





Tab 



le 3 















Geometric 



Input 



Data 















KMebel Model 











Profile 



Dune 





Berm 





£/, 







Height 





Width 



Height 





Duration 



Location/Date 



Number 

 3 



m 



Slope 

 0.174 



m 

 4.0 



m 



Slope 

 0.083 



m 1/3 

 0.124 



hr 



Westhampton 



5.8 



3.4 



60 



3 Feb 1972 



4 



4.7 



0.070 



3.7 



2.0 



0.065 



0.114 



60 





5 



4.7 



0.098 



18.0 



2.0 



0.105 



0.075 



60 



Westhampton 



3 



5.6 



0.138 



0.0 



2.4 



0.066 



0.108 



60 



19 Feb 1972 



4 



4.6 



0.157 



0.0 



1.8 



0.040 



0.117 



60 





5 



8.4 



0.151 



10.0 



2.7 



0.051 



0.128 



60 



Long Beach 



14 



5.5 



0.340 



0.0 



2.6 



0.086 



0.114 



96 



Island 



15 



4.3 



0.175 



0.0 



2.3 



0.078 



0.113 



96 



19 Dec 1977 



16 



5.3 



0.156 



4.9 



2.0 



0.087 



0.114 



96 





17 



5.0 



0.333 



0.0 



3.1 



0.081 



0.118 



96 





18 



5.3 



0.130 



2.4 



2.0 



0.109 



0.124 



96 



Duck 



186 



7.5 



0.210 



0.0 



1.7 



0.046 



0.105 



72 



14 Nov 1981 



188 



6.6 



0.203 



0.0 



2.4 



0.079 



0.101 



72 





190 



6.4 



0.500 



0.0 



4.0 



0.107 



0.101 



72 







Model Comparison 









99. Above-MSL and above-surge level erosion quantities predicted by 

 the Vellinga and Kriebel models for each profile line are given in Table 4. 

 Note that as recommended by Vellinga, his prediction has been adjusted for 

 the duration of the storm, which in most cases improves the result. Although 

 there is considerable scatter in the data (Figure 15), the volumetric esti- 

 mates are deemed reasonable. The worst case for both models, Profile 18 on 

 Long Beach Island, is an isolated case which probably resulted from the 

 location of this profile near a large terminal groin. For the 14 cases, the 

 Vellinga model tends to equally over- and underpredict the above-MSL changes 

 but underpredicts all but two of the above-surge level quantities. The 

 Kriebel model tends to overpredict both quantities. 



100. Poststorm profile shapes are not as accurately reproduced. 

 Cross-section plots for all the cases are shown in Figure 16. Note that 

 because only the poststorm profile shapes from the Kriebel model are shown in 

 Figure 16, they appear misleading with respect to the conservation of sand. 

 Figures 17a and b illustrate the schematic initial and predicted profile 

 shapes used with the Kriebel model for both the best and worst fits given in 

 Table 4. 



101. The data presented in Table 4 indicate that both models are 



49 



