• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Introduction and Storm charact...
 Input case design
 Results
 Summary and conclusions
 References






Group Title: UFL/COEL (University of Florida. Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Laboratory) ; 95/006
Title: Supplement to "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/UF00085090/00001
 Material Information
Title: Supplement to "Comparisons of erosion models for January 4, 1992, storm at Ocean City, Maryland"
Series Title: UFL/COEL (University of Florida. Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Laboratory) ; 95/006
Alternate Title: Evaluation study and comparison of erosion models and effects of seaswalls for coastal construction control line Task 1d: Compare models with results from Hurricane Eloise and other data
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Zheng, Jie
Dean, Robert G.
Publisher: Department of Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 1995
 Subjects
Subject: Shore protection
Coastal zone management
 Notes
General Note: This publication is being made available as part of the report series written by the faculty, staff, and students of the Coastal and Oceanographic Program of the Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00085090
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Introduction and Storm characteristics
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Input case design
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Results
        Page 7
        Page 6
        Page 8
    Summary and conclusions
        Page 9
        Page 8
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        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
    References
        Page 36
Full Text



UFL/COEL-95/006


Supplement to "Comparisons of Erosion Models for
January 4, 1992, Storm at Ocean City, Maryland"

Evaluation Study and Comparison of Erosion Models and
Effects of Seawalls for Coastal Construction Control Line



Task Id: Compare Models with Results From Hurricane
Eloise and Other Data


by


Jie Zheng
and
Robert G. Dean


February, 1995



Prepared for:


Department of Environmental Protection










Supplement to "Comparisons of Erosion Models for
January 4, 1992, Storm at Ocean City, Maryland"


Evaluation Study and Comparison of Erosion Models and
Effects of Seawalls for Coastal Construction Control Line


Task 1 d: Compare Models with Results From
Hurricane Eloise and Other Data


February 1995




Prepared For:

Department of Environmental Protection



Prepared By:

Jie Zheng and Robert G. Dean

Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department


University of Florida









INTRODUCTION
The Ocean City, Maryland beach was nourished by the state of Maryland and Federal
Government in 1988, 1990 and 1991 to protect the city against storm damage. The entire project was
finished in August 1991. After the project, a series of storms occurred in late 1991 and early 1992.
Among these 1991-1992 winter storms, the January 4, 1992 storm was very severe with a peak
storm surge of 6.6 feet.
The previous technical report (UFL/COEL-95/002) "Comparison of erosion models for
January 4, 1992, storm at Ocean City, Maryland" compared the numerical results of beach erosion
for the January 4, 1992, storm with available surveys. The initial pre-storm profiles were surveyed
on November 2-4, 1991, and the post-storm profiles were surveyed on January 11, 1992. In this
period, an additional storm occurred on November 11, 1991, which was not considered in the report
referenced above.
During a meeting to discuss the project "Dune erosion models and effects of seawalls", held
in the Tallahassee, Florida vicinity on January 3-4, 1995, Professor David L. Kriebel recommended
that the numerical model simulation include both storms (November 11, 1991 and January 4, 1992)
to be more consistent with the measured pre- and post-storm profiles. Accordingly, this report
includes the effects of two storms and is a supplement to the previous report (UFL/COEL-95/002).
In the following study, five models CCCL, EDUNE, SBEACH (version 2.0), SBEACH
(version 3.0) and CROSS, are applied. Seven survey lines extending from south of 37th Street to
north of 124th Street in Ocean City are investigated. The median grain size of the beach is 0.35 mm
for all seven profiles [Stauble et. al 1993]. The input parameters for each model are selected to be
consistent with the conditions for which the model was calibrated.


STORM CHARACTERISTICS
In this paper, water depth and profile elevation are referenced to the NGVD (National
Geodetic Vertical Datum), which lies 0.07 feet below mean sea level for Ocean City. The significant
wave height, wave period and storm surge time histories during the storms were measured by two
gages located just offshore of Ocean City in water depths of 10 meters. These gages were installed
by the Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army Engineering Waterways Experiment Station.
The results are shown in Figures 1 and 2 for the November 11, 1991 and January 4, 1992 storms,

























20 40 60 80 100 120
time [hr]


140 160


15 -------------,------------
15





5 . . . . . .


20 40 60 80
time [hr]


100 120 140


40 60 80
time [hr]


100


120


140


160


Fig. 1 Water level, significant wave height and wave period time history for November 11, 1991,
storm at Ocean City, Maryland (From Stauble et. al [1993]).


-5L
0


ii:

4:
(i,
.4-


160


........... ........ _.. .. .. ... .......
IIIIIIi :




I li ll


(
(


10















10

S.\e / \ t-up
S ............... ....... .............................
a:,



-5
0 20 40 60 80 100
time [hr]


20 -15
c-

-a 15 -

:: .. ... . . .. . . .


c:: 0
: 0 20 40 60 80 100
time [hr]


20
0C

a:)

a:, 10

5
0 20 40 60 80 100
time [hr]


Fig. 2 Water level, significant wave height and wave period time history for January 4, 1992, storm
at Ocean City, Maryland (From Kraus and Wise [1992]).









respectively. Since the storm surge was measured in a water depth of 10 meters, wave induced set-up
was not incorporated in these measurements. In the numerical simulations, wave set-up, S, at the
shoreline is calculated according to the instantaneous breaking wave height as:

S 0.375K H= 0.238Hb (1)
1+0.375K2


Where K is the ratio of wave height to water depth inside the surf zone and is taken here as equal to
0.78. The water level time histories of the two storms including the wave set-up are presented as
dashed lines in Figures 1 and 2. Wave run-up is included in EDUNE and CROSS models. Hunt's
wave run-up model is applied to establish the run-up height, R, as:

R=FRHb m (2)



Where R is measured vertically upward from the still water level, FR is a run-up coefficient and is
set to 1 for the following study, m is the beach slope averaged from the run-up limit to the wave
breaking point, and Lo is the deep water wave length.


