Continental Shelf Research 59 (2013) 115–126

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Continental Shelf Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/csr

Research papers

The vertical structure of time-mean estuarine circulation in a shallow,

rotating, semi-enclosed coastal bay: A Liverpool Bay case study with
application for monitoring
Jeff A. Polton n, Matthew R. Palmer, M.J. Howarth
National Oceanography Centre, Joseph Proudman Building, Liverpool L3 5DA, UK

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A reduced physics Ekman boundary layer solution is developed to infer the vertical structure of time-
Received 1 August 2012 mean circulation in a shallow tidal environment when the horizontal density and surface slope gradients
Received in revised form are misaligned. This generalisation of the classic Heaps (1972) model shows that the time-mean depth
18 February 2013
weighted flow, or the residual circulation, is usefully constrained by knowledge of the surface velocity,
Accepted 5 March 2013
Available online 27 March 2013
instead of freshwater flux, and the horizontal density gradient.
The generalised model is applied to Liverpool Bay. In regions where the Ekman depth scale is less
Keywords: than half the mean fluid depth the residual circulation is well modelled by a water column of uniform
Tidal residual density, constant eddy viscosity and linear bottom drag. Lateral variability in long-term mooring
ROFI
observations of depth varying residual flow are attributed to the misalignment of sea surface slope
HF radar
and haline controlled density gradients.
ADCP
Freshwater plume A method to infer 3D time-average residual currents in regions of misaligned freshwater density and
3D model sea surface slope gradients is presented. The method blends CTD survey data with HF radar surface
currents and simulation estimates of viscosity and friction. It is validated against ADCP data in Liverpool
Bay. It is speculated that this method could be applied more generally, to correct model biases, as part of
a coastal monitoring system.
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction consequently technically challenging to maintain. Similarly, such

In a tidal region, high frequency and long term measurements
are required in order to make direct estimates of the time-mean,
depth-varying and volume-conserving circulation (the residual
flow) which are small compared to the instantaneous tidal
velocities and yet of key importance for determining the fate of
freshwater and biogeochemical pathways. Within regions in close
proximity to significant freshwater sources the horizontal saline
gradient can make a significant contribution to time-mean trans-
port, which is partially controlled by the strength of the horizontal
density gradient. Liverpool Bay in the Irish Sea is one such Region
of Freshwater Influence (Simpson, 1997). Long term current data
(Fig. 1, left panel) from the UK National Oceanography Centre's
Liverpool Bay Coastal Observatory (CObs) data identifies signifi-
cantly differing profiles between two mooring sites (see also
Bowden and El Din, 1966). In Liverpool Bay the semi-diurnal
spring tide, with a range of up to 10 m, can generate currents up
to 1 m s−1 (Polton et al., 2011). Moorings in the region are
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jelt@noc.ac.uk (J.A. Polton).
highly dynamic regions also present significant challenges for
numerical models (O'Neill et al., 2012). Whilst tidal current phases
and magnitudes can be simulated to a high degree of accuracy, the
relatively small residual is more challenging; in Liverpool Bay,
residual currents are typically 1–5 cm s−1.
The residual circulation is controlled by a number of forces and
processes that operate over a wide range of spatial scales, from small
scale friction and tidal mixing processes to large scale density
induced horizontal pressure gradients and surface wind stress.
At small scales (of order metres or less) nonlinear turbulent
dissipation cycles (Rippeth et al., 2001; Simpson et al., 2002) can
distort the tidal ellipses (Visser et al., 1994; Verspecht et al., 2010;
Palmer, 2010) that in turn can induce an offshore overturning
circulation near a favourable coastline (Palmer and Polton, 2011).
These tidally asymmetric processes arise from a tidally induced
periodic vertical stratification (Strain Induced Period Stratification;
Simpson et al., 1990) and contribute to the residual circulation in
regions where there is a non-zero time-mean vertical stratification.
At intermediate scales (of order 100 m–10 km) that are resolva-
ble by numerical simulation, nonlinear tidal advection can contri-
bute to the net residual flow. Estimates of its magnitude in Liverpool
Bay can be computed (Pingree and Maddock, 1985) for the leading

