Ebb tidal delta evolution and navigability in the vicinity of coastal inlets

UFL/COEL-94/010 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 .....................................................
Cross-Sectional 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 PRISM-BASED 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 "no-inlet" contour conditions in estimating

ebb delta volumes.

Seaward exaggerated contours,

A (dashed

lines),

"best-fit" 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 prism-based area, A,, and B) delta deposition, AD ....................................................

Cross-sectional view and plan view through the inlet and idealized ebb delta ................................. ..... ...... ....

Ebb delta area, AD,

versus tidal prism based area,

A,, for

twenty-one 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 (30-30 m s) .............................................................

Ebb delta volumes versus year with model-calculated volume ranges for Jupiter Inlet ...............................................

Ebb delta volumes versus year with model-calculated volume ranges for South Lake Worth Inlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

Ebb delta volumes versus year with model-calculated volume ranges for Boca Raton Inlet......... ...... ...... . ......... . ........

IV-6

Ebb delta volumes versus year with model-calculated 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 "best-fit"

"no-inlet" contours

Ebb delta volumes and percent differences due to changes in the "no-nlet"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 cross-sectional 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 depth-averaged 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 time-step subscript

intermediate Runge-Kutta 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

pre-dredging littoral transport rate

fraction of Q which reaches the dredged channel

one-half 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 over-dredged 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 near-bed current velocity critical velocity for erosion




flow velocity in the x1 direction

average inlet velocity over one-half 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 near-bed 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

cross-sectional 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 near-bed 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

"no-inlet" 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 inter-dependence 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 I-1)

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 tide-induced forces on the rate of growth of

sandy ebb deltas, a semi-quantitative 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 tide-induced 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 down-drift shoreline (Kana and Mason, 1988).

Barr

Is land

Ebb

De Ita

Inlet

Channe

Figure I-1.

General sectional view of an inlet channel through a barrier island and

associated ebb delta.
Although barrier island break-through 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 cross-sectional 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 cross-sectional 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 wave-transported 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

break-through 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 breaks-through, 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 I-2).

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 I-2.

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 "near-field" jet as the flow velocity decreases below a certain critical value.

This deposition area, defined as the "far-field"

, tends to be fan-shaped 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 "far-field" 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 cross-sectional

areas

, spring tidal prisms,

significant deep water wave heights and wave periods,

spring tidal ranges.
Re-examination 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

volume-tidal

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 volume-time curve, starting with the no-volume condition. Examination of model sensitivity to important governing physical parameters. Examination of the trends in the time-variation 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.
Twenty-three 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 "no-inlet" 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 "no-inlet"




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 seventy-seven 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 forty-four 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 "no-inlet" 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 0-30 (mildly exposed),

30-300 (moderately exposed) and

> 300 (highly exposed).

The data were plotted on a log-log

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 II-1.

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

"no-inlet"

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

= cross-sectional 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 non-dimensional 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 near-field results in material being deposited in the far-field.

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 near-field area than during the ebb flow, thus resulting in lower near-

field flood velocities than ebb velocities.

Consequently

the summation of the near-field flood

and ebb velocity vectors results in flood- and ebb- dominated zones.

Oertel (1988) suggested that

the difference between the axially ebb-dominated flow and the flood-dominated 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 re-orientating 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 by-passed 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 cross-sectional 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:

= 4.8x10-4

-1340

(2.5)

= 6.9x10-4

-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

= 4.76x10-3

(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 shore-normal 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

= depth-averaged 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 re-entrainment 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

cross-sectional 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 over-dredged 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 cross-sectional

.




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 post-dredging 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:

fl-k'

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 non-dimensional distribution of the settlement rate within

the boundaries of the jet.

It was found that two maxima and a minimum at the center-line

occurred. The two maxima correspond to the marginal shoals located along both sides of the jet center-line. Sediment settling was comparatively small along the center-line 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 fan-shaped 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.

post-dredging 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 post-dredging 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 pre-dredging littoral transport rate. The shoaling rate (VT) within the dredged area is estimated as the difference between the pre- and post-dredging transport rates:

= Q,(1

(2.17)

where Q,

= pre-dredging 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 pre-dredged 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 rate-time 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 pre-dredging

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 one-half tidal cycle to the an was proposed as a measure of inlet stability. sandy coastal inlet (Table 11-2). 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 "delta-bypasses"

but they can usually still be

.... For navigation, they

present "wild-cases"

, unreliable and dangerous.

P/M

< 20

.... entrances appear as unstable "over-flow 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 near-field

resulting in the material being deposited in the far-field (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 cross-sectional 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 eighty-one inlets on the three coasts of the United

States, of which forty-five 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 cross-sectional area and

the spring tidal prism:

=a14A

(3.1)

where Ae

= throat cross-sectional area (m2) and P

= tidal prism (m).

