• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Introduction and description of...
 Storm and beach profile charac...
 Numerical results with default...
 Sensitivity studies
 Summary and conclusions
 Reference






Group Title: UFLCOEL-95002
Title: Comparisons of erosion models for January 4, 1992, storm at Ocean City, Maryland
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00085015/00001
 Material Information
Title: Comparisons of erosion models for January 4, 1992, storm at Ocean City, Maryland
Series Title: UFLCOEL-95002
Physical Description: 73 leaves : ill., map ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Zheng, Jie
Dean, Robert G ( Robert George ), 1930-
University of Florida -- Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Dept
Publisher: Coastal & Oceanographic Engineering Dept., University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1995
 Subjects
Subject: Storm surges -- Mathematical models -- Maryland -- Ocean City   ( lcsh )
Beach erosion -- Mathematical models -- Maryland -- Ocean City   ( lcsh )
Beach nourishment -- Mathematical models -- Maryland -- Ocean City   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: Jie Zheng and Robert G. Dean.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (leaf 73).
General Note: "January 1995."
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00085015
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 33143168

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Introduction and description of numerical models
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Storm and beach profile characteristics
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
    Numerical results with default input options
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
    Sensitivity studies
        Page 17
        Page 18
    Summary and conclusions
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
    Reference
        Page 73
Full Text



UFL/COEL--95/002


COMPARISONS OF EROSION MODELS FOR
JANUARY 4, 1992, STORM AT OCEAN CITY,
MARYLAND







by


Jie Zheng
and
Robert G. Dean


January, 1995










Comparisons of Erosion Models for January 4,

1992, Storm at Ocean City, Maryland




Jie Zheng and Robert G. Dean











Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department

University of Florida


January 1995








INTRODUCTION
During January 2-5, 1992, a strong Northeaster struck Ocean City, Maryland, the site of a
major beach fill placed by the state of Maryland and Federal Government in 1988, 1990 and 1991
to protect the city against storm erosion. The extent of severe storm impact included the area of
interest. The beach fill project layout is shown in Fig.1. After the Northeaster, a substantial portion
of the beach fill including the protective berm and dune had been transported offshore.
Beach profiles were surveyed on November 2, 1991, and January 11, 1992, before and after
the storm respectively at Ocean City, Maryland. Seven survey lines located from the southern (37th
street) to northern (124th street) portions of the project are selected to investigate the numerical
models. The profiles measured on November 2, 1991, are used as input initial profiles. The surveyed
profiles during the storm were presented by Stauble, Garcia and Kraus[1993]. The wave data and
storm surge elevation were described by Kraus and Wise[1993].
Four existing and one modified numerical cross-shore sediment transport models are
investigated to compare predicted storm erosions with measurements. The five models are:
CCCL (Coastal Construction Control Line Model, Chiu and Dean 1984, 1986)
EDUNE (Kriebel 1989, 1990)
SBEACH (Original version, Larson and Kraus 1989, Larson et al. 1989)
SBEACH (Version 3.0, newly released in September 1994)
CROSS (Modified Cross-Shore Sediment Transport Model, Dean and Zheng 1994)
All five models are based on the equilibrium concept. Only SBEACH predicts the formation of a bar.
The mechanisms of those five models are now briefly described.


DESCRIPTION OF NUMERICAL MODELS
An equilibrium beach profile is the result of a balance between constructive and destructive
forces. Considering the wave breaking as the primary destructive force, Dean [1977]] proposed an
equilibrium profile associated with a constant wave energy dissipation per unit volume, D., along
the profile, which is written as

1 8
S(ECG) = D, (1)
h dy
























































ATLANTIC
OCEAN


SCALE
Mi02les
Miles


Fig. 1 The beach nourishment project monitoring area.

2








Where E is the wave energy per unit surface, CG is the wave group velocity, h is water depth and y
is the shore-normal coordinate directed offshore. With shallow water and spilling wave breaker
assumptions, Eq.(1) can be integrated to give

24D.
h(y) = 5 Y 2/3 = Ay23 (2)
5pgygk2


Where a is a function of sediment characters. Based on the equilibrium profile and sand
conservation, the following five models were developed.


(1). CCCL
Under erosive water level and wave conditions, the time dependent beach recession, R(t),
is given by


R(t) = R (1-e -K) (3)


Where R1 is the equilibrium recession (i.e. the recession if the conditions were held for an infinite
time) and K is a decay parameter (0.075/hour). At each time step, for a given storm surge, breaking
wave height and initial profile, the equilibrium profile and recession are calculated by considering
the following two facts:
Sand conservation: the erosion sand volume is equal to that deposited.
The subaqueous equilibrium profile about the instantaneous water level follows Eq.(2) and
the subaerial part, up to the dune crest, is characterized by a uniform slope.
The offshore limit of profile modification is the break point. The actual profile response at the end
of the time step is determined by Eq.(3). After the final time step computation, a factor of 2.5 is
applied to the recession based on the calibration with field data.


(2) EDUNE
The cross-shore sediment transport rate per unit beach width, Q, is determined by the








deviation of local wave energy dissipation per unit volume from the equilibrium in the surf zone as:

Q = K(D-D,) (4)


Where K is an empirical transport parameter (0.0045 ft4/Ib) and D is the local wave energy
dissipation per unit volume,

D -hpg K2 h (5)
24 Oy


Since D is proportional to the product of the square root of the local water depth and the bottom
slope, a beach with steeper or milder slope than the equilibrium will have sediment transported
offshore or onshore, respectively. During a storm, an increased water level increases the degree of
disequilibrium. As a result, the beach will be eroded. A breaking wave height affects the transport
process by run-up and defining the offshore limit of the surf zone.
Since the transport Equation (4) has two variables, the continuity equation is required to close
the system, which is written as:

ay -_ (Q
(6)
Ot Oh


An implicit finite difference scheme is applied to solve Eqs.(4) and (6) simultaneously. Profile
change is bounded onshore by the wave run-up limit and offshore by the break point.


(3) SBEACH
The distribution of transport across the nearshore active zone is calculated using different
relationships in four distinct zones identified as follows:
Zone I: Pre-breaking zone, extending offshore from the breaking point.
Zone II: Transition zone, from the break point to the plunge point.
Zone III: Broken wave zone, from the plunge point to the seaward limit of swash zone.
Zone IV: Swash zone, from the seaward swash zone limit to the run-up limit.
A summary of the four zones and corresponding transport relationship is presented in Fig.2.














Break Point (BP)


D o.47
XE 0.4 [D
0 (mm)
Hb (m), E (m-l)
XA =0.11 m-1


Breaking a Wave Heaht. hk Run Un Height. Wave Breaking Model


S=1.14 tan ]0.21
hb Ho/Lo
p= Average Slope Over
One-Third Local
Wave Length Seaward
of Break Point


1 1.47 tn 79
= Initial Slope
p= Inlilal Slope


a(E CG) K'
ay -h [(ECG) (E Co),J

H = rh, K's 0.17
I's 0.40


Fig.2 Sketch of the transport relationships in SBEACH.


Run-Up
Umit, YRu








Zone I: The sediment transport rate is express as


Q = QBpexp[-,l(y-yBP)] (7)


Where QBP is the sediment transport at the break point, 3, is the spatial decay coefficient and YBP is
the break point location. The quantity L1 is equal to 0.11 m-' for accretionary conditions. For
erosional conditions A1 is given by


1 = 0.4d 0.47 (8)




Where d5o is the median grain size in mm while the breaking wave height, H b, is in m and A 1 is in
m-1.

Zone II: The sediment transport is given by

Q = Qppexp[-X2y-ypp)] (9)


Where Qpp is the transport rate at the plunge point located at ypp and the decay coefficient X 2 is
approximately 0.20 0.25 of the value of L1,.
Zone II: The sediment transport rate is determined by

E 8h ae
Q = -KID-D,+--h, D>D--
K
K a(10)
= 0, D<_D,--
K



Where e is an empirical constant (about 0.0006 m2/s) and K is a transport rate coefficient. This

relationship is similar to EDUNE except for the last term which is related to the local slope.
Zone IV: The transport equation is a linear function of offshore distance,


Q = QR (11)
YWR YRU








Where subscript RU and WR denote run-up limit and landward end of surf zone (wave reformation
point) respectively.
The direction of transport rate in all four zones is determined by the + sign in Equation 10
according to the following criterion

--o < 0 .0007 O Offshore transport
Lo wT


Ho > 0.0007 ) Onshore transport
L wT


Where Ho and Lo are the deep water wave height and length respectively, w is the sediment fall
velocity and T is the wave period. The beach profile evolution is solved by combining the transport
relationships in the four zones with the continuity equation which is

Oh 8Q
(12)
at ay


(4) CROSS
CROSS is based on the same equilibrium concept as EDUNE. The sand transport is caused
by the difference between the actual and equilibrium wave energy dissipation per unit volume.
According to the transport equation of EDUNE, the following scaling relationship is established for
an undistorted model as:

(D-D.)model 1/2
Qr (D-D)prote = (D-D,), = Lr2 (13)
(D -D ,)prototype



Where L, represents the length scale. On the other hand, applying the Froude relationship, the scale
relationship for the transport rate should be given by


Qr L3/2 (14)
T
















1 0 I I I I I I I II



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
time [hour]


time [hour]


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
time [hour]
Fig. 3 Significant wave height, wave period and water level time history for January 2,1992 storm
Ocean City, Maryland (From Kraus and Wise[1993]).