0278-4343/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2013.03.004
116 J.A. Polton et al. / Continental Shelf Research 59 (2013) 115–126
53.9
53.8
53.7
53.6
53.5
53.4
53.3
0.05 m/s
Fig. 1. Comparison between the observed mean density field (contoured on left) and model mean density field (contoured on right). Each map is overlayed with progressive
vectors plots of the residual volume flux (approximately every 3 m) at Sites A and B from the observations (left) and from the model (right). The model diagnostics are from
POLCOMS data for the years 2005–2007. The left hand panel also shows the extent of the HF radar coverage (green). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure
caption, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
tidal constituent and are found to be less than 1 cm s−1. Prandle and
Ryder (1989) and Prandle and Matthews (1990) also report from
around the same region that the observed net residual flow is
broadly consistent with estimates of the density driven component
and that the nonlinear Stokes advection is small.
On the largest scale (410 km) surface wind stress can have a
direct impact contributing both to the surface momentum and to the
vertical mixing rate. In an early 3D numerical study Heaps and Jones
(1977) found the wind to be of leading importance in determining the
subtidal residual flow when it exceeds a modest threshold between
5 and 10 m s−1. This wind stress role is borne out in more contem-
porary studies (e.g. Geyer, 1997; Janzen and Wong, 2002; Li and Li,
2011; Ponte et al., 2012). Also at the larger scale, where the Earth's
rotation is important, the horizontal pressure gradients maintain a
residual circulation by balancing the Coriolis force and turbulent
‘viscous’ forces (Heaps, 1972). These pressure gradients are sustained
by coastal freshwater input and by persistent sea surface height
gradients. Recently Verspecht et al. (2009) tested the original Heaps
(1972) estimates of residual circulation using Observatory data at Site
A. They report that although the theory qualitatively captures the
observations, quantitatively the solution is very sensitive to the choice
of eddy viscosity coefficient. This indicates that the classic theory, with
a depth and time invariant eddy viscosity, is too crude to prognos-
tically model the residual circulation at that site.
Analytic studies have tended to focus on certain components of the
residual circulation (e.g. the density driven component (Heaps, 1972),
or tidal constituent decomposition (Prandle, 1982)) whereas numerical
simulations, while capturing a more complete physics set (Holt and
James, 2001) sacrifice transparency of individual processes. Whilst
effective complexity trade offs can be made in tackling the time
varying problem (Ralston et al., 2008), in this manuscript we argue
that significant skill can be achieved (for the steady state problem)
using a modification to the basic analytic density driven model
proposed by Heaps (1972). The success of this residual circulation
model approach is largely due to the ability to implicitly incorporate
wind and nonlinear tidal advection with an imposed surface velocity
field. (Though ‘good’ skill is restricted to regions where the water
depth exceeds twice the Ekman depth scale.) This model is
25.5
25
24.5
24
5
22.5
22
21.5
21
0.05 m/s
8 6 4 2
distinguished from a divergent literature (Mathieu et al., 2002;
Winant, 2006, 2007; Ponte, 2010) which is based on a similar idealised
model (Hendershott and Rizzoli, 1976; Ianniello, 1977; Winant, 2004)
where a surface stress is imposed but the bed has a no-slip condition.
Here, by setting the surface stress to zero we implicitly propose that
the tidal processes are more important than the wind in maintaining
the Liverpool Bay system.
Observational studies and monitoring systems are restricted in
their spatial coverage. Often they are either restricted to only capturing
the surface residual (Prandle, 1987), or vertical profiles at discrete
locations (Verspecht et al., 2009). Here we set out a novel methodol-
ogy that combines observational data with model data to make new
estimates of three dimensional residual circulation. In this study we
develop a reduced physics Ekman boundary layer solution to infer the
vertical structure of time-mean circulation in a shallow tidal environ-
ment where the horizontal density and surface slope gradients can be
misaligned. We apply it in Liverpool Bay, where the tidal range is
extreme, in order to correct a known bias in the numerical simulation.
In Section 2 we present the observational methods and numerical
simulation setup. In Section 3 we develop the theoretical framework.
In Section 4 this framework is used to explain the laterally varying
nature of residual circulation and to investigate performance errors
in the coastal ocean simulation POLCOMS. Finally in Section 5 a
methodology is proposed to combine observational data with model
data to make 3D estimates of the time-mean circulation.
2. Material and methods
This article draws together the surface current data derived from
HF radar measurements (Gurgel and Antonischki, 1997), data from
two fixed mooring sites which include Acoustic Doppler Current
Profilers (ADCPs), CTD survey data, and numerical model data.
2.1. Fixed Moorings
The two fixed moorings, Sites A and B (Fig. 1), are detailed
in Howarth and Palmer (2011) and so are only summarised here.
 J.A. Polton et al. / Continental Shelf Research 59 (2013) 115–126
0.02
0.01
Velocity (m/s)
0.00
-0.01
-0.02
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
years
Fig. 2. The difference between the mean of the 9 year record and averages derived
from averaging over longer and longer periods, for both the east (blue) and north
(red) components at multiple bin depths. For reference the magnitude of the near
surface residual current is 0.04 m s−1. (For interpretation of the references to color
in this figure caption, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Site A is located at 53131:8′N 3121:6′W at the Mersey Bar,
approximately 10 km west of the mouth of the River Mersey and
in a mean water depth of 23.5 m. The site has been maintained
continuously since the 7th August 2002. Site B was located 21 km
to the west-south-west of Site A at 53127′N 3138:4′W, where the
mean water depth is 25.0 m and was maintained between the 5th
April 2005 and the 26th January 2010. Bottom mounted ADCPs are
deployed at each location measuring horizontal velocities at
10 min intervals and 1 m vertical resolution between 2.7 m above
the bed and to within 3 m of the sea surface.
This paper focusses on the steady residual circulation of Liver-
pool Bay. ADCP measurements (Fig. 2) suggest that a window of
1 year or longer is sufficient to determine mean currents to within
0.01 m s−1 of its long term value while an increase beyond 2 years
can at best double the precision.
2.2. Phased array HF radar
As described in Robinson et al. (2011), phased array HF radar
systems transmitting at 13 MHz were installed at Llanddulas and at
Formby Point (Fig. 1). The system measures the Lagrangian surface
current. Data were acquired in 100 cells spaced at 4 km intervals, at
20 min resolution between August 2005 and November 2011. Since
currents both in the numerical models and measured by the ADCP are
in the Eulerian reference frame, the HF radar mean currents are
converted to this reference frame, which require a calculation of the
Stokes drift of the surface waves. By calculating a linear regression
between the tidal residual HF radar currents and the winds, here
measured at Hilbre Island at the mouth of the Dee, both the Stokes
drift and the surface current response to the wind stress are filtered
from the HF radar currents. The latter is also desirable since the simple
model does not need to explicitly represent wind stress whose effects
are instead captured through a barotropic sea level adjustment in the
system and through the surface boundary condition. (The correlation
coefficient between the wind and the HF radar tidal residuals at Site A
is 0.71, compared with a maximum of 0.42 for the ADCP currents.) The
HF radar mean surface velocity product is shown in Fig. 3.
2.3. CTD cruises
The spatial distribution of density in Liverpool Bay is provided
from 8 years of near-monthly CTD survey data (Fig. 1). Survey
positions are not adjusted to account for tidal displacement since
such effects average out over the 68 surveys conducted over the
9 year period. Enduring (beyond tidal period) vertical stratification
117
10m interval
53.8
53.7
53.6
A
53.5
B
53.4
53.3 0.10 m/s
-4 -3.8 -3.6 -3.4 -3.2 -3
Fig. 3. Simulation mean surface currents (red) and filtered HF radar currents
(green) are overlaid on model bathymetry of Liverpool Bay. At sites A and B black
vectors denote the depth-weighted mean ADCP near surface velocity. (For inter-
pretation of the references to color in this figure caption, the reader is referred to
the web version of this article.)
is not common (24% of the time) so is considered weak when
compared to the persistent, horizontal density gradients (Polton
et al., 2011). Horizontal density gradients are computed from the
CTD survey array to be ð−4:3; 0:7Þ  10−2 kg m−3 per km at Site A,
and ð−4:4; 3:9Þ  10−2 kg m−3 per km at Site B. Howarth et al.
(unpublished) evaluate a density gradient error associated with
this survey grid of 7:4  10−2 kg m−3 per km.
2.4. Calibrated POLCOMS model
A nested series of POLCOMS (B-grid, sigma levels) simulations
are used to simulate the Liverpool Bay region with a
1=401  1=601∼1:8 km) horizontal resolution and 32 vertical
levels. This configuration is used to simulate the whole Irish Sea,
but has known model bias in the Liverpool Bay freshwater
horizontal density gradient (Polton et al., 2011; O'Neill et al.,
2012) that results in an over prediction of the mean flow at Sites
A and B (Fig. 1) and misalignment errors in the surface velocity
(Fig. 3). The model is forced by boundary conditions extracted
from the POLCOMS Atlantic Margin Model (12 km resolution) that
covers the Northwest European Shelf, which in turn is forced by
the MetOffice Atlantic (1/91 resolution) ocean forecast product.
The high resolution model is forced with 6 hourly, 1  11, ECMWF
winds and with surface fluxes that are computed from COARE
3 bulk formulae (Fairall et al., 2003). River fluxes are derived from
Environment Agency river gauge data. The simulation is initialised
with a climatological state in January 2004 and integrated through
until December 2007. The final 3 years are used in the following
analysis.
This configuration of POLCOMS uses the Canuto et al. (2001)
k-epsilon vertical mixing scheme. (Its performance against other
turbulence closure schemes is reported in Holt and Umlauf (2008).
The tuneable coefficients are also presented in Holt and Umlauf
(2008).) In POLCOMS, horizontal advection is handled using the
Piecewise Parabolic Method (James, 1996). This scheme is extre-
mely good at preserving fronts, with only very weak numerical
diffusion, and makes the model suitable for riverine freshwater,
or pollutant, dispersal problems (Phelps et al., submitted for
publication). Though in this study we advect only momentum,
T and S, a quadratic drag lower boundary condition is used in the
momentum equations (implemented in Holt and James, 1999).
118 J.A. Polton et al. / Continental Shelf Research 59 (2013) 115–126

