Dean Profile uses #83
MikeWalkden
started this conversation in
General
Replies: 0 comments
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
_Start of (Email) message from Dave FM.
I've changed CME today to use mean SWL for beach Dean profiles. Mean SWL is the start-of-simulation SWL plus any long-term change in SWL. This-iteration SWL (as used elsewhere in the model, e.g. in coastline tracing) is the same, plus any tidal change in SWL.
All OK so far? Right, two weeks ago in Southwark we discussed also using runup to determine beach Dean profile start elevation, as calculated by CShore. We have this available, thanks to Manuel. So my questions are:
Your thoughts?
Dave
End of Email message._
The point on runup and the origin of the Dean profile has, I think, since been covered by the ‘SWL and runup‘ discussion.
The use of mean SWL + the user-input berm height as the origin of the Beach Dean profiles makes sense to me.
Personally, I don’t think it’s a good idea to represent the talus from cliff failure as a Dean profile. I think this brings unrealistic irregularity to the coastline and nearshore. In my mind, talus tends to form a cone or wedge at the toe of the cliff, which is then weathered by waves. The products of that weathering are then either lost in suspension or accumulate in the beach. So the question for me is whether to represent the cone/ wedge stage, which requires modelling the form and rates of loss, or to pass the beach suitable material directly into the beach.
In SCAPE I chose to represent a wedge of talus and to weather it, assuming (I think) that its resistance to wave attack was reduced to 10% of the original. In practice I do not know whether this was better than passing the beach suitable material directly into the beach. In most cases I suspect not - I could outline the pros and cons if helpful?
All reactions