INPUT CASE DESIGN
The input parameters for each model in this study are selected to represent the conditions for
which each model was calibrated. Sensitivities of wave run-up, wave set-up and water active depth
are tested in the EDUNE and CROSS models. The cases run for each model are described briefly
as follows:
(1) CCCL
The input dune slope (beach slope above instantaneous water level) is set to 1 as default.
Wave set-up is calculated by Eq.(1) according to the significant wave heights shown in Figs. 1 and
2. No wave run-up is included in this model consistent with the manner in which this model was
calibrated. The input water level during a storm is given by adding the set-up to the measured storm
surge. The significant wave height input at each time step is used as regular wave height in the
CCCL. After running two storms, a factor of 2.5 is applied to the profile recession for those contours
that receded.









(2) SBEACH
Both versions of SBEACH model are believed to incorporate wave run-up and set-up. The
maximum slope that the profile is allowed to achieve is required and is set to 17.50 as a default
condition; this corresponds to a slope of 0.32. The wave conditions used in the SBEACH model
simulations are the same as the measurements shown in Figs. 1 and 2. Both versions of SBEACH
model provide the choice of wave type (monochromatic or irregular). The irregular wave which
requires the input of significant wave height time series is chosen for this study.
(3) EDUNE
The input dune slope is set to 1 as a default and the input shoreline slope is taken as 0.05
which is the average shoreline slope of the measured pre-storm profiles. The input significant wave
height is applied as a regular wave height for each time step. Four combinations of run-up and set-up
are tested and denoted as Case (a), Case (b), Case (c) and Case (d). They are described as
Case(a) : Run-up is fixed as 3 and 5 feet for November 11, 1991 and January 4, 1992, storms,
respectively. In accordance with recommendations by Professor David Kriebel, these values are
based on the run-up calculated by Hunt's equation for the maximum significant wave height in the
storm. No set-up is included in the simulations.
Case(b) : The set-up is given by Eq.(1) according to the instantaneous significant wave
height. The calculated maximum values of set-up for the two storms are 2.2 and 3.1 feet,
respectively. After including the set-up in the model, the fixed run-up values are reduced to 0.8 and
1.9 feet for two storms, respectively.
Case(c): The run-up is calculated by Eq.(2) and no set-up is included in the modeling.
Case(d): The set-up is given by Eq.(1) and the run-up is set as the value calculated from
Eq.(2) after subtracting the value of the corresponding set-up.
(4) CROSS
The dune slope is equal to 1 as a default condition and the shoreline slope is set to the
average slope value for measured pre-storm profiles (0.05). A Rayleigh distributed random wave
height series is generated by the program according to the input significant wave height time history.
The sensitivity of active water depth and different combinations of run-up and set-up are studied.
Four cases are investigated.
Case(a): The run-up is calculated by Eq.(2) and no set-up is included. The active water depth









is the same as the in coming breaking wave height.
Case(b) : The set-up is given by Eq.(1) and the run-up is set as the value calculated from
Eq.(2) after subtracting the value of corresponding set-up. The active water depth is the same as the
in coming breaking wave height. The conditions of this case are the same as those for which the
CROSS model was calibrated.
Case(c) : The run-up and set-up are the same as Case (a). The active water depth is 1.28 times
the incoming breaking wave height.
Case(d) : The run-up and set-up are same as Case (b).The active water depth is 1.28 times
the incoming breaking wave height.


RESULTS
The numerical results from the five models are evaluated in terms of several parameters. A
comparison of measured and predicted profile changes is provided by the residual parameter, Res,
defined as a non-dimensional variable
n



i=l
E (hi -h )2
Res =
(hnbi hai)2



Where h is the water depth, the subscribes "p" and "m" denote predicted and measured, respectively,
"b" and "a" indicate before and after storm conditions, respectively, and i represents the "i" th
location on the profile. The minimum possible value of Res is zero, which corresponds to a perfect
simulation. The dune erosion is represented by the eroded volume and beach retreat at the 10 foot
contour. To provide a measure of erosion and retreat, two different errors are presented: the root
mean square error, ERR,,, and the algebraical error, ERRa,. These are expressed as:
n
E (S -Sm)2
ERR, = (4)