Following Ruddick et al. (1995): C d ¼ ðκ=lnðz=z0 ÞÞ2 , where C d is
the bottom drag coefficient, κ is the von Karman constant,
z0 ¼ 0:005 m is the bed roughness length and z is the height above
the bed. C d is constrained to have a floor value of 0.005. For more
details about the POLCOMS hydrodynamics refer to Holt and James
(2001) and Holt et al. (2005).
3. Theory/calculation
Following Heaps (1972), we consider the steady problem when
pressure gradient forces are balanced by viscous and Coriolis
forces. Using complex notation, the linear momentum equations
for the time mean flow U can be written as
1 ∂2 U
if U ¼ − ∇p þ ν 2
ρ ∂z
where f is the Coriolis parameter, p is the hydrostatic pressure
given by p ¼ ρgðη−zÞ, g is gravitational acceleration, ρ is the depth
average density, ν is the viscosity (assumed depth invariant), and
∇ ¼ ð∂=∂xÞ þ ið∂=∂yÞ is the natural complex analogue of the vector
gradient operator. Sea level perturbations, η, are measured from
the mean sea level height, z ¼0 (which increases upwards). The
steady state assumption allows us to approximate the residual
flow as the time invariant velocity U. Time independence is
achieved by taking a sufficiently long time average, filtering out
the tidal contributions that vary temporally whilst preserving
vertical structure. Deriving Eq. (1) in a volume conserving frame-
work (Mellor, 2003; Ardhuin et al., 2008; Winant, 2008) results in
an error of about 0.5 cm s−1 (following a perturbation expansion in
tidal amplitude over mean depth, see Appendix).
These two components superimpose in the Heaps solution to
produce a velocity profile that rotates and changes magnitude with
depth. Since the geostrophic velocity is linear in depth the solution
to ua can be written as the sum of two exponential functions.
The general solution is then
UðzÞ ¼ A expðαzÞ þ B expð−αzÞ þ ug ðzÞ ð4Þ
where α ¼ if =ν and A and B are complex constants that are
2
determined by the choice of boundary conditions.
In the original work Heaps makes a boundary condition
assumption of zero stress at the surface and a linear drag at the
bed. The linear drag boundary condition represents a departure
from the no slip condition used in much of the idealised modelling
literature (Hendershott and Rizzoli, 1976; Mathieu et al., 2002;
Sanay and Valle-Levinson, 2005; Winant, 2004, 2006, 2007; Ponte,
ð1Þ 2010) and is supported by the ADCP data (Fig. 4) and model
analysis (not shown). The bottom frictional stress boundary con-
dition, where the stress (per unit density) is given to be propor-
tional to the bed flow velocity, with a scaling coefficient r such that
rU−∂U=∂z ¼ 0 at z ¼ −H. The dimensions of the friction coefficient
r are m−1 . Though a linear drag coefficient might be anticipated to
have dimensions of velocity (i.e. the product rν), this choice
ensures that the friction and viscosity coefficients are linearly
independent in later sensitivity analyses. For a representative
velocity scale V, the friction coefficient controls whether the
boundary condition is no slip (rν=V⪢1) or zero stress (rν=V - 0).
The coefficients in (4) can be expressed as a function of surface
slope and horizontal density gradient:
ig hh
r i i
A¼ 1 þ eαH −ð1 þ rHÞ ∇ρ−rρ∇η ð5Þ
γf ρ α

ig hh
r i i
3.1. Generalised Ekman solution B¼ 1− e−αH −ð1 þ rHÞ ∇ρ−rρ∇η ð6Þ
γf ρ α
To obtain solutions, the velocity is decomposed into two depth
where γ ¼ 2r coshðαHÞ þ 2α sinhðαHÞ: ð7Þ
varying terms, U ¼ ug þ ua . Firstly there is the geostrophic flow, ug ,
parallel to the pressure contours at each depth. Secondly there is an Substituting A and B into (4) gives the generalised Ekman solution
ageostrophic velocity, ua , which is an Ekman boundary layer flow. for the residual circulation as functions of ∇η and ∇ρ:
The geostrophic and ageostrophic velocities are defined as follows:  
r coshðαzÞ ig
U ¼ 1− ρ∇η
i ig r coshðαHÞ þ α sinhðαHÞ f ρ
ug ðzÞ ¼ ∇p ¼ ½ρ∇η−z∇ρ ð2Þ  
r sinhðαðz þ HÞÞ þ α coshðαðz þ HÞÞ−αð1 þ rHÞcoshðαzÞ ig∇ρ
fρ fρ þ −αz : ð8Þ
r coshðαHÞ þ α sinhðαHÞ αf ρ

i ∂ U i ∂ u 2 2 a
In practise ∇η is not known and so the surface geostrophic
ua ðzÞ ¼ − ν 2 ¼ − ν 2 ð3Þ
f ∂z f ∂z current is constrained by additional information. In the Heaps

0 0

−5 −5

−10 −10
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

ADCP: Site A ADCP: Site B

Original profile (0.7) Original profile (0.6)
Modified profile (0.2) Modified profile (0.1)
−15 −15

−20 −20

−25 −25
−0.03 −0.02 −0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 −0.03 −0.02 −0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Velocity (m/s) Velocity (m/s)

Fig. 4. Residual circulation profiles for sites A (left) and B (right). The ADCP data (red) profiles are plotted with optimised profiles using the original Heaps model (grey) and
optimised profiles using the modified Heaps model (black). Solid and dashed lines denote the eastward and northward velocities respectively. The ADCP data are truncated at
the upper and lower levels. Circles denote the depth of the first subsurface observation. Surface currents generally flow offshore. Near bed currents generally flow onshore.
The error scores are given in brackets. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure caption, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
 J.A. Polton et al. / Continental Shelf Research 59 (2013) 115–126 119

model these two degrees of freedom are constrained in terms of a perfectly reconstruct the residual flow and that there will be a
known diapycnal flux, q, which is riverine (and real and positive in certain amount of uncertainty in the optimally tuned parameters.
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi


the up density slope direction) 2
(Z ) The Ekman number, 2ν= fH , is defined as the ratio of the
0
∇ρ†
q ¼ Re U dz ð9Þ Ekman depth to the mean fluid depth. Circulations where the
−H j∇ρj
mean fluid depth exceeds the Ekman depth would be expected to
where ∇ρ† is the complex conjugate of ∇ρ and an assumption that be controlled by planetary rotation (Winant, 2004; Sanay and
the surface slope is parallel (and in the opposite direction) to the Valle-Levinson, 2005). Circulations where the mean fluid depth is
density gradient. Such that less than the Ekman depth are more heavily constrained by
     viscous boundary layers (e.g. simulations in Mathieu et al.,
2rg   αH sinhðαHÞ−coshðαHÞ þ 1 sinhðαHÞ 2002). In Liverpool Bay the error score corresponds very closely
q¼ ∇ρ Im −ρj∇ηjIm
fρ α γ
2 αγ to the Ekman number (see Section 5 and Fig. 9), that is not simply
ð10Þ a proxy for depth (Fig. 3), such that all sites with an Ekman number
Therefore, in the Heaps (1972) formulation, the sea surface less than 0.5 satisfy the ‘good’ error score criterion. This verifies that
slope is expressed as the Heapsian model is most effective in a low Ekman number regime
0  1 (which is consistent with expectation, since the Heaps parameterisa-
f 1 αH sinhðαHÞ−coshðαHÞ þ 1 tion of frictional processes is simplistic by design).
q− j∇ρjIm
∇ρ BB2rg ρ α2 γ C
C:
∇η ¼   ð11Þ The velocity decomposition into geostrophic and ageostrophic
j∇ρj @ sinhðαHÞ A
components is fundamental to understand the physical balances
Im
αγ that result in the differing depth varying behaviours at Sites A
We propose instead to constrain ∇η in terms of the two and B. In order to decompose the ADCP data into its component
dimensional surface velocity, U 0 . In (4), ∇η ¼ ifðA þ B−U 0 Þ=g and parts the parameters r, ν, ð1=ρÞ∇ρ, and U 0 or q are tuned in order to
the general solution (8) can be expressed in terms of ∇ρ and U 0 : find analytic profiles, determined by Eqs. (8), (11) and (12), that
  best fit the data. This analysis and its sensitivity is explored in the
coshðαHÞ−coshðαH þ αzÞ þ ð1 þ rHÞðcoshðαzÞ−1Þ ig
U ¼ −z− ∇ρ next section.
r coshðαHÞ−r þ α sinhðαHÞ fρ
sinhðαHÞ−sinhðαH þ αzÞ þ sinhðαzÞ r ig
− ∇ρ 4. Understanding the observed profiles
rcoshðαHÞ−r þ α sinhðαHÞ αfρ
 
