delta) of the inlet will occur. For this study, only the ebb delta accumulation is investigated.
The accumulation of the ebb delta material can be derived from the initial formation of
the cut, especially in areas where the littoral drift is comparatively small.
Thus
, for example
Oertel (1988) found that approximately 78 percent of the 31.6
delta of Quinby Inlet in
xl06 m3 of material in the ebb
Virginia consisted of the sediment derived from the newly opened
channel.
A theoretical approach by Ozsoy (1986) presented a model whereby the mass transport
of material is the result of turbulent free jet issuing from the inlet.
Thus
, a portion of the
suspended sediment supplied by littoral transport is entrained into the inlet opening during the ebb
(as well as flood) phases of flow is ultimately deposited on to the ebb delta (Figure I2).
depositional pattern of the ebb delta is dependent on the characteristics of the ebb flow jet and
5
coasts where the increased wave forces transport the material toward the inlet and nearshore area (Walton and Adams, 1976).
Ebb Jet Boundary
Ebb
Delta
Inlet Channe
Entr
a I nment
Ittoral
current
and
assoc
ated
suspended
sed
iment
Figure I2.
General characteristics of an ebb jet and delta.
The sediment deposited in the ebb delta can be considered to be contained within a seafloor area characterized by the area obtained by dividing the spring tidal prism by the water
depth.
In Oertel's
(1988) conceptual model,
material is deposited over an area just beyond the
distal end of the "nearfield" jet as the flow velocity decreases below a certain critical value.
This deposition area, defined as the "farfield"
, tends to be fanshaped resulting from the lateral
spreading of the jet in the presence of landward approaching waves.
According to O'Brien (1969), the capacity of tidal current in maintaining the channel is characterized by the maximum velocity in the inlet throat as determined by the tidal prism and
6
current velocity can be assumed to occur at a point between the inlet mouth and the outer edge
of the ebb delta.
This location thus delineates the shoreward end of the "farfield" defined by
Oertel (1988).
The deposition or erosion of material within the confines of the delta footprint is due to
the bottom stress produced by the tidal current.
Superimposing oscillatory currents due to wave
action complicates sediment motion near coastal inlets (O'Brien, 1969).
The primary result of
wave action is the suspension of material which is then transported by the tidal current.
critical shear stress for resuspension and transport is dependent on the diameter of the sediment. If the critical shear stress is exceeded by the combined hydrodynamic stress due to current and
waves
, then the seafloor can be expected to be eroded.
However, if the combined stress is less
than that of the critical value then material will deposit within the confines of the delta area.
Thus
, starting with a situation in which waves are absent, the rate of sediment deposition, hence
delta growth,
decreases as waves appear and increase in intensity
until such a condition when
there is no deposition.
Further increase in wave action would then cause the delta volume to
decrease due to bottom scour.
As the seafloor elevation rises, and decreases the water depth,
not only does the ebb
current velocity increase over the delta in comparison with that at the inlet mouth by continuity, but the decreased depth also results in increased wave shoaling, thereby increasing orbital velocity
and the wave shear stress contribution.
Thus
under constant tide and wave conditions
seafloor can only rise to an elevation where there is no further deposition when the combined
hydrodynamic stress equals the critical shear stress.
At this stage the ebb delta will have evolved
to an equilibrium volume and shape.
7
1.3 Study Obiectives and Tasks
From the above description it is seen that in a given geologic setting, the rate of growth of ebb delta and its ultimate equilibrium volume depend both on tidal energy and wave energy. The ebb jet serves to deposit littoral material at a distance from the inlet where the flow velocity
is small enough to be conducive to deposition.
Conversely,
waves tend to enhance resuspension
and transport of deposited material away from the ebb delta.
Thus, as noted,
with increasing
wave action one may expect the rate of ebb delta growth to decrease, and the equilibrium volume
to decrease as well.
It is the main objective of this study to examine the dependence of the inlet
ebb delta growth rate and the equilibrium volume on tidal,
wave and sedimentary characteristics.
This objective is met by completion of the following tasks:
Development of a database consisting of inlet ebb delta volumes, throat crosssectional
areas
, spring tidal prisms,
significant deep water wave heights and wave periods,
spring tidal ranges.
Reexamination of the procedure for ebb delta volume estimation developed by Dean and Walton (1973) to determine the variation in the estimated delta volumes arising from the interpretation of bathymetric conditions.
Examination of the influence of wave energy on the ebb delta
volumetidal
prism
relationship following the work of Walton and Adams (1976). Development of a diagnostic model to examine the role of tidal energy and wave energy in influencing the ebb delta volumetime curve, starting with the novolume condition. Examination of model sensitivity to important governing physical parameters. Examination of the trends in the timevariation of the delta volume with the help of the
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
1 Overview
This chapter provides a literature review of relevant studies on ebb delta volumes, inlet
sediment transport and inlet stability.
The review of ebb delta volume studies and the physical
processes effecting the inlets in Section
2.2 include
1) measurements of ebb delta volumes; 2)
capacity of deltas to store sand; 3) coastal physical parameters influencing ebb deltas; and,
potential sources of ebb delta material.
The second portion of this review in Section
.3 focusses
on studies on sediment transport relevant to the deposition or erosion of the ebb delta, including
5) prediction of sedimentation in entrance (approach) channels;
channels;
6) sedimentation within inlet
7) erosion/deposition in entrance channels; 8) determination of the removal ratio of
suspended matter in settling basins
and 9) a procedure to quantify the rate of shoaling after ebb
delta dredging.
Section
.4 examines the stability of coastal inlets.
Finally, in Section
findings based
on this review that are relevant to
the modeling
effort in
Chapter
summarized.
Ebb Delta Studies
Dean and Walton (1973)
Dean
Walton
(1973)
provided
qualitative
description
hydraulic
9
idealized form of a surface nozzle, where the ebb jet is analogous to the turbulent jet issuing from
the nozzle.
On the other hand
converging toward the inlet.
the flood flow conforms to a uniform concentric sink flow
Thus
, the laterally spreading ebb jet entrains water from the
adjacent shoreline toward the inlet, while during the flood flow water is transported both toward
and into the inlet.
As a result, the combination of the ebb and flood flows
causes the current to
transport sediment toward the inlet from the adjacent shoreline during all tidal stages. sediment thus transported is ultimately removed by the ebb flow and is deposited offshore.
The Dean
and Walton (1973) noted that the forces acting to transport sediment are not only dependent upon the effects of ebb and flood currents, but also on waves forces which tend to drive the material
deposited as an delta towards the inlet.
These forces have no net effect when the delta volume
reaches a state of equilibrium, at which point it does not exhibit growth or reduction in its volume.
Twentythree Florida inlets were investigated to estimate the quantities of sand in the ebb
deltas.
A method was developed for estimating the volume of accumulated sand.
The first step
was to construct a bathymetric record of the inlet and its adjacent shores.
A representative shore
normal profile was then determined from contour lines on either side of the inlet corresponding
to the bathymetry of a "noinlet" condition. Contour lines connecting these two profiles were overlain on the delta and a grid superimposed on the chart. The depth differences at each corner
of the square were measured and averaged for the square.
Finally
the summation of the
averaged grid depth differences multiplied by the grid area yielded the ebb delta volume.
Since the estimated delta volumes may be subject to individual interpretation bias,
author calculated the same eight ebb delta volumes from their individually interpreted "noinlet"
2,2,2
Walton and Adams (1976)
These authors investigated the capacity of deltas at inlets to store sand.
The volumes for
six flood tidal deltas were calculated from comparative surveys ranging over time periods from
seventeen to seventyseven years. Prelim an equilibrium size over a period of time. also reach an equilibrium state. By know
inary analysis showed that the flood deltas may reach It was considered by the authors that the ebb deltas
ing the volume of sand deposited in the flood and ebb
deltas would give an estimate of the volume of material that would be removed from the adjacent beaches, thus providing an approximation of the effects to the adjacent shoreline due to the inlet.
Ebb delta volumes for fortyfour tidal inlets around the United States were calculated
using the method described in Dean and Walton (1973).
The volume of each of the deltas was
calculated two or more times to obtain a range of values due to the individual interpretation of
the "noinlet" contour lines.
This exercise generally resulted in a volume deviation of less than
10 percent.
Tidal prisms were correlated with ebb delta volumes categorized by three wave energy
levels
in an effort to explain any effects on the volumes due to differences in the wave energy
The square of the product of the deep water wave height and period was
wave energy
delta.
used to parameterize the
thus providing a quantitative description of the available energy to modify the ebb
The wave energy parameter ranges were arbitrarily chosen from 030 (mildly exposed),
30300 (moderately exposed) and
> 300 (highly exposed).
The data were plotted on a loglog
scale with a linear regression line equation of
(2.1)
=aPb
 a
delta volume and tidal prism is not unique in the sense that it depends measurably on the prevailing wave energy.
Table II1.
Coefficients of Eqn. 2.1 obtained by
inear regression for the relationship of tidal
prism with ebb delta volume.
Wave energy regime Coefficient, a Coefficient, b
High 5.33 x iO 1.23
Moderate 3.77 x iO 1.08
Mild 8.76 x i0 1.24
Source: Walton and Adams (1976)
Marino (1986)
This investigator described the general
development of ebb deltas using a geomorphologic
perspective through inlet case studies on the east coast of Florida.
These inlets were chosen due
to the unique morphology of each inlet and the associated differences in the development of the
deltas.
This examination revealed some of the problems that are encountered in determining the
ebb delta volumes for those inlets where the bathymetric conditions are less than "ideal"
example,
.For
at Ft. Pierce Inlet the updrift and downdrift profile lines have substantially different
slopes,
so that the
"noinlet"
contour lines had to be interpolated between the updrift and
downdrift shorelines.
Also, where inlets had significant shoreline offsets with respect to each
other, the grid size had to be decreased from 305 m2 to
so that a greater bathymetric detail
could be covered.
sizes
ranging between 76 and 152 m2
Another example of the problems
encountered was the presence of offshore reefs at St. Lucie Inlet, Hillsboro Inlet, Port Everglades
A dimensional analysis was done to determine the physical parameters that are important
in characterizing the ebb delta volume.
Dimensionless parameters were found and the functional
relationship was reduced to

w>" he
E S, 2 E
(2.2)
where V
= ebb delta volume, w
= width at the inlet throat, ho
= depth at the throat, P
= spring
tidal prism, Ac
= crosssectional area at the inlet throat, aos
tidal energy parameter, and Ew
= wave energy parameter.
= spring sea tidal amplitude,
Marino (1986) eliminated EI/E, the
ratio of wave energy to tidal energy
because the wave energies considered were found to be
within the "moderate" range defined by Walton and Adams (1976).
The nondimensional V/P
, when plotted against the aspect ratio,
w/ho,
for different values of A/a] did not produce
any strong trends.
However,
from the relationship,
the investigator asserted that as wiho
decreases, the ebb delta volume tends to increase, leading to the credence that delta volume
depends on not only of tidal prism but also on the aspect ratio.
The relationship of the ebb delta volume (m3) to
the spring tidal
prism
(m) was
determined by linear regression:
.59x 10' P1.39
(2.3)
Oertel (1988)
This investigator considered the ebb jet to be divided into two zones.
The first, the near
, was described as the zone of flow establishment extending from the inlet mouth to a certain
velocity at the end of the nearfield results in material being deposited in the farfield.
associated decrease in the water depth compresses the jet vertically and further increases the lateral spreading resulting in a continual reduction in the flow velocity and a build up of the delta material.
During a flood tide, the return flow toward the inlet does not form a reverse flow pattern
of the ebb tide; rather the flow distribution radially converges toward the inlet.
The velocity field
is distributed over a greater nearfield area than during the ebb flow, thus resulting in lower near
field flood velocities than ebb velocities.
Consequently
the summation of the nearfield flood
and ebb velocity vectors results in flood and ebb dominated zones.
Oertel (1988) suggested that
the difference between the axially ebbdominated flow and the flooddominated marginal flow be
termed "net tidal delta flow"
. It is within this region that a spatial asymmetry in the shear
stresses tends to develop ebb marginal deltas.
Oertel (1988) described how resultant vectors of inlet and littoral currents may effect the flow jet, thus reorientating the inlet gorge and the marginal delta for different types of inlet
situations.
Thus
, littoral sediment can be deposited in spits at the end of the barrier island,
transported into the inlet.
In the inlet, the material may accumulate in the inlet gorge or, if the
critical shear stress for scour is exceeded, be transported bayward to the flood delta, or seaward
to the ebb delta.
Material that accumulates in the ebb delta may remain there to build the delta
itself or may be bypassed downdrift or updrift via marginal deltas and channels.
Havter. Hernandez. Atz and Sill (1988)
These investigators performed a study using a movable
bed model to evaluate the effects
the effects of sediment size
, specific gravity, and inlet crosssectional area via the parameter,
whd~(y,
(2.4)
where d0
= median grain size,
= unit weight of sediment, and yw
= unit weight of sea
water.
The relationship of the delta volume (m3), to the tidal prism (m3),
was determined by
linear regression:
= 4.8x104
1340
(2.5)
= 6.9x104
1870
(2.6)
where Eqns.
action
.5 and
, respectively.
2.6 correspond to the experiments effected by no wave action and by wave
It was found that the data corresponding to the presence of waves was more
scattered than without waves.
The two regression lines (Eqns.
.6) also indicate that
experiments
waves
formed
larger deltas as
compared
to deltas without waves.
explanation provided by the investigators was that more material moved offshore from the inlet
mouth as a result in the increased shear stress induced by the combination of waves and currents.
