Citation
Comparisons of erosion models for January 4, 1992, storm at Ocean City, Maryland

Material Information

Title:
Comparisons of erosion models for January 4, 1992, storm at Ocean City, Maryland
Series Title:
UFLCOEL-95002
Creator:
Zheng, Jie
Dean, Robert G ( Robert George ), 1930-
University of Florida -- Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Dept
Place of Publication:
Gainesville Fla
Publisher:
Coastal & Oceanographic Engineering Dept., University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
73 leaves : ill., map ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
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:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaf 73).
General Note:
"January 1995."
Statement of Responsibility:
Jie Zheng and Robert G. Dean.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact Digital Services (UFDC@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
33143168 ( oclc )

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
-- (E CG) = D, (1) h 8y


1



























Delaware
Fill Area




E -___ -NMID
Borrow
Site

Assawoman Bay
-38' 25'c. 38' 25'103rd St.

100th St.
92nd St.


a Wve *g
North
o Wave Gage









O cnCt
Wfigh t

Boy"







7nt St.4N-c
-27 St. (# Borrow S site
Mi 2 Ocean City t

-38'20'D 38' 20'Sr-.
T bSouth
Wove Gage
Ocean City Inlet ATLANTIC OCEAN





1 2 3 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.(l) can be integrated to give


F24D,
h(y) = 3y2/3 2/3 (2) 5pg~/gk2


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 R. 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


3









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/lb) and D is the local wave energy dissipation per unit volume,


D = 5 pg K2 8h 3/2 (5) 24 ay


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:


- (6) at ah


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.


4














Run-Up
Limit, yRu Break Point (BP)
Wave Reformation, ywR Plunge Point, (PP)

i-3HbI



-Zri Zone I
Zosne -- yyH, D,.D Same I q =qap e76YYaP) D04 (Y-YU) .*.-. "q tK(DD- &,>D,-c !L onnas = =. Da j O.47 K = U=+K(D-D* K I Erosion: XE= 0 (YW- YRU 0 DcDa -.L atL. L2svakN 0 (mm)
Kay he'dmi Hb (M),E (M1) DeterminedBy1 3
Ho/Lo 0.00070 0- .



Breaking Wave Heiht. Hk Run Up HeIght.z Wave Breaking Model

H = 1.14 rton 1.47. tanl p0, a(E Cc) = [(ECG) (E CK)']
hb V7E
0~' 0.40l~ p = Average Slope Over = initial Slope He = Ii1, K'a 0.17
One-Third Local I'm 0.40
Wave Length Seaward
of Break Point


Fig.2 Sketch of the transport relationships in SBEACH.








Zone I: The sediment transport rate is express as


Q = QBpexp[-XKy-yBp)] (7)

Where QBP is the sediment transport at the break point, X1 is the spatial decay coefficient and YBP is the break point location. The quantity X1 is equal to 0.11 m-' for accretionary conditions. For erosional conditions X1 is given by


X1 = 0.4 dJ 0.47 (8)




Where d50 is the median grain size in mm while the breaking wave height, H b, is in m and L I is in m~.
Zone II: The sediment transport is given by

Q = Q,exp[-X(y-ypp)] (9)


Where Qp 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 X1.
Zone III: The sediment transport rate is determined by


Q = K|D-D, += |, D>D K aX (10) 0, D! D, -K



Where s 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 = QWR (11) YWR YRU


6









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 Offshore transport Lo wT


> 0 0007 H 3 Onshore transport Lo wT


Where H0 and I4 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

(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),nodel 1/2 Qr = (D-D)mde = (D-D.), = Lr (13) (D -D,)otp



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


Q '= L (14)
T


7
















10 ID
5

C





20


'15 10
ca)


60 70 80 90 100


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





6-- 10 20 30 50-60.70 80 90 10



2 -- -. -. -.

.- -. . -. -. -. . -. . -. .. -. ..-- - -.--


'0


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 T, 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)


8


10 20 30 40 50 time [hour]


0)
0)


- - - -. . . . - -. . . . -. . - -. . - -. .- -.-- - - -


- ~ ~ ~~~ - -- - - - - -

- - - - - - -


















WATER

4402


DEPTHS ( ) NY C T 40'4 .3.230 NY R
5 40 412 24 409 28 099 L1,t 25 4 Ip,.. L ght 2 Amras* ight
PA

44025



.D


44012

44009


Ch-speake Oc..n
Light City

VA

Q) 44014




NC





7 6 W 75W 74'W 73'W 72 7


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






Where K is the empirical transport coefficient and equal to 2x 10 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.


