A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Physical Hydraulic Models: Assessment of Predictive Capabilities. Report 3. Model study of Shoaling, Brunswick Harbor, Georgia
The sedimentation predictions of the fixed-bed model study of Brunswick Harbor and the subsequent prototype data analysis addressed the impacts of two closure dams in the vicinity of the harbor. The periods of analysis covered approximately 6.5 years prior to construction of the first closure dam, 5.5 years between the first and second closure dams, and 1 year after the completion of the second closure dam. The model study used gilsonite (a noncohesive, finely ground asphaltic material) as a tracer, while the prototype sediment is highly cohesive clay. The model correctly predicted the reduction and redistribution of shoaling with the first closure dam. However, with the second closure dam, the model erroneously predicted a large reduction in shoaling volumes, while the prototype experienced a slight increase. It is concluded that the prediction of the second closure dam was in error due to the difference in basic criteria for transport and deposition in the model and prototype (noncohesive versus cohesive, respectively) and to the drastic change in hydraulic conditions with the second closure dam relative to the shoaling verification and to the noncohesive critical velocity for transport of the model sediment. It is recommended the cohesive sediments should be modeled by the smallest and lightest model tracer that can be realistically used and that when tracer transport is stopped by subcritical bed shear stresses, the results should be identified as potentially erroneous.
Physical Hydraulic Models: Assessment of Predictive Capabilities. Report 3. Model study of Shoaling, Brunswick Harbor, Georgia
The sedimentation predictions of the fixed-bed model study of Brunswick Harbor and the subsequent prototype data analysis addressed the impacts of two closure dams in the vicinity of the harbor. The periods of analysis covered approximately 6.5 years prior to construction of the first closure dam, 5.5 years between the first and second closure dams, and 1 year after the completion of the second closure dam. The model study used gilsonite (a noncohesive, finely ground asphaltic material) as a tracer, while the prototype sediment is highly cohesive clay. The model correctly predicted the reduction and redistribution of shoaling with the first closure dam. However, with the second closure dam, the model erroneously predicted a large reduction in shoaling volumes, while the prototype experienced a slight increase. It is concluded that the prediction of the second closure dam was in error due to the difference in basic criteria for transport and deposition in the model and prototype (noncohesive versus cohesive, respectively) and to the drastic change in hydraulic conditions with the second closure dam relative to the shoaling verification and to the noncohesive critical velocity for transport of the model sediment. It is recommended the cohesive sediments should be modeled by the smallest and lightest model tracer that can be realistically used and that when tracer transport is stopped by subcritical bed shear stresses, the results should be identified as potentially erroneous.
Physical Hydraulic Models: Assessment of Predictive Capabilities. Report 3. Model study of Shoaling, Brunswick Harbor, Georgia
J. V. Letter (author) / W. H. McAnally (author)
1981
152 pages
Report
No indication
English