Secondly, the littoral transport of material into the inlet from the adjacent shoreline was enhanced
by wave action.
This observation was however contradicted when the normalized tidal prism,
was compared to a normalized tidal prism, P/GE,
where E is the dimensionless wave
energy density:
r, H.2
(2.7)
The resulting regression line is
= 4.76x103
(2.8)
The data plotted in Hayter et al. (1988) and Eqn. 2.7 indicate that the delta volume will increase with an increase in the tidal prism or with a decrease in the wave energy.
Sediment Transport Studies
2.3.1
Gole. Taraore and Brahme (1971)
A method was developed by these investigators to predict sedimentation in entrance
channels based on the analysis of prototype and model data, and analytical studies.
This method
was developed to estimate the quantity of material required to be removed from the channel during maintenance dredging.
The total suspended load crossing a shorenormal channel in the alongshore direction was
calculated from the prototype and hydraulic model data. seasonal conditions to account for the variation in tides.
The prototype data were obtained during wave climate and seasonal sedimentation.
The subsequent analytic step was to determine if a sediment particle will settle out of the water
column and be deposited in the channel or cross over the channel.
in terms of particle fall velocity.
This criterion was derived
This procedure ultimately determined the fraction of the total
sediment load which contributes to the sedimentation of the channel.
It was assumed that the
suspended sediment carrying capacity of the current is proportional to the square of the flow
velocity.
Thus
, as a result of dredging and the associated increase in the depth of flow,
alongshore flow velocity across the channel decreases.
This decrease in flow velocity results in
= KLCUCthwd W
hd)
Uhh2
Udah4h
(2.9)
where K
= coefficient of actual sedimentation to effective sediment load derived from dredging
records of existing channels, Le
adjacent to dredged channel,
= length of dredged channel,
= alongshore current velocity
= depthaveraged suspended sediment concentration, t
= time
(months),
= water depth in the dredged channel,
= dredged channel width,
= particle
settling velocity, ha
= water depth adjacent to the dredged channel
= alongshore
velocity across the dredged channel.
Sarikava (1973)
This study investigated the removal ratio of suspended sediment in settling basins.
, rR, is defined as the settled suspended sediment within the deposition area to the suspended
sediment entering the area:
where C,
= uniformly distributed suspended sediment concentration and Cb4
= concentration of
suspended sediment entering the settling basin. The differential equation for suspended transport in a settling basin was derived from the law of conservation of sediment mass. in dimensionless form:
sediment
Written
, dC

U dY
1
1 d
U h dY
1
dY
CdY
(2.11)
turbulent diffusion coefficient.
The removal ratio was obtained by employing a finite difference
method, with the initial conditions assuming a uniformly distributed sediment concentration at the
, no reentrainment of sediment particles from the seafloor, and no sediment is introduced
at the water surface.
The removal ratio was determined as a function of Wh/2eo, where
crosssectional averaged turbulent diffusion coefficient, and W/Wo,
where Wo
= settling velocity
of a particle that reaches the seafloor at a distance from the inlet, if turbulence is neglected.
relationship indicates that as the effect of turbulence increases Wh/2eo
decreases thereby reducing
the removal ratio resulting in comparatively smaller sediment deposition volumes.
Conversely,
higher values of the parameter W/Wo increase the removal ratio indicating the dependence of sedimentation on the settling velocity.
Galvin (1982)
This investigator presented a method to determine the channel shoaling rate and a time estimate to shoal the entrance channel from an initial overdredged depth to a project design
depth.
The shoaling rate of the channel was considered to be dependent on the littoral sediment
deposited in the dredged channel.
The shoaling rate (Sr) was given as
RQ
(2.12)
where Le
= dredged channel length, wd
= dredged channel width,
= littoral transport rate,
= fraction of Q which reaches the dredged channel,
= initial water depth, h
= water depth
at time t
and m
= exuonent denendins on whether the dredrin2 increases the crosssectional
.
channel to shoal to a project design depth,
h,, is defined as
L w RQ
lnB)
(2.13a)
where
(2.13b)
1 +m" 1
2
m" 1
2
h
h
(2.13c)
Channel depth during shoaling versus time after dredging for three combinations of the natural controlling depth and dredged channel depth were plotted in order to obtain a quantitative evaluation of the effect of bypassing on channel shoaling for three initial depths dredged to 4
meters.
It was found that: a) the curves of channel depth versus time indicated that the maximum
rate of shoaling occurred immediately after dredging; b) the channel shoaled faster when the post
dredging velocity was reduced (m"
= 5/2) as compared to when postdredging velocity was not
reduced (m"
= 3/2); c) the channel shoaled faster when no bypassing occurred (m"
 cc); and,
d) a shallow dredged channel approached the natural controlling depth at a slower rate than a deep dredged channel.
It was shown in this study that this method can be used to compute the duration that a
channel will be maintained at a certain project depth, test if a proposed dredging depth will
Buckingham (1984)
Buckingham
(1984)
studied
erosion
of tidal
channels
associated
sedimentation in the vicinity of the channels.
A study was conducted using a fixed bed,
undistorted model that combined penetrating oceanic waves and tidal currents in the channel of
Jupiter
Inlet,
Florida.
stability
parameter
was used
to evaluate
the sediment
erosion/deposition potential at selected locations within the inlet entrance and interior waters.
parameter
quantitatively
relates
velocities
model
erosion/deposition potentials.
The bed stability parameter,
Pbed, was defined as
(2.14)
 
where Tb
= bed shear stress due to waves superimposed on current and *rcr
= critical shear stress.
When Tb
> T"or (positive Pbed) erosion will occur and when rb
<',"or (negative
Pbed) material will be
deposited. velocity.
Under turbulent conditions
, the bed shear stress is proportional to the square of the
Thus, the velocities due to waves and current can be substituted in Eqn.
13 to obtain
the following equation for the stability parameter:
flk'
1/2
H
where k'
and m
are empirical
coefficients found to range between
2 to 8 and
1.3 to
respectively
site in question, h
= reference wave height, hR
= water depth,
= reference water depth, H
To = current velocity, and Ucr
= wave height at the
= critical velocity for erosion.
sediment will deposit, and secondly, the critical shear stress under waves and
considered to be equal to that obtained from Shields'
motion under steady flow. from wave action. The b
current was
(1936) relationship for incipient grain
Thus, the second assumption neglects the shear stress contribution
ed stability parameter was found to produce reasonable results when
interpreting hydrodynamic data to compare the erosion and deposition potentials using fixed bed models involving both waves and currents within the inlet.
2.3.5
Ozsov (1986)
This investigator examined transport and sedimentation processes in the vicinity of a tidal inlet through analytic modeling of sediment transport associated with the turbulent jet produced
by ebb tidal flow.
The jet was divided into a "zone of flow establishment" (ZOFE) and a "zone
of established flow" (ZOEF),
where the ZOFE is defined from the inlet mouth to a seaward
location where the flow is not fully influenced by the jet boundary shear, hence has a constant jet centerline velocity and the ZOEF extends seaward of that point, with decreasing jet centerline velocity.
The analytic model produced a nondimensional distribution of the settlement rate within
the boundaries of the jet.
It was found that two maxima and a minimum at the centerline
occurred. The two maxima correspond to the marginal shoals located along both sides of the jet centerline. Sediment settling was comparatively small along the centerline of the jet due to the
high current velocity.
There was no deposition of material outside of the jet boundaries due to
the small or zero ambient sediment concentration.
It was found that bottom friction, bathymetry, sediment settling velocity and the initial
deposition relatively close to the inlet mouth in building a fanshaped delta.
A change in the
bottom slope did not result in any significant change in the concentration within the jet, but did
transport the material further seaward resulting in elongated marginal shoals.
The settling
velocities, on the other hand, played a significant role in determining sediment distribution. Sediments with larger settling velocities (coarser material) were deposited closer to the inlet and
the marginal shoals, while low settling velocity, finer material was jetted further offshore.
velocities were also shown to be influential on sedimentation patterns.
Flow
When the initial velocity
was less than the critical velocity for erosion, larger deposits of material were found to occur at
the mouth or within the jet core (in ZOFE).
When the initial velocity was equal to the critical
velocity, it was found that material is deposited further seaward in the marginal shoals.
Finally,
when the initial velocity was greater than critical, scouring occurred and material deposited
further offshore than the marginal shoals, outside the active zone of sediment transport.
Ozsoy
(1986) found that the predicted depositional patterns resulted in reasonable qualitative similarity to those at prototype coastal inlets under certain hydrodynamic conditions.
2.3.6
Walther and Douglas (1993)
These investigators developed a procedure to quantify the shoaling rate within an offshore
dredged area within the ebb delta and sediment transport rate across the inlet after dredging.
postdredging of the ebb delta will reduce bypassing rate around the inlet, hence the estimation
of this reduction is a matter of considerable engineering interest.
The quantity deposited in the
dredged area is determined by the sediment transport ratio, T, from the work of Gole et al. (1971) expressed in terms of pre and postdredging depths:
(2.16)
where ho
= initial water depth,
= water depth in the dredged channel,
and m
= 5/2.
bypassing rate can then be determined from an estimate of the predredging littoral transport rate. The shoaling rate (VT) within the dredged area is estimated as the difference between the pre and postdredging transport rates:
= Q,(1
(2.17)
where Q,
= predredging littoral transport rate.
As sediment is deposited in the dredged area,
the depth and the trapping rate will decrease, while the sediment bypassing rate will increase.
A comparison of two hypothetical examples were presented to illustrate the recovery and
bypassing rates for a deep and a shallow sand borrow area within the ebb delta.
The rate of
littoral material to the ebb delta, the predredged depth and the dredged volume were considered
constant for both
cases
with a variation in the borrow area dimensions.
The bypassing rate and
the cumulative volume of sand bypassed versus time were determined.
The investigators found
that the initial bypassing rate of the shallow cut was approximately twice the rate for the deep cut. However, the bypassing rate increased faster for the deep cut with the bypassing ratetime curve intersecting the shallow cut curve by the fifth year, for the particular set of parameters chosen. The increased bypassing rate for the deep cut resulted in full recovery to the predredging
condition by the ninth year as compared to the fourteenth year for the shallow cut.
cumulative volume bypassed at the end of the fourteen years was within one percent of each other
for the two
cases.
It was concluded that the results using this method were sensitive to the
Inlet Stability Studies
Bruun and Gerritsen (1960)
Bruun and Gerritsen (1960) proposed a stability criterion in which the condition for the inlet to remain open was considered to be dependent on the ability of the channel current to
remove the littoral drift deposited on the ebb c the inlet during a onehalf tidal cycle to the an was proposed as a measure of inlet stability. sandy coastal inlet (Table 112). As the tidal
increasing the stability ratio,
The ratio of the tidal prism passing through average littoral drift reaching the inlet, P/M,
Bruun (1977) later quantified this relationship for
prism increases relative to the littoral drift, thus
P/M, the inlet entrance has the tendency of maintaining itself.
Conversely, as the stability ratio continues to decrease, the seafloor elevation rises until the inlet is subject to closure.
Table
Bruun's
stability criterion of sandy coastal inlets related to ebb delta
bypassing.
Ratio range, P/M
Inlet conditions with respect to navigability and stability
P/M
Conditions are relatively stable and good, and good flushing.
little ebb delta formation
< P/M
Conditions become less satisfactory, and ebb delta formation becomes more pronounced.
< P/M
< 100
< 50
The ebb delta may be rather large,
navigated by shallow draft vessels .... .... all inlets are typical "deltabypasses"
but they can usually still be
.... For navigation, they
present "wildcases"
, unreliable and dangerous.
P/M
< 20
.... entrances appear as unstable "overflow channels" rather than
permanent inlets.
. ....n... 1 f'tlD7.
2.4.1
O'Brien (1971)
O'Brien (1971) reviewed the report by Saville et al. (1957) on a moveable bed hydraulic model study of an inlet and noted that an inlet that is in equilibrium is due to a balance between the wave energy which tends to close an inlet and the tidal energy which maintains the opening.
Thus
, the ratio, a, of normal incident wave energy over one tidal period to the tidal energy
through the inlet over a tidal period can be used to evaluate the stability of an inlet:
PwT.
(2.18)
2a~,,y~P
where P
= total wave power, w
= width at the inlet throat, T
= tidal period, 7,
= unit weight
of seawater
= spring tidal prism, and 2aos
= spring tidal range.
Given a single representative
deep water wave height Ho,
Po is defined as:
(2.19)
= 2
32r 0
where g
= acceleration due gravity and T
= wave period.
Mehta and Hou (1974) and Sedwick
(1974) found a to be a reasonable indicator of inlet stability.
The stability coefficient, ce,
plotted against the tidal prism and a line separating relatively low values of a representing stability from a region of high values of a representing instability was drawn.
General Conclusions
With regard to the objective of the present study and the modeling effort described in
Chapter IV
, the studies reviewed in this section lead to the following relevant observations:
Inlets can be modeled as an idealized form of a surface nozzle
e, where the ebb jet is
25
The relationship between the delta volume and the tidal prism depends measurably on
prevailing wave energy (Walton and Adams, 1976; Hayter et al.
Suspended sediment concentration, grain
1988).
sediment settling velocity and the initial
inlet velocity influence the depositional patterns with the ebb jet boundaries (Gole et al.,
Sarikara, 1973; Ozsoy
1986)
Flow velocities due to waves and current related through the bed stability parameter,
Pbd, determine the sediment erosion/deposition potential (Buckingham,
1984).