9


39'N 38'N 37'N


______ 35


an


R1


44004


421N


-41 N


70*W


. W













8 Ezny Based Wave Height (44014 esapoake Light +) 6

0 4

2

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Days in January 1992

Peak Spedtral Wave Period (44014 -, C seake Light+)





















Days in January 1992





20 PEeaky radWave Henoh 44025-, Ambrose Li ht+)15

,,10 ,.. + + + +*4 +. +









6
4 +" +








C +
2 + + .











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 in).


10








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

Vol loss -Volgain (16)



Where Vol0s and Volgain are the total volumes gained or lost from the pre- to post-storm profiles, and


11











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

Volume change ( ft3 / ft ) Adjustment Ay Street htta 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


htotai 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


12









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, d50, of the beach as input. The other three models require the sediment scale parameter, A. Corresponding to the sand size of d5,= 0.35 mm, an A value of
0.2 ft" 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 prestorm 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:


13










profiles at 37th Street 20

10 measured before storm
- -measured after storm
0
0
> -10

-20

-30 I
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 offshore distance [ft] profiles at 45th Street 20

10

0

> -10

-20

-30 I
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 offshore distance [ft] profiles at 56th Street 20

10 0

CO
0
> -10

-20

-301III
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 offshore distance [ft] profiles at 63rd Street
20

10


0
>0)
-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.


14
















profiles at 74th Street 2n


200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


1000


profiles at 103rd Street

- ~ -


200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


1000


profiles at 124th Street

- -


200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


1000


Fig. 7 Continued.


15


10

c 0
0
> 10
(1)


-20h

-300
-200


measured before storm
- measured after storm


0


20 10

0


.2
wz


1200


-30'
-200


0


20

10



-10


0:
0
. 7


1200


-30 '-200


0


1200


i - -


- ,


-10


-20


-20









n
E (hPi-hnwi)2 Res = = (16) (hb h i)2



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, ERRr., and the algebraical mean error, ERRveC. They are expressed as:

n
E (S,]-S ,j)2 ERR = MU( n
rin 2 j=I
(17)

E(S PSm) ERR -=ave n
E S
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. ERR,.s represents a factor of simulation accuracy and ERRve 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 (ERR,.)


16









and the algebraical averaged errors (ERRe) 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 ERRve of eroded volume, CCCL overpredicts 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


17








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 DSO ISO (input dune slope of 0.1 and no set-up) and DSO 1S2 (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 and beach retreat are less affected by the difference of input dune slope in CROSS. After including 2 feet setup, 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


18









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 S BEACH (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


19








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 runup 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 prestorm 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.


20









Table 3. The predicted residu Is, 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 )

measurement w/o adjust 72.6 6.88
wihalust -522.1 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 DS01S0 0.6136 0.3588 312.1 13.20 DSO1S2 0.6826 0.2251 543.6 3.3.10 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 DSO1SO 0.5647 0.4866 115.8 11.67 DSO1S2 0.4799 0.2411 277.1 2935 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 21.58 DSO1SO 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
WN25S2 1.1265 1 .10759 133.0 1034
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 L__ [ WN25S2. 0.7513 0.5030 3304 19-27


21









Table 4. The residuals, eroded volumes and retreats for the beach at 45th Street.
residual eroded volume retreat at 10 ft Model Case1 ft
w/o adjust with adjust ft, / ft contour ( ft)

measurement w adjust 219.1 27.23
mesue eIL with ndjnst '316.7 :;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 DSO1SO 0.4845 0.4402 261.2 16.66 DSO1S2 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 DSO1SO 0.5900 0.5716 175.0 19.57 DS01S2 0.3815 0-3611 272.9 8 4 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 DSO1SO 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 0.7252 0.7289 199.7 1 2-74
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
WN25S2 ____.__ 5415 0.5107 267.6 24,09


22









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 )

measurement w/o adjust 98.2 '7.56
_________ _with adj_ _t _99 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 DSO1SO 1.4353 1.3343 3.3 0.96
1 DSfS2 0 319 0-7790 94 5 1i8- 2...
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 DSO1SO 0.9050 0.8879 41.2 6.46 DSO1S2 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 1.4979 73-3 22 7. 7
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 .155 1. 0511 110.0 1J; j


