Final Report Port Authority

lOMoARcPSD|1717990
Final Report - Port Authority
Coastal Dynamics II (Technische Universiteit Delft)
Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by mazen alqadi (mazen.a.alqadi@gmail.com)

lOMoARcPSD|1717990

Coastal dynamics II
Report exercise 2 | Port Authority

08-‐Jun-‐15
TU Delft


lOMoARcPSD|1717990
Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 2
1.1 Background information .................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Brief summary of earlier research (UNIBEST/ASMITA) ...................................................................... 2
1.3 Problem description (port authority) ................................................................................................. 3
1.4 Objective and approach ..................................................................................................................... 3
2. Model setup ............................................................................................................................................. 4
2.1 Introduction of Delft3D ...................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Grid and bathymetry .......................................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Boundary conditions .......................................................................................................................... 6
2.4 Other model settings .......................................................................................................................... 6
3. Model results ........................................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Introduction proposed solutions ........................................................................................................ 7
3.1.1 Breakwater extension at channel side ........................................................................................ 7
3.1.2 Breakwater extension at river side .............................................................................................. 7
3.1.3 Sand trap ..................................................................................................................................... 8
3.1.4 Multiple groynes along the breakwater ...................................................................................... 8
3.2 Results base case ................................................................................................................................ 9
3.3 Results scenarios .............................................................................................................................. 10
3.3.1 Two week simulation period ..................................................................................................... 10
3.3.2 One year simulation period ....................................................................................................... 12
4. Final solution .......................................................................................................................................... 14
5. Discussion and conclusions .................................................................................................................... 15
5.1 Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 15
5.1.1 Single layer ................................................................................................................................ 15
5.1.2 Wave conditions ........................................................................................................................ 15
5.1.3 Sensitivity .................................................................................................................................. 15
5.2 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 16
5.3 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 17
Sources ....................................................................................................................................................... 18
Appendix .................................................................................................................................................... 19


lOMoARcPSD|1717990
1. Introduction

This report refers on the Carrara Coast in Tuscany (Italy). In this introductory chapter, brief background
information is provided as well as a brief summary of earlier research already done with software
UNIBEST. Moreover, there is a problem description of our stakeholder, which is the Port Authority of
Carrara and finally the objective and the approach followed to solve the problem are explained.
1.1 Background information

The Carrara Coast is located in Tuscany in the Northwestern part of Italy. The city of Carrara is located
on a sandy coast, which is part of a coastal cell with a length of about 50 km. Tuscany area and more
specifically Carrara beach is a very popular holiday destination, which also means that the coast
characteristics are important for keeping this source of income as high as possible. The main problem of
the beach concludes to the fact that erosion is dominant along the northern part of the beach and it is
travelling towards the southern part. By this erosional wave, all stakeholders of the area are negatively
influenced, like restaurant owners have to face beach erosion in front of their restaurants, port
authority has to dredge a lot in order to keep approach channel open and the port operational and the
municipality of Carrara has to confront relative sand loss and swimming safety.
The causes of this erosion are briefly a dam constructed upstream in the Magra River, which was the
main sediment supplier in the area and the construction of the port of Carrara constructed. In order to
explore further which caused the problem of erosion, a research with UNIBEST was conducted and the
results are presented in paragraph 1.2.
In the past, a series of groynes was constructed privately and in a rather independent and so ineffective
way, in front of restaurants, which just pushed the problem downwards. With a more integrated
approach, many potential solutions have been looked for. Depending on the stakeholder, several
measures like groynes, emerged/submerged breakwaters, nourishment, creation of surf resort in the
area downstream of the port and a tidal basin upstream of the port are applied.
1.2 Brief summary of earlier research (UNIBEST/ASMITA)

Our historical overview starts in 1878 until now. During this period, there were several human
interventions which had a great impact on the coastline. In 1878 the revetment was built (length about
1.66 km -‐ boulevard near the sea) and after 35 years (in 1913) a dam was constructed in the Magra River
which decreased dramatically the sediment supply of the river in the coastal system. After 8 years (in
1921) the construction of the Port of Carrara started and was finished after 4 years in 1925.
Our earlier research aimed to explore the severity of each human intervention on the erosion problem
of the coast. Several scenarios with no human interventions, with only one and with a combination
between them were run and helped us come to a conclusion about the main cause (if only one) and the
factors that made this problem so important.
Our earlier research with UNIBEST came to the conclusion that human interventions had a lot of impact
on the coast over the years. According to the several scenarios considered, we can conclude that:
1. The port mainly has a local effect on the coast. It causes accretion on one side and extra erosion
on the other side. This erosion is limited to a small stretch of coast.
2. The damming of the river has a large impact on the coast. The effects are not local, but affect
the entire coast. The damming causes a deficit of sediment, which causes less total accretion on
the southern part of the coast (compared to the situation without damming) and more erosion
on the northernt side of the coast.