Ebb jet spreads out laterally and the flow velocity decreases at the end of the nearfield
resulting in the material being deposited in the farfield (Ozsoy, 1986
Oertel
,1988).
Curves plotting the water depth during shoaling versus time after dredging indicate that
the maximum rate of shoaling occurred immediately after dredging (Galvin,
1982).
Deeper dredged cuts trap more sediment and reduce the bypassing rate as compared to a shallow cut, but eventually the same cumulative sand volume is bypassed (Walther and
Douglas,
1993).
The ratio of the tidal prism to the annual average littoral drift reaching the inlet is an
indicator of conditions for navigation through the entrance.
As the tidal prism decreases
relative to the littoral drift, the ebb delta grows and ultimately hinders navigation (Bruun and Gerritsen, 1960).
The stability coefficient, a, defined as the ratio of longshore wave power to the tidal
power can be a reasonable
indicator of stable
versus unstable inlets (O'Brien,
Sedwick, 1974; Mehta and Hou,
1974).
CHAPTER III
METHOD FOR DETERMINING
DELTA
VOLUME AND GROWTH
Database
Data included in this compilation of the relevant inlet parameters were primarily obtained
from existing sources,
delta volumes
and secondarily calculated in this study.
inlet throat width
These parameters include ebb
, average water depth at the throat, throat crosssectional area,
spring tidal prism, annual average deep water significant wave height and wave period, and the
spring sea tidal range.
These parameters are tabulated,
and when available, by year for each
inlet, in Appendix A.
The majority of the data were obtained from the literature in the Coastal
Engineering Archives of the Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department (COE) at the
University of Florida. Specific private engineering consultants, Army Corps of Engineers. In
illy, reports and studies published by COE and other universities,
Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR), and the U
formation was also obtained from the periodicals and journals
housed in the Archives, as well as nautical charts and bathymetric surveys.
3.14
Ebbi2eltaiiolumes
Ebb delta volumes were found for eightyone inlets on the three coasts of the United
States, of which fortyfive are in the State of Florida of the 189 volumes,
182 were found in the
I
Tidal Prism
Spring tidal prisms in Appendix A have either been reported in other documents or have
been obtained from Jarrett (1976) based on the formula of O'Brien (1969),
area.
knowing the throat
O'Brien (1969) found the following relationship between the throat crosssectional area and
the spring tidal prism:
=a14A
(3.1)
where Ae
= throat crosssectional area (m2) and P
= tidal prism (m).
The coefficients aj and
b1 where found for sandy inlets in equilibrium under a semidiurnal tide. Jarrett (1976) later reanalyzed this relationship based on data from inlets along the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of
Mexico coasts.
In this study, the tidal prisms for both the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico inlets
were calculated with the coefficients determined for 0,
2 jetties given by Jarrett (1976).
Coefficients for the Atlantic inlets
= 1.94 x 104 and b1
= 0.95
and for the Gulf of Mexico
= 4.06 x 10 and b1
3.1.3
= 1.19 were used to calculate tidal prisms.
CrossSectional Area
Minimum
or throat crosssectional
inlets
are reported
from
existing
documents,
National
or calculated from
Ocean
Service
(NOS)
United States Geological Survey (U
Nautical
Charts.
Crosssectional
areas
.) quad sheets or were obtained by
measuring across the distance across the
inlet throat to obtain the inlet width.
The width was
then multiplied by an estimated average depth across that line.
3.1.4
Significant Wave Height and Wave Period
Deep water significant wave heights, H,,
were obtained from Hubertz and Brooks (1989)
Mean
wave
periods
were obtained
from
Army
Corps
of Engineers,
Coastal
Engineering Research Center (CERC) (Brooks,
1994a,
1994b unpublished) through a special
request.
A twentyyear average characteristic value was calculated from these data for the same
stations for which wave heights were obtained.
Sorine Sea Tidal Ranges
Spring tidal ranges, 2as, were calculated from Balsillie (1987a, 1987b, 1987c) for the coast of Florida as the difference of the mean higher high water and mean lower low water
levels. sheets:
Tidal ranges at locations outside Florida were obtained from two sources: 1) USGS quad and 2) NOS Nautical Charts.
Ebb Delta Volume Estimates
The purpose of this exercise was to examine the procedure developed by Dean and
Walton (1973) for estimating the ebb delta volumes.
volumes
The first task was to estimate the necessary
, and the second to evaluate the effect of interpretation of bathymetric conditions on the
estimated volumes.
3.2.1 Ebb Delta Volumes
Seven bathymetric surveys were selected to estimate delta volumes. The next step using each survey was to draw shoreperpendicular lines on either side of the inlet to obtain a
representative "noinlet" profile.
These two lines were located at a distance from the inlet in an
effort to minimize the influence of the inlet on the contours.
Equal depths along the two lines
were connected to develop a "bestfit" contour configuration overlain on the survey (Figure III1).
"bestfit"
contours
, although drawn somewhat subjectively,
represent the bathymetric
conditions as if no inlet was present.
A grid pattern was then superimposed on the survey.
29
bathymetry shows depth undulations with irregular elevation changes or small pockets of sand
should
small.
However,
if the
change
in elevation
comparatively smoother, more gradual,
the grid cel
size can be
arger.
The elevation differences
at each of the four intersections were estimated within 0.15 meters and averaged for the cell. The average elevation of each of the grid cells were then summed and multiplied by the total surface area of all the grid cells to obtain the ebb delta volume.
.
. *** ** **
Natural
C*S* SSS 5****
I Contour
.. l 
uSp * * *
SC~**.............................................. S 5e*. Seaward Conto
S S S * * *
s.d. S j t % 5 5 
Lnd1 I lWar U
~AJr I LqJur
Oet ft
ur
Cntu
* S S S S
  5 C C
 5.., 4
. C * *
S S S~ S S S S *Sa5*~ C  S C
  S C S S S S S S C S
 S *g.... r~..4...5..
rirrT. *............. . C    aS     
* *me C S * *~S*~ ~ S *

  r r r      S  S' t  S ~rTw S
 S S S S
 
* O S 
Barr I er ISI and .*
......... ..E .... ....... ....". ......... ."v 'v .v v v . .:,. .v ,. .v . ..
", ::..Barrier Is land
. .. .......: X:Yi
Schematic of three "noinlet" contour conditions in estimating ebb delta
volumes. contours
Seaward exaggerated contours, A
, B (solid
(dashed lines),
"bestfit" C (thick
dotted lines).
3.2.2 Sensitivity Analysis
Dean and Walton (1973) had each estimated the volumes of eight ebb deltas to evaluate
the differences in the quantities due to the individual interpretation of the natural
contours.
"noinlet"
The intent of the following exercise was to examine changes in the volumes due to:
a' . .~. S.C .. C ." a' St *1 .* 
C C 
C
S
Figure III1.
ines) and landward exaggerated contours,
volumes from the "bestfit" contours.
Next, two additional volume computations were made for
each of the surveys by slightly exaggerating the contours landward and seaward, with the ends
remaining at approximately the same locations.
The distance of the landward and seaward
exaggerated
contours
were
subjective,
an attempt
was made
to retain
reasonable
representation of the "noinlet" contours.
The results of this exercise are given in Section 4.1.1.
The next issue was to examine the variation in the volumes due to a change in the grid
cell size (Figure m2).
This was undertaken by doubling the size of the initial grid cells for each
of the volumes computed as described above.
The elevation differences of the initial grid cell
located at the intersections of the doubled grid size were used to calculate the average elevation difference each of the grid cells.
I Grid
Barrier" Isl and"
. ..
.., S
* .e
Figure III2.
"' .. .. ___._'* S :..... ".. ... .. . : : : : :. . . . . . . . ... . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. ...... .. . .. . .. ...
"" ::::"Barrier" Is and
*
Schematic of the initial grid and enlarged grid cell patterns used in estimating ebb delta volumes.
31
Diannostic Examination of Seafloor Evolution
As noted in Section
2.2.2,
with the opening of an inlet the ebb delta volume increases
as the inlet tidal current deposits material derived from the littoral system and ultimately reaches
an equilibrium volume when the condition of no net deposition is attained.
This process of
monotonic accumulation is influenced by wave action and its seasonal as well as yeartoyear
variation.
To examine the influence of the effects of current and waves on the growth rate of ebb
deltas, a diagnostic approach is developed.
The growth process of the delta will have an initial
condition of a new inlet with no delta present (Figure m3.A).
Delta accumulation height, d,
will be simulated by modeling tidal currents and superimposed waves to determine the combined
shear stress, rb.
The seafloor will continue to rise on the condition that the combined shear stress
is smaller than the critical value, rcr for scour/deposition (Figure III3.B).
The model must then
determine the delta volume when the seafloor reaches an equilibrium elevation, de, due to a
balance of the shear stresses, i.e.
= *rcr (Figure III3.C),
and estimate the time for the
equilibrium condition to occur.
Derivation of the model is presented in Section 3.3.1 and the
corresponding Fortran algorithm is found in Appendix B.
An important point to note is that for the model development, the tidal period will be
considered to be the smallest timescale.
In another words, processes which actually occur over
flood and ebb phases of flow will be treated in a composite manner over the duration of the tide.
3.3.1
Model Develooment
The net decrease of suspended sediment mass per unit delta bed area, m, with respect to time is given by
Island
Uo
<<cr
Seaf
loor
Inlet
Channe
Ebb De
* ..............I
.. *1
I ncrementa I Depos it Ion
Figure III3.
Seafloor growth diagrams illustrating the evolution of an ebb delta: A) initial
condition
where F,
, B) transient condition and C) equilibrium condition.
= settling flux is defined as
wa/c,
(3.3)
where
= effective settling velocity of the particles and
= depthaveraged suspended
sediment concentration.
The effective settling velocity is defined as
=py,
(3.4)
where p
= probability of sediment deposition and W
= particle settling velocity.
Krone (1962)
ler
a 
(3.5)
where rb
= combined bed shear stress due to waves and current, and
= critical bed shear
stress.
Deposition can occur only when Tb
> 0).
The settling velocity (Schiller eral.,
1933) can be expressed as
4 Pa
3 C
P"gdso
p,
(3.6)
where p,
= particle density, p,
= seawater density, dso
= median particle size, g
= acceleration
due to gravity
and CD
= drag coefficient.
The value of CD outside the Stokes range (Reynolds
number
1) decreases rapidly then levels off and becomes nearly constant (e.g. 0.43 for spheres)
in the fully turbulent flow regime considered.
Equation 3
.2 can thus be expressed as
dmin
dt
11>1
'C
bwc

tcr
(3.7)
where Hf [x]
= heavyside function such that Hf [x
= x, and H [x <0]
Next
= A
(3.8)
where Pd
= dry bed density
= ebb delta deposition area, m
= mass
and V
= delta volume.
Furthermore,
= dhA,,
= d(d)AD
(3.9)
w~c
'1 Pd
(3.10)
'rcr
Given
C,, and Pd, Eqn. 3.10 can be solved provided Tb and
are determined.
Komar and Miller (1974) found that data for sediment threshold under oscillatory flows
agreed with Shields'
Thus
closely
(1936) relationship for incipient grain motion under unidirectional flows.
, the work by Shields (1936) for fully turbulent flow can be used to determine the critical
shear stress
, cr, for waves and current combined:
(3.11)
= 0.058 (p,
where p,
= density of seawater.
Grant and Madsen (1978) prescribed the following relationship
for shear stress, t,, due to both current and waves:
(3.12)
= 0.5 fi U2
where
= total velocity due to waves and current at the seafloor.
The friction factor due to
the combined current and waves
, few, is equal to
UchfC+
(3.13)
1Uwb
where f0
= friction factor due to current, fw
= friction factor due to
waves,
= nearbed
current velocity over the delta, Uwb
= nearbed orbital velocity due to waves can be obtained
from linear wave theory (Dean and Dalrymple, 1984a):
Hsr cosh(kh) T sinh(kh)
(3.14)
changes as the depth changes.
According to linear wave theory (Dean and Dalrymple, 1984b),
the shoaled wave height, H can be expressed as
Co
2C 1
(3.15)
where bo
= distance between two adjacent deep water wave rays, b,
adjacent nearshore wave rays,
= deep water wave celerity equal to gT
= distance between two
= shallow water
wave velocity equal to (ghfm
,and Ho
deep water wave height.
aves
approaching the
shoreline in shallower water begin to decrease in celerity and the wave crests tend to align
parallel with the contours of equal bathymetry.
As the delta grows
these contours are extended
seaward
, thereby causing refracting waves to transport material from the adjacent updrift and
downdrift beaches toward the inlet.
However, ignoring the refraction process for simplicity,
the derivation of this model the contours are assumed to remain straight and parallel.
refraction coefficient (bTb5)u2
Thus
, is set equal to unity.
Grant and Madsen (1978) define U,, the total current velocity due to waves and current
2 2+2
(3.16)
Ueb U bcos )'
where 4
= angle between the current and wave direction.
During ebb flow
when 4
= 71r, the
momentum of the ebbing water mass causes the incoming waves to break seaward of the ebb
delta.
Conversely during flood flow, when 4)
= 0, thew
ayes
are able to penetrate over the delta
and into the inlet channel.
It is assumed that the combined effect of waves and current over a
tidIal nnril is ranreaented in this model by selecting 6 = 0.
ambient water into the ebb jet small
compared to the tidal prism, this area (A,) is notionally
defined as the tidal prism divided by the depth of flow (Figure III4.A).
between Ap and the ebb delta deposition area, AD,
Ini Chan
The relationship
is developed in Section 3.3
Figure 114.