23









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 ) J w/o adjust 481.8 97.70 measurement with adiist 478.6 _7 16

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 DSOlSO 0.4873 0.4873 417.9 46.57 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 DSO1SO 0.7853 0.7838 119.2 16.96
1_DS_S2 _0.4745 0.4716 245 8 367...
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
WN25S2 ._772_ = 0.5769 186.7 201.6&
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 h.N25S2 137221 0.3721 '267.2 -5 1,97


24









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 [__________ _with ajst 588.4 79 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 DSO1S2 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 DSO1SO 0.4952 0.5050 290.6 28.56 DSD1S2 0.2696 1.0-2792 3939 53 5 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 DSO1SO 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
WN25S2 .6253 0.6099 209.3 2_ 6DFSO 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
WN25S2.. .3409 0-3367 251 2 T 22.6__---


25









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)

measurement w/o adjust 456.4 44.60
mesuemm with adjust 1-67= 67 95DFSO 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 DSO1SO 1.3670 0.8469 1707.3 73.50 DSO1S2 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 DSIS2 0.4157 0-3380 537.5 635
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 DSO1SO 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 0.7280 1 .222 165.9 1 1--1___DFSO 0.4864 0.4539 207.5 23.60 SBEACH DFS2 0.4630 0.4079 285.5 29.57 Version 3.0 WP25S2 0.3994 0.3278 740.9 39.71
__ __ WN25S2 .t= .41 -5....1231 244.5 29-.23


26









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 49i-0 497.0
DFSO 3.4600 3.1624 2287.8 29.40 DFS2 2.0977 1.8374 1884.4 6:2.00
WP25S2 12.7736 11.9892 4364.9 160.70
CCCL
WN25S2 0.7840 0.7504 141.1 5.20 DSO1SO 2.2204 2.0538 1894.5 32.40 DSO1S2 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 DSO1SO 0.6527 0.6654 906.7 23.64
DS__I S2 0.4167 0.40-53 968.1 44 ____3DDFSO 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 DSO1SO 0.7153 0.7361 888.5 13.21 DSO1S2 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
WNS 874 J71 78 8 07R7.596
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.... .5290-. 0,5.5F,7452-1 3


27









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 DSOlSO 0.9261 0.7875 DSOlS2 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 DSO1SO 0.7038 0.6719 DSOlS2 0,4669 0,4106 DFSO 0.6393 0.6279 DFS2 0.4054 0.3904 CROSS WP25S2 0.6640 0.6237 WN25S2 0.2779 0.2387 DSO1SO 0.6141 0.6021 DSO1S2 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 WN25SJ 0,5263 0.4721


28









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

without adjustment with adjustment Model Case
ERRrms ERRa 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 DSO1S2 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 DSO1SO 0.4423 -0.1182 0.3882 -0.3,488 DSQIS2 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 DSOlSO 0.5913 0.0555 0.3373 -0.2206 L DSO1S2 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 .4187 -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 -0.307


29









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

without adjustment with adjustment Model Case
ERRm, ERRave ERR, J 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 DSO1SO 0.2164 -0.1536 0.1924 -0.3298 DSO1S2 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 DSO1SO 0.4621 -0.5097 0.4506 -0.6117 DS91S2 .2865 -0,0349 0,1935 -02.357 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 DSO1SO 0.5918 -0.6614 0.6023 -0.7318 DSO1S2 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
WN2 0,5509 -0,6665 0,5825 -0,73:59
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

__ rWN25S2 Q.76 -0.4038 0.3319 -0.5279


30


















0


200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


1000


100
-10

EDUNE


0 200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


I I I I I


SBEACH (Original)


.-7-


200


200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


800


1000


1000


1200


1200


-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 offshore distance [ft]
Fig. 8 The predicted profiles at 37th Street with default dune slope of 1 and no set-up (DFSO).