coshðαzÞ−1
þ 1−r U0: ð12Þ In this section, the reduced physics Ekman model of the vertical
r coshðαHÞ−r þ α sinhðαHÞ
profile of residual circulation is applied to the ADCP data from
Constraining the solution with a two dimensional surface Liverpool Bay. In Section (4.1) the dynamics are analysed and it is
velocity is consistent with relaxing the assumption that the sea shown that the original Heapsian formulation (8) and (11), with a
surface slope must be parallel to the density gradient. The solution prescribed riverine diapycnal flux, are not as effective as the
(12) is dependent on a number of tuneable parameters. These are modified solution (12), with prescribed surface current, in repro-
viscosity ν, bed friction r, surface velocity U 0 , and the density ducing the observed currents. In Section (4.2) the parameter
gradient term ∇ρ=ρ. sensitivity of the reduced physics models is investigated.

3.2. Error score 4.1. Observed profile decomposition

In order to evaluate the efficacy of a particular parameter set Error scores are minimised using both modified and original
relative to known velocity profile an error score is defined. This Heaps models against both Site A and Site B data. The optimised
score is a measure of the mean difference, over depth, between the profiles are shown in Fig. 4. On the left the original Heaps model
analytic solution U heaps (12) and the observed profile U ADCP , where achieves optimal scores of 0.7 and 0.6 for Sites A and B respec-
the velocity is a complex function of depth. The score is normal- tively. Alternatively, the modified formulation achieves ‘good’
ised by the variance of the observed profile and is given by the optimal scores of 0.2 and 0.1. The optimised parameter sets are
expression detailed in Table 1. The difference in score between the two
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi models is stark and is a consequence of the assumption that the
uR 0
u jU ADCP −U heaps j2 dz surface slope is parallel to the density gradient.
error score ¼ tR−H0
: ð13Þ
−H jU ADCP −U ADCP j dz
2

Therefore an error score of zero would be a perfect match between Table 1

the observed ADCP profile and the theoretical Heaps model. Table of optimal parameters that minimises the error score for both original and
An error score greater than one corresponds to theoretical profiles modified (new) analytic expression for the residual circulation. Units are rðm−1 Þ,
νðm2 s−1 Þ, ð1=ρÞ∇ρðm−1 Þ, qðm2 s−1 Þ, U 0 ðms−1 Þ. Scores less than 0.5 are good. Heaps
with less skill than depth averaged ADCP measurements, U ADCP .
values: r ¼ 0:126 m−1 , 0:0159 o ν o 0:0636 m2 s−1 , q ¼ 0:002 m2 s−1 . Observed CTD
An error score of less than 0.5 is defined as ‘good’. Best fit profiles derived density gradient and HF radar surface current are also given.
are obtained by minimising the score over physical bounds of
parameter space. Model Site r ν ð1=ρÞ∇ρ  108 q U0 Error
Note however that a good score does not necessarily reflect a score

good estimate of the free parameters. For example, the momen-

Original A 0.3 0.0158 (−8.3,8.7) 0 NA 0.7
tum balance of a real profile is likely to have additional terms to Original B 0.001 0.0178 (−2.4,8.9) 0 NA 0.6
those represented in the momentum equation (1), which is only
Modified A 0.001 0.00708 (−4.8, 0.7) −0.32 (−0.005,0.023) 0.2
accurate to about 10% (see Appendix). So whilst it is intuitive that Modified B 1.0 0.00141 (−4.4, 2.9) 0.11 (0.005,0.045) 0.1
Heaps profiles with larger error scores represent scenarios where
Observed A NA NA (−4.3, 0.7) NA (−0.003,0.042) NA
the reduced physics are unable to capture the leading momentum Observed B NA NA (−4.4, 3.9) NA (0.004,0.043) NA
balance, it should not be forgotten that the Heaps model will never
120
Northward velocity (m/s)
∇ ρ (CTD)
∇ ρ (Heaps)
ADCP: Site A
best fit: Modified
geostrophic
ageostrophic
Eastward velocity (m/s)
Fig. 5. Residual flow decomposition for sites A (left) and B (right). The panels show the ADCP (red) and best fit estimate (black) hodographs as well as the geostrophic (light
green) and ageostrophic (blue) components that comprise the best fit estimate for the modified Heaps model. Near bed and surface geostrophic vectors (dark green) are
labelled to highlight ug which is not generally orthogonal to the density gradient (dashed arrows: CTD (red); Heaps model (green)). The hodograph data are truncated at the
upper and lower limits of where the ADCP data exists. Circles denote vector depth nearest the surface in all panels. Generally surface currents flow offshore. Near bed
currents flow is onshore. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure caption, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 5 shows the laterally varying behaviour of the residual
current profiles at Site A and Site B, plotted as hodographs with
the eastward velocity on the x-axis and the northward velocity on
the y-axis. These plots also show the decomposition of the best fit
solution of the modified Heaps model into the geostrophic (green)
and ageostrophic (blue) components. At Site A (left panel) with
decreasing depth, the observed flow (red) vector rotates predo-
minantly anticlockwise about the origin. At Site B (right panel)
with decreasing depth, the observed flow (red) vectors rotate
clockwise.
At both sites the sense of rotation is consistent with the rotary
sense of the geostrophic component (Fig. 5). However the geos-
trophic component (2) is a linear function of depth and therefore
only rotates if it does not pass through the origin at some depth.
This is only possible if the sea surface slope and density gradients
are not parallel. It therefore seems likely that the modified
Heapsian model that imposes the surface velocity would be
preferable to the Heaps (1972) assumption of a parallel surface
slope and pressure gradient. As a corollary to relaxing the
assumption of parallel surface slope and density gradients, a
component of the diapycnic transport q can be in geostrophic
balance. This results in apparent freshwater fluxes that are two
orders of magnitude larger than the riverine contribution and
must be balanced by surface buoyancy forces.
4.2. Sensitivity
As in the original Heaps work, a number of variables are
uncertain, so parameter space is explored, within realistic limits,
to find the optimal set of parameters for the analytic solutions. The
original estimate for bed friction was r ¼ 0:126 m−1 . So the range
r ¼ 10j m−1 is set where j ¼ ½−3; 2 with increments of 0.5.
Similarly the original estimates of the viscosity parameter had a
range ν ¼ 0:0159–0:0636 m2 s−1 . Therefore, here, a wider range,
ν ¼ 10k m2 s−1 , where k ¼ ½−4; −1, with increments of 0.05, is set.
The horizontal gradient of density is also uncertain (Howarth
et al., unpublished). Error envelopes in ð1=ρÞ∇ρ are centred about
the CTD derived estimates for Sites A and B with equal ranges in
both horizontal directions. For Site A the range is 7 8  10−8 m−1
and for Site B the range is 7 5  10−8 m−1 .
J.A. Polton et al. / Continental Shelf Research 59 (2013) 115–126
ug(nr surface)
ug(nr surface)
∇ ρ (CTD)
∇ ρ (Heaps)
ADCP: Site B
ug(nr bed) best fit: Modified
geostrophic
ug(nr bed) ageostrophic
Eastward velocity (m/s)
Finally either the up-density-gradient riverine diapycnal flux, q, or
the surface velocity, U 0 , is set. The original estimate in Heaps (1972)
gave q ¼ 2  10−3 m3 s−1 per metre. An upper estimate for q can be
calculated from average Liverpool Bay river flow rates (≈200 m3 s−1
Polton et al., 2011). If these, average, rivers enter the Bay every 50 km
of coastline and the flow rate is underestimated by a generous factor
10 (due to unaccounted ground water seepage), then an upper
estimate of q ¼ 0:04 m2 s−1 . Therefore the range given by q ¼
½0; 0:04 m2 s−1 is set. For the modified residual circulation model
the surface velocity is used instead of imposing the diapycnal flux.
Here, because the error perturbations on any individual surface
velocity estimate are anticipated to be smaller than the spatial
variability of the quantity, parameter space is explored about an
initial estimate with an envelope of size 7 0:03 m s−1 , with incre-
ments of 0:005 m s−1 , in each direction.
In tuning the parameters to minimise the error score there is an
implicit assumption that the optimising process brings the para-
meters closer to their real value rather than that the tuning just
compensates for errors in the reduced physics assumptions in the
momentum balance (1) that is being solved. Whilst it is not
possible to definitively defend this assumption without more
accurate observational measurement of the parameters, an error
score sensitivity study, varying the parameters, can be instructive
as to whether this concern is important.
Since in practise there might be some considerable uncertainty
in the values of the controlling parameters (r; ν; ∇ρ and q or U 0 )
it is essential, in order to be practically useful, to explore the
sensitivity of the score to perturbations in the optimal parameters.
The optimal parameters are given in Table 1.
In the following subsections the error score sensitivity is
investigated across the parameter ranges. Site A and Site B are
investigated in turn.
4.2.1. Site A sensitivity
Score maps are computed by varying parameter pairs over their
permitted range, whilst keeping the remaining parameters at their
optimised values (Fig. 6) and compared to results from the original
Heaps formulation. This is useful since in the real ocean most of
these parameters have an uncertainty associated with any
 J.A. Polton et al. / Continental Shelf Research 59 (2013) 115–126 121

