1995
DOI: 10.1016/0378-3839(94)00040-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of 10 cross-shore sediment transport/ morphological models

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
19
0
2

Year Published

2005
2005
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 54 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
19
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Thornton [54]; Gallagher et al [55]) have been able to predict observed morphological change with a reasonable degree of accuracy. However, under calm conditions, these same models perform poorly and generally cannot predict onshore sediment movement [55][56][57]. Exploring wave characteristics and the sediment transporting relationship is a basic approach to improve the accuracy for modeling.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thornton [54]; Gallagher et al [55]) have been able to predict observed morphological change with a reasonable degree of accuracy. However, under calm conditions, these same models perform poorly and generally cannot predict onshore sediment movement [55][56][57]. Exploring wave characteristics and the sediment transporting relationship is a basic approach to improve the accuracy for modeling.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each homogenous littoral cell was divided into two parts in order to It was evaluated, by comparing few methods [72], that the cross-shore sediment transport Q CR was heading offshore and approximately equal to 1 m 3 /km/year, except where the cell boundary element is a river mouth, where an additional contribution is assessed to simulate the sediment plume losses.…”
Section: Description Of the Area And Assessment Of Sediment Budgetmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For different study areas, three types of models have been classified (Roelvink and Reniers, 2012): coastal profile models, where the focus is on the cross-shore processed and the long-shore variability is neglected (Roelvink and Brøker, 1993;Schoonees and Theron, 1995), coastline models, where the cross-shore profiles are assumed to retain their shape even when the coast advances or retreats (Szmytkiewicz et al, 2000) and coastal area models, where variations in both horizontal dimensions are resolved (Nicholson et al, 1997).…”
Section: Coastal Area Models: 2dh and 3d Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%