31


10

- 0
0
> -10
0-20


0
-200


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


CCCL


a)


1200


-200


10


800


0
0


1000


-10
-20


1200


-"U
-200


10


0


0


-10
-20

-30
-200


.2
06


.2


SBEACH (Version 3.0)


CROSS


10
0
-10
-20


I


- -


-


















400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


-2



10
0
> -10
0-20
-30
-2



10
C0


.2
Cz
> 10




0)
"-20
-30




10

0
> -10
-20
-30
-2C



S10

0
> -10
'-20

-30


600


offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


800


800


800


800


1000


12


1000


1000


1000


1000


00










0










0


12


12


1200


1200


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


32


0
a -1
-2


00


measured before storm
- - measured after storm
O predicted after storm 0
0

0- I I


I I I I I I


0


0


0


0


0


400


200


200


200


200


200


S I I I I


I I I I


- CROSS--


00


00


00


00


















400


600


offshore distance [ft]


400


600


offshore distance [ft]


-2



10



-2
0
> -10
0-20
-30





-2
10






S0
.2
> -10
0-20
-30





-2
10

0
> 10
0'-20

-30





-2
S10

0
> -10
0-20

-30


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


800


800


800


800


1000


1000


1000


1000


1000


1200


12


12


12


12


)0










0 00 00


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


33


22

-2


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


0- CCCL
r) III


EDUNE


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


0


0


0


0


0


200


200


200


200


200


I I ( i n


SBEACH (Version 3.0)


CROSS


0


)00


0


00


00











1
4F
0
> -1


-


200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400


600


800


800


offshore distance [ft]


- -


200


400


600


offshore distance [ft]


-


3.0)


SBEACH (Version


200


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).


34


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


200


0


10
0


-10


.0
ca


- E




EDUNE-


-30
-200


0


1000


1000


1200


1200


.0
W,


10
0


-1
-20-


SBEACH (Original)


-200


0


10 C : > -10
-20


800


1000


1200


-200


0


C:
0
M,


0




0-CROSS -_


..-U


-200


800


800


0


1000


1000


1200


1200


UU


.


200




- __-


-


1


1
-2


-










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


CCCL


100

-10
0

-30
-200


200


C ca a)


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


800


1000


1000


1200


1200


10 -
0

10
20- SBEACH (Original)
3 II I I


200


200


200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


800


800


1000


1000


1000


1200


1200


1200


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


35


N


200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


0


0-




0- EDUNE


-2-u''-


-200


0


-200


C:





C


0


-1
-2


0


0
0 SBEACH (Version 3.0) ........


-200


=7

.2


0


0


10
0
-10
-20

-30
-2


CRO SS .. .. .


'4H


12




-


00


















0 200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


200


200


200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


800


800


1000


1000


1000


1200


1200


1200


-30' 1 1 1
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 offshore distance [ft]
Fig. 13 The predicted profiles at 103rd Street with default dune slope of 1 and no set-up (DFSO).


36


C
0
0,-


10


-10
-20


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


CCCL


-200


800


0
-1
2,


0 0
0-


1000


1200


I I I I I


N--


SBEACH (Original)


-200


10 0:
> -10
-20 -30
-20



10*


> -10-20

-30
-200


0


0


0


~ ~ -


SBEACH (Version 3.0) -


C

0

0)


10
0
-10
-20


- CROSS


..........


0


















200


200


200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400


600


800


800


800


1000


1000


1000


offshore distance [ft]







- SBEACH (Version 3.0)


200


200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


800


1000


1000


1200


1200


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


37


10


C
0
>,


-10
-20


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


CCCL


~'-U1'


-200


0-


1


>-1
-2


-200


0


0


0


10


.0
co


-10
-20


K


SBEACH (Original)


1200


1200


1200


-200


10


0
C, >
-


U


10
20


-200


.2
0Z
>,


0
0



0-CROSS


0


0


-3
-


00
200


I I __ .


__


5.


.......... 7


1










measured before storm
10 - - - measured after storm--.- .-.. predicted after storm CO 0
0
> -10-20 CCCL-30
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 offshore distance [ft]


10

0
> -10-20 EDUNE-30
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 offshore distance [ft]
I I I

10


> -10-20- SBEACH (Original)

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


10

0
> -10
-20 SBEACH (Version 3.0)

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


10

0
> -10
-20 CROSS0)

-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 offshore distance [ft]
Fig. 15 The predicted profiles at 37th Street with default dune slope of 1 and set-up of 2 feet (DFS2).