Fig. 6. Site A sensitivity maps showing error scores for the original Heaps formulation (left hand panels) and the modified Heaps (right hand formulation). Score less than
0.5 are ‘good’. Maps show sensitivity of parameter deviations from the optimised set. The top panels show sensitivity to friction r, and viscosity ν, with the cross denoting the
minimum error solution. The middle row shows the sensitivity to vary the density gradient term, with the optimal vector (solid) and CTD estimate shown (dashed). The
lower left panel shows the sensitivity to freshwater flux q, with the marker denoting the original offshore Heaps estimate (2  10−3 m2 s−1 ). The lower right hand panel
shows the sensitivity to the choice of surface velocity U 0 . The optimal U 0 is shown as a solid vector.

measurements. This analysis can help us determine the confidence
ranges, on the optimal parameter set, that achieve good scores.
The scores are largely insensitive to the bottom bed boundary
condition parameter rν=U, for representative velocity U ¼ 0:01 m s−1 ,
suggesting that either a free slip or a no slip boundary condition
could be used. This is partially a reflection that the observations do
not extend to the bed. In particular scores are more insensitive to
variations in r than ν, implying that it is less important to reduce
uncertainty in r than in the viscosity parameter. Good scores are
obtainable for both solutions though they occupy different regions of
ðν; rÞ parameter space. The new solution exhibits good scores over
the range ν ¼ 0:003–0:01ð10−2:5 –10−2 Þ m2 s−1 , though the range is
narrow and skewed to smallest values at the high friction end and
skewed to the larger values at the low friction end. On the other
hand, the original solution has no good solution anywhere in this
friction–viscosity parameter space! The crosses denote the optimised
solution.
Linearly varying ð∇ρÞ=ρ from its optimised vector (Fig. 6, middle
row), with all other parameters being held constant, it has not been
possible to produce a residual current profile with a good score using
the original Heaps solution since sufficiently low scores are unobtain-
able. However, with the modified Heaps solution good scores are
found and is still attained using the CTD estimates of the density
gradient. The magnitude of the discrepancy between the optimised
and CTD derived density gradients are greater than the anticipated
measurement error when using the original Heaps formulation and
within the anticipated measurement error when using the modified
formulation.
122 J.A. Polton et al. / Continental Shelf Research 59 (2013) 115–126

The score of the original Heaps formulation increases with
increasing q (Fig. 6, lower row). The optimised value is constrained
to be positive (consistent with the concept that the net flux across
density contours is balanced by the offshore riverine freshwater
flux). However this sensitivity diagnostic suggests that an opti-
mally fitted q value would be negative, corresponding to an
onshore flux of freshwater! Clearly there must be a problem with
the assumption that the depth integrated residual transport across
density surfaces is balanced solely by the freshwater flux. Fig. 5
(left panel) pictorially highlights the problem: the direction of the
geostrophic flow (green) varies with depth and has a component,
balanced by the sea surface slope, that is not perpendicular to the
density gradient. This component contributes, along with the
riverine freshwater flux, to the depth integrated diapycnal residual
transport. Clearly, therefore the freshwater transport is not an
effective way to constrain the diapycnal residual transport.
In the new formulation q is replaced by surface velocity, U 0 .
Exploring the sensitivity of the score to the choice of U 0 (Fig. 6,
lower right panel), good scores are restricted to a relatively small
parameter window.
4.2.2. Site B sensitivity
The analysis is repeated at Site B (Fig. 7). The patterns are
broadly similar. Notably the original Heaps formulation is still
unable to fit ‘good’ profiles to the observational data. At Site B the
new formulation has a broader range of good scoring viscosities
and a slightly broader range of permissible density gradient
vectors. Again with the modified solution, the difference between
the good ∇ρ=ρ and the CTD estimate is small, such that the actual
CTD derived gradients still have ‘good’ scores, and the difference
between them is within the subsampling error estimate.

Fig. 7. Site B sensitivity maps. See caption for Fig. 6.

 J.A. Polton et al. / Continental Shelf Research 59 (2013) 115–126
The optimal q in the original Heaps formulation is still zero
(because it was constrained to be offshore in the routine to
optimally fit parameters). However the sensitivity analysis on q
(Fig. 7, lower left panel) shows that the score would again be
minimised with a shoreward freshwater flux! Also the solution at
Site B is a lot more sensitive to the actual q value. Again, at Site B
the score is sensitive to the choice of U 0 .
Therefore it is shown that the original Heaps formulation is not
able to reproduce the observed profiles with as high an accuracy as
the modified formulation. In the following we therefore proceed
with the modified model as it is the most effective tool in
reproducing, and therefore leading to understanding of the lead-
ing order dynamics of the residual circulation in Liverpool Bay.
5. Inferring spatial maps of residual current profiles using HF
radar data
We have seen from an analysis of the Heaps residual circulation
theory that imposing the surface velocity results in a better repre-
sentation of the velocity profiles. This is because the errors that arise
in the reduced physics model are more tightly constrained with the
fixed reference surface velocity boundary condition than the integral
constraint and uni-directional geostrophic current assumption of
Heaps (1972). In addition to being more accurate, this new formula-
tion can be independently estimated using HF radar remote sensing
techniques. If the horizontal density gradients are computed from
the CTD survey data, then providing that robust estimates can be
made for the viscosity and bed friction, a depth varying and
empirically based residual circulation map can be computed for the
overlapping area that is covered by both the radar and the CTD
survey. The following is presented as a potentially useful method for
indirectly estimating the tidal residual circulation either at a point, or
over an area, without actual ADCP measurements. The outcome of
the analysis, as applied to the Liverpool Bay data set, is speculative
since the CTD survey data is not of fine enough spatial resolution to
accurately determine the horizontal density gradients (Howarth
et al., unpublished).
In the first step, POLCOMS is used to obtain estimates of
spatially varying friction and viscosity coefficients by optimally
fitting a residual circulation to the simulated profile data: Taking
the model's surface velocity and simulated density gradient,
optimal coefficients of friction and viscosity can be sought to best
fit the reduced physics model of the residual circulation to the
simulated profile. In Liverpool Bay, the Ekman number,
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