j=1









n

ERRave = = (5)
E Smj
j=1


Where S is an eroded volume or beach retreat, the subscripts "p" and "m" again represent the
predicted and measured values respectively, and j means the "j" th beach profile. ERRrs represents
a factor of simulation accuracy and ERRave provides a measure of over or under-prediction of
erosion.
Comparisons between predicted and measured profiles of the seven available survey lines
are presented in Figs. 3 9. The residuals, eroded volumes and beach retreat at the 10 foot contour
are shown in Tables 1 7. Because the net volume changes between measured pre- and post-storm
profiles are quite different from zero due to gradients of longshore sediment transport, in addition
to the measured profile, a version is included by shifting each post-storm profile a horizontal distance
to yield zero net volume change (refer to the previous report, UFL/COEL-95/002). In the tables,
"without adjustment" means data given by the original measured post-storm profiles, while "with
adjustment" means data given by horizontally shifted post-storm profiles. The onshore limit of
predicted eroded volume for each profile is determined by the onshore cross over point of the
predicted post-storm and the measured pre-storm profiles, while the offshore limit is truncated by
the offshore cross over point of the shifted measured post-storm and the measured pre-storm profiles.
The seven profile averaged residuals are shown in Table 8. The errors for eroded volume and retreat
at the 10 foot contour are presented in Tables 9 and 10, respectively. It appears that Case (b) for
CROSS and Case (d) of EDUNE provide the smallest residuals. CCCL overpredicts the eroded
volume, EDUNE and the two versions of SBEACH underpredict it, and Case (b) of CROSS gives
almost ideal results. For beach retreat at the 10 foot contour, Cases (b) and (d) of EDUNE and Case
(b) of CROSS provide very good results, and CCCL overpredicts by 56% on the average.


SENSITIVITY DISCUSSION
(1) Active Water Depth
The CROSS model was calibrated with the active water depth the same as the incoming









is the same as the in coming breaking wave height.
Case(b) : The set-up is given by Eq.(1) and the run-up is set as the value calculated from
Eq.(2) after subtracting the value of corresponding set-up. The active water depth is the same as the
in coming breaking wave height. The conditions of this case are the same as those for which the
CROSS model was calibrated.
Case(c) : The run-up and set-up are the same as Case (a). The active water depth is 1.28 times
the incoming breaking wave height.
Case(d) : The run-up and set-up are same as Case (b).The active water depth is 1.28 times
the incoming breaking wave height.


RESULTS
The numerical results from the five models are evaluated in terms of several parameters. A
comparison of measured and predicted profile changes is provided by the residual parameter, Res,
defined as a non-dimensional variable
n



i=l
E (hi -h )2
Res =
(hnbi hai)2



Where h is the water depth, the subscribes "p" and "m" denote predicted and measured, respectively,
"b" and "a" indicate before and after storm conditions, respectively, and i represents the "i" th
location on the profile. The minimum possible value of Res is zero, which corresponds to a perfect
simulation. The dune erosion is represented by the eroded volume and beach retreat at the 10 foot
contour. To provide a measure of erosion and retreat, two different errors are presented: the root
mean square error, ERR,,, and the algebraical error, ERRa,. These are expressed as:
n
E (S -Sm)2
ERR, = (4)

j=1









breaking wave height. In this sensitivity study, two different active water depths have been
investigated. It appears that beach and dune erosion is dependent on the active water depth.
Increasing the active water depth by 28%, the eroded volume increases by about 30-40% and the
retreat at the 10 foot contour increases by about 20-30%.
(2) Wave Run-up and Set-up
In the EDUNE model, both fixed run-up and Hunt's run-up model are tested. It was found
that a properly chosen fixed run-up yields profiles that are approximately the same as those from
Hunt's run-up model. The appropriate fixed run-up is that which occurs at the peak of the storm.
Wave set-up is an important factor in both the EDUNE and CROSS models. After including set-up,
the run-up should be reduced by the value of the corresponding set-up. This is in accordance with
Hunt's experiments. The case with run-up only predicts much less dune erosion than the
corresponding case with combinations of run-up and set-up although water reaches to the same
upper limit in both cases. Overall, the combination of set-up and run-up gives more reasonable
results in both the EDUNE and CROSS models.


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The applicability of five numerical models to represent beach and dune erosion at Ocean
City, Maryland resulting from the major storms of November 11, 1991 and January 4, 1992 have
been examined. The five models CCCL, EDUNE, SBEACH (two versions) and CROSS are
applied and compared with the measured profiles. Seven profiles located from 37th Street to 124th
Street were surveyed on November 2, 1991, and January 11, 1992, before and after two storms
respectively. Since the net volume changes in most profiles are quite different from zero due to
gradients in long shore sediment transport, an "adjusted profile" is also evaluated as established by
shifting the active profile horizontally a proper distance to yield a zero net volume change. The
profiles from the numerical simulations are compared with both measured and shifted profiles. The
input parameters in each model are designed to fit the conditions of their respective calibrations. The
"2.5" factor is included in the CCCL model in this application. The sensitivities of model predictions
to wave run-up, wave set-up and active water depth are studied in EDUNE and CROSS models.
Three error parameters are defined to evaluate the agreement between the predicted and
measured profiles. First a residual non-dimensional error is used to evaluate depth changes over the