Where Tr is the time scale. This equation should hold for all wave dominated transport relationships.

Obviously, Eq.(4) doesn't satisfy this relationship. A modified model was given by Dean and

Zheng[1994] as:


Q = K(D-D,)3


(15)































Fig. 4 National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) station locations and water depth.


Where K is the empirical transport coefficient and equal to 2x 10-5 ft8 s2 /lb3. The continuity equation
for cross is the same as for EDUNE.


STORM AND BEACH PROFILE CHARACTERISTICS
In this paper, water depth and profile elevation are referenced to the NGVD (National
Geodetic Vertical Datum), which lies 0.07 ft below mean water level for Ocean City. The wave
height, wave period and storm surge time history for the January 1992 storm presented in Kraus and
Wise[1993] were measured by two directional gages, installed by the Coastal Engineering Research
Center, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, just offshore of Ocean City in 10 meter
water depth. The results are shown in Figure 3. The initial date in the figure is January 3, 1992.
According to the time history, the measured maximum significant wave height at the 10 m (33
ft)contour was about 13.3ft. This number is quite different from the value (27.8ft) given in Table
1 in the same paper [Kraus and Wise 1993]. The water level at the 10 m depth consisted of
contributions from tide and storm surge. The highest water elevation reached was 6.6ft.















4- ++4
o 4




1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Days in January 1992
20 Peak Spectral Wave Period (44014 eapeake Light+)

15 -



10 t + + + +

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Days in January 1992


Fig. 5 Energy-based wave height and peak spectral period for NDBC Buoy 44014 (h = 48 m) and
Chesapeake Light (h = 12 m).



_8 ghg (Baaed Wave Heiht (44025 -, Ambroe Light +)

6-

S4-

20 +

0-
0 2 3 4 5 6 7
Days in January 1992

20 Peak Spectral Wave Period 444025 Amose Light +)

15
+. 4 +

F-
5 Who+4+

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Days in January 1992

Fig. 6 Energy-based wave height and peak spectral period for NDBC Buoy 44025 ( h = 40 m) and
Ambrose Light (h = 25 m).








Within a radial distance of 300 miles offshore from Ocean City, there are seven National

Data Buoy Center (NDBC) installations (Fig.4) [Jensen and Garcia, 1993]. These stations provided
hourly measurements of wind and wave climate. Water depths for these locations range from 3230
meter (Buoy 44004) to the shallow water depth of 12 meter at Chesapeake light, referenced to the
NGVD. To the south of Ocean City at the NDBC buoys 44014 and Chesapeake Light (Fig.5), the
wave height trace follows the wind speed closely. The maximum for Buoy 44014 is about 7.5 m,
whereas at Chesapeake Light the energy-based height is 5.0 m, strongly attenuated by dissipation in
shallow water. To the north of Ocean City at NDBC Buoys 44025 and Ambrose Light (Fig.6), the
magnitude of the storm is somewhat diminished. Maximum wave heights at 44025 reach 6.3 m,
while at Ambrose Light the shallow site, the wave height is about 4.8 m.
Dune erosion is most sensitive to increase in water level. Waves affect dune erosion by set-up
and run-up, which are proportional to the first power and the square root of breaking wave height,
respectively. In the following numerical simulations, the storm characteristics are taken from Fig.3
and the run times for all models are from 12:00 am January 3 to 12:00 am January 6 (96 hours in
total), 1992. Since wave heights decayed remarkably from offshore to shallow water, the wave
conditions in Fig.3 may include some degree of uncertainty for the numerical simulations.
Seven survey lines located from 37th Street to 124th Street are investigated. The median
grain size of the beach is 0.35mm for all seven profiles [Stauble et. al 1993]. The measured pre and
post-storm profiles are shown in Fig.7. The pre and post-storm surveys were taken on November 2,
1991 and January 11, 1992 respectively. Based on the measured profiles, the total volumes gained
or lost from the pre-storm profile to the post-storm profile are calculated for each profile and
presented in the Table 1. It is clear that net volume changes are not zero for the monitored profiles.
To remove this effect, which is due to gradients in longshore sediment transport, each post-storm
profile is adjusted by shifting the profile horizontally a distance Ay to make zero net volume change.
The value of Ay can be calculated by

Ay Volloss Volgain
:Y (16)
h total


Where Volloss and Volgain are the total volumes gained or lost from the pre- to post-storm profiles, and










Table 1. Measured volume change during the storm and adjustment Ay.

Volume change (ft3 / ft) Adjustment Ay
Street htota-
Gain Loss Net (ft)

37th 1709.0 223.7 1485.3 37.05 40.09

45th 872.0 532.0 334.0 -9.30 35.91

56th 298.3 516.2 -217.9 6.45 22.78

63rd 886.3 904.1 17.9 0.54 33.15

74th 866.8 641.6 225.2 -7.20 31.28

103rd 1464.5 606.3 858.3 23.25 36.92

124th 815.3 603.9 211.4 -5.92 35.71


Table 2. Measured eroded volumes and beach retreat at the 10 ft contour.

Eroded volume (ft3 / ft) Retreat at 10 ft contour (ft)
Street
without adjust. with adjust. without adjust. with adjust.

37th 72.6 522.1 6.88 43.93

45th 219.1 316.7 27.23 36.53

56th 98.2 29.3 7.56 1.11

63rd 481.8 478.6 97.70 97.16

74th 538.7 588.4 71.04 78.24

103rd 456.4 672.8 44.60 67.85

124th 431.4 497.0 33.17 39.09


htotal is the total elevation of the post-storm profile. The sign of Ay is defined as positive for an
offshore translation. Profile retreats at the 10 feet contour and the eroded volumes with and without
the shifting adjustments are shown in Table 2 as two parameters, which will be used as measures of
the storm erosion and of the performance of the numerical models. The eroded volume is based on








the erosion with an offshore limit at the cross-over of pre- and post-storm profiles. This cross-over
position for each profile is identified in Fig.7 by a arrow. It appears that the north part of the
nourishment area has larger eroded volume and beach retreat.


NUMERICAL RESULTS WITH DEFAULT INPUT OPTIONS
The so-called default input options mean that the wave and water conditions and the initial
pre-storm beach profiles are input according to the field data, while the other parameters such as
transport coefficients and slopes above run-up limit of the "target" profile will be keep as the default
recommended by the developers of the various models. The same storm parameters (Fig.3) -
significant wave height and water level time series, are input to all the five models. CCCL and
EDUNE apply the corresponding input wave height as regular wave height at each time step, while
SBEACH and CROSS generate the random wave height time series according to the inputs.
SBEACH requires the median sand size, dso, of the beach as input. The other three models require
the sediment scale parameter, A. Corresponding to the sand size of d50= 0.35 mm, an A value of
0.2 ft/3 is applied.
Seven survey lines located from 37th to 124th Street are simulated. The measured pre-storm
profiles are used as the initial input profiles. The input equilibrium post-storm profile slope above
the run-up limit (dune slope) is required and set to 1 in default by CCCL, EDUNE and CROSS
according to field erosion observations of Florida beaches. The input equilibrium post-storm profile
slope at water line is required by EDUNE and CROSS and is set to the slope of the existing pre-
storm profile (0.05). In SBEACH, the maximum slope angle that the profile is allowed to achieve
is required and is set to 17.50, which corresponds to a slope of 0.32. Two SBEACH models are
investigated here, one is the original and another is the recently upgraded SBEACH (version 3.0).
The enhancements of version 3.0 include improved algorithms for calculating wave run-up and
simulating dune scarping. Additionally, the Ocean City profile evolution data may have been used
to guide the modifications.
The numerical results from five models are evaluated by the residual parameter, Res, which
is defined as:










profiles at 37th Street
20 i
10-" --- measured before storm
10 -
- measured after storm
c 0
_o
> -10

-20

-30 I I I I
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
offshore distance [ft]

profiles at 45th Street
20

10





-20

-30 I I
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
offshore distance [ft]

profiles at 56th Street
20 I

10 -

C 0
0
> -10

-20 -

-30 I I
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
offshore distance [ft]

profiles at 63rd Street
20 I i


C" 0 -


> -10
o -----

-20

-30 I
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
offshore distance [ft]
Fig. 7 Measured pre and post-storm profiles. Arrows point out the offshore positions of dune erosion.
















profiles at 74th Street


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


profiles at 103rd Street
I I I I


200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]

profiles at 124th Street


800


1200


1200


1000


1200


0 200 400 600 800 1000
offshore distance [ft]


Fig. 7 Continued.


-30L
-200


-30
-200


-10

-20










E(h P-h y )2
Res = i=1-- (16)
n
S(hi-hi)2
i=1


Where hpi, hmbi and hmai are the predicted, measured pre and post-storm profile elevations

respectively at the ith point located at an offshore distance y,. The minimum value of Res is zero,

which corresponds to a perfect simulation. Dune erosion is presented by the eroded volume and

beach retreat at 10 feet contour. To provide a measure of erosion and retreat, two different errors are

presented, which are the root mean square error, ERRms, and the algebraical mean error, ERRyve.

