4.6 Article

Modeling Lagrangian residual velocity in a tide-dominated long-narrow bay: case study of the inner Xiangshan Bay

期刊

ESTUARINE COASTAL AND SHELF SCIENCE
卷 278, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecss.2022.108088

关键词

Lagrangian residual velocity; FVCOM; Inner xiangshan bay; Mass transport

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [41630966, U2106204]
  2. Youth Talent Support Program of the Laboratory for Marine Ecology and Environmental Science, Pilot National Laboratory for Marine Science and Technology (QNLM) [LMEES-YTSP-2018-02-03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many tide-dominated long-narrow bays worldwide face marine pollution due to their semi-enclosed nature. This study focused on the inner Xiangshan Bay in the East China Sea, investigating the three-dimensional mass transport within the bay. The results showed that the mass transport was mainly controlled by the balance between tidal-averaged barotropic gradient force and tidal body force.
Many tide-dominated long-narrow bays worldwide face marine pollution because of their semi-enclosed nature. The Lagrangian residual velocity (LRV) characterizes the mass transport in shallow seas. Therefore, studying LRV is helpful for solving marine environmental problems. In this study, the inner Xiangshan Bay along the coast of the East China Sea was used as an example to study 3D LRVs in a tide-dominated long-narrow bay. The LRV pattern and its dynamic mechanism were analyzed. The LRV flowed outward in the deep central area and inward in the shallow areas along the bank, with no apparent variation in the vertical direction. Study results indicated that the main controlling dynamics of the LRV were the balance of the tidal-averaged barotropic gradient force and the tidal body force. Additionally, the LRV showed good correspondence with mass transport and previous study in an ideal tide-dominated long-narrow model bay, which provides a reference for pollution control.

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

4.6
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