lOMoARcPSD|1717990
3. The revetment mainly has a local effect on the coast. It prevents further erosion nearby the river
mouth and just after the port.
4. A tidal basin, if constructed, can have two effects. These effects depend on the fact whether we
consider the basin as a source or sink term. This however depends on the dimensions of the
basin and the possible effect of sea level rise, which are now unknown. When the basin is a sink
term, it will mainly result in erosion at the end of the coastline. Even though the UNIBEST model
results are not referring to the local area near the basin, changes can be expected there as well
due to secondary effects.
All these interventions had a large impact, but overall it can be said that the damming of the river had
the biggest global influence. The construction of the port had the largest local impact.
1.3 Problem description (port authority)

Apart from the general erosion problem of the whole Tuscany Coast, Port Authority of Carrara Port has
to face one additional problem. Each year a several amount of sediment is trapped in the entrance
navigation channel of the port, which leads to both cost of dredging and disturbance of the operation of
the port. Moreover, once the sediment enters the boundaries of the port, it is characterized as
“polluted”, making its deposition a very hard and quite expensive task.
Because of the great importance of the Port for the regional economics, Port Authority wants to keep it
open all around the year, maintaining its operational depth by dredging and trying to avoid settled
sediment reaching the entrance of the port in order to avoid to be polluted and in this way to be able to
dump it in a more easy way.
According to the data provided the majority of the dredged material is sand and only 15% is silt and the
volumes that are dredged are not constant during the last years, but in a large perspective it seems to
have been increased in the last decades.
1.4 Objective and approach

The Port Authority of Carrara is strongly intended to fund a research program in order to solve the
problem of sedimentation in the navigation channel of the port. The goal of the research is to evaluate
variants to limit the sedimentation rate in the port entrance channel. This can be accomplished by
finding a way to minimise or even diminish the yearly dredging cost of the operational maintenance of
the port. To do so, several causes of the sedimentation and relevant dredging volumes must be revealed
and consequently several ways-‐mechanisms to counteract the sedimentation problem.
The approach followed towards this goal includes four different scenarios:
• Breakwater extension at channel side

• Breakwater extension at river side
• Sand trap
• Multiple groynes along the breakwater


lOMoARcPSD|1717990
2. Model setup
2.1 Introduction of Delft3D

Delft3D is a modelling package developed by Deltares in the eighties which is still constantly updated. It
is an integrated software package for the simulation of 2D and 3D flow, sediment transport,
morphology, waves and the interaction between these processes in time and space. Delft3D is used for
modelling of coasts and rivers but also for the simulation of manmade features such as harbours and
locks.

Delft3D consists of several modules combined through a single user interface. The two most important
modules used in this case are the FLOW and WAVE module which influence each other directly.

Delft3D-‐FLOW solves the Navier-‐Stokes equations for an incompressible fluid, under the shallow
water and the Boussinesq assumptions. The set of partial differential equations in combination with an
appropriate set of initial and boundary conditions is solved on a finite difference grid. In this case the
Navier-‐Stokes equations are integrated over depth, meaning a 2D instead of a 3D approach is used.

Delft3D-‐WAVE uses the SWAN model to simulate the evolution of random, short-‐crested wind-‐
generated waves. The SWAN model is based on the discrete spectral action balance equation and is fully
spectral (in all directions and frequencies). This implies that short-‐crested random wave fields
propagating simultaneously from widely different directions can be used.
2.2 Grid and bathymetry

In Delft3D a different grid is used for each module. In our case we work with the flow and wave module
so we use 2 different grids. The grids are composed of rectangular grid cells. The grid cells vary in size.
The more grid cells you have at a location the higher the resolution and the more accurate the info is. As
seen in the picture below the grid cells get smaller near the port, because of that we have more grid
cells over there and thus the information is more detailed which is necessary to make valid predictions.