They are expressed as:



ERR = -'
rms

j=1
(17)
E (Spj-Smj

ERR = j=l
ave n
Smj
j=1



Where S is an eroded volume or beach retreat, subscript p and m represent the predicted and

measured values respectively, and j means the jth beach profile. ERRns represents a factor of

simulation accuracy and ERRave provides a measure of over or under-prediction of erosion.

The comparisons between predicted and measured post-storm profiles for the seven locations

are presented in Figs. 8 -14. The residuals, eroded volumes and beach retreats are shown in Tables
3 -9 identified as the case of DFSO (default inputs and set-up of 0 ft). In tables, without adjustment

(w/o adjust) means data given by original measured profiles, while with adjustment (with adjust)

means data given by profiles shifted from measurements with the Ay distance given in Table 1. The

averaged residuals for seven profiles are given in the Table 10. The root mean square errors (ERREs)









and the algebraical averaged errors (ERRave) for the eroded volumes and beach retreats are displayed
in Tables 11 -12, respectively. SBEACH (version 3.0) and CROSS give smaller average residuals
and better simulations for entire profiles. According to the ERRave of eroded volume, CCCL over-
predicts volume erosion, EDUNE and SBEACH under-predict it, and CROSS gives almost right
algebraical average for seven profiles. Comparing with the measurements, all models predict less
beach retreat at the 10 feet contour. Adding the shifting factor of Ay make this under-prediction
become even worse. The only exception is the profile at 56th Street where the beach was shifted
offshore with 6.45m and the retreat with shifting adjustment is only 1.1m.


SENSITIVITY STUDIES

(1) Wave Set-up
Due to wave set-up, the water level inside the surf zone is higher than that outside the surf
zone. Since set-up is proportional to the breaking wave height, it will cause a significant water level
increase during a storm. Dune erosion is very sensitive to increased water levels. To investigate this
effect, a constant set-up of 2 feet over all time and the entire surf zone is added. The corresponding
profiles are displayed in Figs. 15 -21. The residuals, eroded volumes and beach retreats are shown
in Tables 3 12 under the case of DFS2 (default inputs and set-up of 2ft). It appears that the
residuals and errors of beach retreat for all five models are improved by adding 2 feet of set-up. The
increased predicted eroded volumes by EDUNE, CROSS and SBEACH improve the agreement with
measurements.
(2)Wave Heights
As mentioned above, the wave heights of the January 4, 1992 storm strongly decayed from
offshore to shallow water. South of Ocean City, the storm was stronger than to the north. The wave
parameters used in the numerical simulations may not be the exact wave conditions which impacted
the beaches during the storm. In a general case, exact storm wave parameters may not be available
for simulations. The effects of wave heights to a numerical model are one of the difficult problems
in coastal engineering applications since rarely is the wave height known well. For the Ocean City
storm, wave heights presented in Fig.3 are increased and decreased by 25% to test the sensitivity.
For these two different sets of wave heights, the same default dune slopes and set-up of 2 feet are








used in the simulations. The predicted profiles are shown in Figs. 22 35. The residuals, eroded
volumes and beach retreat are given in Tables 3-9 under the cases of WP25S2 and WN25S2 for
wave heights increased and decreased 25%, respectively. The average residuals, errors of eroded
volume and errors of beach retreat are presented in Tables 10 12. Beach retreats at the 10 feet
contour are less affected by the wave height changes than eroded volumes. Of the five models, two
SBEACH models are the least sensitive to wave heights and the CCCL model is the most.
(3) Dune Slope
With the exception of SBEACH, the other three models discussed above require the dune
slope of the "target" profile as input. EDUNE and CROSS additionally require the shoreline slope.
One of the questions related to application of the models is their sensitivities to the dune slopes.
As shown in the measured post-storm beach profiles, in which overwash occurred, the dune
slope is around 1/15 to 1/10, much milder than the default input of 1. According to the post-storm
field data, an input equilibrium dune slope of 0.1 is tested with the wave conditions given in Fig.3
and set-up value of zero and 2 feet respectively. The profile results are displayed in Figs. 36 42 and
43 49 for set-up of zero and 2 feet respectively. The calculated residuals, eroded volumes and
beach retreats for three models are summarized for Cases DS01 SO (input dune slope of 0.1 and no
set-up) and DS01S2 (input dune slope of 0.1 and set-up of 2 feet) in Tables 3 12. It appears that
CCCL and EDUNE are more dependent on the dune slope and the results improve with decreasing
dune slope. CROSS is more tolerant and gives fairly realistic post-storm profiles even with the
default input dune slope of 1. As a result, the averaged residuals, errors of eroded volume ard beach
retreat are less affected by the difference of input dune slope in CROSS. After including 2 feet set-
up, both CCCL and EDUNE become less sensitive to the dune slope.
Overall, the CROSS model is reasonably robust with different input dune slopes for the cases
studied here. Because the input shoreline slope is milder than the dune slope and the dunes in the
studied beach locations were overwashed during the storm, the shoreline slope becomes the
"dominant" slope of dune erosion during periods of overwash and makes the dune scarp flatter. At
each simulation time step, the shoreline slope controls the direction and magnitude of the cross-shore
sediment transport rate at the shore line, while the dune slope is only used as the maximum subaerial
beach slope, which smooths the steeper beach slope above the instantaneous water level after each








time step calculation.


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The five models CCCL, EDUNE SBEACH (two versions) and CROSS are briefly
described and applied and compared with measured beach erosion at Ocean City, Maryland caused
by the January 4, 1992, storm. The "2.5" factor was exercised in the CCCL model in this application.
The beach was nourished by the State of Maryland and Federal Government during 1988, 1990 and
1991. Seven survey lines located from the southern (37th Street) to northern (124th Street) portions
of the project are selected for evaluation of five dune erosion models. It appears that the northern part
of the project eroded somewhat more severely during the storm. In most locations, the net volume
changes in profiles are quite different from zero due to gradients in longshore transport. An
adjustment is made by shifting the whole profile horizontally a proper distance Ay to yield a zero net
volume change for each profile. All predicted results are compared with both measured and adjusted
profiles.
A residual parameter is proposed to evaluate the agreement between the entire measured and
predicted profiles (including subaerial and subaqueous parts). Two kinds of error averaged with
different methods (root mean square and algebraic average) are given to estimate the prediction of
dune erosion. It appears that the residuals are less affected by the shifting adjustment, while eroded
volumes and beach retreat are affected significantly by the shift. Overall, the new released SBEACH
(version 3.0) and CROSS give the smallest residuals for all cases studied. EDUNE, CROSS and
SBEACH present about the same level of errors for eroded volume and beach retreat. The residuals
and errors of eroded volume for CCCL are larger in comparison to other three models, but the errors
of beach retreat are quite comparable. Generally, all models tend to under-predict the beach retreat.
For the case of default inputs (DFSO), CROSS over-predicts the eroded volumes, EDUNE and
SBEACH under-predict them, and CROSS gives reasonable results.
The sensitivities of models to the wave set-up, input wave heights and "target"dune slopes
are studied. Dune erosion is very sensitive to increases in water level. Wave set-up plays an
important role in the numerical simulation of beach erosion during a storm. With a set-up of 2 feet,
all five models present better results. Considering the seven beach locations together, the averaged








residuals and errors of beach retreat at the 10 feet contour are smaller for all five models. The errors
of eroded volume are improved significantly in EDUNE, CROSS and SBEACH. The wave heights
affect the transport models by set-up, run-up and closure water depth. The residuals of CCCL and
EDUNE are increased substantially by increasing wave heights 25%. The beach retreats are less
sensitive to wave height changes than the eroded volume.
Seven beach profiles are discussed and compared with measurements. The slope above run-
up limit (dune slope) affects the beach erosion substantially during a storm for the CCCL and
EDUNE models. CROSS is much less dependant on the dune slope and gives almost identical results
as the dune slope changes from 1 to 0.1. This is because the input shoreline slope (0.05) is milder
than both of the input dune slopes (1 and 0.1) and the dunes are overwashed during the storm in the
simulation, the shoreline slope of 0.05 becomes the "effective" slope of dune erosion during the
period of overwash. Erosion predicted by EDUNE increases substantially as dune slope decreasing
from 1 to 0.1. Both CCCL and EDUNE become less sensitive to the dune slope in the presence of
wave set-up. For running CCCL and EDUNE models, the inputs of the dune slope should be
considered carefully. Generally, the dune slope is steep (about 1 to 2) for the case of no overtopping,
but is much milder when the storm cause dune overwash. A shoreline slope input is required by
EDUNE and CROSS. The recommended input shoreline slope is milder or equal to that of the pre-
storm beach profile according to the constructive or destructive pre-storm profile conditions. The
constructive beach usually has a steeper shoreline slope because of accretion and vice versa for
destructive conditions. For conducting a better numerical simulation, wave set-up and the input of
"target" beach slopes should be considered carefully.
Relevant to the use of the CCCL model for purposes of recommending the location of the
Coastal Construction Control Line, since the recommended location depends on the retreat of the
upper contours and the retreat predicted by the CCCL model for the default condition and two of the
other three conditions that would increase the retreat predicts less average retreat at the 10 feet
contour (Table 12) than measured (adjusted), it is concluded that this Ocean City data set provides
support for the CCCL model for the purposes employed.