38











10




-2

10
> -10
0-20

-30





-2
10

0








-2
> -10
-10 -30











-2
10 C-0 > -10
0- 20
-30











-2
10
C0 > -10
0 20

-30




S10

0
> -10
02

-30


Fig. 16 The p


0


0


0


0


200


200


200


200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


800


800


800


1000


12


1000


12


1000


12


1000


12


0


00 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 offshore distance [ft]
redicted profiles at 45th Street with default dune slope of 1 and set-up of 2 feet (DFS2).


39


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



CCCL


EDUNE


BEACH (Origin


SBEACH (Version 3.0)


CROSS


00










00










00 00


0


0


00



















200


200


200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


800


800


1000


12


1000


12


1000


II I


F0


SBEACH (Version 3.0)


200


200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


800


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).


40


10


C:
0


-10

-20
-30
-200


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


fi I -i


CCCL


10

0
> -10

-20

-2


I I I I I






EDUNE


0


0


0


10

0

-10

-20
-30
-2



10


- SBEACH (Original)-


N.


-10F

-20
-30
-200


1


0I-I




0- CROSS


0


0


0
200


00


-1
-









- II I
measured before storm
10- - - -- measured after storm
-..... predicted after storm C2
> -10--20 CCCL--30
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 offshore distance [ft]


10 -
C
0
> -10-20 EDUNE

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


10

C:
> -10
0-20- SBEACH (Original)

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


10

.0
> -10-20- SBEACH (Version 3.0)
-30 1
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 offshore distance [ft]


10

0
> -10
-20 CROSS---30 1 1
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 offshore distance [ft]
Fig. 18 The predicted profiles at 63rd Street with default dune slope of 1 and set-up of 2 feet (DFS2).


41












0







a)


10
0
-10
-20
-30




10
0
-10
-20
-30
-2(


400


600


800


1000


1200


offshore distance [ft]


0


200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


1000


U
10
-20- SBEACH (Original) ......
,3 % II I I I I I


0


200


400


600


800


1000


offshore distance [ft] SBEACH (Version 3.0)


1200


1200


200


200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


800


1000


1000


1200


1200


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


42


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



CCCL


0


0


10


200


Q)


EDUNE ...


0


* Iv*1.K...* I I I I


-200


C:
.2
CU


10


v
-10
-20


-Al I


-200


0
0



0- CROSS


.2
06


0


0


-200


UU'


0


12


-



















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]







- CROSS


0 200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


800


800


800


800


1000


1000


1000


1000


1000


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


43


10
0
> -10 CD-20


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



CCCL


Al I -


-200


1


co
a)


-1
-2


I I I I I I


0
0
0- EDUNE


-30'
-200



-10
--0
0
> -10 C-20

-30 L
-200


I


SBEACH (Original)


10
0


.2

0D


-10k


12CI0


1200


1200


1200


1200


-20


-30
-20


0


SBEACH (Version 3.0)


I I I


10

0
> -10' -20
-30
-20


0


I I
- -











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


CCCL


0 200


200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


800


1000


1000


12 e


12


-10
-20

-30
-200


SBEACH (Original)


0 200


400


600


offshore distance [ft]


N.-


0 200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


0 200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


1000


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


1200

set-up of 2 feet


44


10


-


0

a)


00 00


EDUNE-


10
S0
0
> -10
-20 -30
-2



10

0
.2
> -10 -20


0


'K
'K-


-200


10


800


1000


1200


'K.
'K.


SBEACH (Version 3.0)


-100
-20
-30
-200


02






.2


800


1000


0I




0- CROSS


12D0


-200


UU


00


-


1


-1
-2











10
0 > -10
-20
-30
-2



10 C0


-2

10
> -10
0'-20
-30
-2



10 0 0 10 -10
-20
-30




10

0
> -10
~-20

-30


400


600


offshore distance [ft]


0 200


0 200


400


600


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).


45


0


0


1000


200


200


12


800


800


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


I I I I


00 00


1000


12


SBEACH (Original)


800


1000


12


00


CO










00


10
0


20- CROSS 30 II


800


.2
C


1000


12


-200


800


1000


1200



-


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



CCCL-


- SBEACH (Version 3.0)-


00


00


00











10

0








-2
-10
-20 -30




4F 10 C 0
0
> -10
~-20
-30
-2(



10

0
.2
>-10
S-20

-30


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]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


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).


46


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



CCCL


0 200


- SBEACH (Original)
I I III L


800


800


800


800


800


10
0
-10
-20


0

(D


1000


1000


1000


1000


1000


A- (.




