The Effect of Tide Range on Beach Morphodynamics and Morphology: a Conceptual Beach Model Gerhard Masselink and Andrew D
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
/" { &;(/~6 ... ...- Journal of Coastal Research 785-S00 Fort Lauderdale, Florida Summer 1993 I The Effect of Tide Range on Beach Morphodynamics and Morphology: A Conceptual Beach Model Gerhard Masselink and Andrew D. Short Coastal Studies Unit Department of Geography University of Sydney Sydney, New South Wales ~:OO6,Australia ABSTRACT MASSELINK, G. and SHORT, A.D., 1993. The effect of tide range on beach morphodynamics and morp.hology: A conceptual beach model Journal of COCI8talResearch, 9(3). 785-800. Fort Lauderdale (Flonda), ISSN 0749-0208. Natural beaches may be grouped into several beach types on the basis of breaker height (H ) wave period ('!'), hia:h tide sediment fall vel~ity (~,) and tide r8lll!e (TR). These four variables are qu:n'tified by two dlmens~onl~ par~eters: the dimensionless fall velocity (0 - HJw,T) used byWRIGHTandSHORT(1984) to classify ml~ro-tld.al beaches, and ~e !elative tide range (RTR - TR/H..) introduced in this paper. The valu~ ~f the ~Imenslo.nless fall ve~oclt~ mdicates whether reflective, intenaediate or dissipative surf zone condl.tlons will prevail. The relative tide range reflects the relative impodance of swash, surf ZODeand shoalmg wave. processes. A co~ceptual model presented in which beach morphology (beach t.nJe) may be predicted using the . i~ dimensionless fall velocity and the relative tide range, whereby the mean spring tide range (MSR) is used to cal~ulate the re!Ative tide r8lll!e. The model consists of the existing miao-tidal beach types, which as RTR I~creases, shift from reflective to low tide terrace with and finally wi&hout rips; from intermediate to low tide bar and ~~s an~ finall! ultr~-diasipative; and from barred dissipative to non-barred dissipative and finally ultra-dissipative. USing this model, all wave-dominated bead1esin all tidal ranges can be . classifil'd. ADDmONAL INDEX WORDS: Beaches and tide range, micro-tidal, maero-tidal, beach model. beach change. INTRC.DUCTION planar, moderate. wave multi '-bar, and low wave On all natural bea.ches, processes and mor- to tidal flats. .This grouping, while illustrating the phology arepredomiI1laDtly influenced by waves range of morphologies associated with macro':tid- and tide. Whereas the importance of waves is self- al beaches, is still based largely on wave height evident and well documented (WRIGHTet al., 1984, and does not enable differentiation based on tide 1985), the influence (Jlftides, though recognised range> 3 m. (e.g. WRIGHTet al.j 1987), is more subtle and less This paper addresses this problem by combin- well understood. Tide ranges have been classified ing wave height and tide range into a singledi- by DAVIES(1964) as being mlcro- « 2 m), meso- mensionless parameter, and calibrating the ap- plicability of this parameter using field data and (2-4 m) or macro-tid:al (> 6 m). Consequently, ~ beaches can be classified accordingly. .However, the literature. as DAVISand HAYES(1984) indicated, beach mor- BACKGROUND phology is not simply dependent on the absolute wave height or tide range, but on the interaction Several beach models are available to predict beach state as a function of wave and sediment of the two. " . Existing micro-tidal beach models assume a mi- parameters (SONU, 1973; WRIGHT and SHORT, 1984; SUNAMURA,1989; LIPPMANN and HOLMAN, 1990). cro-tide range « 2 D1)in the presence of oceanic waves. Therefore, they can not automatically be The models are generally representative of micro- applied to macro-tidal beach environments. SHORT tidal beaches and do not take account of the tide. (1991) addressed this problem, suggesting the mi- Numerous studies (reviewed later) have also in- vestigated the effect of tides and increasing tide cro-tide threshold be I"aisedto 3 m, and proposing range 'on beach morphodynamics. However, the a grouping of macro-tidal beaches into higher wave overall contribution of tides to beach morphology remains unresolved. 92017 received 2A:iFebruary 199)!; accepted in revuion 6 December 1992. The model of WRIGHTand SHORT(1984) is use- 787 .,.~o,.;..III"u...U -'U....... Conceptual Heach Model 'au ful hr describing the morphodynainic variability es with highl) .able tide ranges, sediment sizes tide level and the. lIebreak point and. the shoal- !«iN rw LOwI1Df of micro-tidal surf zones and beaches. This model and morphologies. In order to examine the rela- in!! wave zone extends seaward from the ~ ~IOOuvn U'YfI. tive contribution of both Hb and TR, this paper point. For each zone, an empirical relationship , describes plan and profile configurations of six ~g between the equilibrium beach gradient and wave major beach states. In addition to providing a combines and extends the ideas in WRIGHT and ~~ 75 spatial classification. the model enables~he pre~ SHORT (1984) and SHORT (1991) by considering and sediment characteristics is assumed. The sim- ~~ diction of beach change and equilibrium beach the relative effects of waves and tides on beach ulation model combines these relationships with e!j so states (WRIGHTet ai., 1984,1985). The beach states morphology. Following a suggestion in DAVISand the relative occurrences of swash. surf zone and g't: HAYES(l984:Figure 8), the relative tide range RTR shoaling wave processes for different parts on the .