Table 3. The predicted residuals, eroded volumes and retreats for the beach at 37th Street.
residual eroded volume retreat at 10 ft
Model Case
w/o adjust with adjust ft3 / ft contour ( ft)

w/o adjust 72.6 6.88
measurement
with adji.t 59.71 43 93

DFSO 0.6014 0.4707 188.0 0.00
DFS2 0.6988 0.3406 469.4 24.50
WP25S2 2.0707 1.2381 1391.7 77.30
CCCL
WN25S2 0.5999 0.3345 342.8 11.40
DS01SO 0.6136 0.3588 312.1 13.20
DS01S2 0.6826 0.2251 543.6 33.10
DFSO 0.5969 0.5674 73.7 0.00
DFS2 0.4749 0.3032 222.0 27.80
WP25S2 0.6370 0.5580 346.6 29.02
EDUNE
WN25S2 0.4914 0.2927 173.0 27.42
DS01SO 0.5647 0.4866 115.8 11.67
DS01S2 0.4799 072411 277 1 29_ 35
DFSO 0.5479 0.4719 209.1 9.44
DFS2 0.4414 0.2431 347.6 23.10
WP25S2 0.6204 0.4227 404.6 23.99
CROSS
WN25S2 0.3842 0.1527 311.5 2158
DS01SO 0.5465 0.4619 211.4 7.76
DS01S2 0.4392 0.2380 350.7 23.50
DFSO 0.7482 0.7393 162.3 10.95
SBEACH DFS2 0.9771 0.9610 152.7 10.08
Original WP25S2 0.9971 1.0146 183.9 9.88
WN725S2 1 1265 1 0759 133-0 10,34
DFSO 0.6432 0.5966 217.8 8.81
SBEACH DFS2 0.6246 0.3996 393.5 21.64
Version 3.0 WP25S2 0.5826 0.4130 394.3 20.61
WN275S27_ 0_7513 _5030i 3304 19.2_77









Table 4. The residuals, eroded volumes and retreats for the beach at 45th Street.
residual eroded volume retreat at 10 ft
Model Case
w/o adjust with adjust ft3 / ft contour ( ft)

w/o adjust __ 219.1 27.23
measurement
with gdqijst 316.7 1.6 5
DFSO 0.8011 0.7670 162.1 0.04
DFS2 0.5540 0.4351 477.3 37.06
WP25S2 2.2814 1.9715 1086.6 84.46
CCCL
WN25S2 0.3953 0.3470 249.7 17.76
DS01SO 0.4845 0.4402 261.2 16.66
DS01S2 0.4149 0.3419 408.5 43.66
DFSO 0.8408 0.8331 35.8 3.79
DFS2 0.3788 0.3592 257.9 33.84
WP25S2 0.7998 0.7516 349.1 35.17
EDUNE
WN25S2 0.2986 0.2759 228.2 32.85
DS01SO 0.5900 0.5716 175.0 19.57
DSS0172 0.3815 0-3611 272 9 38 40
DFSO 0.4688 0.4530 172.8 13.77
DFS2 0.2583 0.3308 193.8 27.57
WP25S2 0.4967 0.4559 343.1 28.50
CROSS
WN25S2 0.1310 0.1232 264.6 26.40
DS01SO 0.4327 0.4197 184.1 13.52
DS01S2 0.2468 0.2301 301.6 29.97
DFSO 0.6080 0.6023 158.6 9.83
SBEACH DFS2 0.9720 0.9693 218.5 15.52
Original WP25S2 0.9299 0.9139 241.4 16.04
WN25S2 0-72572 0.7289 199 7 17_74
DFSO 0.5832 0.5776 200.8 15.08
SBEACH DFS2 0.4413 0.4263 266.3 23.52
Version 3.0 WP25S2 0.4684 0.4473 292.5 29.18
__ IWN25S2 0.5415 0 5107 267 6 24 0









Table 5. The residuals, eroded volumes and retreats for the beach at 56th Street.
residual eroded volume retreat at 10 ft
Model Case
w/o adjust with adjust ft3 / ft contour ( ft)

w/o adjust 98.2 7.56
measurement 2
with adinst 29 3 1 11
DFSO 0.9457 0.9308 119.7 0.00
DFS2 0.9668 1.0530 213.7 20.10
WP25S2 10.1559 11.0458 2415.6 73.90
CCCL
WN25S2 0.4797 0.4948 44.3 0.00
DS01SO 0.9551 0.9901 181.3 10.50
DS01S2 1.1855 1.3678 328.7 36.70
DFSO 1.4368 1.3343 0.4 0.00
DFS2 0.8148 0.7250 41.9 8.30
WP25S2 2.2831 2.2829 117.4 13.11
EDUNE
WN25S2 0.6111 0.5637 26.6 8.51
DS01SO 1.4353 1.3343 3.3 0.96
SDSOIS.2 08319 0.7780 9415 138
DFSO 0.9043 0.8863 41.1 6.69
DFS2 0.7189 0.7518 149.3 18.19
WP25S2 1.1941 1.3018 210.8 18.68
CROSS
WN25S2 0.2398 0.2516 126.9 18.05
DS01SO 0.9050 0.8879 41.2 6.46
DS01S2 0.7250 0.7586 151.8 18.43
DFSO 1.7763 1.7619 54.0 7.00
SBEACH DFS2 1.4609 1.4102 85.8 6.73
Original WP25S2 1.5521 1.5254 99.1 6.86
WN25S2 1-5056 1 47922. 733 7 Q7
DFSO 0.5721 0.4973 58.1 9.56
SBEACH DFS2 0.5801 0.5438 145.1 12.95
Version 3.0 WP25S2 0.7893 0.7572 152.6 15.38
WN25S2 05155 0 5112. 1100 J1300l









Table 6. The residuals, eroded volumes and retreats for the beach at 63rd Street.
residual eroded volume retreat at 10 ft
Model Case
w/o adjust with adjust ft3 / ft contour ( ft)

w/o adjust 481.8 97.70
measurement
_____ with adjust 4786 c19716

DFSO 0.8319 0.8318 244.0 13.67
DFS2 0.4903 0.4911 450.3 46.57
WP25S2 2.9382 2.9534 2708.3 104.67
CCCL
WN25S2 0.8232 0.8264 87.0 10.07
DS01SO 0.4873 0.4873 417.9 45.57
DS01S2 0.4154 0.4154 452.1 66.57
DFSO 1.0072 1.0055 34.3 6.60
DFS2 0.5567 0.5537 193.6 27.35
WP25S2 0.9011 0.8988 313.3 37.58
EDUNE
WN25S2 0.5965 0.5983 138.8 25.03
DS01SO 0.7853 0.7838 119.2 16.96
1 DS01S2 0 4745 0-4716 245 8 -5_67
DFSO 0.7908 0.7899 94.4 14.23
DFS2 0.4680 0.4683 241.3 28.13
WP25S2 0.7029 0.6999 335.0 30.94
CROSS
WN25S2 0.3438 0.3406 188.9 26.65
DS01SO 0.7846 0.7548 109.6 14.17
DS01S2 0.4835 0.4847 250.0 30.00
DFSO 0.5526 0.5507 165.2 15.47
SBEACH DFS2 0.4860 0.4859 204.5 23.25
Original WP25S2 0.5202 0.5193 212.0 25.27
WN25S9 0 5772 0,5769 1R6.7 20 -1
DFSO 0.3832 0.3815 233.7 37.80
SBEACH DFS2 0.3409 0.3395 267.6 48.33
Version 3.0 WP25S2 0.3716 0.3699 305.8 60.25
_ WN25S2. 0 3721 0.7.1 267.2 5 1 _97









Table 7. The residuals, eroded volumes and retreats for the beach at 74th Street.
residual eroded volume retreat at 10 ft
Model Case
w/o adjust with adjust ft3 / ft contour ( ft)

measurement w/o adjust 538.7 71.04
measurement
with adjust 588 4 78 24
DFSO 0.5815 0.5556 494.5 28.48
DFS2 0.3726 0.3032 759.2 65.58
WP25S2 3.4511 3.1735 2919.9 128.88
CCCL
WN25S2 0.6992 0.6742 206.9 16.48
DS01SO 0.3549 0.3355 536.0 51.08
DS01S2 0.2841 0.2437 682.1 80.88
DFSO 0.7955 0.8138 180.8 14.60
DFS2 0.2961 0.3072 372.2 37.27
WP25S2 0.6145 0.6024 529.8 55.18
EDUNE
WN25S2 0.3756 0.3711 235.7 29.45
DS01SO 0.4952 0.5050 290.6 28.56
DS 2 020196 002686 0.7929. 3Q93 5 3 25
DFSO 0.5824 0.5964 200.5 13.69
DFS2 0.2756 0.2908 374.4 29.91
WP25S2 0.3888 0.3940 480.6 36.41
CROSS
WN25S2 0.2685 0.1891 251.2 22.63
DS01SO 0.5505 0.5646 211.3 15.45
DS01S2 0.2737 0.2923 378.7 35.74
DFSO 0.6824 0.6922 165.5 11.75
SBEACH DFS2 0.6161 0.6003 226.8 22.43
Original WP25S2 0.5466 0.5379 239.5 24.66
WN25S. 06253 1 06099 209 3 20601
DFSO 0.3846 0.3906 245.2 31.45
SBEACH DFS2 0.2811 0.2824 282.1 39.84
Version 3.0 WP25S2 0.2899 0.2880 314.8 45.74
WN25S92J 0-3408& 03367 9251.2 926=