Plan view of A) tidal prism based area (A,),
and B) delta deposition area
(AD).
The first step to determine the current velocity over the ebb delta is to obtain the maximum velocity through the inlet for a spring tide is found from O'Brien (1969):
0.86xP
(3.17)
where P
= spring tidal prism, T
= tidal period,
and Ae
= throat crosssectional area of the inlet.
The average inlet velocity over onehalf tidal cycle is then obtain from
2 U,.
(3 .18)
As the flow exits the inlet channel it is considered to spread out from the inlet mouth.
edge of the area A, (Figure Il4.A), where re is obtained from continuity according to
2A7
(3.19)
Thus, Uo is obtained from
=2 Uw
(3.20)
where w = width of the entrance.
As the seafloor rises, the water depth decreases with respect to the initial water depth, whereby to maintain the continuity of flow, the current velocity over the delta, U, must increase
(Figures III3 and 1115). As Uc decreases with distance as the flow spreads out over the delta from its inner to outer limit. For the present purpose, Uc will be defined as its value at the inner
limit of the delta.
It should also be noted that the velocity profile of Uc is vertically uniform, it
is therefore necessary to apply a correction factor to obtain the nearbed velocity, Ucb.
From the logarithmic velocity profile (Mehta, 1978), the ratio of the nearbed velocity, Uc, to the depth averaged current velocity, Uc is defined as
(3.21)
ln(h/zo) 1
where
= theoretical origin of the logarithmic profile, and
= distance above profile origin
and is set here equal to 0.05 m.
From the ManningStrickler formula, zo can be obtained by
= 107n6
(3.22)
Ebb delta inner limit
r
'29
cL
Ebb d outer
e I ta
limit
Figure IH5.
Crosssectional view and plan view through the inlet and idealized ebb delta.
Mehta and Ozsoy (1978) noted that a representative Manning's
n value of 0.028 can be used for
sandy inlets,
and with an initial water depth 4.0 m used in Chapter IV
velocity to the mean velocity was determined.
Thus
the ratio of nearbed
, the current velocity obtained by continuity
is multiplied by a correction factor of 0.40:
(3.23)
 (1 AAYT
tJ.t JtJc
Ii
where ho
= initial water depth.
Note that when the equilibrium delta volume is attained,
 a ~ . a An rr 1W g~ ~ ., .* .z 4.1.

Pd
2r~,.
(H)cosh'kh
4sinh2kh
+0.16
U~h0
h
+ Hocoshkh Uho
2.5sinhkh h
(3.24)
Eqn. 3.24 can be functionally expressed as
= F(h)
This equation was solved by using the 4th order RungeKutta iteration method:
=h+~(k1+2k+2k3+k4)
i
(3.26)
k1 =AtF( h)
t= AtF k,=AtF
k
h,+
(3 .27)
(3.28)
(3.29)
k4 =AtF(h1+k)
(3.30)
where hr
= incremental change in water depth, for i= 0,1,2,..., j1,
k1,2,3,4 =
intermediate
method steps, and At = time increment in number of tidal periods.
The incremental
change
delta accumulation,
can then be
multiplied by the
depositional area, AD, to obtain the ebb delta volume, V.
The cumulative volume change is then
plotted to illustrate the effects of waves and currents on ebb delta growth rate and estimate the duration to achieve an equilibrium volume.
(3.25)
3.3.2
Model Parameters
Ebb delta area
It is necessary to identify the ebb delta area, AD, over which deposition occurs.
This was
achieved by empirically correlating A, defined in Figure III4 with AD based on measurements.
Davis and Gibeaut (1990) digitized ebb delta features of Florida's
lower Gulf Coast inlets from
aerial photographs,
and estimated the delta surface areas.
Of these, 21 ebb delta areas were
found to be temporally consistent with the tidal prisms from the database in the present study
(Appendix C).
The surface area, Ap, characterized by spring tidal prism,
P. was obtained from
(3.31)
A,=
2a,
The plot of Ap against AD is shown in Figure 1II6.
5 4 3 2
1000000
6 4 3
2
100000
4 3
2
1O000
100000
Ebb De
2 3 4 1000000 2 3 4 le+O07
Ita Area, Ap (m2)
2 3 4
 Tidal Prism Method
41
Regression analysis resulted in r2 = 0.65 indicating a reasonable correlation between the AD and Ap. The equation of the regression line relating the A, and AD is
= 2.34A,'81
Equations 3.31
(3.32)
and 3.32 were used in the model to determine AD from P and ao,,
assuming their applicability to the inlets considered.
3.3.2.2
Susoended sediment concentration
Downing (1984) presented a timeseries of sediment concentrations at three locations
across the surf zone at Twin Harbor Beach,
Washington.
The investigator found two distinct
types of vertical concentration profiles.
The first occurred between resuspension events, when
the sediment concentration had vertical uniformity, while during resuspension events a significant concentration gradient occurred within approximately 0.10 m height above the bed in a total
water column depth of 0.25 m.
The uniform concentration between resuspension events ranged
from 0.0002 to 0.0004 kg/m3 and approximately 0.0015 to 0.0100 kg/m3 during resuspension
events.
In the present study, the influence of depthaveraged concentration, C,, ranging from
0.00005 and 0.00020 kg/m3 will be examined.
3.3.2.3
Friction factors
The friction factor due to current (fe) is proportional to the square of Manning's n and inversely proportional to the cubic root of the water depth, h (Mehta, 1978):
8gn2
N = ~~F* F I
can be used for sandy inlets since the mean grain size at most inlets range between 0
mm.
and 0.4
The initial water depth used to model the evolution of the ebb deltas in Chapter IV
averaged 4 m, resulting in a characteristic friction factor due to current of 0.039.
It should be
noted that Mehta (1978) determined friction factors for three inlets on the Gulf Coast of Florida ranging between 0.021 to 0.050.
The friction factor due to waves (f,) was obtained from the wave friction factor diagram developed by Jonsson (1965) which plots the friction factor against the wave Reynolds number defined as
U,,bf s
(3 .34)
where
= maximum nearbed orbital velocity due to waves,
horizontal excursion and v
= kinematic viscosity of seawater.
= maximum nearbed
The maximum orbital velocity,
Uwb, and maximum horizontal excursion, b, are obtained from the linear wave theory for shallow water waves (Dean and Dalrymple, 1984b):
HI
(3.35)
H 2kh
(3.36)
Given the typical initial water depth of 4 m, deep water wave height equal to 0.4 m, and wave
period of 8 seconds,
= 1.7 x 104
. From Figure 6 in Jonsson (1966),
this wave Reynolds
number corresponds to the fully turbulent flow range.
Given the typical variation of Re in the
Sediment grain size
Mehta and Ozsoy (1978) noted that for sandy inlets the median grain
size at most inlets
range between 0
and 0.4 mm.
This range will be considered in the present study.
Deeo water height and period
As described in Section 3.4, the deep water wave height has a significant effect on the
growth rate of the ebb delta and its equilibrium volume.
By adjusting the wave height, the delta
volumetime curve can be made to pass through the appropriate smallest and largest measured
delta volumes at a given inlet.
IV4.
Deep water wave heights obtained in this way are given in Table
A characteristic wave period of 8 seconds will be used for all model runs.
Tidal inlet characteristics
The tidal inlet characteristics utilized in the analysis are derived fro
Appendix A.
Specifically, the characteristics include: inlet throat width,
t
prism, and spring tidal range.
Effects of Imoortant Parameters on Delta Growth
The effects of important parameters on the rate of delta formation
examined. sediment gr
The three selected parameters are 1) suspended sediment concentrate
:ain
do; and 3) deep water wave height, Ho.
The influenc
parameters on the volume growth curves are next shown in plots of ebb delta v
beginning with a new inlet with no delta.
The range of values of these three pa
m the database in throat depth, tidal
at coastal inlets is tion, C'; 2) median e of varying these volume versus time, rameters are given
3.4.1
Variation in SusDended Sediment Concentration
In the Eqn.
for the rate of water depth change, dh/dt,
suspended sediment concentration, Cs.
is proportional to the
Figure III7 plots the ebb delta volume,
= AD(hoh),
versus time (years) for three suspended sediment concentrations.
The first characteristic that is evident from the growth curves is that the equilibrium ebb
delta volumes are the equal (1.4 x 106 m3) for the three concentrations. that as C, increases the rate of deposition becomes more rapid. For a c
However, it is evident
oncentration of 0.00005
, the equilibrium volume is reached in approximately 60 years from the initial formation
of the inlet.
By doubling this concentration to 0.00010 kg/m3
, the deposition rate is increased,
achieving equilibrium in 25 years.
If the concentration is doubled again, to 0.00020 kg/m3
time for the delta to achieve equilibrium is reduced to 15 years.
3.4.2
Variation in Sediment Grain Size
Two physical parameters are dependent on the median grain
size diameter
, dso, the
settling velocity (Eqn. 3.6) and the critical shear stress for sediment transport (Eqn. 3.11).
ebb delta volume versus time plot for varying sediment diameters (Figure 1118) is characterized
by three different growth rates and equilibrium volumes.
For a dso of 0.2 mm, the ebb delta
achieves equilibrium in approximately 50 years as compared to 40 years for a dso equal to 0.3
mm, and 30 years for dso equal to 0.4 mm.
The increase in the sediment diameter increases the
rate of deposition, due to the dependence of particle fall velocity on sediment size.
in the sediment size also increases the critical shear stress
An increase
, allowing the sediment bed to remain
more stable as compared to a bed composed of smaller zrain size under the same flow conditions.
kg/m3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Years
Figure 11I7.
Ebb delta volume versus time comparing the effects of three suspended sediment
concentrations
0.00005
0.00010
, and 0.00020 kg/m3
Runs 1, 2 and 3.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Years
Figure 1118.
Ebb delta volume versus time comparing the effects of three grain size diameters,
dmn, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 mm.
Runs 4, 5 and 6.
Table III1. Initial input parameters for examining the effects of variations in suspended sediment concentration, C,,
grain size diameter, dso, and deep water wave height, H on ebb delta growth.
Run CS dso H, T P 2a,, w h, f" fW
(kg/m3) (mM) (M) (s) (x106 mI) (M) (M) (M)
1 0.0002 0.35 0.4 8.0 6.50 1.00 109 4.0 0.039 0.005
2 0.0001 0.35 0.4 8.0 6.50 1.00 109 4.0 0.039 0.005
3 0.00005 0.35 0.4 8.0 6.50 1.00 109 4.0 0.039 0.005
4 0.0001 0.20 0.4 8.0 6.50 1.00 109 4.0 0.039 0.005
5 0.0001 0.30 0.4 8.0 6.50 1.00 109 4.0 0.039 0.005
6 0.0001 0.40 0.4 8.0 6.50 1.00 109 4.0 0.039 0.005
7 0.0001 0.35 0.0 8.0 6.50 1.00 109 4.0 0.039 0.005
8 0.0001 0.35 0.4 8.0 6.50 1.00 109 4.0 0.039 0.005
9 0.0001 0.35 0.8 8.0 6.50 1.00 109 4.0 0.039 0.005
3.4.3
Variation in DeeD Water Wave Height
As the waves approach the shoreline, its height increases as the water depth decreases
(Eqn. 3.15).
This increase in wave height in turn increases the nearbed orbital velocity, Uwb,
hence reduces the rate of deposition. Figure II illustrating delta growth due to current alone, i.e.
[19 plots the ebb delta volume versus time 0.0 m wave height, and two additional deep
water waves heights of 0.4 and 0.8 m.
During sea conditions when the deep water wave height is equal to 0.0 m, the rate of
deposition is observed to be relatively rapid compared to the other two wave conditions.
For a
wave height of 0.0 m the equilibrium volume is reached in 20 years and the time is doubled to
40 years to achieve equilibrium for a 0.4 m wave. when the wave height increases from 0.4 to 0.8
Equilibrium requires an additional 10 years m. Note also the drastic decrease in the
equilibrium volume with increasing Ho.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Years
Figure 1119.
Ebb delta volume versus time comparing the effects of three deep water waves
heights,
0.0, 0.4, and 0.8 m.
Runs 7, 8 and 9.
CHAPTER IV RESULTS
Ebb Deltas
Estimated Delta Volumes
Seven surveys from a total of four inlets were found to have adequate bathymetric data to estimate ebb tidal delta volumes by the Dean and Walton (1973) method noted in Section
Each survey had a "bestfit"
, "noinlet" contours (contour B in Figure III1) and a grid
system superimposed on the bathymetry (Figure 1112).
The grid cell
was determined
subjectively to provide a tight coverage of the seafloor undulations in
order to
obtain an
appropriate estimate of the delta volume, as described in Section 3
Table
IV1 presents the
of the grid cells and the estimated delta volumes for each of the seven surveys.
Table IV1.
Ebb delta volume for the "bestfit"
"noinlet" contours.
Inlet Year Grid size (m) Delta volume (x106 i3)
Ponce de Leon 1944 152 2.91
Jupiter 1957 76 0.38
1979 152 0.68
1993 76 0.74
South Lake Worth 1968 61 0.67
Clearwater 1972 122 2.03
1976 122 1.29
Delta Volume Sensitivity Analysis
The ebb delta volume estimates due to the imposed change in the
positions are given in Table IV
"noinlet"
cc
, and due to change in the grid cell size in Table IV3.
tour The
contours A
B. and C
in Section 3
are described in Section 3
.2.2 (Figure 1112).
