4.7 Article

Morphodynamic modelling of the wilderness breach, Fire Island, New York. Part I: Model set-up and validation

期刊

COASTAL ENGINEERING
卷 157, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.coastaleng.2019.103621

关键词

Breach; Morphology; Delft3D; XBeach; Fire island

资金

  1. U.S. Geological Survey Coastal and Marine Geology Program as part of Hurricane Sandy Supplemental project [GS2-2B]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

On October 29, 2012, storm surge and large waves produced by Hurricane Sandy resulted in the formation of a breach in eastern Fire Island, NY. The goals of this study are to gain a better understanding of the physical processes that govern breach behavior and to assess whether process-based models can be used to forecast the evolution of future breaches. The wilderness breach grew rapidly in size during the first winter following formation. Growth of the breach was accompanied by the formation of a complex of flood shoals inside Great South Bay, a primary channel that flowed through the eastern part of the flood shoals, and an ebb shoal on the ocean side of the breach. From the summer of 2013 through late 2015, the breach continued to change and evolve, albeit at a much slower pace than in the first year after formation. A hybrid combination of Delft3D and XBeach models is used to hindcast the morphodynamic evolution of the wilderness breach over the first three years after formation. The formation of the breach during Hurricane Sandy is not part of the simulations. Model simulations are initiated with a post-storm topography in which the breach is already present. The models are capable of hindcasting the main morphodynamic changes of the wilderness breach. The spatial patterns, as well as the bulk statistics, such as breach geometry and sediment volume changes, are reasonably well reproduced by the model. The model sheds light on previously unknown processes of breach evolution, especially regarding sediment transport and flow regimes within the breach complex.

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

4.7
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