Table 8. The residuals, eroded volumes and retreats for the beach at 103rd Street.
residual eroded volume retreat at 10 ft
Model Case
w/o adjust with adjust ft3 / ft contour ( ft)

w/o adjust __ 456.4 44.60
measurement
with adjust 672-8 67.85
DFSO 1.7093 1.1957 1771.4 43.80
DFS2 1.6430 1.0019 1764.1 79.30
WP25S2 5.4007 3.9458 3458.0 165.79
CCCL
WN25S2 0.7595 0.6776 270.2 23.10
DS01SO 1.3670 0.8469 1707.3 73.50
DS01S2 1.4055 0.8642 1587.9 107.00
DFSO 0.6184 0.6198 781.5 20.92
DFS2 0.4422 0.3887 486.6 49.45
WP25S2 0.6711 0.4928 1175.4 67.79
EDUNE
WN25S2 0.5193 0.4911 276.9 37.20
DS01SO 0.4035 0.3566 411.2 39.94
DS01 S2 04157 0.3380 5375 63.4
DFSO 0.4472 0.4534 768.4 22.68
DFS2 0.2755 0.2444 528.6 40.05
WP25S2 0.4042 0.2932 1031.9 50.79
CROSS
WN25S2 0.3456 0.3619 331.9 29.94
DS01SO 0.3939 0.3897 773.9 27.02
DS01S2 0.2562 0.2338 533.4 47.63
DFSO 0.6255 0.6254 148.3 18.91
SBEACH DFS2 0.5551 0.5141 205.5 21.03
Original WP25S2 0.5012 0.4845 224.0 21.98
WN25S2.9.9O 7.0 .107202. 1 165-9 1 933-
DFSO 0.4864 0.4539 207.5 23.610
SBEACH DFS2 0.4630 0.4079 285.5 29.57
Version 3.0 WP25S2 0.3994 0.3278 740.9 39.71
_WN29.5S 0N25541 0519.23 244-5 29_23









Table 9. The residuals, eroded volumes and retreats for the beach at 124th Street.
residual eroded volume retreat at 10 ft
Model Case
w/o adjust with adjust ft3 / ft contour (ft)

w/o adjust __431.4 33.17
measurement
with adi.t 497.0 309

DFSO 3.4600 3.1624 2287.8 29.40
DFS2 2.0977 1.8374 1884.4 62.00
WP25S2 12.7736 11.9892 4364.9 160.70
CCCL
WN25S2 0.7840 0.7504 141.1 5.20
DS01SO 2.2204 2.0538 1894.5 32.40
DS01S2 1.8568 1.6400 1830.3 71.70
DFSO 0.8178 0.8445 896.7 9.01
DFS2 0.4655 0.4759 838.8 32.35
WP25S2 1.2223 1.1831 1245.7 50.84
EDUNE
WN25S2 0.4379 0.4375 149.7 21.20
DS01SO 0.6527 0.6654 906.7 23.64
__ DS01,S.2 04167 0.4053 86 1 044.310-
DFSO 0.7341 0.7569 886.0 11.19
DFS2 0.4000 0.4038 880.1 26.57
WP25S2 0.8406 0.7986 1172.1 36.31
CROSS
WN25S2 0.2322 0.2519 503.2 17.54
DS01SO 0.7153 0.7361 888.5 13.21
DS01S2 0.3871 0.3871 885.7 32.34
DFSO 0.8575 0.8723 61.9 7.12
SBEACH DFS2 0.6723 0.6712 104.8 9.80
Original WP25S2 0.6714 0.6795 121.8 11.38
WN9.5S9 0.764 0.8781 78R 5 96
DFSO 0.5563 0.5592 629.4 9.54
SBEACH DFS2 0.4540 0.4404 655.4 17.66
Version 3.0 WP25S2 0.4824 0.4689 799.8 22.66
WN25S2 .52790 0-5587 452 1 11_6-









Table 10. The residuals averaged over seven profiles.

Residual
Model Case
w/o adjust with adjust

DFSO 1.2758 1.1306
DFS2 0.9747 0.7803
WP25S2 5.5817 5.1882
CCCL
WN25S2 0.6487 0.5864
DS01SO 0.9261 0.7875
DS01S2 0.8921 0.7283
DFSO 0.8724 0.8598
DFS2 0.4899 0.4447
WP25S2 1.0184 0.7981
EDUNE
WN25S2 0.4758 0.4329
DS01SO 0.7038 0.6719
DS01S2 0.4669 0,4106
DFSO 0.6393 0.6279
DFS2 0.4054 0.3904
WP25S2 0.6640 0.6237
CROSS
WN25S2 0.2779 0.2387
DS01SO 0.6141 0.6021
DS01S2 0.4016 0.3749
DFSO 0.8359 0.8349
SBEACH DFS2 0.8199 0.8017
Original WP25S2 0.8141 0.8107
WN25S2 0.8806 0.8674
DFSO 0.5156 0.4938
SBEACH DFS2 0.4550 0.4057
Version 3.0 WP25S2 0.4834 0.4389

________ WN25S2 0.5263 0.4721









Table 11. Root mean square and algebraic averaged errors for eroded volumes.

without adjustment with adjustment
Model Case
ERRems ERRave ERR ERR ERR

DFSO 5.3659 1.2974 2.8031 0.6965
DFS2 4.1994 1.6249 1.9460 0.9384
WP25S2 43.9366 7.0011 24.3641 4.9084
CCCL
WN25S2 0.4713 -0.4147 0.3788 -0.5678
DS01SO 3.8590 1.3161 1.8802 0.7103
DS01S2 3.6500 1.5441 1.6517 0.8787
DFSO 0.7078 -0.1263 0.4949 -0.3548
DFS2 0.3107 0.0524 0.2263 -0.2.228
WP25S2 1.32'5 0.7783 0.5359 0.3132
EDUNE
WN25S2 0.34 9 -0.4640 0.3924 -0.6042
DS01SO 0.4423 -0.1182 0.3882 -0.3488
DS01S2 0.3256 0.1732 0.1906 -0.1337
DFSO 0.6048 0.0347 0.3502 -0.2359
DFS2 0.378') 0.1842 0.1999 0.1255
WP25S2 1.0671 0.7350 0.4030 0.2812
CROSS
WN25S2 0.2548 -0.1373 0.2247 -0.3629
DS01SO 0.5913 0.0555 0.3373 -0.2206
__DS01S2 0.3876 0.2439 0.1889 -0.0815
DFSO 0.4948 -0.6006 0.5438 -0.7050
SBEACH DFS2 0.3581 -0.4774 0.4413 -0.6141
Original WP25S2 0.3322 -0.4235 0.4003 -0.5743

WN25S2 0Q4181 -0.5478 0,5036 -0.6661
DFSO 0.2774 -0.2182 0.3136 -0.4227
SBEACH DFS2 0.3056 0.0012 0.2098 -0.2607
Version 3.0 WP25S2 0.4149 0.3087 0.1414 -0.0336

WN25S2 0.2485 -0.1613 0.2363 -0.3807









Table 12. Root mean square and algebraic averaged errors for beach retreat at 10 feet contour.

without adjustment with adjustment
Model Case
ERRrms ERRave ERRrms ERRave

DFSO 0.5252 -0.5996 0.5356 -0.6829
DFS2 0.2830 0.1628 0.1648 -0.0791
WP25S2 2.5257 1.7611 1.4308 1.1865
CCCL
WN25S2 0.6513 -0.7085 0.6395 -0.7691
DS01SO 0.2164 -0.1536 0.1924 -0.3298
DS01S2 0.4453 0.5255 0.1993 0.2080
DFSO 0.7169 -0.8094 0.7357 -0.8491
DFS2 0.3560 -0.2492 0.2907 -0.4055
WP25S2 0.2861 0.0018 0.1838 -0.2067
EDUNE
WN25S2 0.4136 -0.3696 0.3679 -0.5008
DS01SO 0.4621 -0.5097 0.4506 -0.6117
DS01S2 0.2865 -0.0349 0.1935 -0.2357
DFSO 0.6158 -0.6818 0.6251 -0.7480
DFS2 0.3763 -0.3285 0.3540 -0.4682
WP25S2 0.3304 -0.2171 0.2887 -0.3800
CROSS
WN25S2 0.4414 -0.4351 0.4349 -0.5527
DS01SO 0.5918 -0.6614 0.6023 -0.7318
DS01S2 0.3369 -0.2449 0.3018 -0.4021
DFSO 0.6442 -0.7188 0.6549 -0.7773
SBEACH DFS2 0.4942 -0.6223 0.5307 -0.7009
Original WP25S2 0.4598 -0.5972 0.5018 -0.6810
WN25S2 0.5509 -0,6665 0.5825 -0.7359
DFSO 0.3406 -0.5286 0.4130 -0.6267
SBEACH DFS2 0.2233 -0.3285 0.2640 -0.4682
Version 3.0 WP25S2 0.1312 -0.1896 0.1716 -0.3583
__WN25S2 0.2876 -0,4038 0.3319 -0,5279



















-200
-200


0 200


1000


offshore distance [ft]


10

0

-10 EDUNE

_Izn


0 200


1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


I I I I I


SBEACH (Original)


I 7


0 200


1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


10

0

-10 -_.