ffi
2
E ¼ 2ν= fH ¼ 1=RefαHg, correlates very closely to the error
score (Fig. 9), such that for this region E≤0:5 is very closely aligned
with the ‘good’ score criterion. Therefore, in proceeding friction
and viscosity coefficients that correspond to E≤0:5 are kept, rather
than using the arbitrary score value. Coefficients at locations
where E 40:5 are discarded. The second step is based on the
assumption that the POLCOMS simulation accurately represents
the viscosity and friction processes and that these are appropri-
ately captured using the modified Heaps model. The spatial
distributions of optimised viscosity ν (Fig. 9b) and friction r
(Fig. 9b) show 1.5 orders of magnitude range for both variables.
As shown in the sensitivity study for Site B, the skill is largely
insensitive to the value of the friction parameter within this range.
On the other hand it is important to capture the spatial variation of
viscosity. The optimally scoring coefficients are reinserted into the
reduced physics model from which they came, but crucially the
density gradients and surface velocities now come from the CTD
and the radar data. This produces geographically varying blended
profiles of residual current which correct for the known model
bias in density gradient. At Site A the Ekman number is too large
123
Fig. 8. Residual circulation profiles for site B. The Heaps blended solution (black)
has viscosity and friction parameters that are obtained by optimizing the solution
to the POLCOMS simulation (blue) but are then constrained by surface currents
from the radar and density gradients from the CTD array. Circles denote most
shallow observation depth. Eastward (northward) flow is denoted by solid (dashed)
lines. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure caption, the reader
is referred to the web version of this article.)
for the Heapsian model to be a good approximation. Therefore
only Site B ADCP data can be used to assess the validity of this
method. The blended profile is clearly an improvement on the
POLCOMS simulation (Fig. 8).
Accepting all the caveats we proceed to estimate laterally
varying residual circulation profiles in Liverpool Bay (Fig. 9). At
Sites A and B the observational data (red) and the POLCOMS
simulation data (blue) are also shown. The data shown for Site B
are plotted as profiles in Fig. 8. Since the ADCP profiles are
truncated near the surface (Fig. 8), circles are plotted on the
simulated and estimated hodographs to denote the ADCP trunca-
tion depth. Though it is the case that for all these data the near
surface values exhibit the most northward flow.
These estimations show that the surface residual currents are all
northwards. They also predict a weakening southward, near bed,
flow at more northerly stations. The four most northwesterly stations
predict circulation that is in the northward direction for all depths. At
Site B the blended product is entirely independent of the ADCP
estimate and is a significant improvement on the POLCOMS simu-
lated value. Elsewhere the blended predictions are, similarly to Site B,
of smaller magnitude than the simulated values (not shown).
6. Discussion
The residual circulation is a complicated flow driven by lateral
density gradients, surface winds, frictional and mixing processes
and by nonlinear tidal advection (Fischer, 1976; MacCready and
Geyer, 2010). We have modified the input parameters of the Heaps
(1972) formulation to help us better understand the residual
circulation in Liverpool Bay. It is shown that the modified for-
mulation, which imposes a surface current as an input parameter
instead of a riverine diapycnal flux volume, is able to better
reproduce the observed residual circulation because it relaxes
the assumption that the pressure gradient force can be computed
from density gradients and freshwater fluxes. The modified
formulation only includes a parameterisation of surface winds
and nonlinear tidal advection so far as they are captured by the
surface current, but with zero surface stress. This works in Liver-
pool Bay where the Ekman number is less than 0.5, though sites
with strong prevailing wind may benefit from explicit dependence
on wind stress (following e.g. Hendershott and Rizzoli, 1976).
124 J.A. Polton et al. / Continental Shelf Research 59 (2013) 115–126

Fig. 9. (a) Overlapping areas covered by the CTD array (red) and HF radar (green) are used to estimate depth varying residual flow hodographs (black). Crosses denote CTD
stations. The ADCP residual flow hodographs are shown (red) along with the 3D model simulations (blue) at sites A and B. In all hodographs the surface currents are more
northward than the bed current. The Ekman number (main panel) and error index (inset panel) are contoured within the CTD grid from zero with interval 0.5. Blended
hodographs are presented at CTD stations where there is HF radar data and where Ekman number ≤0:5. (b) Optimally fitted viscosity, log10 ðνÞ (m2 s−1 ). (c) Optimally fitted
friction, log10 ðrÞ (m−1 ). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure caption, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

The reduced physics model has a number of dependent para-
meters both measurable (lateral density gradient and surface
velocity) and immeasureable (viscosity and friction). It is shown
that the error of the Heaps model is largely insensitive to friction
and that a generous range of viscosity parameter space satisfies
the good score criterion (Fig. 7).
We have introduced an error score analysis that shows the
modified Heaps model which gives a significantly improved fit to
the observed data at both Sites. We have also, for the first time,
analysed the ADCP data in terms of the Heaps reduced physics
model and found that it is effective in explaining the spatial
variability of the observations.
Previous studies at Site A (Verspecht et al., 2009) have shown
that the original Heaps solution does not fit the observed data
well. We have demonstrated that the transition from high to low
skill with the Heapsian model corresponds to an increase in
Ekman number. Suggesting that the frictional component of the
Heaps model is not sufficient to capture the leading order
dynamics at Site A. The dynamics at Site A are renowned for their
complexity (Verspecht et al., 2010). It is probable that wind stress,
depth and/or time varying eddy viscosity may be required to
appropriately represent the true behaviour there. Nevertheless,
the fact that this reduced physics model, with a constant eddy
viscosity profile and prescribed surface current, has such good skill
which is remarkable given the canonical view of the dominant role
of periodic strain induced stratification.
The density gradients are not sufficiently resolved on the CTD
grid to make reliable predictions of the depth varying residual
 J.A. Polton et al. / Continental Shelf Research 59 (2013) 115–126 125

circulation. It is anticipated that high spatial and temporal resolu- principle role of the long term current is to laterally transport
tion data, such as that provided by autonomous glider measure- material, a volume conserving expression for the residual circula-
ments of temperature and salinity deployed on multi-week tion is appropriate. Therefore we define
missions will significantly improve our current understanding.