entire active profile. Two kinds of error (root mean square and algebraic average) are given to
estimate the prediction of dune erosion. Case (b) of CROSS yields the smallest residual, the CCCL
model overpredicts the eroded volume, EDUNE and two versions of SBEACH underpredict it, while
Case (b) of CROSS agrees with measured eroded volumes very well. For beach retreat at the 10 foot
contour, Cases (b) and (d) of EDUNE and Case (b) of CROSS provide good predictions, the CCCL
model overpredicts average beach retreat by about 56% and the two SBEACH models underpredict
by about 60%. Overall, Case (b) of CROSS provides quite good results for both residuals and dune
erosion.
The predicted dune erosion is quite sensitive to active water depth. Increasing the active
water depth by 28% results in a 30-40% increasing in average eroded volume and a 20-30%
increasing in average beach retreat at the 10 foot contour. A properly chosen fixed run-up yields very
similar predictions to Hunt's run-up model with a time-varying run-up. The appropriate fixed run-up
is that which occurs at the peak of the storm. Wave set-up plays an important role in the prediction
of erosion. When using Hunt's equation, after including set-up in a model, the run-up should be
reduced by the value of the corresponding set-up to be consistent with Hunt's experimental set-up
and analysis method. The cases with combinations of set-up and run-up yield smaller residuals and
more reasonable dune erosion than the cases with run-up only. This result is acceptable because both
run-up and set-up occur in the field during storms. For conducting a better numerical simulation, the
use of combined set-up and run-up together is highly recommended in the EDUNE and CROSS
models.
The overprediction by 56% of the 10 foot contour retreat by the CCCL model is consistent
with the application of the model for setting Florida's Coastal Construction Control Line to
incorporate a reasonable percentage of the longshore variability of dune erosion.









breaking wave height. In this sensitivity study, two different active water depths have been
investigated. It appears that beach and dune erosion is dependent on the active water depth.
Increasing the active water depth by 28%, the eroded volume increases by about 30-40% and the
retreat at the 10 foot contour increases by about 20-30%.
(2) Wave Run-up and Set-up
In the EDUNE model, both fixed run-up and Hunt's run-up model are tested. It was found
that a properly chosen fixed run-up yields profiles that are approximately the same as those from
Hunt's run-up model. The appropriate fixed run-up is that which occurs at the peak of the storm.
Wave set-up is an important factor in both the EDUNE and CROSS models. After including set-up,
the run-up should be reduced by the value of the corresponding set-up. This is in accordance with
Hunt's experiments. The case with run-up only predicts much less dune erosion than the
corresponding case with combinations of run-up and set-up although water reaches to the same
upper limit in both cases. Overall, the combination of set-up and run-up gives more reasonable
results in both the EDUNE and CROSS models.


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The applicability of five numerical models to represent beach and dune erosion at Ocean
City, Maryland resulting from the major storms of November 11, 1991 and January 4, 1992 have
been examined. The five models CCCL, EDUNE, SBEACH (two versions) and CROSS are
applied and compared with the measured profiles. Seven profiles located from 37th Street to 124th
Street were surveyed on November 2, 1991, and January 11, 1992, before and after two storms
respectively. Since the net volume changes in most profiles are quite different from zero due to
gradients in long shore sediment transport, an "adjusted profile" is also evaluated as established by
shifting the active profile horizontally a proper distance to yield a zero net volume change. The
profiles from the numerical simulations are compared with both measured and shifted profiles. The
input parameters in each model are designed to fit the conditions of their respective calibrations. The
"2.5" factor is included in the CCCL model in this application. The sensitivities of model predictions
to wave run-up, wave set-up and active water depth are studied in EDUNE and CROSS models.
Three error parameters are defined to evaluate the agreement between the predicted and
measured profiles. First a residual non-dimensional error is used to evaluate depth changes over the











Table L. The predicted residuals, eroded volumes and retreat for the beach at 37th Street.
Residual eroded vol. retreat at 10 ft
Model Case
w/o adjust. with adjust. ft3 / ft contour ( ft)
w/o adjust. 72.6 6.88
Measurement
with adjust. 522.1 43.93
CCCL 1.286 0.443 895.3 69.50
Case (a) 0.588 0.512 83.6 15.74

Case (b) 0.540 0.272 288.1 36.37
EDUNE
Case (c) 0.580 0.547 86.3 7.46

Case (d) 0.519 0.265 304.2 38.82
Case (a) 0.578 0.491 261.4 15.75
Case (b) 0.440 0.135 465.9 48.94
CROSS
Case (c) 0.941 0.851 343.8 18.95

Case (d) 0.772 0.477 584.8 53.77

SBEACH (version 2.0) 1.074 1.075 176.7 11.66
SBEACH ( version 3.0) 0.664 0.613 269.7 15.87


Table 2. The predicted residuals, eroded volumes and retreat for the beach at 45th Street.
Residual eroded vol. retreat at 10 ft
Model Case
w/o adjust, with adjust, ft3 / ft contour (ft)
w/o adjust. 219.1 27.33
Measurement
with adjust. 316.7 36.53
CCCL 1.067 0.851 649.7 60.16
Case (a) 0.624 0.604 143.5 21.35
Case (b) 0.463 0.430 272.7 44.29
EDUNE
Case (c) 0.666 0.652 115.6 16.68
Case (d) 0.441 0.404 296.6 42.99
Case (a) 0.561 0.535 211.8 18.76
Case (b) 0.257 0.229 385.6 50.04
CROSS
Case (c) 1.025 0.947 288.8 23.02
Case (d) 0.761 0.677 499.9 58.67