-20- SBEACH (Version 3.0)
onc I I II II


1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


1000


Fig. 8 The predicted profiles at 37th Street with default dune slope of 1 and no set-up (DFSO).


-- measured before storm
- - measured after storm
......... predicted after storm


CCCL


1200


-200


10

: 0
0
> -10
-D -


-J)
-200


1200


1200


-200


10

0

-10

-20

-30
-2(


CROSS


12


00











00


12


I I I I 1


:I


00




















400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


-2(



10
C 0
o
> -10
S-20

-30
-2(



10

0
o
C.
> -10
0,
a -20

-30
-2(



10

0

> -10
0,
o -20

-30
-2(



10


> -10
o
a -20

-30
-2


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


Fig. 9 The predicted profiles at 45th Street with default dune slope of 1 and no set-up (DFSO).


S1
C-
0
o
> -1
_2


30


measured before storm
0 - - -- measured after storm
... . predicted after storm
0


0- CCCL
n i i i-i


1000


12(


00


00


1000


12


offshore distance [ft]


00












30











00


SBEACH (Original)


1000


12


SBEACH (Version 3.0)


00


r


0


1000


1200


1200


CROSS


1000


EDUNE


I


(












{



















1000


offshore distance [ft]


1000


offshore distance [ft]


-2(



10

S0
> -10

S-20

-30
-2(



S10


> -10
c0,
0 -20

-30
-2(



10

0
0
> -10
cg,
S-20

-30
-2(



10

0
> -10
),
-20


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


Fig. 10 The predicted profiles at 56th Street with default dune slope of 1 and no set-up (DFSO).


01


--2
_}


-- measured before storm
0 - - measured after storm
........ predicted after storm


0

!0 CCCL
I n iI I I --- I


1200


EDUNE


12


1000


10


12


12


00











00











00


1200


CROSS


OAII


-200
-200


SBEACH (Original)


SBEACH (Version 3.0)


)0


00


00


0











1

0
( -1


-3


offshore distance [ft]
I I I I


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


F -,


3.0)


SBEACH (Version


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


Fig. 11 The predicted profiles at 63rd Street with default dune slope of 1 and no set-up (DFSO).


S_ --- measured before storm
0 -- - measured after storm
S.'. . predicted after storm
0

0-

0o- CCCL
, 1


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


10
: 0

> -10
a,
Wa n<->


1000


- EDUNE
EDUNE


-30
-200


1200


1200


-10


1000


-H ]


SBEACH (Original)


-200


F 10

0

> -10

a' -20


1000


1200


-Al!


-200


10 -






130 I iIIII


1000


1200


1000


1200


.


200


~s
;


m


-200


-












N


-- measured before storm
- measured after storm
......... predicted after storm


CCCL


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


1000


1200


10-

0

-10

-20 EDUNE .........
-- nIII I I I


1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


10 .

0

10

20- SBEACH (Original) ..........
n I I I I i


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


10-

0

10-

20- SBEACH (Version 3.0) ..........
n I I I I I I


1200


1200


1000


1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


1200


1200


Fig. 12 The predicted profiles at 74th Street with default dune slope of 1 and no set-up (DFSO).


-200


-200


-200


-200


10

0

-10

-20

-30
-2(


CROSS ...........


-.


-

-

-


00










measured before storm
.- measured after storm
......... predicted after storm


CCCL


0 200


1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


Fig. 13 The predicted profiles at 103rd Street with default dune slope of 1 and no set-up (DFSO).


K-


-JU
-200


o
> -1
a,-2

_-


0

0
0 -----^ .- s-..---------

0 -. .

o0 EDUNE
Sn I I I


1200


-200


1000


I II


SBEACH (Original)


)0


)0


10

0
.a,
> -10
a -20

-30
-2C



10

0
0
> -10
a)
D -20

-30
-2C


0" 0-L

S10

0-20- CROSS


1000


I I I I I I


SBEACH (Version 3.0)


1200


1200


1200


1200


1000


-30
-200


1000


I I I I I I


........... ."" .


~-
',












N.


- measured before storm
- measured after storm
......... predicted after storm


CCCL


1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


io0 -EDUN

-20 EDUNE "---
a I I I I I III


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


offshore distance [ft]


100

0

-10 -

-20- SBEACH (Version 3.0)
_- n I I II I


1000


1000


1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


0 200 400 600 800 1000
offshore distance [ft]


Fig. 14 The predicted profiles at 124th Street with default dune slope of 1 and no set-up (DFSO).


-'-U'


-200


10


C-
o
(U--


SI I I I I

N.1


-200
-200


S-
I


N..


SBEACH (Original)


-200


1200


1200


1200


1200


1200


-200


-10

-20

-30
-200


I _


I I


?n ~


,.
i











S10

- 0
0
> -10
a)
a -20

-30
-2(



10
C- 0
0
> -10

-20

-30
-2(



10
C 0
0
> -10
) -20

-30
-2(


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


0 200 400 600 800 1000
offshore distance [ft]


1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


1000


Fig. 15 The predicted profiles at 37th Street with default dune slope of 1 and set-up of 2 feet (DFS2).


-- measured before storm
.- -.. measured after storm
........ predicted after storm



CCCL I I-


EDUNE -


12(


1000


10

0
-10
-20

-30
-20


10

S 0
> -10
' -20

-30
-20


12:


30











30


SBEACH (Version 3.0)
I I IIII


10


10


1200


1200


1200


CROSS
I IIII


00


00











00











10

0

> -10
cn
' -20

-30
-2(



10

c 0
0
> -10
S-20

-30
-2(



10
c 0
o
> -10
a -20

-30
-2(



10
C 0
0
o
> -10
U)
0-20

-30
-2(



10

I 0
0
> -10

, -20

-30
-2(


Fig. 16 The


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


1000


12


1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


12


12


12


1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


)0


30 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
offshore distance [ft]
predictedd profiles at 45th Street with default dune slope of 1 and set-up of 2 feet (DFS2).


Measured before storm
- - -- measured after storm
.....predicted after storm



CCCL


EDUNE


SBEACH (Original)


SBEACH (Version 3.0)


CROSS


00











00











00











00


O0


)0


30











-- measured before storm
*- measured after storm
......... predicted after storm


(i )i L


* .- -4 --


CCCL


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


1000


121


1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


12(


1000


1000


1000


00











00


1200


1200


1200


Fig. 17 The predicted profiles at 56thStreet with default dune slope of 1 and se-up of 2 feet (DFS2).


-4


EDUNE


-10

-20

-30
-200


10

- 0
0
> -10

S-20

-30
-2(


10

0

-10

-20

-30
-2



10


-10

-20

-30
-200


- SBEACH (Original)


I I I


N.


SBEACH (Version 3.0)


0-


0 CROSS

0- CROSS


-1

-2

-3


0o
200


00


)0




















400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


C 0- -:'
0
1-10

0 -20- CROSS

-30 i 1 I i
-200 0 200 400 600 800
offshore distance [ft]

Fig. 18 The predicted profiles at 63rd Street with default dune slope of I


1000 1200


and set-up of 2 feet (DFS2).


-20 -


-200


measured before storm


-- measured before storm
- measured after storm
. ........ predicted after storm


P- -~-. --


CCCL


In I ~


0 -'

0
0

O EDUNE -
InI I I I I I


1200


12


1000


1000


1000


-3I-,
-2(



10

I 0
o
> -10

0 -20

-30
-2(



10

' 0


-20

-30
-2(


SBEACH (Original)
SBEACH (Original)
I I


12


SBEACH (Version 3.0)
I


00


00












00












00


1000


122


(











(


. 7


)0


00


1"










S-- measured before storm
-\ - measured after storm
........ predicted after storm



CCCL


10

0

-10
-20
-30
-2(


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


0 200


1000


offshore distance [ft]


-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
offshore distance [ft]


10 -
0


-20 CROSS
-3 0 1--- i ---- i --1- i --- 1 ----- 1 --------


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


1000


Fig. 19 The predicted profiles at 74th Street with default dune slope of 1 and set-up of 2 feet (DFS2).


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


1


-1
-2
-3


0-


0

0- EDUNE


0o
200


1000


1000


1200


1200


0 SBEACH (Original)
0 7'


0 SBEACH (Original)


- JU
-200


1200


1200


1200


)0


-200












IU -
I
10


' -20

-30
-200



10"

0
S-10 -
S-20

-30
-200



10 -

10-
> -10

S-20

-30
-200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


0 200


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


offshore distance [ft]







CROSS


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


Fig. 20 The predicted profiles at 103rd Street with default dune slope of 1 and set-up of 2 feet
(DFS2).


offshore distance [ft]


N..


SBEACH (Original)


1000


N:.-


SBEACH (Version 3.0)
I I III


10


I

0
.0
> -10
S-20

-30
-20



10

0

> -10
0) -20

-30
-20


1200


1200


1200


1200


1000


)0


1000












*N.


-- measured before storm
- - measured after storm
......... predicted after storm


CCCL


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


1000


12


1000


12


-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
offshore distance [ft]


00











00


1200


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


10 '

0
0 ---------.'' 7.. ^---------------



-20 CROSS
On I I II I I


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


1000


Fig. 21 The predicted profiles at 124th Street with default dune slope of 1 and
(DFS2).