- SBEACH (Version 3.0)-


1200


1200


1200


12CI0


1200


-200


0
0


0 CROSS


C
0

a,
a,


-1


-200


EDUNE


00


00


0


0










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



CCCL-


10 0

0
-20 -30




10 C 0 > -10

-20 -30
-2



10

o
0
> -10 0)
-5 -20


200


0 200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400


600


offshore distance [ft]
I I I I


800


800


0 200


0 200


0 200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


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).


47


0


1000


12


EDUNE-


00











00


1000


12


SBEACH (Original)


-200


10


%
-10
-20


SBEACH (Version 3.0)


..j-~fl L


-200


C: Co a)








C
(D
Co


1


-1


800


800


800


I I I I I

0 -
0
0 -
0 CROSS--


1000


1000


1000


1200


1200


1200


-0u
-200


00


0


-



















0


200


0 200


0 200


0 200


0 200


10
0*
0
> -10-20
-30
-20



10
C: 0> -10S-20-


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).


48


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

CCCL.......

CCCL


0


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


- EDUNE


-30 L
-200


0 -I > 10
0-20
-30
-200


I I I


SBEACH (Original)


800


800


800


800


800


02
a)


1000


1000


1000


1000


1000


1200


1200


1200


1200


1200


-1
-2


-200


0
0
0 -
0 -SBEACH (Version 3.0)


_ a II I I I I I


0 0

0 CROSS -...


0 CoZ


-200


-


1


1


-1
-2










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


CCCL. .

- CCCL


10 0
-10 0)
0-20

-30
-2(



FF10
C 0
0
> -10
~-20
-30
-2(


0 200


0 200


0 200


0 200


0


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


800


800


800


800


1000


12


1000


12


1000


1000


1000


00 00


1200


1200


1200


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).


49


* -C


0


0


200


E D N .I I






EDUNEI


0


1


-1
-2
-3


0
0
0 SBEACH (Original) .


200


-1
-2


0 I I I


0

0
0- SBEACH (Version 3.0)
1 1 1 1 1 1


-200


0




0-CROSS


-1


-200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


1


1











10


> -10-20 -30
-20



10

0
> -10 -20


400


600


800


1000


offshore distance [ft] E E I I






EDUNE~


200


200


200


200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


800


800


800


1000


1000


1000


1200


1200


12


12


1000


00










00


1200


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).


50


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



CCCL


0


200


0


0


0


I I


N*.


SBEACH (Original)


0


-301
-20


10

0
> -10
-20
-30
-2



10
-0

-20
-2
> 10 o -20

-30




10

0 > -10 0 -20


SBEACH (Version 3.0)


0


-30
-200


0


0


- CROSS


0


0



















0 200


400


600


offshore distance [ft]







-EDUNE


0 200


10


-0

-2

10
> -10
(D
-20
-30


-21


00

> -10
~-20
-30


0


200


200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400


600


800


800


800


800


offshore distance [ft]







CROS


0 200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


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).


51


10


a)


-10

-20 F
-30
-200


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


nI--- -


CCCL


0


1000


1000


1200


1200


I I I Igi a l






- BEC (Oiinal)


0


1000


10
0
-10
-20
-30
-2C


12


-SIBEACH (Version 3.0)


10

0
> -10
a,
07D -20

-30
-2


1000


12


00 00


1200


1000


00


00


00


00



















0


200


0 200


0


10
0
0
> -10
C-20
-30




10 Co
0
> -10
-20
-30





-2
10 0
0
> -10 Co -20
-30




10

0
Co > -10 C-20

-30


200


200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


800


800


800


1000


12


1000


12


1000


1000


-10


-30
-200


1200


1200


-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 12Cl0 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).


52


10


.2
0D


00











00


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


CCCL


EDUNE


0


I I 3.0)


C SI I


-SBEACH (Original)


-


00


00


0











10
0
> -10
-20

-30
-2


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]


-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).


53


0


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



-CCCL


1000


10
0
-10

-20

-30


12


00


C






0




C a)


EDUNE -


10


1000


n


-10
-20


12


ial)


SBEACH (Origin


800


800


800


800


00 00


00 00


10

S0
0
> -10
-20 -30


1000


12


00


SBEACH (Version 3.0)


1


C
.2
W)


0
0


0 CROSS


-1


1000


12


I


..


