Systematic Variations in Inshore Bathymetry

Hayden, Bruce P.; Felder, II; Wilson, Fisher; John, Resio; Donald, Vincent; Linwood,

doi:10.21236/ada006393

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this regard, it is of interest to compare our findings with those from previous studies where single curves are fit to profile data, usually of more limited range in depth and height. Single-curve studies [e.g., Bruun, 1954;Hayden et al, 1975;Dean, 1977Dean, , 1991Larson and Kraus, 1989] find values of A = 0.15 and m = 2/3. Our data also give these values when fitted from the breakpoint-bar to mean sea level suggesting that these values are related to the limited range of depth and berm height used in previous studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shorerise and bar‐berm profiles on ocean beaches

Inman¹,

Elwany²,

Jenkins³

1993

J. Geophys. Res.

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A beach equilibrium model is developed that treats the outer (shorerise) portion of the profile independently from that of the inner (bar‐berm) portion. The two portions are matched at the breakpoint‐bar. The partitioning of the profile in this way is consistent with the different forcing modes on either side of the breakpoint. This formulation utilizes beach profile data not previously available. It is shown that both portions of the profile are well fitted by curves of the form h = Axm, where h is positive downward and x is the positive offshore coordinate. Surprisingly, the value of m ≈ 0.4 is nearly the same for shorerise and bar‐berm and does not change significantly with seasonal beach changes (summer/winter). The principal difference between seasonal profiles is that in winter (higher waves) the breakpoint‐bar is deeper and farther offshore while the berm crest is displaced landward. Thus the changes in seasonal equilibria are manifested by simple, self‐similar displacements of the bar‐berm and shorerise curves as a consequence of changes in surf zone width and O(1) variations in the factor A.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shorerise and bar‐berm profiles on ocean beaches

Inman¹,

Elwany²,

Jenkins³

1993

J. Geophys. Res.

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This approach has been used in beach evolution studies to analyze spatial and temporal variations in beach profiles and plants (e.g. HAYDEN et al, 1975;WINANT et al, 1975;AUBREY, 1979) and as other eigenvector techniques encompass the representation of the observed data onto a set of shape functions (the EOFs). It should be stated that although the EOFs are optimal in a statistical sense the eigenfunctions do not necessarily have a physical meaning.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seasonal Dynamics of a Microtidal Pocket Beach with Posidonia oceanica Seabeds (Mallorca, Spain)

Basterretxea

Orfila

Jordi

et al. 2004

Journal of Coastal Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The fitted results from Eq. (2) are closer to the measured profiles from the Hayden et al (1975) dataset than those from Eq. (1).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 62%

“…Based on the data of the changes of 504 profiles from the sites along the Mexico and the Atlantic coast in America (Hayden et al, 1975), Dean first simulated these changes of the beach profiles by fitting methods, and then proposed that the EBP formula (Eq. (1)) be adapted in the nearshore zone.…”

Section: Authorsmentioning

confidence: 99%