1200


set-up of 2 feet


-20

-30
-200


10

" 0
0
> -10

-20

-30
-2(


EDUNE .
I I I t I I


-10

-20

-30
-200


0
C


SBEACH (Version 3.0)


1000


1200


I I I I I I


00


.1











10


> -10
ci
S-20

-30
-2(



10

S0
0o
> -10

S-20

-30
-2(



10

- 0
0
1 -10
S-20

-30
-2(



10

0
> -10
a -20

-30
-2(


offshore distance [ft]


0 200


0 200


offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


Fig. 22 The predicted profiles at 37th Street with default dune slope of 1, set-up of 2 feet and wave
heights increased by 25% (WP25S2).


measured before storm
- - -- measured after storm
.....predicted after storm



CCCL


1000


12'


00











00


EDUNE


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


10

0

10

20 CROSS ..
rnI III-I --- I


1000


12


SBEACH (Original)


1000


12


00











00


1000


12


-200


1000


1200


-

-


SBEACH (Version 3.0)


00


00


00


30











10

0
0
> -10
S-20

-30
-2(



10

o
0
> -10
a -20

-30
-2(



10

0
(O
> -10
cij
-20

-30
-2(


0 200


0 200


1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


10
0

-10

-20- SBEACH (Version 3.0)
I I I I I I


0 200


1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
offshore distance [ft]


1200


12


00











00


1200


1200


Fig. 23 The predicted profiles at 45th Street with default dune slope of 1, set-up of 2 feet and wave
heights increased by 25% (WP25S2).


12


Measured before storm
- - -- measured after storm
.....predicted after storm



CCCL


0 200


EDUNE


30


SBEACH (Original)


-200


30


30











Measured before storm
S. ... measured after storm
S' -. ........ predicted after storm




CCCL


10

S0
0
> -10
0 -20

-30
-2(



10

0
0
> -10

-20

-30
-2(


0 200


offshore distance [ft]
I I I II


0

10-

20 SBEACH (Original)
13 % I I III I 1


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


10

0
-10

-20 SBEACH (Version 3.0)
_ nI I


0 200


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


Fig. 24 The predicted profiles at 56th Street with default dune slope of 1, set-up of 2 feet and wave
heights increased by 25% (WP25S2).


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


IU


1000


12.


00











00


EDUNE


Cr
0
0)
0)


1000


121


-200


1000


1200


-200


-'J
-200


0-


0O

!0 CROSS


1000


1200


1200


1000


00


00












10

0
-0
> -10
S-20

-30
-2(



10

S0
0
> -10

S-20

-30
-20



10


0 200


0 200


0 200


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


Fig. 25 The predicted profiles at 63rd Street with default dune slope of 1, set-up of 2 feet and wave
heights increased by 25% (WP25S2).


I I I I I
measured before storm
-. .. measured after storm
...... predicted after storm




CCCL


0


1000


12'


00












00


0


IEDUNE


1000


SBEACH (Original)


I I I I


1000


- 0

S-10
a -20

-30
-200


t-
C
a0
~ -2


-200
-200


0



0 CROSS
tot CROSS


-200


0

0

0-
_0- SBEACH (Version 3.0)


121


1200


1200


1200


1000


1000


- I


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


]


-


0r











S10

- 0
0
> -10
a)
S-20

-30
-2(



10

S0
-10
(D
_ -20

-30
-2(



10

0
0
> -10
U) or


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


10
0

-10

-20- SBEACH (Version 3.0) ..........
_1n I I


-200


0

0 CROSS
10 CROSS


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
offshore distance [ft]
Fig. 26 The predicted profiles at 74th Street with default dune slope of 1, set-up of 2 feet and wave
heights increased by 25% (WP25S2).


Measured before storm
- *- measured after storm
......... predicted after storm


...... CCCL.. .
CCCL


0


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


1000


120


00


EDUNE
EDUNE


0


1000


1200











1200


1000


1200


--,OJU


-


10


0











10

0 0
> -10
'D -20

-30
-20



10

0
c.
1> -10
'"-20


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


0 200


1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


Fig. 27 The predicted profiles at 103rd Street with default dune slope of 1, set-up of 2 feet and wave
heights increased by 25% (WP25S2).


S- measured before storm
N- - -- measured after storm
S.... predicted after storm



CCCL


>0


offshore distance [ft]







EDUNE


1000


1200


1200


I I I I I I


1000


N.


SBEACH (Original)


0


0


-30L
-201


10

S0

> -10
0o
' -20

-30
-2(



10

- 0

0a
S-20

-30
-2(



10

I 0

> -10
-20
i_ -20


1000


121


DO











00


SBEACH (Version 3.0)


1000


CROSS


12'


-30
-200


1200


L0


0


,




















0 200


offshore distance [ft]








EDUNE


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


F 10

C 0
0
> -10
a -20

-30
-2(



10
C 0
0
od
> -10
-20

-30
-2(


offshore distance [ft]








CROSS


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


Fig. 28 The predicted profiles at 124th Street with default dune slope of 1, set-up of 2 feet and wave
heights increased by 25% (WP25S2).


-- measured before storm
- - measured after storm
......... predicted after storm


(ii -


CCCL


1000


1200


1200


1000


-10

-20-

-30
-200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


10

0

-10

-20

-30
-2(


S10

S0
> -10
z -20

-30
-2(


SBEACH (Original)


1000


12


SIBEACH (Version 3-0)


1000


12


00











00


1200


1000





. . . . . .


30


00


00


30



















0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


0 200


offshore distance [ft]


10

0
0
> -10
-20

-30
-2(



10

0
>-10
-20

-30
-2(



10

S0
0
>-10
-20

-30
-2(



10
0
0
> -10
(D-20

-30
-2(


offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


Fig. 29 The predicted profiles at 37th Street with default dune slope of 1, set-up of 2 feet and wave
heights decreased by 25% (WN25S2).


- measured before storm
S- -- measured after storm
......... predicted after storm


CCCL


1000


1200


EDUNE


1000


12


-200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


SBEACH (Original)


1000


12i


SBEACH (Version 3.0)


00











00











DO











00


1000


124


CROSS


1000


124


"" i


00


)0


)0


)0












10

o

> -10
_ -20

-30
-2(



10
c 0
0
> -10

a -20

-30
-2(



10

- 0
0

-10
o
-20

-30
-2(



10

0
CO

> -10
a,0
-20

-30
-2


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


10-

0

> -10-
S-20 CROSS

-30
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
offshore distance [ft]

Fig. 30 The predicted profiles at 45th Street with default dune slope of 1, set-up of 2 feet and wave
heights decreased by 25% (WN25S2).


Measured before storm
- - -- measured after storm
.....predicted after storm



CCCL


1000


12


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


1000


)0










0
-


12(











12(


00


SBEACH (Version 3.0)


1000


12


EDUNE


C


00


0

















0


)0











00











30











00











10

-o
0
.2
" 0
> -10
-20

-30
-2(



10

- 0
0
> -10
aD -20

-30
-2(



10

0
.o
> -10
'D -20

-30
-2(



10


o -10
>0
-20

-30
-2(


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


1000


offshore distance [ft]







SBEACH (Version 3.0)


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


10

-
> 0


0 -20

-30
-200


0 200 400 600 800 1000
offshore distance [ft]


1200


Fig. 31 The predicted profiles at 56th Street with default dune slope of 1, set-up of 2 feet and wave
heights decreased by 25% (WN25S2).


-- measured before storm
- measured after storm
S. ....... predicted after storm



CCCL


1000


1200


EDUNE


0 200


1000


12


SBEACH (Original)


00











00


1200


1000


00


00


00


12.


00




















0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


1000


0
10

-20 EDUNE
f" f I I I I I


0 200


0 200


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


10 -


> -10
-20 CROSS
-30 - 1 1
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
offshore distance [ft]
Fig. 32 The predicted profiles at 63rd Street with default dune slope of 1, set-up of 2 feet and wave
heights decreased by 25% (WN25S2).


S10
c 0

0)
, -10
0-20


-30
-200


measured before storm
- measured after storm
......... predicted after storm


CCCL


1200


-200


S10

C 0
go
> 10
a) -20
_4rn


-200


1000


12


00











00


I I I I(Original) I
SBEACH (Original)


10

0


' -20


1000


12


SBEACH (Version 3.0)-
-SBEACH (Version 3.0)


I I I I I


-30'
-20


0


1000


1200


---


i-


- i7Z:77.












10

C
0
> -10
S-20

-30
-2(



10
I- 0
CO
0
> -10
(0 -20

-30
-2(


0 200


1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


1000


offshore distance [ft]







SBEACH (Original)
I I I I I I


0 200


1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


10-
0

-10

-20- SBEACH (Version 3.0)
-3nI I I I I I


0 200


1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


10-

0

10

20 CROSS


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


1000


Fig. 33 The predicted profiles at 74th Street with default dune slope of 1, set-up of 2 feet and wave
heights decreased by 25% (WN25S2).


