Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

Application of a Cross-Shore Profile Evolution Model to Barred Beaches

Mohamed A. K. Elsayed
Journal of Coastal Research
Vol. 22, No. 3 (May, 2006), pp. 645-663
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4300319
Page Count: 19
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($20.00)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Application of a Cross-Shore Profile Evolution Model to Barred Beaches
Preview not available

Abstract

A cross-shore profile evolution model, Uniform Beach Sediment Transport-Time-Averaged Cross-Shore (UNIBEST-TC), is used in the present study. The model was developed at WL/Delft hydraulic laboratory in the Netherlands and comprises a conglomerate of submodels representing identified processes of cross-shore sediment transport. Validation of UNIBEST-TC was carried out using the collected field data at the Egmond site in the Netherlands and at the Duck site in the US. The model is capable of predicting wave height and wave direction for both sites (Egmond site and Duck site). The prediction of long-shore current is reasonable for the Egmond site, but it is unsatisfactory for the Duck site. The difference between the measured and the predicted values for long-shore current and cross-shore current is partly due to the difference between the measured values, which are at a certain depth, and the predicted values that are depth-averaged velocity. Beside that, the turbulence in the breaker zone leads to errors in the measurements, which could be another factor. It is shown in the present study that on relative small scales, opposite morphological behavior is present. Therefore, morphodynamic profile modeling requires a representative characteristic bottom profile. To achieve a qualitative data for the calibration of the model, it is suggested that field measurements should include error ranges. Furthermore, the effect of small variations of the water depth on the processing of the signals should also be taken into account.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
[645]
    [645]
  • Thumbnail: Page 
646
    646
  • Thumbnail: Page 
647
    647
  • Thumbnail: Page 
648
    648
  • Thumbnail: Page 
649
    649
  • Thumbnail: Page 
650
    650
  • Thumbnail: Page 
651
    651
  • Thumbnail: Page 
652
    652
  • Thumbnail: Page 
653
    653
  • Thumbnail: Page 
654
    654
  • Thumbnail: Page 
655
    655
  • Thumbnail: Page 
656
    656
  • Thumbnail: Page 
657
    657
  • Thumbnail: Page 
658
    658
  • Thumbnail: Page 
659
    659
  • Thumbnail: Page 
660
    660
  • Thumbnail: Page 
661
    661
  • Thumbnail: Page 
662
    662
  • Thumbnail: Page 
663
    663