The coefficients aj and

b1 where found for sandy inlets in equilibrium under a semi-diurnal 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.

Cross-Sectional Area

Minimum

or throat cross-sectional

inlets

are reported

from

existing

documents,

National

or calculated from

Ocean

Service

(NOS)

United States Geological Survey (U

Nautical

Charts.

Cross-sectional

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 twenty-year 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 shore-perpendicular lines on either side of the inlet to obtain a

representative "no-inlet" 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 "best-fit" contour configuration overlain on the survey (Figure III-1).

"best-fit"

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* SS-S 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 "no-inlet" contour conditions in estimating ebb delta

volumes. contours

Seaward exaggerated contours, A

, B (solid

(dashed lines),

"best-fit" 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.

"no-inlet"

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 III-1.

ines) and landward exaggerated contours,




volumes from the "best-fit" 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 "no-inlet" 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 m-2).

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 III-2.

"' .. ..-- ___._'* 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 year-to-year

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 m-3.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 III-3.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 III-3.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 time-scale.

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 III-3.

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

= depth-averaged 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,

= near-bed

current velocity over the delta, Uwb

= near-bed 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 III-4.A).

between Ap and the ebb delta deposition area, AD,

Ini Chan

The relationship

is developed in Section 3.3

Figure 11-4.

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 cross-sectional area of the inlet.

The average inlet velocity over one-half 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 Il-4.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 III-3 and 111-5). 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 near-bed velocity, Ucb.
From the logarithmic velocity profile (Mehta, 1978), the ratio of the near-bed 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 Manning-Strickler formula, zo can be obtained by

= 107n6

(3.22)




Ebb delta inner limit

r
'29

cL

Ebb d outer

e I ta

limit

Figure IH-5.

Cross-sectional 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 near-bed

, 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 4-th order Runge-Kutta 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,..., j-1,

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 III-4 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 1II-6.

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 time-series 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 depth-averaged 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 near-bed orbital velocity due to waves,

horizontal excursion and v

= kinematic viscosity of seawater.

= maximum near-bed

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

volume-time curve can be made to pass through the appropriate smallest and largest measured

delta volumes at a given inlet.

IV-4.

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 III-7 plots the ebb delta volume,

= AD(ho-h),

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 111-8) 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 11I-7.

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 111-8.

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 III-1. 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 near-bed orbital velocity, Uwb,

hence reduces the rate of deposition. Figure II illustrating delta growth due to current alone, i.e.

[1-9 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 111-9.

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 "best-fit"

, "no-inlet" contours (contour B in Figure III-1) and a grid

system superimposed on the bathymetry (Figure 111-2).

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

IV-1 presents the

of the grid cells and the estimated delta volumes for each of the seven surveys.

Table IV-1.

Ebb delta volume for the "best-fit"

"no-inlet" 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

"no-inlet"

cc

, and due to change in the grid cell size in Table IV-3.

tour The

contours A

B. and C

in Section 3

are described in Section 3

.2.2 (Figure 111-2).

1 (Figure III-1),

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 "no-inlet" 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 "best-fit"

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

"no-inlet"

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 IV-2.

Delta volumes and percent differences due to changes in the "no-inlet" 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 "no-inlet" 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 "best-fit" 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 re-estimated.

size of the grid

The results of this exercise

are given in Table IV-3,

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 IV-3.

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

"no-inlet" 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 "no-inlet" 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).

Twenty-eight sets of data met this criterion,

of which twenty fell within the range characterized

by Walton and Adams (1976) as a mild energy coast (0-30 m2s2) and eight data as moderate

energy coast (30-300 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 IV-i),

0.80.

yielding a regression line with r2

The equation of the regression line for mild energy coasts was found to be

= 1.86x10-3P1.o

(4.1)

The data set for moderate energy coasts has more scatter around the regression line

(Figure IV-2) 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

= 5.49x10-PSp.Z

Figures IV-1 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 IV-1.

Ebb delta volume versus tidal prism for mild energy coasts (0-30 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

Time-Evolution of Delta Volume

The following analysis presents the time-evolution 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 time-variation 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 IV-4.

and the suspended sediment concentration,

By adjusting the deep water wave

the delta volume-time 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 current-determined delta.

This condition results in a larger ebb




Table IV-4.

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 re-opened for

navigation in 1947 (Figure IV-3).

The non-zero 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 a-value of 0.17 resulting from a Ho

= 0.54 m

The higher a-value 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 IV-3.

Ebb delta volume versus year with model-calculated volume ranges for

Jupiter Inlet.

[- .............. ..