∂s n
Since it was shown that 1 year of ADCP data is sufficient to capture U n ðζÞ ¼ u : ð14Þ
∂ζ
the steady residual current profile it is anticipated that at a
composite year of glider CTD survey data will equivalently be The star represents the variable being expressed in surface
adequate to satisfactorily resolve the horizontal density gradients. following vertical coordinates, ζ, e.g. uðx; z; tÞ ¼ un ðx; ζ; tÞ, which
It is found that the simulation errors in the residual circulation varies linearly from −H at the bed to 0 at the moving sea surface
are consistent with simulated density gradient being too strong. and the angle brackets represent phase averaging over the tidal
A naive cross-isopycnal advection–diffusion density budget scal- frequencies. The regular cartesian vertical coordinate is expressed
ing, where L is the density gradient length scale and νh is the as z ¼ sðx; ζ; tÞ, where H ¼ 〈η〉 þ hðxÞ is the sum of the mean surface
horizontal diffusion, gives qðΔρ=LÞ∼Hνh Δρ=L2 . If furthermore the elevation slope, 〈η〉, and the bottom depth, hðxÞ 4 0. The new
horizontal diffusion is dominated by the ‘effective diffusion’ expression for the cartesian vertical coordinate is given as
induced by vertical exchange in an oscillating shear flow
a 
(Bowden, 1965; Young et al., 1982), then νh ∼U 2 H 2 =ν varies inver- sðx; ζ; tÞ ¼ ηðx; tÞ þ ζ 1 þ cos ψ ð15Þ
H
sely with the vertical diffusion ν. Thus the cross-front length scale
where ψ is the phase of the tidal surface gravity wave, η, and a is
Ł∼U 2 H 3 =ðqνÞ could be too small because of overestimations in the
the amplitude.
diapycnal flux q and the vertical diffusion ν. It is also shown that
Since the wavelength of the tide is long compared to the fluid
the residual circulation is sensitive to the value of the prescribed
depth hyperbolic depth variations of the wave properties are
surface velocity (which are correlated to the wind with coefficient
linearised to give the last term in (15) (following Mellor, 2003),
of 0.7). It is therefore likely that the most significant improve-
similarly otherwise important bathymetry slopes (Ardhuin et al.,
ments in the simulation of the residual circulation could be made
2008) are neglected.
by (i) better constraining the accuracy of the diapycnal fluxes
Noting that sζ ¼ 1 þ ða=HÞcosψ and d=dz ¼ s−1
ζ d=dζ, the follow-
(riverine input and buoyancy forcing) in the domain, (ii) thor-
ing transformed and phase averaged momentum components can
oughly investigating the lateral dispersal of freshwater, and
be found:
(iii) investigating the sensitivity to the wind forcing.
 
Finally given the cost limitations in making long term current a2
〈sζ ∇p〉 ¼ ρg∇〈η〉− 1 þ gζ∇ρ ð16Þ
profile measurements and the accuracy issues with current high 2H 2
resolution numerical simulations, a hybrid method is proposed to



  2 n
deduce the residual current whereby eddy viscosities are extracted ∂2 u 1 ∂2 un ∂2 U a a2 ∂ u
sζ 2 ¼ ¼ − 2 cos ψ þ 2 cos2 ψ−⋯ ;
from the model and combined with field estimates of density ∂z sζ ∂ζ 2
∂ζ 2 H H ∂ζ 2
gradient. This technique has remarkable success at Site B where, ð17Þ
using observationally derived CTD estimates and POLCOMS
derived viscosity and friction estimates, it predicts a profile that where the largest component of the last term, 〈2ða=HÞcos ψ
is closer to the independently observed ADCP estimates than it is ∂2 uðnÞ =∂ζ 2 〉 is found in the model to be about 10% the size of
to the POLCOMS simulation. In essence the lateral density gradient ∂2 U=∂ζ 2 at both Sites A and B. Therefore the momentum equations
in the POLCOMS simulation is corrected with the observed values. can be re-expressed in terms of phase average mean terms:
This tool cheaply combines multiplatform datasets to make ∇pn ∂2 U n
a
n
improved predictions of the residual circulation in Liverpool Bay ifU ¼ − þν þO ð18Þ
ρ ∂ζ 2 H
that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive to directly
measure with multiple moorings, and are currently not well where ∇pn ¼ ρg∇〈η〉−gð1 þ πa2 =H 2 Þζ∇ρ≈ρg∇〈η〉−gζ∇ρ. Having trans-
represented in numerical models. It is speculated that this tool formed momentum terms into surface stretched coordinates we
could be operationally useful for managing dispersal of anthro- drop the angle bracket, star notation and Oða=HÞ terms. The problem
pogenic passive tracers. is reduced to that with a static free surface. In practise, the difference
between residual currents computed with this vertical coordinate
system and regular sigma coordinates is not large, with a depth mean
Acknowledgements velocity error of about 0:5 cm s−1 . Also, the truncation error is
smaller than might be expected from a direct a=H assessment
We are truly indebted to the conscientious reviews that because the truncation terms are also a function of the phase
resulted in a significantly improved manuscript. Data was col- correlation between the tidal wave amplitude and its velocity
lected and Palmer was supported under the National Oceanogra- (Pingree and Maddock, 1985; Winant, 2008), and in Liverpool Bay
phy Centre's Liverpool Bay Observatory (funded under NERC the phase correlation is small because the tide propagates like a
National Capability). Howarth was supported under EU FP7 standing wave. In the Rhine ROFI, however, the tide has a progressive
FIELD_AC project (EC Grant 242284). Polton was funded by a NERC wave character and so these discarded terms will not be so small.
New Investigator Award (NE/I002103/1).
References