The wave grid is made larger than the flow grid because the influence of refracting waves from outside
the flow domain also needs to be taken into account. Otherwise there is a chance that we get a wrong
estimation of the flow and the sediment transport. As mentioned in the previous paragraph we use only
one grid layer (2D model), this means that the sediment concentration is represented by one value over
the entire water column. In reality this concentration is high near the bottom and low near the water
surface. So by using one layer we underestimate the value at the bottom and overestimate it in the top
of the water column.


lOMoARcPSD|1717990

Figure 1: Grid (wave grid is the larger grid. On top of it, the smaller flow grid is visible)

Two aspects that are important for the bathymetry are the depth and the sediment availability. The
depth profile for the Carrera was already implemented in the model. The sediment availability gives
information about how much sediment is available to be transported by the flow. In the model the
standard value is 10. Meaning there is a layer of 10 meter of sediment available for transport. The
breakwaters are of course fixed structures, meaning the value for the sediment availability over there is
zero. This results in the picture as seen below, with the green areas representing the breakwaters.

Figure 2: Bathymetry of the area around the harbor.

lOMoARcPSD|1717990
2.3 Boundary conditions

The two different (FLOW and WAVE) modules have their own boundary conditions. The specified
boundaries are SW, NW and SE.

FLOW
The SW boundary induces the tide on the system. The NW and SE boundaries are Neumann boundaries.
The key characteristic of Neumann boundaries is that it limits the reflection of waves.

WAVE
The SW and NW boundaries are the boundaries where the waves enter the domain. These boundaries
are divided into sections and each section has its own wave condition. This is done because the
boundaries are quite long and thus the conditions can vary significantly along the boundary. The SW
boundary has 4 sections and the NW boundary has 3 sections. The SE boundary is different than the
others, here the waves leave the domain. Here there is no division in sections but just one uniform value
for the entire boundary. This is done because the waves leaving the domain don’t have a big influence
on the system. This is not an essential boundary but necessary to build in safety in the model so that it is
guaranteed that the waves leave the system at that boundary.

2.4 Other model settings

Delft3D has a large number of settings that change the behavior of the model. Important settings which
were essential in our modeling exercise are:

• Dredging and dumping: adds a sediment source and sink to the model.
• Sediment properties: such as roughness, Dn50, density.
• Morphological scale factor: this factor represents the difference in scale between the
hydrological and morphological timescale.
• Directional space: all the directions in which waves can come into the domain.


lOMoARcPSD|1717990
3. Model results
3.1 Introduction proposed solutions

To avoid sedimentation in the approach channel as much as possible, four solutions are proposed.
1. Breakwater extension at channel side

2. Breakwater extension at river side
3. Sand trap
4. Multiple groynes along the breakwater
It is expected that these variants will either block the sediment transport completely, or let most of the
sediment accrete before it reaches the approach channel.
3.1.1 Breakwater extension at channel side

As can been seen in figure (3) , this variant consists of an extension of the breakwater at the approach
channel side. It is expected that this variant will trap sediment and therefore avoid sedimentation of the
approach channel. After time, it is expected that a bypass will be created, but that a lot of sediment goes
offshore due to cross shore transport. The lack of sediment however, might cause erosion on the
downstream side of the port.

Figure 3: Variant 1, breakwater extension at the channel side of the breakwater.
3.1.2 Breakwater extension at river side

This variant is similar to the previous one, however the extension is now at the upstream side of the
breakwater. The sediment will now be trapped before the port which will also decrease the
sedimentation of the approach channel. The sediment in front of the breakwater, might distribute
however, which could cause stability problems of the breakwater.

lOMoARcPSD|1717990

Figure 4: Variant 2, breakwater extension at the river side of the breakwater.
3.1.3 Sand trap

In contrast to the last variants, this proposed solution is a soft measure. The sand trap is basically a big
hole in the sediment transport area. This sudden increase in depth will decrease the flow velocity and
therefore cause sedimentation in the hole. This should lead to a decrease in sedimentation of the
approach channel.

Figure 5: Variant 3, sand trap. A hole close by the breakwater, more to the river side.
3.1.4 Multiple groynes along the breakwater

This variant is again a hard measure. Instead of using one long breakwater extension, which is quite
costly to construct because of the depth of the water there, three shorter groynes are used alongside
the breakwater. After time, it is expected that a bypass will be created, but that a lot of sediment goes
offshore due to cross shore transport. It is expected that all three of these groynes will trap sediment.
On the downstream side however, erosion might occur.

lOMoARcPSD|1717990

Figure 6: Variant 4, multiple groynes along the breakwater.
3.2 Results base case

To be able to see how effective the different variants are, the base case has to be modeled as well.
Below are the results of a 2 week and a 3 month morphological simulation time. It is visible that the
approach channel of the harbor quickly fills with sediment and is almost completely filled after 3 months
already.