1 (Figure III1),
The results in Table IV
and the change in the grid include the location of the
survey
the year of the survey,
and the grid cell
for which the volume was
estimated in
columns one, two and three,
respectively.
The forth column, with the heading "contour A" is
the delta volume obtained using the smallest grid cell size and the "noinlet" bathymetry for the
seaward exaggerated contour position.
The same column contains the percent difference in the
volume estimated from contour A to that of the delta volume resulting from the "bestfit"
inlet"
contour B.
The ebb volume estimated from the position of contour B and is given in the
fifth column.
The sixth column
"Contour C"
, contains the volume resulting from the landward
exaggerated
"noinlet"
bathymetric condition,
the percent difference
between
volumes
estimated
from contour positions B and
Finally,
the last column
contains the percent
difference in estimated ebb delta volumes between contour positions A and C.
Table IV2.
Delta volumes and percent differences due to changes in the "noinlet" contours.
Delta Volume (xl0t m3)
Year
Contours A
Contours B
Contours C
Contours
Ponce de Leon
Jupiter Jupiter Jupiter
2.60 (11%)
(34%)
. 1957
3.38 (+14%)
0.45 (+16
0.63 (7%)
0.71 (4%)
(+ 13 (+15
+23% +44% +19% +18%
50
The percent difference of the volume estimates between the three contour positions range
from 34%
for Jupiter Inlet,
between contours A and B to
+44%
for Jupiter,
1957,
between contours A and C.
Note that the highest percent difference can be expected to occur
between the two surveys with the greatest horizontal change (landward versus seaward) in the
contour positions.
By moving the "noinlet" contour positions landward (C) would result in a
comparatively thicker lens of sand and therefore a larger ebb tidal delta volume.
Conversely,
moving the contour positions seaward has the opposite effect by reducing the sand lens thickness,
thus resulting in a comparatively smaller delta volume.
The percent differences corresponding
to the "bestfit" delta volume show that the minimum and the maximum percent change between
A and B, and B and C are 34% and +16%,
respectively.
Using the same contour configurations described above and doubling the
cells from the initial grid pattern, the delta volume were reestimated.
size of the grid
The results of this exercise
are given in Table IV3,
where the forth
, fifth and sixth columns respectively give the estimated
ebb delta volumes using the larger grid cells for the same contours A, B,
and C.
Also included
in each of the columns containing the delta volumes is the percent difference of volumes resulting from the change in grid cell size for that particular contour position.
The volume percent difference were found to be
dependent on the complexity of the
bathymetry.
Comparatively straight,
widely spaced contours have a tendency of resulting in
smaller percent differences.
corners
By having a constant (or near constant) slope between intersecting
, the volume of the enlarged grid is close in value to that of the volume of the four initial
smaller grid cells covering the same surface area.
Where if the contours were irregularly spaced,
so that the omitted intersections caused a number of small shoals or depressions to be missed, the
Table IV3.
Ebb delta volumes and percent differences due to changes in the grid cell
Delta Volume (xlO6 m)
Inlet Year Grid Size (m) Contours A Contours B Contours C
Ponce de Leon 1944 305 2.82 (+8%) 3.28 (+11%) 3.66 (+8%)
Jupiter 1957 152 0.21 (19%) 0.34 (12%) 0.40 (13%)
Jupiter 1979 305 0.56 (13%) 0.58 (17%) 0.64 (22%)
Jupiter 1993 152 0.56 (27%) 0.63 (18%) 0.77 (13%)
South Lake Worth 1968 122 0.57 (+3%) 0.68 (+2%) 0.82 (2%)
Clearwater 1972 224 2.01 (+5%) 2.14 (+5%) 2.35 (+3%)
Clearwater 1976 244 1.22 (+9%) 1.31 (+2%) 1.49 (+4%)
The cumulative effect of the interpretation of the bathymetric conditions in selecting the
"noinlet" contours and grid cell size is varied. a relatively smooth, gradual change in the bathy
For example, the 1979 Jupiter Inlet survey had metrv. The estimated ebb volume for the "no
inlet" seaward contours (A) with a small grid
(152m
x 152m) was equal to 0.63 x106 m3
and for a larger grid size (305 m x 305 m) with a "noinlet" landward contours (C) the delta
volume
was estimated
to be
resulting
in a relatively
small
change.
Conversely, the 1944 Ponce de Leon survey was more complex with large undulations including
small shoals.
As a result, the difference in volume for the two contour and grid cell
conditions was estimated to be 3.66 x106 m3
 2.60 x106 m3
= 1.06 x106 m3
4.1.3
Delta Volumes versus Tidal Prism
The ebb delta volume versus spring tidal prism relationship presented by Walton and Adams (1976) and Hayter et al. (1988) found a significant relationship between the volume and
52
The need for synchronous wave information limits the quantity of data available for
analysis.
The tidal prism and ebb delta volume must be measured during the same year, and
these data must fall between 1956 and 1975
so as to be able to use the hindcast wave data
obtained from Hubertz and
Brooks
(1989),
Hubertz
et al.
(1993)
Brooks
(1993a,b).
Twentyeight sets of data met this criterion,
of which twenty fell within the range characterized
by Walton and Adams (1976) as a mild energy coast (030 m2s2) and eight data as moderate
energy coast (30300 m2s2).
Note that the wave energy is characterized by the parameter, Ho27!
The regression plot of the tidal prism against the ebb delta volume characterized by mild
wave energy shows a fairly good correlation (Figure IVi),
0.80.
yielding a regression line with r2
The equation of the regression line for mild energy coasts was found to be
= 1.86x103P1.o
(4.1)
The data set for moderate energy coasts has more scatter around the regression line
(Figure IV2) than seen for the case for mild coasts.
The r
= 0.45 indicates a poor correlation
of tidal prism against delta volume which may be due to the small data set used in this analysis. Note also that the data scatter may also be due to the divergence of the V versus P values from
equilibrium.
The regression line equation for moderate energy coasts was found to be
= 5.49x10PSp.Z
Figures IV1 and IV
(4.2)
show that the ebb delta volume does increase with increasing tidal
prism
which
in agreement
the observations made
Walton
Adams
(1976).
However, due to the small sizes of the data sets, it is inconclusive as to the precise influence of
wave energy on the tidal prism to delta volume relationship.
Additional data within both wave
le+O08 le+O07 ... 1000000
le+007
le+008
Tidal Prism, P (m3)
Figure IV1.
Ebb delta volume versus tidal prism for mild energy coasts (030 m2s2).
le+O08 le+007 1000000
~~Ii I~Iuj I I I I I I
TilTFI I
*1 I I ~ j
V
V
A
*1~
7/
I I t i~i~~i
I I ii
I t Ii *tk~i~
I I I I it
le+007
le+008
I I.
4.1.4
TimeEvolution of Delta Volume
The following analysis presents the timeevolution of sand volumes of four selected deltas along the east coast of Florida including those at 1) Jupiter Inlet; 2) South Lake Worth Inlet; 3)
Boca Raton Inlet; and 4) Bakers Haulover Inlet. when each inlet was opened were available, and 2 inlet to represent the timevariation of ebb delta vo
These inlets were chosen because 1) the date
) four or more data points were available per 'lumes. For each inlet, a plot of the measured
delta volumes versus date of survey with the corresponding volume ranges obtained from the model is presented.
theoretical
volume
curves
were
derived
from
model
using
specific
characteristics of the respective inlet.
These data including 1) spring tidal prism, P
2) inlet
throat width, w; 3) inlet depth, ho; and 4) spring tidal range,
along with other necessary
data presented in Section 3.3
height, Ho,
are summarized in Table IV4.
and the suspended sediment concentration,
By adjusting the deep water wave
the delta volumetime curves were
made to pass through the appropriate smallest and largest measured delta volumes.
The inlet stability parameter
4.1 (Eqn.
a, introduced by O'Brien (1971) and defined in Section
18) was later expanded by Mehta and Hou (1974) to provide an indicator of the
stability of inlets on the south shore of Long Island, New York.
For the present study,
a will
be used to provide an indication of the relative effect of waves and tidal current in governing the
rate of growth of the ebb delta.
As the deep water wave height is increased at a given inlet, a
increases and reflects a tendency to drive material toward the inlet and the nearshore area, thus
limiting the delta volume.
Conversely, if the deep water wave was set to zero,
the corresponding
a would equal zero indicating a currentdetermined delta.
This condition results in a larger ebb
Table IV4.
Initial input parameters and resulting wave to tidal energy ratio, a.
Inlet C dso Ho T P 2a0 w ha .f fw
(kg/m3) (mm) (m) (s) (xl0 m3) (in) (in) (in)
Jupiter 0.00015 0.35 0.54 8.0 6.46 1.00 109 4.2 0.039 0.005
Jupiter 0.00015 0.35 0.68 8.0 6.46 1.00 109 4.2 0.039 0.005
South Lake Worth 0.00006 0.35 0.19 8.0 1.59 0.94 30 3.3 0.039 0.005
South Lake Worth 0.00006 0.35 0.28 8.0 1.59 0.94 30 3.3 0.039 0.005
Boca Raton 0.00010 0.35 0.39 8.0 5.50 0.90 50 3.6 0.039 0.005
Boca Raton 0.00010 0.35 0.46 8.0 5.50 0.90 50 3.6 0.039 0.005
Bakers Haulover 0.00020 0.35 0.62 8.0 10.20 0.82 110 3.7 0.039 0.005
Bakers Haulover 0.00012 0.35 0.63 8.0 10.20 0.82 110 3.7 0.039 0.005
4.1.4.1
Lu ott An let
Nine delta volumes were available for Jupiter Inlet since this entrance was reopened for
navigation in 1947 (Figure IV3).
The nonzero delta volumes range between 0.23 xl06 m3 and
0.77 x106 m3
, for the years 1981 and 1993,
respectively.
The model was used to simulate the
growth curves matching this volume range. yielded a volume of 0.77 x106 m3 in 1993.
The avalue of 0.17 resulting from a Ho
= 0.54 m
The higher avalue of 0.27 was calculated for a Ho
= 0.68 m to modify the growth curve to achieve a volume of 0.23 xl(P m3 in 1981.
therefore surmised that the relative wide range in the delta volumes between the two curves is
the result of waves relative to current. vice versa. The maximum range of
Larger delta volumes correspond to lower values of a and
a being 0.17 to 0.27 for this inlet.
 .
a = 0.17 /.
e................ f "
*q
f .................. "................. ........................... i.......................~/
S
* iIi~l~ll I I III ll l~ III Ilil l IIII&l lIIII I I IIIIO I I
 ...................................................................................................
_ ...........t....................,............... .
 i
........... .
.mA..

a =0.27
 a 
 ~O...........................................................
1940
1950
1960
1970 Year
1980
1990
2000
Figure IV3.
Ebb delta volume versus year with modelcalculated volume ranges for
Jupiter Inlet.
[ .............. ..
T
volume of 0.54 xlO0 m3 with a Ho
= 0.28 m resulting in an avalue of 0.06.
Conversely, a
curve was unable to be passed through the largest volume of
.27 xl06 m3 estimated from a 1990
bathymetric survey because to achieve this volume would have required a larger delta area, AD,
than obtained from Eqn. 3.32.
It was decided to consider the next highest volume of 1.07 x10
m3 (1969,
1979) for this analysis.
To accomplish this,
= 0.19 m was used
which resulted
in an avalue of 0.03.
Thus
, with the exception of 2.27 xl06 m3 the other volumes are contained
within the a range of 0.03 to 0.06.
1920
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Year
Figure IV4.
4.1.4.3
Ebb delta volume versus year with modelcalculated volume ranges for South Lake Worth Inlet.
Boca Raton Inlet
Four ebb delta volumes were obtained for Boca Raton Inlet after the
1925 (Figure IV5).
inlet was opened in
Two of the surveys resulted in a volume of 0.61 xl06 m3 (1978,1983),
the third was 0.84 xl06 m3 (1981).
..
= 0.39 m resulting in an avalue of 0.05 passed through
~ee a 00 fl .4fl  a  3. S 
S*4...........
a 0.05
leo .
. *4*.......................
I
I
 a
* a0*
:: t......
* .
.7
.................................4...............
*: P
U 4J
~
.............................i..........
.4 *~ .4*.~**~
U, 4
 .lll~ ft4..................................................IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIt' IWI
N!
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
Year
Figure IV5.
4.1.4.4
Ebb delta volume versus year with modelcalculated volume ranges for Boca Raton Inlet.
Four delta volumes were available for Bakers Haulover Inlet, including zero volume when
the entrance was artificially created in 1925 (Figure IV6).
4/.e
* /
 e      C S S   a
C
* ..
~C~fl4eflaCae   4 a
~eC
'; a = 0.18
s :i
4.................
I flOfl '.45. U 'EIUS* 'A 1** fl** ~4 tI* ~II** flflII
* ann
* t 4 fl
. n r I~
I fl '1, f~
I fl'lfl
I flOt~
I flflfl
Bakers Haulover Inlet
A curve was passed through a point
v
59
occurring three years after the inlet was opened (0.23 x106 m) and the largest available volume
of 0.46 x106 m3
. This was accomplished with He
For the lower curve Ho
= 0.62 m resulting in the crvalue equal to
= 0.63 m had an avalue equal to 0.18,
thus defining an a range
of 0.17 to 0.18.
4.1.4
Influence of a on delta growth
Table
presents a comparison of the ebb delta volume ranges and the corresponding
wave to tidal energy ratio,
a. for each of the four inlets.