Appendix A. Shallow water tidal phase averaging
In the previous studies the time independence of the momen-
tum equation (1) is achieved by taking a sufficiently long time
average, filtering out the tidal contributions that vary temporally
but not vertically. In such shallow environments, however, it is
also important to quantify the impact that the tidal averaging, or
filtering, has on the vertical distribution of momentum. Since the
Ardhuin, F., Rascle, N., Belibassakis, K., 2008. Explicit wave-averaged primitive
equations using a generalized lagrangian mean. Ocean Modelling 20, 35–60.
Bowden, K.F., 1965. Horizontal mixing in the sea due to a shearing current. Journal
of Fluid Mechanics 21, 83–95.
Bowden, K.F., El Din, S.H.S., 1966. Circulation and mixing processes in the Liverpool
Bay area of the Irish Sea. Geophysical Journal of Royal Astronomic Society 11,
279–292.
Canuto, V.M., Howard, A., Cheng, Y., Dubovikov, M.S., 2001. Ocean turbulence. Part
I: One-point closure model—momentum and heat vertical diffusivities. Journal
of Physical Oceanography 31, 1413–1426.
126 J.A. Polton et al. / Continental Shelf Research 59 (2013) 115–126
Fairall, C.W., Bradley, E., Hare, J., Grachev, A., Edson, J., 2003. Bulk parameterization
of airsea fluxes: updates and verification for the COARE algorithm. Journal of
Climate 16, 571–591.
Fischer, H.B., 1976. Mixing and dispersion in estuaries. Annual Review of Fluid
Mechanics 8, 107–133.
Geyer, W.R., 1997. Influence of wind on dynamics and flushing of shallow estuaries.
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 44, 713–722.
Gurgel, K.W., Antonischki, G., 1997. Remote sensing of surface currents and waves
by the HF radar WERA. In: IEE Proceedings, Electronic Engineering in Oceano-
graphy, pp. 211–217.
Heaps, N.S., 1972. Estimation of density currents in the Liverpool Bay area of the
Irish Sea. Geophysical Journal of Royal Astronomical Society 30, 415–432.
Heaps, N.S., Jones, J.E., 1977. Density currents in the Irish Sea. Geophysical Journal of
Royal Astronomic Society 51, 393–429.
Hendershott, M.C., Rizzoli, P., 1976. The winter circulation of the Adriatic Sea. Deep
Sea Research 23, 353–370.
Holt, J., James, I.D., 1999. A simulation of the Southern North Sea in comparison
with measurements from the North Sea Project. Part I: Temperature. Con-
tinental Shelf Research 19, 1087–1112.
Holt, J., James, I.D., 2001. An s-coordinate model of the northwest European
continental shelf. Part I: Model description and density structure. Journal of
Geophysical Research 106, 14015–14034.
Holt, J., Umlauf, L., 2008. Modelling the tidal mixing fronts and seasonal stratifica-
tion of the Northwest European Continental shelf. Continental Shelf Research
28, 887–903.
Holt, J.T., Allen, J.I., Proctor, R., Gilbert, F., 2005. Error quantification of a high-
resolution coupled hydrodynamic-ecosystem coastal-ocean model: Part
1 model overview and assessment of the hydrodynamics. Journal of Marine
Systems 57, 167–188.
Howarth, M.J., Balfour, C., Player, R., Polton, J.A. Coastal density gradients near a
macro-tidal estuary. Continental Shelf Research (unpublished).
Howarth, M.J., Palmer, M.R., 2011. The Liverpool Bay coastal observatory. Ocean
Dynamics 61, 1917–1926.
Ianniello, J.P., 1977. Tidally induced residual currents in estuaries of constant
breadth and depth. Journal of Marine Research 35, 755–786.
James, I.D., 1996. Advection schemes for shelf sea models. Journal of Marine
Systems 8, 237–254.
Janzen, C.D., Wong, K.C., 2002. Wind-forced dynamics at the estuary-shelf interface
of a large coastal plain estuary. Journal of Geophysical Research 107.
Li, Y., Li, M., 2011. Effects of winds on stratification and circulation in a partially
mixed estuary. Journal of Geophysical Research 116.
MacCready, P., Geyer, W.R., 2010. Advances in estuarine physics. Annual Review of
Marine Science 2, 35–58.
Mathieu, P.P., Deleersnijder, E., Cushman-Roisin, B., Beckers, J.M., Bolding, K., 2002.
The role of topography in small well-mixed bays, with application to the lagoon
of Mururoa. Continental Shelf Research 22, 1379–1395.
Mellor, G.L., 2003. The three-dimensional current and surface wave equations.
Journal of Physical Oceanography 33, 1978–1989.
O'Neill, C.K., Polton, J.A., Holt, J.T., O'Dea, E.J., 2012. Modelling temperature and
salinity in Liverpool Bay and the Irish Sea: sensitivity to model type and surface
forcing. Ocean Science 8, 903–913.
Palmer, M.R., 2010. The modification of current ellipses by stratification in the
Liverpool Bay ROFI. Ocean Dynamics 60, 219–226.
Palmer, M.R., Polton, J.A., 2011. A strain induced freshwater pump in the Liverpool
Bay ROFI. Ocean Dynamics 61, 1905–1915.
Phelps, J.J.C., Polton, J.A., Souza, A.J., Robinson, L.A. Hydrodynamic timescales in a
hyper-tidal region of freshwater influence. Continental Shelf Research (sub-
mitted for publication).
Pingree, R.D., Maddock, L., 1985. Stokes, Euler and Lagrange aspects of residual tidal
transports in the english channel and the southern bight of the north sea.
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 65,
969–982.
Polton, J.A., Palmer, M.R., Howarth, M.J., 2011. Physical and dynamical oceanogra-
phy of Liverpool Bay. Ocean Dynamics 61, 1421–1439.
Ponte, A.L., 2010. Periodic wind-driven circulation in an elongated and rotating
basin. Journal of Physical Oceanography 40, 2043–2058.
Ponte, A.L., Gutiérrez de Velasco, G., Valle-Levinson, A., Winters, K.B., Winant, C.D.,
2012. Wind-driven subinertial circulation inside a semienclosed bay in the Gulf
of California. Journal of Physical Oceanography 42, 940–955.
Prandle, D., 1982. The vertical structure of tidal currents. Geophysical and Astro-
physical Fluid Dynamics 22, 29–49.
Prandle, D., 1987. The fine-structure of nearshore tidal and residual circulations
revealed by H.F. radar surface current measurements. Journal of Physical
Oceanography 17, 231–245.
Prandle, D., Matthews, J., 1990. The dynamics of nearshore surface currents
generated by tides, wind and horizontal density gradients. Continental Shelf
Research 10, 665–681.
Prandle, D., Ryder, D., 1989. Comparison of observed (HF radar) and modelled
nearshore velocities. Continental Shelf Research 9, 941–963.
Ralston, D.K., Geyer, W.R., Lerczak, J.A., 2008. Subtidal salinity and velocity in the
Hudson River Estuary: observations and modeling. Journal of Physical Oceano-
graphy 38, 753–770.
Rippeth, T.P., Fisher, N.R., Simpson, J.H., 2001. The cycle of turbulent dissipation in
the presence of tidal straining. Journal of Physical Oceanography 31,
2458–2471.
Robinson, A.M., Wyatt, L.R., Howarth, M.J., 2011. A two year comparison between
HF radar and ADCP current measurements in Liverpool Bay. Journal of
Operational Oceanography 4, 33–45.
Ruddick, K.G., Deleersnijder, E., Luyten, P.J., Ozer, J., 1995. Haline stratification in the
Rhine-Meuse fresh water plume: a three-dimensional model sensitivity analy-
sis. Continental Shelf Research 15, 12507–12630.
Sanay, R., Valle-Levinson, A., 2005. Wind-induced circulation in semienclosed
homogeneous, rotating basins. Journal of Physical Oceanography 35,
2520–2531.
Simpson, J.H., 1997. Physical processes in the ROFI regime. Journal of Marine
Systems 12, 3–15.
Simpson, J.H., Brown, J., Matthews, J., Allen, G., 1990. Tidal straining, density
currents, and stirring in the control of estuarine stratification. Estuaries 13,
125–132.
Simpson, J.H., Burchard, H., Fisher, N.R., Rippeth, T.P., 2002. The semi-diurnal cycle
of dissipation in a ROFI: model-measurement comparisons. Continental Shelf
Research 22, 1615–1628.
Verspecht, F., Rippeth, T.P., Simpson, J.H., Souza, A.J., Burchard, H., Howarth, M.J.,
2009. Residual circulation and stratification in the Liverpool Bay region of
freshwater influence. Ocean Dynamics 59, 765–779.
Verspecht, F., Simpson, J.H., Rippeth, T.P., 2010. Semi-diurnal tidal ellipse variability
in a region of freshwater influence. Geophysical Research Letters 37.
Visser, A.W., Souza, A.J., Hessner, K., Simpson, J.H., 1994. The effect of stratification
on tidal current profiles in a region of freshwater influence. Oceanologica Acta
17, 369–381.
Winant, C.D., 2004. Three-dimensional wind-driven flow in an elongated, rotating
basin. Journal of Physical Oceanography 34, 462–476.
Winant, C.D., 2006. Three-dimensional wind-driven coastal circulation past a
headland. Journal of Physical Oceanography 36, 1430–1438.
Winant, C.D., 2007. Three-dimensional tidal flow in an elongated, rotating basin.
Journal of Physical Oceanography 37, 2345–2362.
Winant, C.D., 2008. Three-dimensional residual tidal circulation in an elongated,
rotating basin. Journal of Physical Oceanography 38, 1278–1295.
Young, W.R., Rhines, P.B., Garrett, C.J.R., 1982. Shear-flow dispersion, internal waves
and horizontal mixing in the ocean. Journal of Physical Oceanography 12,
515–527.