T




volume of 0.54 xlO0 m3 with a Ho

= 0.28 m resulting in an a-value 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 a-value 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 IV-4.

4.1.4.3

Ebb delta volume versus year with model-calculated volume ranges for South Lake Worth Inlet.

Boca Raton Inlet

Four ebb delta volumes were obtained for Boca Raton Inlet after the

1925 (Figure IV-5).

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 a-value 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~ ft-----4..................................................IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIt' IWI
N!

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

Year

Figure IV-5.

4.1.4.4

Ebb delta volume versus year with model-calculated 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 IV-6).

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 cr-value equal to

= 0.63 m had an a-value 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 IV-7 further illustrates this trend.

Although

there is data scatter and a r3-value 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 -o-o

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 *
* 9-9

* -. .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 q0-i

Figure PI-7.

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 "no-inlet" contour positions from the a "best-fit" contour positions ranged

between -34% and +20%

and as much as 44% between the landward and seaward exaggerated

"no-inlet" 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 re-examined 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 near-bed 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, a-value 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 wave-driven 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 a-values 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 cross-sectional area at the inlet throat spring tidal prism significant deep water wave height 20-yr average wave period

spring tidal range




Table A-1. 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
20-yr 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
20-yr 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
20-yr 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
20-yr 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 A-1. (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
20-yr 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
20-yr
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
20-yr 1.2(4 7.6(5 1.12(9




Table A-1. (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
20-yr" 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
20-yr 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
20-yr 1.0(4 6.7(5 1.00(9




Table A-1. (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
20-yr 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
20-yr 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
20-yr 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
20-yr 0.82 (9




Table A-1. (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
20-yr 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
20-yr 30 0.8 (35 5.3 (36 0.43 (37
St. Andrews 1934 0.00 (34
Bay Entrance 1983 2.14 (34
20-yr 31 0.8 (35 4.5 (36 0.41 (37
St. Joseph 1984 110.86 (34
Bay Entrance 20-yr 32 0.9 (35 5.4 (36 0.41 (37
West Pass 1984 47.40 (34
20-yr 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
20-yr 1.1 (35 5.5 (36 0.57 (37
Carvabelle 1882 35.75 (34
Harbor 1984 32.17 (34
Entrance 20-yr 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
20-yr 0.9 (35 4.9 (36 0.88 (40




Table A-1. (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 1880-85 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
20-yr 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
20-yr 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
20-yr 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
20-yr 40 0.8 (35 4.7 (36 0.75 (40
Pass-A-Grille 1952 17.97 (10 3,252 (10 40.21 (10
1979 32.88 (34
20-yr 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
20-yr 40 0.8 (35 4.7 (36 0.67 (40




Table A-1. (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
20-yr 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
20-yr 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
20-yr 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
20-yr 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
20-yr 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
20-yr 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
20-yr 0.9 (35 5.0 (36 0.73 (40




Table A-1. (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
20-yr 0.9 (35 5.0 (36 0.74 (40
San Carlos 1982 19.94 (34
Bay 20-yr 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
20-yr 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
20-yr 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
20-yr 0.9 (35 5.0 (36 0.86 (40
Clam Pass 1974 0.10 (42 43 0.8 (35 4.6 (36
20-yr 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
20-yr 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
20-yr 0.8 (35 4.4 (36 0.95 (40
Caxambas 1974 8.41 (42 43 0.8 (35 4.6 (36
Pass 20-yr 0.8 (35 4.4 (36 0.97 (40




Table A-2. 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 20-yr 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
20-yr 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
20-yr 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
20-yr 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 20-yr 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
20-yr 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 20-yr 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
20-yr 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
20-yr 0.9 (4 7.0 (5 2.44 (54




Table A-2. (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 20-yr 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 20-yr 0.9 (4 6.6 (5 2.44 (52

Table A-3.
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
20-yr
et 1974 253.00(50 135.00(50 36
20-yr
165.14 (2 9,244(2 129.69 (2
20-yr 35
nd 1974 209.00 (50 2,225 (55 8.4 (55 18,690 (55 221.73 (8 34
20-yr
nd 1974 218.00 (50 6,736 (55 6.1 (55 41,090 (55 468.65 (8 35
20-yr
71.26 (2 5,045(2 80.99 (2
20-yr 36
56.27 (2 7,302 (2 85.52 (2
20-yr 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 A-4. 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

20-yr 20-yr 20-yr 20-yr 20-yr 20-yr 20-yr 20-yr 20-yr

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 A-4. (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 cross-sectional 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 "no-delta" 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)*((RHOS-RHOW)*G*D50)/(0.43*RHOW))**0.5
TCR = 0.058*(RHOS-RHOW)*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 4th-order RunRe-Kutta 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)*(DO-D(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=J-1

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 -----.