As a increases
the ebb delta volume
has a tendency to decrease, and vis'e versa.
Figure IV7 further illustrates this trend.
Although
there is data scatter and a r3value of 0.60, which is low, the regression line does show that there
in an inverse relationship between the delta volume to a.
The equation of the regression line
relating ax and V is
(4.3)
= 0.17a oo
Note that V in this case may not represent the actual equilibrium value, but may be close to it, given the manner in which the curve fitting was conducted.
Tobln TV
Comnarinn nf wave tn tidal enerov
av and the cnrrsnnnding delta volumes.
a el~t , OJ~'& VT T S''f ~ w.. J g  Inlet a V (x106 m)
Jupiter 0.17 0.77
Jupiter 0.27 0.23
South Lake Worth 0.03 1.07
South Lake Worth 0.06 0.54
fa nc lstnn 0.05 0.84
 * *4~~ w
*. *** *.
.. .. .a .s .. .*.
i..
 " .
4
9 .4.... 4
. . S
* a.
* .. :.......4
* 4
I *
* 99
* . .9
* 9
*
9
*
* 9*
*
* 9 *
*
. .~
*
. *
. 9
. .9 .* .
* 9 9 e
* .* *
*.!5***
4 9* 99* .~
* 9
* 9 *
* 9 *
~9~
* 9
* 9
* . .~ 9~
* 9
* .
* $ C
* ~** .4. *
* 4 9 9
* 4 9 9
* 9 .
* 9 9 9 4
I I i I I .1. I
I I I I
* .
9 5 ) e 0 0
t**t*t}* 9 a a
+ 4
* *9 *> *
** . .
* *9 4~.
* 9 *
* 9 6
* .~. 9.
* .4....
....9..b. I S. A.
* 9 9
* a
* *.~.. *
* 9 9
* 9 9
* 9 *
* 4 4 ~. I ~ '4
* 9
****** I *I* *l I.
* 9 9
.t.
* 9 9
* 4
* 9
* *
* 9 9 9 9
* I .9. 9.
* 9 4
* 9 9 *
* 9 9
* 9 .9....
* 9 9
* 9
* 9
* *4~~~
* 9 9 9 9
* 9 9
* 9 9 9 9 9
* .
* 9 .
* 9 9
* 9
* 9 9 9
* 9 S
* 9 9
* 9 9
.2. .% . a . 4.
* 9
* 6
S I * S.
* 9 9
* 9 9
* 4 9
* 4 9
* *
II I
I t....L *
14'' *4**
.I..... *
*** *** *. . ** .
**
**
* V.
4** **** *
**
*
*
a
*
* I..
*
9
*
* *9***
*
* A...
I.
.4.*   * *;* *
~4~*~~ t. .t.
* 9
*9 I~ .. .'. 9 I.. .J 9
* 4
* a *
4~
*
*
*
.4
*
*
*
*
* 9 9
* 4 9 *
* *
*9~ t . S.
*
* 9 .
.
* .
I I
6 7 8 q0i
Figure PI7.
Ebb delta volume against wave to tidal energy ratio,
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS
Estimated Ebb Delta Volumes
Personnel interpretation of the bathymetric condition at an inlet measurably influences the
estimated delta volume based on the method of Dean and Walton (1973).
The percent difference
due to a change in the "noinlet" contour positions from the a "bestfit" contour positions ranged
between 34% and +20%
and as much as 44% between the landward and seaward exaggerated
"noinlet" contours.
The choice of grid size also effected the estimated volumes,
ranging between
22%
+9%
In general,
the percent volume difference appears to be dependent on the
complexity of the bathymetry.
Straight, widely spaced contours have a tendency of resulting in
smaller percent differences as compared to irregularly spaced contours where small shoals or
depressions may be missed, 5,
thus resulting in comparatively larger volume differences.
Ebb Delta Volume versus Tidal Prism
The ebb delta volume versus tidal prism relationship presented by Walton and Adams (1976) was reexamined in an effort to clarify the issue of the dependence of this relationship on
the wave energy.
It was confirmed that the delta volume does increase with increasing tidal
prism; however, the precise influence of wave energy on this relationship could not be examined
conclusively due to the small number of data points.
Note, however,
that the exponential
62
given by Walton and Adams (1976) for mildly exposed coasts (1.24) and highly exposed coasts (1.23).
5.3 Effects of Significant Physical Parameters on Delta Growth
Three parameters, namely the suspended sediment concentration, sediment grain size, and the deep water wave height, were varied in the diagnostic model developed for delta growth to
determined their effects on the rate of delta formation at coastal inlets.
It was 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 the
sediment grain size and the deep water wave height effect 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
stress resulting in an increase in the equilibrium volume.
and increases the critical shear
An increase in the deep water wave
height increases the nearbed orbital velocity at the site of the delta, hence decreases the rate of
growth.
The equilibrium delta volume likewise decreases.
Effects of a on Equilibrium Delta Volumes
It was shown through the application of the model to four Florida inlets that there is a
dependence between the ebb delta volume and the wave to tidal energy ratio, avalue decreases the accumulated ebb delta volume, and vice versa. This d
An increasing
ependence of delta
volume on a partly explains the observed fluctuations in the delta volume at many inlets, since
a tends to vary seasonally as well as annually.
Another cause of variation of the delta volume
63
5.5 Influence of a on Navigability
As noted in Section 2.4.1, Bruun and Gerritsen (1960) proposed a stability criterion in which the condition for the inlet to remain open, and therefore the condition for navigation, are shown to be dependent on the ability of the tidal current to remove the wavedriven littoral drift
deposited at the entrance.
O'Brien (1971) and later Mehta and Hou (1974) noted that inlet
stability is governed by the relative dominance of wave energy and tidal energy defined by the
parameter a.
In this study it was found that as avalues increased the corresponding delta
volume decreased, thus confirming the work of Walton and Adams (1976) whereby they found
the delta volume to be dependent on the tidal prism and on wave energy.
Decreasing the delta
volume increases the controlling depth, thus providing additional underkeel clearance for a vessel
to navigate the entrance.
By providing an understanding of the mechanism by which delta growth
is controlled by the prevailing physical parameters, this investigation also provides a potential means to design safer navigation channels at coastal inlets.
Future Investigations
If future studies of the ebb delta rate of growth and equilibrium volume are to be undertaken using the model developed in this study, it is recommended that one important change
be instituted.
In nature, the combination of the ebb and flood flows causes the tidal current to
transport sediment toward the inlet from the adjacent shoreline during all tidal stages.
It was also
noted that the forces acting to transport sediment are not only dependent upon the effects of ebb and flood currents, but also on wave refraction which tends to transport sediment toward the inlet
from the adjacent shoreline.
Modeling wave refraction and the resulting sediment transport in
sediment transport in
evaluating the effects
of littoral drift on
the rate of deposition and
equilibrium volume.
Note of Caution
The model presented in this thesis is preliminary and conceptual in nature.
simplying assumptions have been made with varing levels of justification.
Many
This effort is intended
to be a first attempt at understanding and estimating the dynamic nature of ebb tidal deltas. Therefore attempts to apply the model to actual inlet conditions should be done with caution.
APPENDIX A DATABASE
Key To Symbols
ebb delta volume width at the inlet throat water depth at the inlet throat crosssectional area at the inlet throat spring tidal prism significant deep water wave height 20yr average wave period
spring tidal range
Table A1. Ebb delta related parameters for coastal entrances along the Florida coast.
Inlet Year V w hop Hindcast H, T 2ao.
(xl06 M3) (M) (M) (m2) (x106 M3) Station (in) (s) (M)
St. Marys 1870 90.37 (1
Entrance 1955 103.98 (2 13,378 (2 135.07 (2
1974 96.30 (1 12,575 (3 127.24 (3 27 0.8 (4 6.7 (5
1975 95.10 (6 885 (7 12.0 (7 10,620 (7 129.60 (8 0.9 (4 7.7 (5
20yr 1.0 (4 7.1 (5 1.89 (9
Nassau Sound 1871 37.77 (10
1954 41.06 (10
1954 40.67 (10 27 0.9 (4 6.6 (5
1973 30.96 (11
20yr 1.0 (4 7.1 (5 1.82 (9
St. Augustine 1924 60.17 (1
Inlet 1955 81.04 (2 2,462 (2 37.09 (2
1975 4,830 (12 81.30 (12 24 1.1 (4 7.0 (5
1976 340 (1 13.7 (1 4,610 (1 81.60 (1 1.0 (4 7.7 (5
1979 84.41 (1
20yr 1.0(4 7.1(5 1.57(9
Matanzas 1954 640 (13 9.33 (8
Inlet 1964 3.36 (13 1,161 (13 16.45 (8 23 1.1 (4 7.1 (5
1972 662(13 9.64(8 1.0(4 6.7(5
1973 624 (13 9.12(8 1.0(4 6.8(5
1974 907 (13 14.20 (13 0.9 (4 6.9 (5
1976 817(13 11.77(8
1977 330 (13 2.7 (13 910 (13 13.05 (8
1978 4.82 (6 305 (13 3.0 (13 915 (13 13.11 (8
20yr 1.1(4 7.2(5 1.56(9
Ponce de 1924 14.53 (10
Leon Inlet 1925 16.67 (1 824(1 11.87 (8
1934 580 (14 2.5 (14 1,470 (14 20.60 (8
Table A1. (continued)
Inlet Year V w h. A, p Hindcast H, T 2a.
(x106 M3) (M) (M) (m2) (xl06 MI) Station (M) (s) (M)
Ponce de Leon 1939 500 (14 2.0 (14 1,000 (14 13.73 (8
Inlet 1943 380 (14 3.3 (14 1,255 (14 17.04 (8
(continued) 1944 2.91 (15 238 (16 3.8 (16 904 (14 12.48 (8
1952 366 (16 3.3 (16 1,208 (14 16.43 (8
1967 985 (14 16.37 (14 21 1.1 (4 7.4 (5
1973 4.79 (14 17.52(17 1.1(4 6.9(5
1974 17.20 (6 244 (18 4.5 (18 1,100 (18 15.04 (8 0.9 (4 7.0 (5
1976 4.63 (14 312 (14 4.1 (14 1,280 (14 16.30 (14
20yr 1.1(4 7.4(5 1.35(9
Port Canaveral 1951 0.00 (6
Entrance 1957 1,610 (19 1.40 (19 18 1.2 (4 7.4 (5
1958 3.25 (19 1.2(4 7.6(5
1965 5.96 (19 1,750 (19 23.37 (8 1.1 (4 7.5 (5
1979 4.28 (6
20yr
1.1(4 7.5(5 1.20(9
Sebastian Inlet 1886 0.00 (20
1924 0.00 (20
1947 0.00 (20
1948 30 (20 0.50 (8
1949 134 (20 1.5 (20 201 (20 2.99 (8
1958 24 (20 1.5 (20 36 (20 0.58 (8 16 1.2 (4 7.4 (5
1961 140 (20 2.3 (20 322 (20 4.68 (8 1.1 (4 7.4 (5
1962 62 (20 3.3 (20 204 (20 3.03 (8 1.2 (4 8.2 (5
1963 144 (20 2.5 (20 360 (20 5.20 (8 1.2 (4 7.3 (5
1974 0.80(22 362(20 14.70(22 1.0(4 7.5(5
1976 140 (21 2.6 (21 364 (21 8.50 (21
1987 1.15 (22 360(22 5.20(8
1988 362 (22 14.72 (22
20yr 1.2(4 7.6(5 1.12(9
Table A1. (continued)
Inlet Year V w h. AP Hindcast H, T 2a.
(x106 M3) (M) (M) (M2) (x106 M3) Station (M) (s) (M)
Fort Pierce 1921 0.00 (6
Inlet 1975 22.48 (6 980 (6 13.47 (8 15 1.1 (4 8.3 (5
1976 270 (6 4.2 (6 980 (6 17.30 (6
20yr" 1.1(4 7.6(5 1.06(9
St. Lucie 1892 0.00 (1
Inlet 1947 533 (23 2.9 (23 1,546 (23 20.77 (8
1960 533 (24 1.8 (24 960 (24 13.21 (8 14 1.0 (4 6.8 (5
1963 518 (23 2.7 (23 1,400 (23 18.91 (8 1.1 (4 7.0 (5
1964 16.60 (1 1.0(4 7.1(5
1965 16.40 (6 1.0(4 7.1 (5
1966 440 (24 3.0 (24 1,320 (24 17.88 (8 1.1 (4 7.3 (5
1968 512 (24 2.3 (24 1,178 (24 16.05 (8 0.9 (4 7.6 (5
1974 550 (24 2.6 (24 1,430 (24 19.29 (8 0.9 (4 7.0 (5
1976 1,458(25 16.70(25
1979 1,460 (26 19.68(8
1980 1,400(27 17.00 (27
1982 1,450 (26 19.55 (8
20yr 1.0 (4 7.1'(5 1.03(9
Jupiter Inlet 1883 0.69 (1
1947 0.00 (1
1957 0.38 (15 13 1.0 (4 6.3 (5
1967 0.76 (10 104 (1 4.2 (1 435 (1 3.14 (2 1.0 (4 7.0 (5
1973 420 (6 6.02 (8 0.9 (4 6.4 (5
1978 0.31 (1
1979 0.68 (15
1980 0.31 (28
1981 0.23 (6
1986 0.69 (29
1993 0.74 (16
1993 1.53 (29
20yr 1.0(4 6.7(5 1.00(9
Table A1. (continued)
Inlet Year V w ho Ac P Hindcast Hs T 2ao
(x106 m3) (m) (m) (m2) (x106 m3) Station (mn) (s) (in)
Lake Worth 1918 0.00 (1
Inlet 1929 6.50 (1
1967 2.98 (17 12 0.9 (4 6.8 (5
1973 290 (6 4.0 (6 1,160 (6 28.40 (30 0.9 (4 6.1 (5
20yr 0.9 (4 6.4 (5 0.97 (9
South Lake 1927 0.00 (1
Worth Inlet 1962 3.10(6 11 0.8(4 6.6(5
1964 30(6 3.3(6 100(6 1.54(8 0.9(4 6.1(5
1967 0.54 (1 0.9 (4 6.6 (5
1968 1.00 (1 0.8 (4 6.6 (5
1968 0.71 (15 1.0(4 6.6(5
1969 1.07 (1
1978 0.84 (6
1979 1.07(1
1990 2.27 (31 41(31 3.0 (31 123 (31 1.88 (8
20yr 0.9(4 6.2(5 1.24(9
Boca Raton 1925 0.00 (1
Inlet 1978 0.61 (32
1981 0.84 (1
1983 0.61 (6 50 (32 3.6 (32 180 (32 5.50 (32
20yr 10 0.9 (4 6.0 (5 0.90 (9
Bakers 1925 0.00 (1
Haulover 1928 0.23 (2
Inlet 1969 0.46 (1 9 0.9 (4 6.1 (5
1976 110(6 3.7(6 407(6 10.20 (6
1978 0.38 (6
1982 90 (33 4.6 (33 415 (33 5.96 (8
20yr 0.82 (9
Table A1. (continued)
Inlet Year V w ho A, P Hindcast H T 2a.