00


0











- 10
0
co > -10
-20 -30
-2



10

o
> -10
* -20
-30
-2



10

o
> -10 D -20
-30
-2



10 o0 > -10
-20
-30




10


> -10
S-20
-30
-2(


0 200


0


200


0


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400


600


800


800


800


1000


1000


1000


offshore distance [ft] I I I I






- BEC (Vrin 3.)


0 200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


1000


1200


12


00 00


1200


CROSS
I I I I I I
000 200 400 600 800 1000 12C


offshore distance [ft]
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).


54


12.


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


- CCCL


0


SI I I






- EDUNE


0


0 200


I I I I I






- BEC ( iinal) -


0


00


00


-


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


0


0










I I


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 -

(0
> -10
0)


-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).


55


10


U1,


C


-10
-20


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


CCCL


-30 '-200


1


0
0 0 -
0 EDUNE-


0
(D 0)


1200


-30'
-200


1000


1000


- 10

C: > -10
a)
0-20
_,in


12


-200


800


800


800


800


00 00


SBEACH (Origin al)


10

(0
-10
0
(D -20


1000


IA i





- SBEACH (Version 3.0)-


12


-30'
-20


0


1000


1200


I I I I I I




- -


-1
-2











10



-0
C2
0
> -10
()
0'-20

-30






-2
10
C0 > -10 0-20

-30


0 200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400


600


1000


800


800


1000


offshore distance [ft]







SBEACH (Original) -.-.-.I I I I I I


0 200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


1000


0 200


0 200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


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).


56


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



CCCL


0 200


EDUNE -.. .. .


12.


12


00 00


1200


00


10
0

-10
-20
-30
-2(


-1
-2


a)




0 0)
a)


0

0
0- SBEACH (Version 3.0) -....- .


-200


1


0

0)


0




0-CROSS
0 --


-1


-3


200


800


800


1000


1000


1200


1200


-30' 1 1


00


00


1











- -


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]


-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).


57


10


0

a)
a)


( I I _


10

20


-c0u
-200


10
0


-10
-20


0F
C:
.2


1000


1200


I I I I E






- EDUNE -


I
00


1000


12


-30
-2



F 10


Cd
> -10 0)
0-20
-30
-2



10


> -10
-20 -30
-21


00


800


800


800


800


SBEACH (Original)


1000


12


00 OD 00


00


SBEACH (Version 3.0)


0


0 CROSS



0)
a)


1000


12


-2


1


1










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



-CCCL


10
0
-10
-20
-30
-2


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


10
-10
0
> 10
-20 -30
-2



10

0
.2
> -10
-20 -30





-2
10

0
> 10
0 -20
-30




10

0
> -10

0-30


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


800


800


800


1000


1000


1000


1200


1200


12


1000


12


00 CO


-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).


58


0 C:
0
a)


0 200


0


0


0


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


200


200


200


I ( 3


CROSS


-EDUNE


-SBEACH (Original)


00


00


0


0
















I I I I
measured before storm 10- - - measured after storm
-.....- predicted after storm 0
0
> -10
a)-20- CCCL


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




10

10 > -10

-20 EDUNE--200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 offshore distance [ft]



10

.0 0-------> -10-20 CROSS-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 (DSO ISO).


59


























400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


800


800


1000


1000


12(


12


1000


12


0 CI0 00


Fig. 37 The predicted profiles at 45th Street with dune slope of 0.1 and no set-up (DSO1SO).


60


10


0
'ZCi,


U


-10 F


-20

-30
-200


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


-


CCCL


F 10 C: 0
0
> 10

-20


-EDUNE


-0A
-200


0


0


0


200


200


200


10

0


-10

-20
-q()


0

Q),


I CRO


-200


' '


30


















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]


800


800


800


1000


1000


1000


12


12


12


00 00 00


Fig. 38 The predicted profiles at 56th Street with dune slope of 0.1 and no set-up (DSO 1S0).


61


10

0

10


0U


-20 on


-200
-200


10

0

10


C
0

Q)


-20 or%


EDUNE -


-200


0


0


0


200


200


200


10

0

10


M


-20 30


-200


CROSS


















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]


800


800


800


1000


1000


1000


12


12


12


00 00 00


Fig. 39 The predicted profiles at 63rd Street with dune slope of 0.1 and no set-up (DSO 1 SO).