SBEACH ( version 2.0) 1.018 0.970 137.2 9.72
SBEACH (version 3.0) 0.734 0.711 250.7 22.28











Table 3. The predicted residuals, eroded volumes and retreat for the beach at 56th Street.
Residual eroded vol. retreat at 10 ft
Model Case
w/o adjust. with adjust. ft3 / ft contour ( ft)
w/o adjust. 98.2 7.56
Measurement
with adjust. 29.3 1.11

CCCL 1.505 1.761 306.5 38.90
Case (a) 1.812 1.725 -57.8 12.23
Case (b) 1.087 1.039 34.4 20.58
EDUNE
Case (c) 1.773 1.688 -20.6 5.22
Case (d) 1.037 0.995 59.9 22.56
Case (a) 1.320 1.313 81.3 8.76
Case (b) 1.019 1.093 238.0 37.95
CROSS
Case (c) 2.400 2.489 175.1 13.24
Case (d) 2.631 2.852 403.3 47.91

SBEACH (version 2.0 ) 2.971 2.976 41.6 7.47
SBEACH (version 3.0 ) 1.588 1.528 64.1 10.90


Table 4. The predicted residuals, eroded volumes and retreat for the beach at 63rd Street.
Residual eroded vol. 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. 478.6 97.16
CCCL 1.960 1.966 573.9 65.87
Case (a) 0.797 0.795 185.0 29.31
Case (b) 0.519 0.518 267.1 45.12
EDUNE
Case (c) 0.928 0.926 143.4 22.66
Case (d) 0.521 0.519 263.8 42.71
Case (a) 0.863 0.862 164.7 21.50

Case (b) 0.374 0.372 330.1 49.10
CROSS Case (c) 1.220 1.221 295.1 31.32

Case (d) 0.866 0.866 507.7 66.21
SBEACH (version 2.0 ) 0.803 0.802 142.7 15.07
SBEACH (version 3.0 ) 0.646 0.645 268.4 17.62











Table 5. The predicted residuals, eroded volumes and retreat for the beach at 74th Street.
Residual eroded vol. retreat at 10 ft
Model Case
w/o adjust. with adjust, ft3 / ft contour ( ft)
w/o adjust. 538.7 71.04
Measurement
with adjust. 588.4 78.24
CCCL 0.610 0.515 933.0 101.68
Case (a) 0.534 0.530 421.4 53.09
Case (b) 0.352 0.353 502.4 88.60
EDUNE
Case (c) 0.595 0.599 374.0 39.42
Case (d) 0.345 0.348 492.1 69.10
Case (a) 0.531 0.537 340.1 29.48
Case (b) 0.214 0.231 496.3 60.12
CROSS Case (c) 0.730 0.718 466.9 39.29

Case (d) 0.595 0.586 671.2 79.63

SBEACH( version 2.0) 0.936 0.935 173.5 13.71
SBEACH( version 3.0 ) 0.526 0.527 319.80 41.61


Table 6. The predicted residuals, eroded volumes and retreat for the beach at 103rd Street.
Residual eroded vol. 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
CCCL 2.233 1.499 1314.6 127.70
Case (a) 0.548 0.413 575.8 65.75
Case (b) 0.541 0.419 617.0 76.41
EDUNE
Case (c) 0.532 0.433 527.9 50.21
Case (d) 0.521 0.409 614.3 72.97
Case (a) 0.436 0.374 505.3 41.78
Case (b) 0.376 0.303 653.3 70.29
CROSS Case (c) 0.654 0.478 695.3 55.85

Case (d) 0.783 0.543 907.0 94.05

SBEACH (version 2.0 ) 0.596 0.590 209.2 23.07
SBEACH (version 3.0 ) 0.510 0.433 359..0 34.80











Table 7. The predicted residuals, eroded volumes and retreat for the beach at 124th Street.
Residual eroded vol. retreat at 10 ft
Model Case
w/o adjust. with adjust, ft3 / ft contour ( ft)
w/o adjust. 431.4 33.17
Measurement
with adjust. 497.0 39.09

CCCL 3.131 2.821 1432.5 104.00

Case (a) 1.000 0.968 477.3 48.51

Case (b) 0.740 0.700 543.4 56.32
EDUNE
Case (c) 1.010 1.004 420.3 32.96

Case (d) 0.698 0.670 532.0 53.63

Case (a) 0.889 0.882 451.4 29.64

Case (b) 0.543 0.519 607.5 57.17
CROSS Case (c) 1.700 1.630 674.8 43.58

Case (d) 1.781 1.681 940.8 80.01

SBEACH (version 2.0) 1.122 1.136 108.5 10.86

SBEACH (version 3.0) 0.802 0.805 180.2 15.96




Table 8. The residuals averaged over seven profiles.
Residual
Model Case
w/o adjust. with adjust.