S---- measured before storm
-- -.. measured after storm
... ..... predicted after storm



CCCL


0 200


0

-10

-20

-30
-2(


EDUNE


12


12


00











00


1200


00


-200


1:


200


-200


1200


00


30


D












CN


-- measured before storm
- - measured after storm
......... predicted after storm


CCCL


0 200


0 200


0 200


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


,10 o---'-- "-^.------
10
0)


0 -20- CROSS
-30 --L _L--
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
offshore distance [ft]
Fig. 34 The predicted profiles at 103rd Street with default dune slope of 1, set-up of 2 feet and wave
heights decreased by 25% (WN25S2).


(1i


-200


1000


1200


0
0- N.

0 -- .
0 EDUNE
0- EDUNE .-


L0
30


1000


12


-30
-2(



10
- 0
> -10
a,
S-20

-30
-2(



- 10
I- 0

> -10
0)
-20

_,In


30


00











00


SBEACH (Original)


1000


12


SBEACH (Version 3.0)


-200


1000


1200



















0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


1000


0 200 400 600 800 1000
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


1000


1200


1200


121


1000


12


00











DO


-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
offshore distance [ft]
Fig. 35 The predicted profiles at 124th Street with default dune slope of 1, set-up of 2 feet and wave
heights decreased by 25% (WN25S2).


-- measured before storm
- measured after storm
......... predicted after storm


CCCL


-10

-20

-30-
-200


10-

S0-


' -20 -
-20

-30
-200


SBEACH (Original)


10

.o
> -10
0 -20

-30
-2(



10
C 0
0
co
> -10
0 -20

-30
-2(



10
CO
S0
> -10
a)
) -20

-30


S (Version 3.0)
- SBEACH (Version 3.0)


CROSS


O0


O0

















I I I I I I
---- measured before storm
10 ..- measured after storm
.... ... predicted after storm
O

> -10-

-20 CCCL

-30 -----
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
offshore distance [ft]


I I I I I I

S10

0 0

> -10

-20- EDUNE -

-30 I
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
offshore distance [ft]




10

0
0
> -10

S-20 CROSS

-30 L
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
offshore distance [ft]








Fig. 36 The predicted profiles at 37th Street with dune slope of 0.1 and no set-up (DS01SO).



























-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


800


1000


12(


12


1000


12


)00













30













00


Fig. 37 The predicted profiles at 45th Street with dune slope of 0.1 and no set-up (DS01SO).


EDUNE


10

0

-10

-20

-30
-2(


-200


CROSS


_'n


(













(


30


















I I I I
-- measured before storm
.- .- measured after storm
....... predicted after storm




CCCL
I I I I I I


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


Fig. 38 The predicted profiles at 56th Street with dune slope of 0.1 and no set-up (DS01SO).


800


800


EDUNE
I I I III


-20
-200


'3


-200
-200


-200
-200


1000


1000


12


12


CROSS


1000


12(


30















00















00


30


o0


(














(


















I I I I I I
measured before storm
measured after storm
........ predicted after storm




CCCL ---


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


Fig. 39 The predicted profiles at 63rd Street with dune slope of 0.1 and no set-up (DS01 SO).


-20

,an


-200


200


1000


12


EDUNE


800


-200
-200


-200
-200


1000


12


00














00














00


CROSS


1000


12


_30


_-n


















I I I I I I
--- measured before storm
10- .- - measured after storm
........ predicted after storm
0

-10

-20 CCCL


200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


1000


1000


1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


1200


1200


1200


Fig. 40 The predicted profiles at 74th Street with dune slope of 0.1 and no set-up (DS01SO).


-200


0 -


EDUNE


-20

-30
-200


-30'
-200


-S..


CROSS


nI




















S..


---- measured before storm
- measured after storm
......... predicted after storm


CCCL


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


1000


1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400


1000


1200


1200


1200


offshore distance [ft]









Fig. 41 The predicted profiles at 103rd Street with dune slope of 0.1 and no set-up (DSO1SO).


-10l


-200


-10-


-200


I I I I I I


EDUNE


-10


I I I I I I


CROSS


--III


-200


. . . . . . .


















-- measured before storm
..-.. measured after storm
........ .predicted after storm




CCCL


1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


0 200 400 600 800 1000
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


Fig. 42 The predicted profiles at 124th Street with dune slope of 0.1 and no set-up (DS01SO).


-200


0
0
10
> -10


-30
-200


1200


1200













1200


_-n



























400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


1000


1000


1000


12


10

i -
0
> -10

-20

-30
-200


1200


Fig. 43 The predicted profiles at 37th Street with dune slope of 0.1 and set-up of 2 feet
(DS01S2).


)00














!00


---- measured before storm
- -- measured after storm
......... predicted after storm


CCCL


EDUNEI I I I I


S EDUNE


-30
-200


CROSS


-30
-20


]0


I


12


-20




























400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


800


1000


12


1000


12


1000


12


00














00














00


Fig. 44 The predicted profiles at 45th Street with dune slope of 0.1 and set-up of 2 feet
(DS01S2).


I I I I
Measured before storm
0 - measured after storm
S........ predicted after storm




0 CCCL
0


-200


I I I I
EDUNE
-I I I I I I


-200


on'


CROSS
___ i ______i I i ___ i _______


-J0-
-200


-_


_-n




























400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


800


1000


12


1000


12


00














00


-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
offshore distance [ft]








Fig. 45 The predicted profiles at 56th Street with dune slope of 0.1 and set-up of 2 feet
(DS01S2).


measured before storm
- - measured after storm
.... .... predicted after storm




CCCL
I I I I I I


-200
-200


-20


-200
-200


EDUNE


CROSS
S 1 1 I I


-qn


_ n


tn


00













O0





















400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


1000


1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


1200


12


12


1000


00














00


Fig. 46 The predicted profiles at 63rd Street with dune slope of 0.1 and set-up of 2 feet
(DS01S2).


-- measured before storm
.-. .. measured after storm
S........ predicted after storm



CCCL -


EDUNE


-200


-200


CROSS


_-14


-200


_"3n


_"n

















I 1I I I I
-- measured before storm
10 -- -. measured after storm
S........ predicted after storm
C- 0.

> -10

-20 CCCL

-30 1 1
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
offshore distance [ft]


I I I I I I

10 0
0

> -10
03)
-20 E D U N E ...........

-30 1 1 I 1 ---
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
offshore distance [ft]




10

0

> -10

-20 CROSS
-30 -----
-30 1 1 1 I I I
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
offshore distance [ft]








Fig. 47 The predicted profiles at 74th Street with dune slope of 0.1 and set-up of 2 feet
(DS01S2).





























400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


1000


1000


12


12


00















00


-30' '
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
offshore distance [ft]








Fig. 48 The predicted profiles at 103rd Street with dune slope of 0.1 and set-up of 2 feet
(DS01S2).


.. measured before storm
0 ..- measured after storm
........ predicted after storm
0

0

.0 CCCL


-200


on


--O
-200


EDUNE


-10


'S ,I


CROSS


-^


''
"
-.



























1000


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


0 200 400 600 800 1000
offshore distance [ft]


0 200 400 600 800 1000
offshore distance [ft]


1200


1200


1200


Fig. 49 The predicted profiles at 124th Street with dune slope of 0.1 and set-up of 2 feet
(DS01S2).


I I I I I I
measured before storm
-. measured after storm
^........ predicted after storm




CCCL


-200
-200


-30'
-200


S0

> -10


-30'
-200


_n








REFERENCES

Chiu, T.Y. and Dean, R. G. 1984. "Methodology on coastal construction control line establishment"
Tech. and Design Memorandum 84-6, Beaches and Shore Resource Center, Florida State University,
Tallahassee, FL.
Chiu, T.Y. and Dean, R. G. 1986. "Additional comparison between computed and measured erosion
by hurricanes" Tech. Report Beaches and Shore Resource Center, Florida State University,
Tallahassee, FL.
Dean, R.G. and Zheng, J. 1994. "Cross-shore sediment transport relationships." Tech. Report
UFL/COEL-94/018, Dept. of Coastal and Ocean. Eng., University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Jensen, R.E. and Garcia, A. 1993. "Wind, wave and water level assessment for the January 4, 1992
storm erosion at Ocean City, Maryland" Shore and Beach, Jan. 1993.
Kraus, N.C. and Wise R.A. 1993. "Simulation of January 4, 1992 storm erosion at Ocean City,
Maryland" Shore and Beach, Jan. 1993.
Kriebel, D.L. 1989. "Users manual for dune erosion model EDUNE" .
Kriebel, D.L. 1990. "Advances in numerical modeling of dune erosion" 22nd International
conference on Coastal Engineering, Delft, The Netherlands, PP.2304-2317.
Larson, M. and Kraus, N.C. 1989. "SBEACH: Numerical model for simulating storm-induced beach
change, Report 1: Theory and model foundation" Tech. Report CERC 89-9, CERC, US Army WES,
Vicksburg, MS.
Larson, M. and Kraus N.C. and Byrnes M.R. 1989. "SBEACH : Numerical model for simulating
storm-induced beach change, Report 2: Numerical formulation and model tests" Tech. Report CERC
89-9, CERC, US Army WES, Vicksburg, MS.
Stauble, D.K., Garcia A.W. and Kraus N.C. 1993. "Beach nourishment project response and design
evaluation: Ocean City, Maryland. Report 1, 1988- 1992." Tech. Report CERC 93-13, CERC, US
Army WES, Vicksburg, MS.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs