4.5 Article

Grain size variability on a rip-channeled beach

期刊

MARINE GEOLOGY
卷 287, 期 1-4, 页码 43-53

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.margeo.2011.06.010

关键词

grain size; beaches; digital imaging; nearshore

资金

  1. Deltares Coastal Care (Kustlijnzorg)
  2. Office of Naval Research Coastal Geosciences [N000140510153]
  3. National Science Foundation [OCE0340758, EAR0952164, EAR0952225, OCE0754426]
  4. Directorate For Geosciences
  5. Division Of Earth Sciences [0952225] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Directorate For Geosciences
  7. Division Of Earth Sciences [0952164] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Grain size is an important variable when predicting beach morphodynamics. Beaches, to the eye, seem relatively uniform in grain size and morphodynamic modeling efforts usually assume a single mean grain size for an entire beach environment. Therefore, estimating grain size is traditionally done by collecting only a few samples and averaging to characterize the mean grain size of the whole beach. However, some studies have shown that even small variations in grain size can have a significant effect on model results when predicting beach morphology changes. Here, a mobile digital imaging system (DIS) has been developed for surveying spatial and temporal variation in grain size across a beach following the ideas of Rubin (2004). Using an off-the-shelf camera and underwater housing, macro photographs are taken of sand across a beach, which produce estimates of mean grain size that are highly correlated with estimates from sieves (R-2= 0.92). High resolution maps of mean surface grain size are produced using the DIS (with similar to 1000 images over a 300 x 500 m area), which suggest that large variations in grain size exist (0.2-0.7 mm over tens of meters with accuracies of similar to +/- 0.03 mm) and that there is a correlation between spatial grain size variations and morphological variability. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据