CCCL 1.685 1.408

Case (a) 0.843 0.793

Case (b) 0.606 0.533
EDUNE
Case (c) 0.869 0.836

Case (d) 0.583 0.516

Case (a) 0.740 0.714

Case (b) 0.460 0.412
CROSS
Case (c) 1.239 1.191

Case (d) 1.170 1.097

SBEACH (version 2.0) 1.217 1.212

SBEACH ( version 3.0 ) 0.781 0.752













Table 9. Root mean square and algebraic averaged errors for eroded volumes.
w/o adjustment with adjustment
Model Case
ERRms ERRa ERRms ERRa,
CCCL 2.87 1.66 1.06 0.96

Case (a) 0.15 -0.20 0.21 -0.41

Case (b) 0.14 0.10 0.07 -0.19
EDUNE
Case (c) 0.18 -0.28 0.25 -0.47

Case (d) 0.15 0.12 0.07 -0.17
Case (a) 0.18 -0.12 0.17 -0.35

Case (b) 0.30 0.38 0.06 0.02
CROSS Case (c) 0.25 0.28 0.08 -0.05

Case (d) 0.93 0.96 0.27 0.45
SBEACH ( version 2.0 ) 0.44 -0.57 0.49 -0.68
SBEACH (version 3.0 ) 0.21 -0.26 0.23 -0.45





Table 10. Root mean square and algebraic averaged errors for retreat at the 10 foot contour.

w/o adjustment with adjustment
Model Case
ERRr, ERR,, ERR,, ERRav
CCCL 1.07 0.97 0.48 0.56
Case (a) 0.31 -0.15 0.26 -0.32

Case (b) 0.32 0.28 0.15 0.01
EDUNE
Case (c) 0.37 -0.39 0.37 -0.52

Case (d) 0.31 0.19 0.15 -0.06
Case (a) 0.42 -0.43 0.40 -0.54

Case (b) 0.37 0.30 0.18 0.03
CROSS Case (c) 0.32 -0.22 0.28 -0.38

Case (d) 0.57 0.67 0.24 0.32

SBEACH ( version 2.0 ) 0.61 -0.56 0.59 -0.65
SBEACH (version 3.0) 0.42 -0.45 0.42 -0.56


















Profiles at 37th Street


0 CCCL

0
0 measured at Nov.2,91
measured at Jan.11,92
!0 ......... predicted after two storms
>n> I I I I i I


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


1000 1200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


Fig. 3 Comparisons of the predicted and measured profiles at 37th Street.


,> -1



(Q)
(I)


!00


200


ISBEACH (version 2.0)


.............


-2













-3C
-2


'00


200


1000


12


10- SBEACH (version 3.0)
0

10-

20-
o r > t___II lI I --


C13
S::
0

> -
(I)
cW _


800


800


-200
-200


.00














i00


200


1000


12













Profiles at 37th Street


EDUNE: Case (a)


measured at Nov.2,91
- measured at Jan.11,9;
- ......... predicted after two sto


)rms
2
rms


200


200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


800


U
10
20
qn I -I I I I I-


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


1000 1200


1000


1200


1000


10
0
-10
-20
-30
-2(


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


Fig. 3 Continued.


S10

i0


a -20


((] S


-200


-1

-c


EDUNE: Case (b)


O
0-
10 .
I'.)

AO


200
-200


10


C
O::
0
0) -
a3 _


EDUNE: Case (c)


-200


800


1000


'_1


30











DO0


00


-


-. EDUNE: Case (d)



- -I-II


-~


12


12


_)(













Profiles at 37th Street


0
10 -- measured at Nov.2,91
measured at Jan.11,92
20 ......... predicted after two storms
onI I sIII


200


0 200


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


1000 1200


Fig. 3 Continued.


10


0


0-
>-
u_


CROSS: Case (a)


-200
-200


1000


t-
3

0-
-r
ci)


1200


CROSS: Case (b)


0-


0-
0-

2n


800


800


800


1000


- CROSS: Case (c)



I I I I I
-,


200


10

0

-10
-20
-30
-2(


S10

I- 0
> -10
_ -20


1000


12


SCROSS: Case (d)


-OU
-200


II A I I--


12


00











00


i (


><


00

















Profiles at 45th Street


)- CCCL


S_--- measured at Nov.2,91 '
measured at Jan.11,92 s
) ......... predicted after two storms


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


1000 1200


200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


0
10L
20-
Or .I 1-


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


Fig. 4 Comparisons of the predicted and measured profiles at 45th Street.


->30
-2C





10

C 0
i-i10
_ -20


SBEACH (version 2.0)


on'


-ou
-200


800


10


1000


1200


C::

a:;
a:' -


SBEACH (version 3.0)


-200


800


1000


1200


)0


or3













Profiles at 45th Street


' 10

S0

> -10
a -20


0 200


0 200


0 200


10
0
-10
-20
-30
-2



10
0
-10
-20
-30
-2



10
0
-10
-20
-30
-2


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


Fig. 4 Continued.


EDUNE: Case (a)


measured at Nov.2,91' -
- measured atJan.11,92
- ......... predicted after two storms


EDUNE: Case (b)


1000


12


-CI I


-200


0 200


1000


EDUNE: Case (c)


124


800


800


800


800


00










00










00










00


1000


EDUNE: Case (d)


12(


1000


12(


00


00


00


)






)


(













Profiles at 45th Street


200


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


10
0
-10
-20
-30
-2(


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


Fig. 4 Continued.


