Comparisons of Physical and Numerical Model Wave Predictions with Prototype Data at Morro Bay Harbor Entrance, California
PREDICTED DESIGN PERFORMANCE
Figure 2. Prototype gauge locations at M
PROTOTYPE DATA
Figure 3. Wave roses of significant heigh3.7g2t3923 117 heig
Figure 4. Comparison of wave param
COMPARISON OF PROTOTYPE AND PHYSICAL MODEL WAVE ESTIMATES
Figure 5. Comparison of wave parameee
d.7d3 1 Tf-0.0027P <3 0 0 10.02 431.003j10.02 0 0 1002 3 Tm(DC)Tj10.306 746.76 Tm(3.02 476.645 743 0 0 10.0
Figure 7. Reference distance along cha
COMPARISON OF PROTOTYPE AND NUMERICAL MODEL WAVE ESTIMATES
Figure 8. Comparison of model and pm3js 13132.84 428.76 Tm(FigureciveColorime73j55 439f39I 187.8589 42
Figure 10. Co
SUMMARY - chetn-i-650014
REFERENCES - chetn-i-650015
chetn-i-65
PREDICTED DESIGN PERFORMANCE
Figure 2. Prototype gauge locations at M
PROTOTYPE DATA
Figure 3. Wave roses of significant heigh3.7g2t3923 117 heig
Figure 4. Comparison of wave param
COMPARISON OF PROTOTYPE AND PHYSICAL MODEL WAVE ESTIMATES
Figure 5. Comparison of wave parameee
d.7d3 1 Tf-0.0027P <3 0 0 10.02 431.003j10.02 0 0 1002 3 Tm(DC)Tj10.306 746.76 Tm(3.02 476.645 743 0 0 10.0
Figure 7. Reference distance along cha
COMPARISON OF PROTOTYPE AND NUMERICAL MODEL WAVE ESTIMATES
Figure 8. Comparison of model and pm3js 13132.84 428.76 Tm(FigureciveColorime73j55 439f39I 187.8589 42
Figure 10. Co
SUMMARY - chetn-i-650014
REFERENCES - chetn-i-650015
chetn-i-65