Figure 7: 2 week result of the reference case. Figure 8: 3 month result of the reference case.
When figure (8) and figure (9) are compared, it can be concluded that the approach channel does not fill
a lot more after 3 months. The sediment is mostly just spreading out over a bigger area.

lOMoARcPSD|1717990

Figure 9: One year result of the reference case.
3.3 Results scenarios

In this chapter, the results of the scenarios are shown and explained. Firstly, all four scenarios have been
simulated over a period of two weeks in morphological time. Based on the results of these simulations,
variant (1) and (4) has been simulated over 3 months morphological time, to estimate the long term
results.
3.3.1 Two week simulation period

For these simulations, a hydrological simulation time of 9 hours and a morphological factor of 40 are
used. This leads to a two week morphological simulation time.
3.3.1.1 Breakwater extension at channel side

After two weeks, this variant is successful in trapping sediment and therefore causing no sedimentation
in the approach channel. There is little erosion at the downstream side, but not yet extensive.

Figure 10: Two week simulation of breakwater extension at the channel side.

lOMoARcPSD|1717990
3.3.1.2 Breakwater extension at river side

This variant is also effective in trapping sediment before the harbor, but the sediment at the breakwater
started to redistribute. This leads to still a little sedimentation in the approach channel and erosion in
front of the breakwater. Because erosion at the breakwater is unwanted since it will cause stability
problems of the breakwater, this variant is not a good measure to decrease sedimentation in the
approach channel.

Figure 11: Two week simulation of breakwater extension at river side.
3.3.1.3 Sand trap

The sand trap is not that effective in trapping sediment as can be seen in figure 12 . This is probably
because the simulation is a 2DH simulation and therefore the sediment distribution over the vertical
deviates too much from reality. In reality, the concentrations at the bottom are higher than at the
surface, which would result in a more effective sandtrap. However, it would also mean that the sandtrap
would fill quicker. Therefore, this measure is not very effective, but only delays the time a little bit after
which dredging is needed.

Figure 12: Two week simulation of the sand trap.

lOMoARcPSD|1717990
3.3.1.4 Multiple groynes along the breakwater

This variant has a similar effect as variant (1). The sediment gets trapped between the groynes and
therefore no sediment is available for sedimentation in the approach channel. In this case there is also
little erosion at the downstream side.

Figure 13: Two week simulation of multiple groynes along the breakwater.
3.3.2 One year simulation period

For these simulations, a hydrological simulation time of 6 days and a morphological factor of 60 are
used. This leads to an one year morphological simulation time. As stated above, two results are
regarded as good measures; variant (1) and (4). Therefore only these variants will used to make a long
term estimation.
3.3.2.1 Breakwater extension at channel side

To make a good long term estimation, the model is improved a little, which resulted in figure (14). This
renewed model was then used for the long term estimation as visible in figure (15).

Figure 14: Improved model for variant (1) Figure 15: Result after a one year simulation period.

lOMoARcPSD|1717990
After one year, there is a lot of accretion at the extension. There is also a bypass of sediment into the
approach channel so here we also observe a large amount of sedimentation.
3.3.2.2 Multiple groynes along the breakwater

For this variant, the model is also improved a little, to have a better long term estimation. This resulted
in the new model as can be seen in figure (17) . This renewed model was then used for the long term
estimation as visible in figure (18) .

Figure 16: Improved model for multiple groynes. Figure 17: Result of improved model of multiple groynes.
A large amount of accretion occurs between the groynes. Again there is a bypass of sediment into the
approach channel.


lOMoARcPSD|1717990
4. Final solution
In chapter 3 variant 1 (Extended Breakwater) and 4 (Groynes) were chosen to be the most promising.
After comparing the figures for an one year simulation the differences between the two variant results
were minimal. Variant 4 traps a larger amount of sediment between its groynes then variant 1 with just
one long groyne. So it takes longer for the approach channel to accrete for variant 4. But after a while
the bypass is in both cases so large that in both cases the approach channel accretes drastically.
Dredging is thus needed in both cases.
However when considering the structures themselves the variant 1 is the most easy to construct and the
most realistic option. Constructing three small groynes will be much more expensive and labour
intensive. So variant 1 is chosen as the final variant. The graphs below depict the accretion/erosion for
the reference situation and variant 1 and 4 after one year.