" 10
. 0
> -10-
o -20
-30
-200


CROSS: Case (a)


----- measured at Nov.2,91 :
- measured at Jan.11,92
......... predicted after two storms


10 CROSS: Case (b)
0
10 -
20
_ 0 I I I I I I


C
0
ciz
D-


800


800


-200


1000


1000


1200


1200











1200


CROSS: Case (d)


800


1000


1200


I


ii


>


00

















Profiles at 56th Street
---- ---- i ---- i ---- --- T-- --- -- --

)- CCCL


S, measured at Nov.2,91
measured at Jan.11,92
) ......... predicted after two storms


0 200


0 200


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


800


800


Fig. 5 Comparisons of the predicted and measured profiles at 56th Street.


.00


1000


12'


SBEACH (version 2.0)


g'c


a' -2C
-3C
-2


-30
-2(


-200
-200


1000


121


00













30













DO0


SBEACH (version 3.0)


1000


121


O0


3n













Profiles at 56th Street
I I I I I I

0 EDUNE: Case (a)
0
-- measured at Nov.2,91 .
- measured at Jan.11,92
.0 ......... predicted after two storms
!0 1 1 1 1 ---
200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 12
offshore distance [ft]


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


1000 1200


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


1000 1200


Fig. 5 Continued.


C-
>-1
0

C
c
-3
""-


EDUNE: Case (b)


10
g 10

S10

D -20

-30
-2(


00


10
0
-10
-20
-30
-2(


EDUNE: Case (c)


800


1000


EDUNE: Case (d)


10
0
-10
-20
-30
-2(


1200


00


00


00













Profiles at 56th Street


10- measured at Nov.2,91
measured at Jan.11,92
20 ......... predicted after two storms
ni ii i i i


200


200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


0
10-
20
Ln iii I Ii


200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


1000 1200


0 200 400 600 800 1000
offshore distance [ft]


1200


Fig. 5 Continued.


10


0
ta
>-
_,
CD


CROSS: Case (a)


I I I I I(b)
- CROSS: Case (b)


1000


12


-2(



S10

I0 0
>-10
a -20

-30
-2(


10


800


800


00











00


1000


0


a,-


12


I I


CROSS: Case (c)


-\f
-200



10
0 0-
> -10 -

, -20
-30
-200


00


00

















Profiles at 63rd Street


CCCL


Measured at Nov.2,91 -' .
-- measured at Jan.11,92 .-
) ......... predicted after two storms
i i I i i-i


200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


1000 1200


SBEACH (version 2.0)


_n lI I


200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


1000


1200


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


Fig. 6 Comparisons of the predicted and measured profiles at 63rd Street.


S10C

Sc
> -10

-2C
-3C
-2


_00


" 10

0 0
> -10
_ -20


-200


0 "- SBEACH (version 3.0)
0 -----........ .. 2--------.---.
0
10 IIII
0-
>o-n- ^ -- -


1
0
> -1
0-2
__q


-200


800


1000


1200


I


...
--













Profiles at 63rd Street


EDUNE: Case (a)


- -- measured at Nov.2,91
- measured at Jan.11,92
- ......... predicted after two storms


200


200


200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


0 -" .
-10
20-
o n __ I I I I I I


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


800


800


800


1000


1000


1000


1000


Fig. 6 Continued.


K


10

0 0
> -10
a20
a) -20


~4Ifl


-200


' 10

0- 0
> -10
o -20


I I I I I I
- EDUNE: Case (b)

'e- l*


-200
-200


0 --EDUNE: Case (c)

0-
0-
0-
In*^


S1
0


a,-


-200


1200


1200


1200


1200


10


O


0 -
O


EDUNE: Case (d)


-200
-200


I


f













Profiles at 63rd Street


- --- CROSS: Case (a)


Measured at Nov.2,91
-- measured at Jan.11,92
) ......... predicted after two storms
I II


200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


1000


1200


U
10
20
ra _____ I ________________ I ----- I ----------


200


200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


800


1000 1200


1000


1200


-200


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


Fig. 6 Continued.


g 1C
Sc
.i
) -
(D-2C
oIr


-200


10


U)-


CROSS: Case (b)


-oU
-200


g 10


-0

-20


- CROSS: Case (c)

....
-.....


In I I I II I


-200
-200


C~
0
U)


10 -- CROSS: Case (d)
O
10 -. .
20
>o I --II-i


800


1000


1200


_Q


















Profiles at 74th Street


) CCCL


) measured at Nov.2,91
-measured at Jan.11,92
) ........ predicted after two storms
" I I I -I I I


0 200


>-I
a' -2C
-3C
-2








. I0
>1c
a,
-_ 2C

-3C
-2






1 CC

C

> -1c
-r-2C
_3C
_4


ic


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


800


800


Fig. 7 Comparisons of the predicted and measured profiles at 74th Street.


1000


12(


0 200


\ SBEACH (version 2.0)



.. .. ... .


1000


SBEACH (version 3.0)



. . .


12(


30














30














30


1000


124


00


00


30


0 200














Profiles at 74th Street


)- EDUNE: Case (a)


S----- measured at Nov.2,91 .
measured at Jan.11,92 s
) ......... predicted after two storms .-- -......
I I I l I I


200


Sc

-13C
-20







c
-2C











-3C
-2
-12


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


1000


800


800


0
10-

2 0 ............
,nr" II I I III I


200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


0o '.---. ---
0

10
20 ........
h Q-llI l I


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


800


1000


1000


1000


Fig. 7 Continued.