(x106 mI3) (in) (m) (m2) (x106 m3) Station (m) (s) (in)
Pensacola 1877 8.19 (34
Pass 1940 9.47 (10 10,405 (10 267.59 (10
1984 13.78 (34
20yr 975 (7 15.2 (7 14,820 (7 373.11 (8 29 1.0 (35 5.4 (36 0.43 (37
East Pass, 1938 0.00 (34
Destin 1945 3.75 (10 1,600 (10 26.39 (8
1981 6.27 (34 335 (7 3.0 (7 1,005 (7 15.17 (8
20yr 30 0.8 (35 5.3 (36 0.43 (37
St. Andrews 1934 0.00 (34
Bay Entrance 1983 2.14 (34
20yr 31 0.8 (35 4.5 (36 0.41 (37
St. Joseph 1984 110.86 (34
Bay Entrance 20yr 32 0.9 (35 5.4 (36 0.41 (37
West Pass 1984 47.40 (34
20yr 34 1.1 (35 5.4 (36 0.57 (37
Sikes Cut 1954 0.00 (34
1970 0.44(38 35 1.1 (35 5.4 (36
20yr 1.1 (35 5.5 (36 0.57 (37
Carvabelle 1882 35.75 (34
Harbor 1984 32.17 (34
Entrance 20yr 35 1.1 (35 5.5 (36 0.60 (37
Hurricane 1921 0.00 (34
Pass 1975 209 (39 3.9 (39 800 (39 9.60 (39 39 0.8 (35 4.8 (36
1977 259 (39 4.0 (39 1,042 (39 15.84 (8
1984 0.08 (34 220 (39 2.1 (39 462 (39 9.85 (39
1986 1,040 (39 15.81 (8
20yr 0.9 (35 4.9 (36 0.88 (40
Table A1. (continued)
Inlet Year V w ho AC P Hindcast Hs T 2ao
(x106 m3) (m) (m) (m2) (x106 m3) Station (m) (s) (m)
Dunedin Pass 188085 6.71 (39 1,300 (39 20.61 (8
1950 6.50 (39 305 (39
1984 3.67 (34 70 (39 1.8 (39 126 (39 1.28 (8
20yr 39 0.9 (35 4.9 (36 0.87 (40
Clearwater 1925 2.38 (2 2,958 (2 54.83 (8
Pass 1950 2.29 (10 2,072 (10 35.89 (8
1972 2.07 (15 39 0.8 (35 4.8 (36
1976 1.27 (15
1984 5.37 (34
1986 1,133 (39 17.50 (8
20yr 0.9 (35 4.9 (36 0.84 (40
John's Pass 1926 2.38 (2 2,960 (2 54.87 (8
1950 3.71 (2 2,340 (2 41.49 (8
1952 4.82 (10 14.24 (10
1974 180 (39 4.9 (39 882 (39 12.99 (8 39 0.8 (35 4.8 (36
1984 3.84 (34
20yr 0.9 (35 4.9 (36 0.77 (40
Blind Pass 1885 0.87 (39
Pinellas 1952 0.33 (39 157 (39 1.67 (8
County 1984 1.26 (34 182 (39 1.2 (39 218 (39 2.46 (8
20yr 40 0.8 (35 4.7 (36 0.75 (40
PassAGrille 1952 17.97 (10 3,252 (10 40.21 (10
1979 32.88 (34
20yr 40 0.8 (35 4.7 (36 0.74 (40
Longboat 1888 12.39 (39
Pass 1954 5.95 (2 1,240 (2 19.48 (8
1982 6.22 (34 228 (39 3.4 (39 775 (39 11.14 (8
20yr 40 0.8 (35 4.7 (36 0.67 (40
Table A1. (continued)
Inlet Year V w ho Ac P Hindcast Hs T 2ao
(x106 mI) (m) (m) (m2) (x106 m) Station (m) (s) (m)
New Pass 1888 1.00 (39
Sarasota 1954 5.92 (2
County 1982 3.36 (34 137 (39 4.6 (39 630 (39 8.70 (8
20yr 40 0.8 (35 4.7 (36 0.66 (40
Big Sarasota 1888 6.85 (39
Pass 1954 14.30 (39 889 (39 3.2 (39 2,845 (39 52.34 (8
1982 10.37 (34 457 (39 6.7 (39 3,062 (39 57.13 (8
20yr 40 0.8 (35 4.7 (36 0.65 (40
Midnight 1954 0.48 (39
Pass 1955 140 (39 2.1 (39 299 (39 7.90 (39
1982 0.12 (39 15(39 1.2(39 18(39 0.15 (39
20yr 41 0.8 (35 5.0 (36 0.65 (40
Venice Pass 1954 0.71 (2 149 (2 1.57 (2
1982 0.31 (34
20yr 41 0.8 (35 5.0 (36 0.51 (40
Gasparilla 1883 3.46 (39
Pass 1956 5.28 (10 406 (39 2.9 (39 1,235 (10 19.39 (8 42 0.9 (35 5.0 (36
1982 2.66 (34 548 (39 4.0 (39 2,192 (39 38.38 (8
20yr 0.9 (35 5.0 (36 0.70 (40
Boca Grande 1883 86.09 (39
Pass 1956 133.80 (2 14,500 (2 363.54 (8 42 0.9 (35 5.0 (36
1985 122.10 (34 914 (39 9.8 (39 8,957 (39 204.93 (8
20yr 0.9 (35 5.0 (36 0.71 (40
Captiva Pass 1879 8.62 (2 2,648 (2 48.06 (8
1883 6.27 (39
1956 9.44 (2 2,666 (2 48.45 (8 42 0.9 (35 5.0 (36
1982 9.15 (34 548 (39 4.6 (39 2,521 (39 45.33 (8
20yr 0.9 (35 5.0 (36 0.73 (40
Table A1. (continued)
Inlet Year V w h A, P HIindcast Hs T 2ao
(x106 m3) (min) (m) (m2) (x106 m3) Station (m) (s) (inm)
Redfish Pass 1921 0.00 (34
1956 3.25 (2 1,394 (2 16.06 (41 42 0.9 (35 5.0 (36
1982 2.14 (34 182 (39 4.6 (39 837 (39 12.21 (8
20yr 0.9 (35 5.0 (36 0.74 (40
San Carlos 1982 19.94 (34
Bay 20yr 42 0.9 (35 5.0 (36 0.80 (40
Big Carlos 1889 3.58 (39
Pass 1960 3.97 (39 1,908 (39 32.54 (8 42 0.9 (35 5.0 (36
1982 6.15 (34 410 (39 3.4 (39 1,934 (39 33.07 (8
20yr 0.9 (35 5.0 (36 0.83 (40
New Pass 1965 0.41 (39 42 0.9 (35 4.9 (36
Lee County 1982 0.32 (34 250 (39 2.1 (39 525 (39 7.01 (8
20yr 0.9 (35 5.0 (36 0.84 (40
Wiggins Pass 1974 0.46 (42
1982 0.60 (34 91 (34 1.8 (34 164 (34 1.75 (8 42 0.9 (35 4.9 (36
20yr 0.9 (35 5.0 (36 0.86 (40
Clam Pass 1974 0.10 (42 43 0.8 (35 4.6 (36
20yr 0.8 (35 4.4 (36 0.88 (40
Gordon Pass 1974 0.44 (42
1982 0.44 (34 164 (39 2.4 (39 394 (39 4.97 (8 43 0.8 (35 4.6 (36
20yr 0.8 (35 4.4 (36 0.91 (40
Big Marco 1889 15.67 (39
Pass 1974 19.11 (42 43 0.8 (35 4.6 (36
1982 11.70 (34 347 (39 3.0 (39 1,041 (39 15.82 (8
20yr 0.8 (35 4.4 (36 0.95 (40
Caxambas 1974 8.41 (42 43 0.8 (35 4.6 (36
Pass 20yr 0.8 (35 4.4 (36 0.97 (40
Table A2. Ebb delta related parameters for coastal entrances along the Georgia coast.
Inlet Year V w ho A P Hindcast Hs T 2ao.
(x106 m3) (m) (m) (m2) (x106 m3) Station (m) (s) (m)
Altamaha 66.70 (43 640 (44 3.0 (44 1,920 (44 25.52 (8
Sound 20yr 30 1.0(4 6.9(5 2.38(44
Duboy Sound 33.00 (43 244 (44 2.0 (44 488 (44 6.95 (8
1974 62.00 (45 110.00(45 30 0.8(4 6.4(5
20yr 1.0(4 6.9(5 2.38 (44
Hampton 33.20 (43
River 1974 12.00 (45 427 (46 5.0 (46 2,135 (46 28.23 (45 29 0.8 (4 6.4 (5
20yr 0.9 (4 7.0 (5 2.38 (44
St. 15.10 (43
Catherines 1974 116.00 (45 2,286 (47 6.7 (47 15,316 (47 198.00 (45 32 0.8 (4 6.3 (5
20yr 0.9 (4 6.9 (5 2.38 (47
Ossabaw 1974 51.30 (43 5,182 (47 5.0 (47 25,910 (47 302.41 (8 32 0.8 (4 6.3 (5
Sound 20yr 0.9 (4 6.9 (5 2.38 (47
Sapelo Sound 165.80 (43
1974 115.00 (45 2,591 (48 6.1 (48 15,805 (48 189.09 (8 31 0.8 (4 6.3 (5
20yr 0.9 (4 7.0 (5 2.38 (49
Savannah 1974 59.00 (50 518 (51 8.0 (51 4,144 (51 53.01 (51 33 0.8 (4 6.0 (5
River 20yr 0.9 (4 6.6 (5 2.44 (52
St. Andrew 191.00 (43 3,901 (53 8.0 (53 31,208 (53 575.16 (8
Sound 1974 168.00 (45 280.00 (45 29 0.8 (4 6.4 (5
20yr 0.9 (4 7.0 (5 2.24 (53
St. Simon 185.60 (43 1,676 (54 4.0 (54 6,704 (54 83.72 (8
Sound 1974 87.00 (45 180.00 (45 29 0.8 (4 6.4 (5
20yr 0.9 (4 7.0 (5 2.44 (54
Table A2. (continued)
Inlet Year V w ho Ac P Hindeast Hs T 2a.
(x106 mI3) (m) (m) (m2) (x106 mI3) Station (in) (s) (in)
Tybee 1974 3.00 (45 21.00 (45 33 0.8 (4 6.0 (5
Creek 20yr 0.9 (4 6.6 (5 2.44 (52
Wassaw 1974 110.00 (45 2,865 (52 5.5 (52 15,758 (52 230.00 (45 33 0.8 (4 6.0 (5
Sound 20yr 0.9 (4 6.6 (5 2.44 (52
Table A3.
Inlet
Calibogue Sou Charleston In
North Edisto
River
Port Royal Sou St. Helena Sou
Stono Inlet Winyah Bay
Ebb delta related parameters for coastal entrances along the South Carolina coast.
Year V w ho A, P Hindcast
(x106 m3) (in) (m) (mi2) (x106 mI3) Station
nd 1974 60.00 (45 1,067 (55 9.5 (55 10,137 (55 100.00 (45 33
20yr
et 1974 253.00(50 135.00(50 36
20yr
165.14 (2 9,244(2 129.69 (2
20yr 35
nd 1974 209.00 (50 2,225 (55 8.4 (55 18,690 (55 221.73 (8 34
20yr
nd 1974 218.00 (50 6,736 (55 6.1 (55 41,090 (55 468.65 (8 35
20yr
71.26 (2 5,045(2 80.99 (2
20yr 36
56.27 (2 7,302 (2 85.52 (2
20yr 38
H,
(m)
0.8(4 0.9 (4 0.8(4 1.0 (4
0.9 (4 0.8(4 0.9 (4 0.8 (4 0.9 (4
0.9 (4
0.9 (4
T
(s)
6.0 (5 6.6 (5
5.9 (5 6.3 (5
6.5 (5 5.9 (5 5.9 (5 6.0(5 6.5 (5
6.5 (5
6.5 (5
2a.