Figure 18: Accretion/erosion of the reference situation, extended breakwater and groynes after 1 year.

The structures also result in a changing current pattern in the entrance channel. The flow velocities for
variant 1 increase in time because of the bypass of the current after the extension accretes. The
velocities are shown in the graph below. The velocities are directed perpendicular to the entrance
channel, this can have a negative effect for shipping.

Figure 19: Flow vectors for the Extended Breakwater after 3 months and 1 year.


lOMoARcPSD|1717990
5. Discussion and conclusions

5.1 Discussion
In this section model uncertainties and possible improvements are discussed.
5.1.1 Single layer

A 2D model is used since the concentration is integrated over the depth. Meaning we work in a single
layer model. As mentioned before this overestimates the sediment transport in the upper part of the
water column and underestimates it near the bed. As a result of this some simulated solutions, like the
sand trap, will produce less accurate output. This can be simply improved by adding multiple layers, this
will however increase the calculation time.
5.1.2 Wave conditions

In the model only a limited amount of wave conditions are used. The 162 wave conditions have been
reduced to only 6 conditions. This effects the accuracy of the model results. This could be improved by
adding more wave conditions but that makes it computationally much more intensive and thus takes
more time.

The given amount of dredged material (10.000 m3/year) is an averaged value over a certain amount of
years. But the conditions can strongly vary per year, mainly the storm conditions. Therefore the amount
of 10.000 m3/year can over-‐ and underestimate the real amount that needs to be dredged significantly.

5.1.3 Sensitivity
The sensitivity represents the robustness of the model. A large sensitivity means that small changes in
the input parameters can change the output significantly. In this section we will research the sensitivity
of the model by changing different input parameters.

Dn50
The first parameter we changed is the nominal diameter of the sediment. At first it had a value of 200
µm and its increased to 500 µm and a value of 1000 µm. The bigger the diameter of the sediment the
larger the velocities that are needed to bring the sediment into suspension. In the figures below we
observe that a change in nominal diameter strongly impacts the results. The accretion in the approach
channel is much smaller for the bigger diameters. The conclusion is that the model is very sensitive to
changes in the nominal diameter. This is probably because it is all based on just one value for this
important parameter.

Figure 20: Erosion/Accretion plots for a changing Dn50, starting with 200µm up to 1000µm

lOMoARcPSD|1717990
Wave height
The second input parameter we change is the significant wave height. We start with the values as given
in the model and add a meter of wave height in each step. The bigger the significant wave height, the
more sediment is brought into suspension and the sediment transport is thus larger. Just as in the
previous case we observe that a change in the significant wave height strongly impacts the results. The
accretion is much larger for the situation with larger wave heights. So again it can be concluded that the
model is very sensitive to changes in wave height.

Figure 21: Erosion/Accretion plots for a change in Wave Height, from reference to largest wave height.
Wave direction
The third input parameter that is varied is the wave direction. Again we start with the given values and
increase it first with 10 and then with 30 degrees in an anti-‐clockwise direction. Due to this increase in
degrees the angle of incidence of the waves relative to the coast becomes smaller. Because of this
decrease in angle of incidence of the waves the sediment transport decreases. As seen in the figures
below this small change in angle creates large variations in the output. Again it can be concluded that
the model is very sensitive to this change in input.

Figure 22: Erosion/Accretion plots for a change in Wave direction, from reference to plus 10 and 30 degrees.
5.2 Conclusions
The Delft3D model has a lot of uncertainties in the results. This is because the large influence of the
input parameters. Changing these parameters(Dn50, waveheight & wave direction) will result in large
change in the output of the model. The Dn50 is the most sensitive because this is represented in the
input as just one value. Wave height and wave direction are also very sensitive input parameters. But
these parameters are less sensitive than the Dn50. This is because the wave height and wave direction