200


10


12


- EDUNE: Case (b)




_............


00












00


0

)-


12


EDUNE: Case (c)


-ov
-200


10


Ct


a)
a-)
O_


I I


EDUNE: Case (d)


-200


1200


1200


-


30


30


;
_!(












!_(













Profiles at 74th Street


.. CROSS: Case (a)


-----measured at Nov.2,91
measured at Jan.11,92 :_ -
- ......... predicted after two storms
II I I I I


0 200


10
0

10
20
30
-2(



10

0
10
20
30
-2(


400


600


offshore distance [ft]


'C
a)
_a
a-










>-










Cz
(D






>-
cu-








0

U)
) -


1000


800


800


121


1000


12


10 -- CROSS: Case (c)
0
10-
20
nI I I I I I


200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


1000


0 200 400 600 800 1000
offshore distance [ft]


12


00











00











00


1200


Fig. 7 Continued.


0 200


I I I I I I


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


-2(



10
0
10
20

30
-2


DO











00


30


30


I,

















Profiles at 103rd Street

) ~ CCCL


S- measured at Nov.2,91 '
r measured at Jan.11,92 --...
S- ......... predicted after two storms
"I' I I I '


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


1000 1200


-- SBEACH (version 3.0)
7 .o


200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


1000


1200


Fig. 8 Comparisons of the predicted and measured profiles at 103rd Street.


S10


> -10
> 1
) -2C
-3C
-2


!00


1000


1200


) SBEACH (version 2.0)





- ----i- i -i -


.00


S10C
0 c
>-1c
,2
) -2C

-3C
-2


S10

0 0
) -10
( -20


-200


?n I I I I













Profiles at 103rd Street

SEDUNE: Case (a)


----- measured at Nov.2,91
- measured at Jan.11,92
......... predicted after two storms
____ I ___ I ___ I ________ I ---- I ---


0 200


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400


600


offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


1000 1200


-200


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


Fig. 8 Continued.


-30
-2(


--O
-200


1000


121


800


800


DO











00


0 EDUNE: Case (c)
0
0

o-


1000


o


u) -2


12


200


-200


" 10
10


1) -20
-20


EDUNE: Case (d)


N5


-I


800


1000


1200


EDUNE: Case (b)


~ni I I I I I


00


o0


_













Profiles at 103rd Street

SCROSS: Case (a)


- measured at Nov.2,91 .
- measured at Jan.11,92 ..
. ......... predicted after two storms
I I II I


0 200


0 200


,ni I


200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


-10 -
-20
/o n I I I I I I


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


1000 1200


Fig. 8 Continued.


1000


- ~ CROSS: Case (b)




I I I I I I


12


-30
-2(



S10

I 0
S-10
o -20
-30
-2(



- 10

I0 0
> -10
a)
o -20


00










00


800


800


800


= CROSS: Case (c)

..... .


12


1000


1000


-200


10


t--

O_


1200


CROSS: Case (d)


-200


30


)0


m.



















Profiles at 124th Street


CCCL


------ measured at Nov.2,91 '
measured at Jan.11,92
- ......... predicted after two storms


200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


'S..I


U


20


200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


SBEACH (version 2.0)


800


1000 1200


I I


SBEACH (version 3.0)


0

10-

2 0 ~


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


1000


1200


Fig. 9 Comparisons of the predicted and measured profiles at 124th Street.


' 10

'0 0
as
> -10
-20


-200


10


1000


1200


0


a,-


10


C


a,-


-200


"' '


i B


I


m


m














Profiles at 124th Street


0 EDUNE: Case (a)
0
0 measured at Nov.2,91
-.- measured at Jan.11,92 .
.0 ......... predicted after two storms
0I I I I I I


0 200


200


400


600


offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


1000 1200


0 200 400 600 800 1000
offshore distance [ft]


1200


Fig. 9 Continued.


0
S-1
U,
o-2
-3
-


200
-200


-'' 10

0 0
> -10
a-
0-_20
OA


-200
-200


800


1000


1200


SEDUNE: Case (b)





__I I I I_


C

cu
0
4-.
O
.m

oD_


800


1000


10 EDUNE: Case (c)
0

10

20
,fn III II


1200


-200


-10-

-20-
-30
-200













Profiles at 124th Street


SCROSS: Case (a)


-- --- measured at Nov.2,91 '-..
measured at Jan.11,92
- ......... predicted after two storms


0 200


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


800


800


12


1000


1000


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


10
0
-10
-20
-30
-2(


1200










1200


0- CROSS: Case (d)
0
0
0
0 --A---


0 200


400 600
offshore distance [ft]


Fig. 9 Continued.


00


" 10
0 0
> -10
S-20
-30
-2(


I CROSS: Case (b)



I I I I I


0
c1-

CU
(D -2
-3


800


1000


1200


00


00


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 comparisons 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.
Zheng, J. and Dean, R. G. 1995. "Comparisons of erosion models for January 4, 1992, storm at
Ocean City, Maryland" Tech. Report UFL/COEL-95/002, Dept. of Coastal and Ocean. Eng.,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.




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