html5-img
1 / 11

The Buoyant Plume Lift-off Zone as a Test of Coastal Sediment Transport Models

The Buoyant Plume Lift-off Zone as a Test of Coastal Sediment Transport Models. David A. Jay, Philip M. Orton and Douglas J. Wilson OGI School of Science and Engineering Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR Research Supported by the National Science Foundation

zarola
Download Presentation

The Buoyant Plume Lift-off Zone as a Test of Coastal Sediment Transport Models

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Buoyant Plume Lift-off Zone as a Test of Coastal Sediment Transport Models David A. Jay, Philip M. Orton and Douglas J. WilsonOGI School of Science and EngineeringOregon Health & Science University, Portland, ORResearch Supported by the National Science Foundation Thanks to Rocky Geyer and Dan MacDonald, WHOI, Denise Reed, LSU and and Ray McQuin, Captain, R/V Barnes, UW

  2. Concept -- • “Challenging” data sets are needed to test models. • Desirable properties -- • strong sediment transport in a simple geometry • tractable experimental site with definitive data • broad range of particle sizes • departure from local vertical equilibrium (e.g., strong advection) • aggregation and settling/erosion alter the size distribution • strong gradients in salinity, bedstress and vertical mixing • wave-current interactions (not in this data set) • variable sediment transport direction • supply limitation, variable bed properties • poorly understood, but geologically relevant! • Fraser River mouth as a valuable experimental site

  3. Concept (Continued) -- • New types of data need new data analyses methods! • Tools: • High spatial resolution allows a variety of calculations • Joint acoustic/optical methods to encompass broad size ranges • Need better data-driven treatment of vertical turbulent mixing • Use a multi-sensor inverse method to determine WS classes • Objectives: • Analyze SPM balance by WS class (ideally), for now, by fines vs. flocs • Understand SPM transport in advection-dominated systems • Match data analyses with simple theoretical as well as numerical models

  4. The Fraser River Setting: • Compact glaciated basin, <10 of latitude • Summer, single-event hydrograph • Flows higher in cold PDO/La Niña years -- 1999 flow was the largest since 1974 • 2000 was within the average range • Average total load is 18.5x106 mt with 6.5x106 mt of sand • Fraser delta is growing, unstable? • Delta is sandy, fines in Straits of Georgia • Flows monitored, 30+ yrs sediment transport data, multiple stations in river

  5. 1999-2000 Fraser River Data Sets -- • 300 and 1200 kHz ADCP, ABS (coarse material) & velocity • Towed salinity, OBS (for fines) • WS from Owen tube, size from LISST (2000 only), Coulter counter size • Bed material, pump/Niskin bottles • Bedforms from echo sounder • LMER Chl, zooplankton (1999) • 1999 -- extreme flows, few aggregates in river, short Tresidence • 2000 -- more normal year with aggregation, retention of SPM on the neaps • Anchor stations, lateral and longitudinal sections, with two vessels (1999 only) 1999 anchor calibration stations 1999 mouth drifts Drifts D&E  Drifts A,B,C 25/7/1999 Drifts 2000 bed sizes

  6. Fraser River Supplies a Broad Range of SPM Sizes, modified by Estuary/Plume: • Sand and floc have similar settling velocities WS, but distinguished by location, dis-aggregated sizes, distinct acoustic responses LISST-100 Low bedstress, salt wedge sample --Coarse fraction is flocs ABS Response Settling Tube River sand Plume Flocs

  7. Drift Tracks at ~35 min Intervals -- A A B B C C D D E Salinity E X-velocity Along-drift velocity (left) and salinity (right) at end of ebb. Very strong shear and stratification, leading to SPM advection

  8. Evolving Plume SPM Distributions -- • Large (acoustically visible) particles settle out due to reduced vertical mixing. Small particles dominate in pycnocline, freshwater. ABS Flocs/Sand OBS Fines

  9. Sand&Floc 2-D Dynamic Balance -- • Strong alongchannel advection at plume lift-off • C/t, vertical diffusion, and settling smaller -- NOT a local balance in z • W important in upper water column at lift-off • Need better vertical mixing representation, which includes interfacial mixing near pycnocline • Lateral advection? Not measured here, can be evaluated in lateral sections

  10. 2-D Dynamical Balance for Fines -- • Strong advection in pycnoclne, settling not important • What balances advection if not settling? • Need to estimate loss to aggregation • Need better vertical mixing representation! • Lateral advection? No! V/U

  11. Conclusions • SPM balance strongly advective at plume lift-off • Mixing, advection, settling, aggregation all important • Broad size distribution requires multiple sensors, inverse analysis techniques to separate WS classes • Need to evaluate turbulence field from data using mixing efficiency, salt and momentum balances (Kay and Jay, submitted to JGR) • Particle field evolves rapidly in lift-off zone -- sampling scales must be on consistent with processes • Particle settling, transformations in the lift-off zone affect delta and shelf processes • Analytical, conceptual and modeling challenges abound

More Related