Development of a medium–long term beach evolution model

Requejo, Soledad; Medina, Raúl; González, M.

doi:10.1016/j.coastaleng.2008.04.005

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are numerous studies on El Puntal analysing the morphodynamics of the northern face and the west end (Losada et al, 1992;Kroon et al, 2007;Requejo et al, 2008;Medellín et al, 2008Medellín et al, , 2009Gutiérrez et al, 2011), but the lower-energy southern face remains unstudied. The incoming swell from the Cantabrian Sea only reaches the northern face of the spit (Medellín et al, 2008).…”

Section: Study Sitementioning

confidence: 99%

Intertidal finger bars at El Puntal, Bay of Santander, Spain: observation and forcing analysis

2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. A system of 15 small-scale finger bars has been observed, by using video imagery, between 23 June 2008 and 2 June 2010. The bar system is located in the intertidal zone of the swell-protected beaches of El Puntal Spit, in the Bay of Santander (northern coast of Spain). The bars appear on a planar beach (slope = 0.015) with fine, uniform sand (D50 = 0.27 mm) and extend 600 m alongshore. The cross-shore span of the bars is determined by the tidal horizontal excursion (between 70 and 130 m). They have an oblique orientation with respect to the low-tide shoreline; specifically, they are down-current-oriented with respect to the dominant sand transport computed (mean angle of 26° from the shore normal). Their mean wavelength is 26 m and their amplitude varies between 10 and 20 cm. The full system slowly migrates to the east (sand transport direction) with a mean speed of 0.06 m day-1, a maximum speed in winter (up to 0.15 m day-1) and a minimum speed in summer. An episode of merging has been identified as bars with larger wavelength seem to migrate more slowly than shorter bars. The wind blows predominantly from the west, generating waves that transport sediment across the bars during high-tide periods. This is the main candidate to explain the eastward migration of the system. In particular, the wind can generate waves of up to 20 cm (root-mean-squared wave height) over a fetch that can reach 4.5 km at high tide. The astronomical tide seems to be important in the bar dynamics, as the tidal level changes the fetch and also determines the time of exposure of the bars to the surf-zone waves and currents. Furthermore, the river discharge could act as input of suspended sediment in the bar system and play a role in the bar dynamics.

show abstract

Section: Study Sitementioning

confidence: 99%

Intertidal finger bars at El Puntal, Bay of Santander, Spain: observation and forcing analysis

2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Requejo et al (2008) presented a beach evolution model by combing an analyticallyintegrated sediment conservation equation with a beach profile model. These hybrid models are flexible and have achieved certain success in engineering applications.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An OpenMI-based combined model for alongshore sediment transport and shoreline change

Zhou

Blanco

Nicholls

2013

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Maritime En

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

2 3This paper describes the extension of a state-of-the-art one-line model in terms of alongshore sediment transport rate by linking with a cross-shore profile model through the OpenMI-based Pipistrelle interface. In order to combine these two models, three additional modules (Drift Interpolation module, Vector-to-Scalar module and Orientation Updating module) need to be developed, so that the two models which are based on different assumptions, coordinate systems and set-ups can be linked seamlessly. The existing two models and the three new modules are able to work together as a whole composition (i.e. the combined model) based on the OpenMI standard. This combined model aims to improve the one-line model in terms of alongshore sediment transport and beach morphological response predictability. It adopts both the modified Coastal Engineering Research Centre, USA (CERC) formula and the Energetics approach to calculate the alongshore sediment transport. Tests at a real curved coast demonstrate that the model is numerically stable, effective in computing and able to give reasonable predictions of shoreline change. It demonstrates that further research on linking existing models is promising. Notationbreaking wave energy density (J/m 2 ) e b prescribed efficiencies of bed load e s prescribed efficiencies of suspended load g gravitational acceleration (m/s 2 ) H b breaking wave height (m) I t total immersed weight sediment transport (kg/m per s) K 1 dimensionless calibration coefficient K 2 dimensionless calibration coefficient p porosity of sediment Q alongshore sediment transport rate (m 3 /s) Q b (i) drift values calculated by one-line model for grid point i (m 3 /s) Q c (i) drift values by the combined model for grid point i (m 3 /s) Q9 b (i) linearly-interpolated drift values of one-line model for grid point i (m 3 /s) Q9 c (i) linearly-interpolated drift values of profile model for grid point i (m 3 /s) Q k i alongshore transport at grid point i after k time steps (m 3 /s) q line sources and/or sinks along the shore (m 3 /s per m) r ratio between DQ c (i) and DQ b (i) (introduced above) t time (s) u near-bed water velocity (m/s) w s sediment settling velocity (m/s) x alongshore coordinate (m) y offshore coordinate (m) Maritime Engineering Volume 166 Issue MA4 An OpenMI-based combined model for alongshore sediment transport and shoreline change ICE Publishing: All rights reserved 175 y k i shoreline position at grid point i after k time steps (m) y m i shoreline position predicted by the model at point i (m) y s i shoreline position from survey measurements at point i (m) a b wave breaking angle (˚) bmean slope of the beach face (˚) c s submerged weight of beach material (kg/ m 2 s 2 ) DQ b (i) difference between Q9 b (i) and Q b (i) (introduced below) DQ c (i) difference between Q9 c (i) and Q c (i) (introduced below) r density of water (kg/m 3 ) r s density of sediment (kg/m 3 ) s averaged absolute deviation between model results and survey measurements (m) w angle of internal friction (˚)

show abstract