62


10

0

10


-20
q()2f


-200


0


C
c,
-,


76 (D


10

0


-10

-20


EDUNE







- EDUNE .-


-200


200


200


200


0


0


10

0


-10

-20


LD 0z


CROSS


-200



























200


200


200


400


600


offshore distance [ft]


400


600


offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


800


800


1000


1000


1000


1200


1200


1200


Fig. 40 The predicted profiles at 74th Street with dune slope of 0.1 and no set-up (DSO 1SO).


63


10

0


0 az


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




-CCCL


-20


-200


1


.2

(D


0
0


0- EDUNE-


1


-30 L
-200


0


0


0


1


0

0

0

0 CROSS


.2
M,


-1

-2


-30'
-200


-10|


-2


















measured before storm
10 -~------measured after storm .. .- predicted after storm


10

20 CCCL


200


200


200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400


600


offshore distance [ft]


800


800


800


1000


12


1000


1000


12


00 00


1200


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


64


0 0z


-200


10

0


-10

-20


0

(D


EDUNE-


-200


0


0


0


10


v


0
M,


-10


-20


4-.


-4-.


CROSS


--U I


-200


-


-



























400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 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 (DSOlSO).


65


10

0

-10

-20


0
0,


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




CCCL-


-200


1000


10

0


-10

-20


0


12


I I I I


EDUNE-


-200


0


0


0


00 00


200


200


200


800


800


800


10

0


1000


12


0


-lOF


- -


CROSS


-20


-200


1000


1200


-


























400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


800


800


1000


1000


1000


00 00 CIO


Fig. 43 The predicted profiles at 37th Street with dune slope of 0.1 and set-up of 2 feet (DSO1S2).


66


10

0
o L
> -10

-20-


-30'
-200


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


CCCL


10

0


.2


I I I I


-10

-20


-30'
-200


0


0


0


200


200


200


10

0


-10

-20

_q0


.2
0z


CROSS-


-200


-


-


1l


12


12


2









-

















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

10

20- CCCL-


200


200


200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400


600


offshore distance [ft]


800


800


800


1000


12


1000


12


1000


00 00


1200


Fig. 44 The predicted profiles at 45th Street with dune slope of 0.1 and set-up of 2 feet (DSO1S2).


67


0


-200


10

0

10


0


0


-


-20


-EDUNE


-200


10

0 10


.:
0


-20
Orl


CRI I S


-200


0




-


























200


200


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


800


1000


1000


12


12


-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 (DSO1S2).


68


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




CCCL-


10

0

> -10

-20


-200


C
0


0


0


EDUNE -


-30'
-200


10

0


-10

-20 30r


C a)


CROSS-


30


0













0


10

0


-20




















400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


800


800


1000


1000


1000


1200


12


12


00 00


Fig. 46 The predicted profiles at 63rd Street with dune slope of 0.1 and set-up of 2 feet (DSO1S2).


69


10

0

10


-20


0


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




-CCCL


-200


10

0


-10

-20


a)


-200


0


0


0


200


200


200


EDUNE --


10

0 10


-20



C:
.2


CROSS----


-200
















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



2: 0 0 0 0 0 00 10
0
> 10
()








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









I II I
10
0

> -10



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






0
> -10



-30 1 1 1 1 1 1
-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 (DSO1S2).


70


























400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


800


800


1000


1000


1000


12


12


00 00


1200


Fig. 48 The predicted profiles at 103rd Street with dune slope of 0.1 and set-up of 2 feet (DSO1S2).


71


0

a,


-1

-2


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

0

0 CCCL


-200


10

0

10


-20 orl


0

(D


EDUN


-200


0


0


0


200


200


200


10

0


a)


-10 -


NI


- CROSS


-20


'2fF


-200


1

























400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


400 600 offshore distance [ft]


800


800


800


1000


1000


12


12


1000


12


00 00 00


Fig. 49 The predicted profiles at 124th Street with dune slope of 0.1 and set-up of 2 feet (DSOIS2).


72


10 0

> -10

-20


-200


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




CCCL-


10

0

10


-20

-14n


-


I I I I


EDUNE-


-200


0


0


0


200


200


200


C
.0

(D


10

0


-10

-20
'D.%


CROSS-


-200








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 UFLICOEL-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.


73