~; 2S. are related to wave and sediment characteristics ~:; via the dimensionless fall velocity, 0 -= Hb/w,T is introduced as a new parameter. The relative beach profile and computes an "equilibrium" .c beach profile, Input parameters to the model are 0-0 (GOURLAY.1968; DEAN. 1973), where- Hb is the tide range is given by the ratio of tide range to ~ 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 TR/H,J. Large values of wave height, wave period, sediment size and tide breaker height (m), w. is the sediment fall velocity breaker height (RTR = non-dimclUional dcpch rclativc 10 hilh tide IeYeI range. For more details. see MASSELINK(in press). (m/see) and T is the wave period (see). RTR indicate tide-dominance and small values Figure 1. Relative occurrence o( awash and aurl wne proceasn Figure 1 illustrates the results of the simulation - According to WRIGHT and SHORT (1984), con- express wave-dominance. over a dimenaionle.. beach profile (or relative tidr ranCeI (TRI mode] using wave height 1 m, wave period ditions when 0 < 1 result in a reflective beach A conceptual model is presented according to = = 8 H.) 0(2. 3, 5, 10 and 15 ca1culaud over half a tidal cycle (low 0.03 m/sec and vary- tide to high. tide). The importance oC awash and surC wne pro- state. The beach face will be steep and is generally which the beach state is a function of dimension- sec. sediment-fall velocity = cessea deereuea as relative tide range increases. Swuh and lurC cusp ed, and a pronounced step is usually present less fall velocity n and relative tide range RTR. ing the tide range from 2 to 15 m. It shows that the contribution of swash and surl zone processes wne proceaaes ahow a aecondary maximum oCoccurrence around at the base of the swash zone. Generally wave Beaches on the macro-tidal central Queensland low tide level, where the tide remaina relatively Il4tionary Cor height is small and beach sediments are relatively (Australia) coast and the literature are used to decreases as the relative tide range and the con- BOrne time. The relative occurrencea are calculated by . limu. coarse. Intermediate beaches have values of 0 illustrate the model. tribution of shoaling waves increases. Swash and lation model described by MASSELINK (in preaa). The input parameten to the model are wave height 1m,.ave period ranging from 1 to 6 and are characterized by bar surf zone processes always dominate the upper - - EFFEcr OF TIDES ON SURF intertidal and have a.see.ondary maximum around 8 .ee, lediment Call velocity -0.03 m/aec and tide ranee - 2,3, and rip morphology. Four different intermediate ZONE DYNAMICS 5, 10, 15 roo beach states are defin~d and with increasing 0, low tide level where the- tide level remains rela- these states are low tide terrace (LIT), transverse According to DAVIS(1985), tides playa passive tively stationary during the turn of the tide. The bar and rip (TBR), rhythmic bar and beach (RBB) or indirect role in sediment transport and changes lower part of the intertidal profile, however, may and longshore bar trough (LBT). When n > 6, in beach morphology. The primary role of the tide become completely dominated by shoaling waves to the more accentuated topography during neap the beach is in a dissipative state. On dissipative is to alternately expose and submerge a large por- for large relative tide ranges (RTR > 10). Other tides. beaches. the wave energy level is generally high. tion of the beach and the inner surf zone. The net results of the simulation model further suggest In addition, tides have three pronounced effects sediments are fine and the surf zone is wide. Sub- . result of this movement of sea level is to retard that as the contribution of shoaling waves in- on three dimensional water circulation in the dued bar morphology may be present but rips are the rate at which sediment transport and changes creases with increasing tide, beach gradient de- nearshore zone. First, in rip current systems...!iE! usually absent. in morphology take place. This may be illustrated creases (MAssELINK, in press). are strongest at low tide. when the water is suf- by the findings of DAVISet ai. (1972) who showed The dominating role of shoaling waves on ficiently shallow to concentrate the flow oC the The model of WRIGHT and SHORT (1984) was that bar migration rate decreases with increasing beaches with large relative tide ranges has been current within the rip channels (SHEPARDet 0/., developed on and for micro-tidal environments - (TR <2 m) and the tide range is not accounted tide range.