Tedious Creek Small Craft Harbor: CGWAVE Model Comparisons Between Existing and Authorized Breakwater Configurations
Figure 1. Map of Tedious Creek, MD
Figure 2. CGWAVE model for Tedious Creek, MD, with existing as-built gap of 122 m (400 ft)
Figure 3. Tedious Creek bathymetry with water level of 1.0 m mllw for existing configuration
CGWAVE SENSITIVITY
Figure 4. Orientation of transect lines T1 and T2 and 11 boxes for (a) existing breakwater with 122-m (400-ft) gap and (b) authorized breakwater with 91-m (300-ft) gap
Figure 5. CGWAVE wave heights for no breaking (none), wave breaking (WB), bottom friction (BF), and both (BFWB) for T = 6 sec, HI = 1 m, water level of 1 m mllw, and wave direction of θ = W (180 deg) along (a) transect T1 and (b) transect
EXISTING AS-BUILT BREAKWATER WAVE HEIGHTS
Figure 7. Measured incident PUV directional gage wave parameters
Figure 9. Comparison of CGWAVE predicted wave heights with measured field sites
Figure 10. CGWAVE wave height predictions for existing configuration with wave conditions of T = 6 sec, HI = 1 m, water level of 1 m mllw, and wave directions of (a) NW (135 deg), (b) W (180 deg), and (c) SW (225 deg)
Figure 11. CGWAVE wave height predictions along transect T1 for existing configuration with HI = 1 m, water level of 1 m mllw, and (a) T = 6 sec, (b) T = 10 sec, and (c) T = 16 sec
Figure 12. CGWAVE wave height predictions along transect T2 for existing configuration with HI = 1 m, water level of 1 m mllw, and (a) T = 6 sec, (b) T = 10 sec, and (c) T = 16 sec
AUTHORIZED BREAKWATER WAVE HEIGHTS
Figure 13. CGWAVE average wave heights in box areas for existing configura- tion for waves with HI = 1 m, water level of 1 m mllw, and (a) T = 6 sec, (b) T = 10 sec, and (c) T = 16 sec
COMPARISON OF BREAKWATER CONFIGURATIONS
Figure 14. CGWAVE predictions for authorized configuration with wave condi- tions of T = 6 sec, HI = 1 m, water level of 1 m mllw, and wave directions of (a) NW (135 deg), (b) W (180 deg), and (c) SW (225 deg)
Figure 15. CGWAVE wave height predictions along transect T1 for authorized configuration with HI = 1 m, water level of 1 m mllw, and (a) T = 6 sec, (b) T = 10 sec, and (c) T = 16 sec
Figure 16. CGWAVE wave height predictions along transect T2 for authorized configuration with HI = 1 m, water level of 1 m mllw, and (a) T = 6 sec, (b) T = 10 sec, and (c) T = 16 sec
Figure 17. CGWAVE average wave heights in box areas in authorized config- uration for waves with HI = 1 m, water level of 1 m mllw, and (a) T = 6 sec, (b) T = 10 sec, and (c) T = 16 sec
Figure 18. Difference wave heights in box areas between existing and authorized configurations for waves with HI = 1 m, water level of 1 m mllw, and (a) T = 6 sec, (b) T = 10 sec, and (c) T = 16 sec
COMPARISON TO PREVIOUS STUDIES
SUMMARY - chetn-i-670023
REFERENCES - chetn-i-670024
chetn-i-67
Figure 1. Map of Tedious Creek, MD
Figure 2. CGWAVE model for Tedious Creek, MD, with existing as-built gap of 122 m (400 ft)
Figure 3. Tedious Creek bathymetry with water level of 1.0 m mllw for existing configuration
CGWAVE SENSITIVITY
Figure 4. Orientation of transect lines T1 and T2 and 11 boxes for (a) existing breakwater with 122-m (400-ft) gap and (b) authorized breakwater with 91-m (300-ft) gap
Figure 5. CGWAVE wave heights for no breaking (none), wave breaking (WB), bottom friction (BF), and both (BFWB) for T = 6 sec, HI = 1 m, water level of 1 m mllw, and wave direction of θ = W (180 deg) along (a) transect T1 and (b) transect
EXISTING AS-BUILT BREAKWATER WAVE HEIGHTS
Figure 7. Measured incident PUV directional gage wave parameters
Figure 9. Comparison of CGWAVE predicted wave heights with measured field sites
Figure 10. CGWAVE wave height predictions for existing configuration with wave conditions of T = 6 sec, HI = 1 m, water level of 1 m mllw, and wave directions of (a) NW (135 deg), (b) W (180 deg), and (c) SW (225 deg)
Figure 11. CGWAVE wave height predictions along transect T1 for existing configuration with HI = 1 m, water level of 1 m mllw, and (a) T = 6 sec, (b) T = 10 sec, and (c) T = 16 sec
Figure 12. CGWAVE wave height predictions along transect T2 for existing configuration with HI = 1 m, water level of 1 m mllw, and (a) T = 6 sec, (b) T = 10 sec, and (c) T = 16 sec
AUTHORIZED BREAKWATER WAVE HEIGHTS
Figure 13. CGWAVE average wave heights in box areas for existing configura- tion for waves with HI = 1 m, water level of 1 m mllw, and (a) T = 6 sec, (b) T = 10 sec, and (c) T = 16 sec
COMPARISON OF BREAKWATER CONFIGURATIONS
Figure 14. CGWAVE predictions for authorized configuration with wave condi- tions of T = 6 sec, HI = 1 m, water level of 1 m mllw, and wave directions of (a) NW (135 deg), (b) W (180 deg), and (c) SW (225 deg)
Figure 15. CGWAVE wave height predictions along transect T1 for authorized configuration with HI = 1 m, water level of 1 m mllw, and (a) T = 6 sec, (b) T = 10 sec, and (c) T = 16 sec
Figure 16. CGWAVE wave height predictions along transect T2 for authorized configuration with HI = 1 m, water level of 1 m mllw, and (a) T = 6 sec, (b) T = 10 sec, and (c) T = 16 sec
Figure 17. CGWAVE average wave heights in box areas in authorized config- uration for waves with HI = 1 m, water level of 1 m mllw, and (a) T = 6 sec, (b) T = 10 sec, and (c) T = 16 sec
Figure 18. Difference wave heights in box areas between existing and authorized configurations for waves with HI = 1 m, water level of 1 m mllw, and (a) T = 6 sec, (b) T = 10 sec, and (c) T = 16 sec
COMPARISON TO PREVIOUS STUDIES
SUMMARY - chetn-i-670023
REFERENCES - chetn-i-670024
chetn-i-67
