Pocket Perched Beaches Computational Modelling and Calibration in Delft3d
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Pocket perched beaches Computational modelling and calibration in Delft3D REPORT Status: FINAL MSc Thesis F.J.H. Olijslagers September 2003 Delft University of Technology Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences Section of Hydraulic Engineering Pocket perched beaches Computational modelling and calibration in Delft3D Status: FINAL MSc Thesis F.J.H. Olijslagers September 2003 Thesis committee: Prof. dr. ir. M.J.F. Stive, Delft University of Technology Dr. ir. J. van de Graaff, Delft University of Technology Ir. J.H. de Vroeg, WL | Delft Hydraulics Ir. A. Mol, Lievense Consulting Engineers, Breda Drs. P.J.T. Dankers, Delft University of Technology Preface Preface This thesis is the finishing part of the MSc program on the faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences at Delft University of Technology. The study took place under the supervision of Prof. Stive of the section of hydraulic engineering. The work is carried out at Lievense Consulting Engineers in Breda and at the department of Marine and Coastal Infrastructure (MCI) of WL | Delft Hydraulics. This report is aimed to scientists, engineers and other people that are interested in this matter. Special thanks go out to all the thesis committee members in particular, all the employees of Lievense Consulting Engineers for their help, facilities and information on the Third Harbour project, WL | Delft Hydraulics for the facilities, all the people of MCI and MCM of WL | Delft Hydraulics and Dano Roelvink in particular for his support on Delft3D, all the graduating students at WL | Delft Hydraulics for their help and the stimulating environment. Paul Olijslagers Delft, September 1, 2003 i Summary Summary This study was initiated by Lievense Consulting Engineers, who were involved in the Third Harbour project in IJmuiden, the Netherlands. A part of the project was the design of a perched beach. Soon, little information on perched beaches seemed to be available and a need for general design rules arised. In literature, most perched beaches behaved stable in 2DV situations, but after construction, often alongshore effects resulted in unexpected erosion. In IJmuiden, secondary effects caused by non-uniformity were expected to take place. First, an extensive literature study was done. The theory as used is explained, followed by information on pocket beaches and perched beaches. For pocket beaches, different definitions for the bay shape are explained, either between headland breakwaters or between groins. For perched beaches two different options are discerned; the breakwater option and the sill option. Subsequently, different formulations are discussed concerning the location, submergence and width of the submerged structure and the perched beach profile. The advantages go hand in hand with disadvantages of which uncertainty is the main. An extensive inventory of perched beaches listed, most of them with an extensive description of the profile development, either from the mathematical or physical simulation or from the actual prototype beach performance. For sake of better understanding, a mathematical model is used to simulate the perched beach scheme. The model as used is called Delft3D. Computations are done three-dimensionally, with the use of the FLOW, MOR, and WAVE module, the latter based on SWAN. Especially the simulation of the submerged breakwater asked for a special technique. One of them was the wave transmission over the breakwater and non-erodability of the breakwater during the bottom updating. After the model set-up, this model is calibrated with the use of a data set from measurements during physical scale model tests for a perched beach in Gibraltar. For these tests, three different wave conditions and water levels are used in different sequences and for different duration. Several hydraulic aspects are calibrated successfully assuming a fixed bottom in the computational model. Concerning the wave height decay over the breakwater, a different, horizontal bathymetry is used, only for the WAVE computation. First, one imposed transmission coefficient is used to reduce the wave height, but this did not simulate the effect of the crest width. Therefore, nine imposed transmission coefficients are used, i.e. for every grid cell on the breakwater. Though having a good wave height reduction, proper simulation of a transition zone required movement of the imposed transmission coefficient onshore, to delay the initiation of the influence of energy dissipation on the generation of currents. This movement approximated the measured velocities behind the breakwater within the range of acceptation. The wave height reduction offshore of the breakwater and between the breakwater and the shore is controlled by adaptation of the breaker parameter and the wave friction parameter. The water level variation offshore over the breakwater, wave set-up, is controlled by a slight adaptation of the imposed transmission coefficients. After the successful hydraulic calibration, the bottom updating is activated. The first computation approached the measured end bathymetry in broad outlines, but at second sight, there were, sometimes inacceptable, differences. Firstly, although the correlation between wave height and transport rate did agree, the calculated transport was directed onshore where as the measured transport was directed offshore. Adjustment of the horizontal eddy viscosity and diffusivity terms eventually resulted in an offshore directed transport. Secondly, the erosion around the waterline, and especially the erosion of dry cells had to be fine-tuned by a parameter called THETSD. Thirdly, the erosion between the breakwater and the shore was determined by spurious circulation cells, forced by radiation stress gradients. Future versions of Delft3D will handle the forcing of currents by waves in a different way, but for this moment, this problem seemed inevitable. Fourthly, during a validation test, the mass balance seemed to be inconsistent. During the simulation, an artificial production of mass, linear in time and relative to the wave height, took place. The production rate was as large as the transport rate over the breakwater and therefore not negligible. Several parameters and tunings are investigated on the influence of sand production, but none with satisfying result. ii Summary Although the model could not be calibrated on direct measurements of the sediment transport, a sensitivity analysis is done on numerical and empirical parameters. Except for calibration parameters, the influence of variations of numerical parameters was little. Initially, the goal was to investigate the influence of non-uniform boundary conditions and non-uniform geometry on pocket perched beaches with the use of the calibrated model. However, since considerably more effort and time was required to calibrate the model in a cross-shore direction than anticipated, it was decided to stop after this calibration phase. The conclusions as drawn concerning literature is that most of the perched beaches appeared to be unstable due to alongshore losses, in contrast to the expectations based on models. Creation of a pocket beach lends itself perfect to stabilise the beach in alongshore direction. Concerning the calibration process it can be said that the wave height reduction, wave set-up and velocities over the submerged breakwater can be simulated well using Delft3D. Concerning the sediment transports, one faces some problems that have to be untangled. The problems to untangle are summarised in the recommendations. The forcing of wave-driven currents in Delft3D has to be related to a certain wave height to depth ratio, as will be adapted in the future. The cause of the production of sand has to be revealed and if possible adjusted in the source code. Concerning the perched beach concept, further investigation is desirable. The perched beach in IJmuiden lends itself perfectly for continuation of investigation. iii Table of contents Table of contents PREFACE......................................................................................................................................................I SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................. II TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................................... IV LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................................. VII LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................................................... XI NOTATION .............................................................................................................................................. XII 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 PROBLEM ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.2.1 Problem description ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2.2 Problem definition .................................................................................................................