(m)
2.44 (55 1.86 (56 2.13 (57 2.13 (55 2.16 (55 1.86 (57
1.65 (58
Table A4. Ebb delta related parameters for miscellaneous coastal entrances along the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
Inlet Year V w ho Ac P Hindeast Hs T 2ao
(x106 m3) (in) (m) (m2) (x106 m3) Station (m) (s) (m)
Little Egg, New Jersey
Barnegat Inlet,
New Jersey
Brigantine Inlet,
New Jersey
G. Egg Harbor,
New Jersey
Hereford Inlet,
New Jersey
Indian River Inlet, Delaware
Oregon Inlet, North Carolina
Beaufort Inlet, North Carolina
Mobile Bay, Alabama
Galveston Entrance, Texas
Aransas Pass, Texas
20yr 20yr 20yr 20yr 20yr 20yr 20yr 20yr 20yr
3.44 (2 10.02 (2 5.12 (2 56.63 (2 19.11 (2 2.38 (2 20.79 (2 34.71 (2 896.82 (2 97.10 (2
19.80 (41
35,581 (2 S 1,375 (2
1,133 (2 6,513 (2 3,316 (2 897 (2 6,187 (2
8,045 (2 29,264 (2 18,302 (2
1,486 (41
70 69 68
67 65 55
49
487.05 (2 17.70 (2
14.81 (2 56.63 (2 33.70 (2 14.87 (2 112.70 (2
143.00 (2 566.34 (2 168.20 (2
49.84 (41
1.1(4 1.1 (4 1.1(4 1.1 (4 1.0 (4 1.0 (4 1.3 (4 1.2 (4 1.1 (4
6.5 (5 6.5 (5 6.5 (5 6.6 (5 6.6 (5
6.4 (5
6.7 (5 6.3 (5 5.5 (5
1.37 (59
1.16 (59 1.28 (60
1.40 (60 1.52 (60 0.98 (61 0.73 (62 1.16 (63
0.37 (64
Table A4. (continued)
Inlet Year V w ho Ac P Hindcast Hs T 2a,
(x106 m3) (m) (m) (m2) (x106 m3) Station (m) (s) (m)
Grays Harbor, 261.48 (65 27,036 (65 481.39 (65
Washington
Tillamook, 16.87 (66 3,428 (66 59.75 (66
Oregon
Columbia River, 769.14 (65 47,195 (65 1,081.70 (65
Oregon
Nehalem River,
Oregon
Umpqua River,
Oregon
Coos Bay,
Oregon
San Francisco,
California
3.21 (65 25.77 (66 27.68 (65 806.60 (66
896 (65 4,292 (66 5,250 (65 87,143 (66
16.03 (65 62.30 (66 71.08 (65 1,444.16 (66
References for Appendix A
Marino and Mehta (1986) Walton and Adams (1976)
Hou (1974)
Hubertz et al. (1993)
Brooks (1994a)
Marino (1986)
Hine and Davis (1986) Hubertz and Brooks (1989) Brooks (1994b) Basillie (1987c) UFCOEL (1970) Davis and Gibeaut (1990)
USGS
Fernandina Beach
(1975)
Basillie (1994c)
Eqn. 3.1,
Section 3.1.2
Bruun and Gerritsen (1966)
Balsillie (1987a)
Dean and Walton (1973) Work and Dean (1990)
Coastal Engineering Consultants (1988) Campbell et al. (1990)
, Nautical Chart 11508 (1991)
Engineers (1976)
Mebta and Jones (1977) Jones and Mebta (1978)
Average
of volumes,
Section
Oertel (1988)
USGS
NOS
USG
4.1.2
Taylor Engineering (1992) UFCOEL (1970)
USGS
Smyrna Beach
Island (1974)
S
, Sapelo
NOS, Nautical Kraus et al. (19
(1974)
USGS
Hunt (1980)
Mehta, Adams and Jones .(1976)
, Savann Savanna
, Nautical Nautical
Johnson (1976)
NOS, Nautical
Coastal Technology (1988) Walton (1974)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1974) Coastal Data & Engineering (1980)
Coastal Data & Engineering (1985) Harris (1983)
, Nautical Nautical Nautical Nautical Nautical Nautical Nautical Nautical
Lee (1992)
Coastal Planning
& Engineering (1993)
Jarrett (1976)
L A t *p 4
Sound (1974) Chart 11509 (1992) )94, in press) ah Beach North (1975) h Beach South (1977) Chart 11512 (1974) Chart 11504 (1991) Chart 11506 (1992) Chart 11513 (1974) Chart 11523 (1992) Chart 11521 (1992) Chart 11532 (1992) Chart 12323 (1993) Chart 12318 (1991) Chart 12216 (1994) Chart 12204 (1994)
Florida Coastal
APPENDIX B
FORTRAN MODEL AND INPUT FORMAT
B, 1 Inout Parameter Format
The following is the format of the input parameter file
'I.INP' used with EBBSHOAL.FOR:
bed porosity/current friction/wave friction/median grain diameter/
 suspended sediment concentration; tidal prism/spring tidal range/tidal period (hr.)/inlet throat width
 average inlet depth; deepwater wave height/wave period/angle between currents and waves/
 number of tidal steps; initial output filename ('in quotes'); data output filename ('in quotes'); run date ('in quotes').
EBBSHOAL.FOR Diagnostic Model
The following model was used to simulate and evaluate the growth of ebb delta volumes: $LARGE
PROGRAM
EBBSHOAL.FOR
C Ebb Shoal Volume Model Program
written in MS FORTRAN
.0 by
Michael R. Dombrowski
Version 1.0
July 1,
1994
Variable Definitions
Variable
ALPHA
CONC D50
D
DO
F
FC FW HT
Description
Minimum crosssectional area (m**2) Wave to tidal power ratio Ebb shoal area calculated by tidal prism method (m**2) Ebb shoal area calculated from regression equation (m**2) Sediment concentration (kg/m**3) Median grain size diameter (in millimeters) Depth of water array within deposition area (m) Initial depth of "nodelta" condition (m) Friction due to both waves and currents Friction due to currents Friction due to waves Shoaled nearshore wave height array (m) Offshore wave height (m) Bed porosity
.,
RHOW
TCR TB TP TPER
TR TWAVE UI
UO UMAX VOL
W
KUTTA SHEAR
SHOAL
Density of sand (kg/m**3) Critical shear stress (N/m**2) Shear stress due to currents and waves (N/m**2) Tidal prism (m**3) Tidal period (s) Spring tidal range (m) Wave period (s) Average current velocity over 1/2 tidal cycle (m/s) Current velocity over 1/2 radius ebb shoal (m/s) Maximum current velocity (m/s) Ebb shoal volume array (m**3) Width of inlet mouth and shoal (m)
  Subroutine Definitions Function for the calculation of change in depth (FF). Calculates current and wave velocities and returns shear stresses due to both waves and currents (TB). Calculates the nearshore shoaled wave height (HiT) due to the change in the water depth of the ebb shoal.
Declarations PARAMETER(IDIM= 15000) CHARACTER*60 OUT1,DAT1,DATE INTEGER J,DVOL,NPTS,VOL(IDIM),Z REAL AC,AD,ALPHA,AP,CONC,C 1,D(IDIM),D50,DO,DTF,FC REAL FF,FW,G,HO,HT(IDIM),K1,K2,K3,K4,L,N,NN,PHI,PI REAL RHOD,RHOS,RHOW,T(IDIM),TB(IDIM),TCR,TP,TPER REAL TR,TWAVE,UAVE,UI,UO,W,WS,X
Open input file and read data
OPEN(UNIT= 1,FILE= 'LINP',STATUS = 'OLD')
C Parameters
READ(1, READ(1, READ(1, READ(1, READ(1, READ(1,
and filenames read in from I.INP
*)N,FC,FW,D50,CONC
*)TP,TR,TPER,W,DO
*)HO,TWAVE,PHI,NN
*)OUT1
*)DAT1
*)DATE
CLOSE(UNIT= 1)
OPEN(UNIT= 2,FILE= OUT 1,STATUS OPEN(UNIT= 3,FILE= DAT1,STATUS
= 'UNKNOWN') = 'UNKNOWN')
82
RHOS = 2650.0 RHOW= 1030.0
TPER= TPER*3600
DT= TPER*NN
DVOL= 1 D(1)=DO
J=1
T(1)=0
VOL(1)=0
Z=1
C Ebb shoal area and equivalant shoal length
AP=TP/TRS
AD=2.34*(AD**(0.81))
C Initial current velocity
AC=W*DO
UMAX = ((TP*PI*0.86)/TPER*AC))
UI= (2.0*UMAX)/PI
RE = (SQRT(2.0*AREA/PI))
UO = (2.0*UI*W)/(PI*RE)
C Settling velocity and critical shear stress
WS = ((4.0/3.0)*((RHOSRHOW)*G*D50)/(0.43*RHOW))**0.5
TCR = 0.058*(RHOSRHOW)*G*D50
C 'Do loop to calculate change in depth and volume with repect to C changing conditions. The loop is completed when the absolute change, C DVOL, between VOL(J+1) and VOL(J), is
DO WHILE (DVOL.GT.0.0)
CALL SHOAL(D(J),G,HO,TWAVE,HT(J))
CALL SHEAR(D(J),DO,F,FC,FW,G,HT(J),PHI,RHOW,TB(J),TWAVE,UO,L)
DO WHILE (Z.EQ.1)
PTIDE = (TR*TP*RHOW*G)
PWAVE = ((RHOW*(G**2)/(32.0*PI))*(HO**2)*TWAVE*W*TPER)
ALPHA = PWAVE/PTIDE
Z=Z+t
END DO
A= (WS*CONC)/RHOD
B = (RHOW*F)/(2.0*TCR)
C Solve dh/dt by 4thorder RunReKutta method
83
K2= DT*FF X = (D(J) + (K2/2.0)) CALL KUTTA(A,B,DO,HT(J),L,PHI,TWAVE,UO,X,FF) K3= DT*FF
X=(D(J)+K3) CALL KUTTA(A,B,DO,HT(J),L,PHI,TWAVE,UO,X,FF) K4=DT*FF D(J + 1)= D(J)+ (1.0/6.0)*(K1+2.0*K2+2.0*K3+ K4)
VOL(J + 1)= (AD)*(DOD(J + 1)) DVOL = (ABS(VOL(J + 1)VOL(J))) IF(VOL(J + 1).LT.0.0) THEN DVOL=0.0 ELSE
T(J+ 1)=T(J)+ (DT/3.1557E+07) ENDIF
IF(J.EQ. 15000) THEN DVOL=0 ELSE J=J+1
ENDIF END DO NPTS=J1
C Write out 
WRITE(2 WRITE(2 WRITE(2
WRITE(2 WRITE(2 WRITE(2 WRITE(2 WRITE(2 WRITE(2 WRITE(2 WRITE(2
WRITE(2 WRITE(2
WRITE(2 WRITE(2 WRITE(2 WRITE(2
WRITE(2
,19)OUT1,DATE ,20)RHOD ,21)D50 ,22)WS ,23)CONC ,24)TCR ,25)FC ,26)FW ,27)HO ,28)TWAVE ,29)PHI ,30)TP ,31)TR ,32)AD ,33)W
,34)DO ,35)UMAX ,36)UO
22 FORMAT(2X, 23 FORMAT(2X,
'Settling velocity 'Sediment concentration
24 FORMAT(2X,'Critical shear stress 25 FORMAT(2X,'Friction factor for currents 26 FORMAT(2X,'Friction factor for waves 27 FORMAT(2X,'Deep water wave height
28 FORMAT(2X,'Wave period 29 FORMAT(2X,'Angle between waves/currents 30 FORMAT(2X,'Tidal prism
31 FORMAT(2X, 32 FORMAT(2X,
'Spring Tidal Range
'Ebb shoal area
33 FORMAT(2X,'Minimum throat width 34 FORMAT(2X,'Initial inlet depth
35 FORMAT(2X,
'Max throat velocity
36 FORMAT(2X,'Initial velocity over shoal 37 FORMAT(2X,'Wave/tide power ratio, ALPHA 38 FORMAT(2X,'Number of tidal steps, NN
(m/s)
(kg/m**3) (N/m**2)
'. F15
=', F15 ='. F15
'. F15
(m**3)
(m) (m**2)
(m)
(m) (m/s) (m/s)
=', F15.5) = ',F15.5) =', F15.5) =', F15.5) =', E15.5)
=', F15.5) =', F15.5) =', F15.5)
=', F15.5) =', F15.5) =', F15.5) =', E15.5)
=', E15.5)
CLOSE(UNIT= 2) WRITE(3,300)(T(K),VOL(K),K= FORMAT(F8.4,I12) CLOSE (UNIT=3)
1,NPrS)
STOP END
This subroutine calculates the shoaled nearshore wave height due to the change in the water depth of the ebb shoal assuming normal waves with straight parallel contours resulting in Kr= 1.
         Variable Definitions         
C Variable
Description
C Shallow water wave celerity
CO Deep water wave celerity
HTWAVE Shoaled nearshore wave height SUBROUTINE SHOAL(D,G,HO,TWAVE,HTWAVE) Declarations REAL C,CO,D,G,HO,HTWAVE,TWAVE Calculate shoaled wave height .