lOMoARcPSD|1717990
are represented in the boundary conditions with several sections. You can therefore add more
information about these parameters and by that making them less sensitive.
The two variants (1&4) are very similar in results. Both the variants do not really solve the sedimentation
of the approach channel. It will fill up eventually but it takes a bit more time in variant (4). So in the end
a dredging program is needed annually for both variants to provide a sufficient depth in the approach
channel. Variant (1), the extended breakwater, is chosen as the best solution. This is for practical
reasons, it is easier to build one breakwater instead of three short ones.
5.3 Recommendations
In this sections some recommendations are given to improve the model results:
• Multiple layers in water column; see paragraph 5.2.1.
• Runtime: a longer runtime so that also long-‐term results are available.
• More detailed input parameters: such as a more specific Dn50 at different locations and more
wave conditions. See paragraph 5.2.2.
More detailed look at the different variants for example a better specification of the dimensions.
And last but not least, as stated in the conclusion and discussion, there are too many uncertainties in the
model that need more research. There is more time necessary to determine the best dimensions for the
extension so that the negative side effects (accretion on the channel side and increase of velocities
perpendicular to the entrance channel) of this solution are eliminated as much as possible.

lOMoARcPSD|1717990
Sources

[1] http://oss.deltares.nl/documents/183920/185723/Delft3D-‐FLOW_User_Manual.pdf


lOMoARcPSD|1717990
Appendix

Long term estimation, 3 months vs. 1 year

As seen in the report, 1 year simulations are used to look at the effectiveness of the variants. However,
it was first thought that a 3 month simulation was good enough for a long term estimation.

Figure 23: (left) 3 month simulation, (right) 1 year simulation.
Figure (21) covers the results of variant (1). It is clearly visible that a 3 month estimation differs a lot
from a 1 year estimation. This is also the case for the other variants. Therefore it can be concluded that
a 3 month estimation can not be used for a long term estimation.

Final Report Port Authority

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Final Report Port Authority

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Report Port Authority

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

lOMoARcPSD|1717990

Final Report - Port Authority

Coastal Dynamics II (Technische Universiteit Delft)

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by mazen alqadi (mazen.a.alqadi@gmail.com)

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by mazen alqadi (mazen.a.alqadi@gmail.com)

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by mazen alqadi (mazen.a.alqadi@gmail.com)

1.1 Background information

1.2 Brief summary of earlier research (UNIBEST/ASMITA)

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by mazen alqadi (mazen.a.alqadi@gmail.com)

1.3 Problem description (port authority)

1.4 Objective and approach

• Breakwater extension at channel side

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by mazen alqadi (mazen.a.alqadi@gmail.com)

2.1 Introduction of Delft3D

2.2 Grid and bathymetry

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by mazen alqadi (mazen.a.alqadi@gmail.com)

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by mazen alqadi (mazen.a.alqadi@gmail.com)

2.3 Boundary conditions

2.4 Other model settings

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by mazen alqadi (mazen.a.alqadi@gmail.com)

3.1 Introduction proposed solutions

1. Breakwater extension at channel side

3.1.1 Breakwater extension at channel side

3.1.2 Breakwater extension at river side

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by mazen alqadi (mazen.a.alqadi@gmail.com)

3.1.3 Sand trap

3.1.4 Multiple groynes along the breakwater

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by mazen alqadi (mazen.a.alqadi@gmail.com)

3.2 Results base case

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by mazen alqadi (mazen.a.alqadi@gmail.com)

3.3 Results scenarios

3.3.1 Two week simulation period

3.3.1.1 Breakwater extension at channel side

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by mazen alqadi (mazen.a.alqadi@gmail.com)

3.3.1.2 Breakwater extension at river side

3.3.1.3 Sand trap

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by mazen alqadi (mazen.a.alqadi@gmail.com)

3.3.1.4 Multiple groynes along the breakwater

3.3.2 One year simulation period

3.3.2.1 Breakwater extension at channel side

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by mazen alqadi (mazen.a.alqadi@gmail.com)

3.3.2.2 Multiple groynes along the breakwater

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by mazen alqadi (mazen.a.alqadi@gmail.com)

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by mazen alqadi (mazen.a.alqadi@gmail.com)

5. Discussion and conclusions

5.1.1 Single layer

5.1.2 Wave conditions

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by mazen alqadi (mazen.a.alqadi@gmail.com)

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by mazen alqadi (mazen.a.alqadi@gmail.com)

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by mazen alqadi (mazen.a.alqadi@gmail.com)

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by mazen alqadi (mazen.a.alqadi@gmail.com)

Long term estimation, 3 months vs. 1 year

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by mazen alqadi (mazen.a.alqadi@gmail.com)

You might also like