0.5 -, 



0.0 



S -0.5 ■ 



0) 



-1.0 

 0.5 



0.0 



Initial 



-D— measured 

 GENESIS 



-2 



10 



e -0.5- 



-1.0' 



-1 — ' — I — 1 — r- 



12 14 16 



■ Initial 



■ measured 

 ■GENESIS 





cbx> 



4 6 8 10 12 



Distance Alongshore, m 



— r- 



14 



16 



Figure 17. Case 1 physical model/GENESIS comparison 



model as shown in Figure 18. However, a noticeable difference exists between 

 the shoreline evolutions of the compartments to the left and right of the center 

 groin (Groin 2). The compartment to the left of Groin 2 is more irregular and 

 cusp-shaped than the compartment to the right of Groin 2. This difference may 

 be explained by the irregular bathymetry that evolved between the groins at 

 longshore coordinates .v = 2 and 8 m. The bathymetry (from an unpublished 

 report documenting the physical model study) evolved during the experiment to 

 form a transverse bar near the updrift flank of the Groin 1 T-head. Wave energy 

 focused by this transverse bar could be responsible for the greater erosion of the 

 fillet located updrift of Groin 1. The shoreline produced by GENESIS shows 

 better agreement with the shoreline within the compartment to the right of 

 Groin 2. Bathymetric contours within and seaward of this compartment are 

 nearly straight and parallel. The better agreement of GENESIS with the updrift 

 compartment of Groin 2 may be explained by consideration of the action of 

 Snell's Law implemented in the GENESIS internal wave model (which is based 

 on locally straight and parallel contours). 



GENESIS demonstrates capability in representing shoreline change influ- 

 enced by T-head groins with constant wave conditions. In design applications, 

 however, wave conditions are not constant. To assess the behavior of the model 

 under varying wave conditions, the wave direction was sinusoidally varied. With 

 increased wave obliqueness included with these simulations, the shoreline 



18 



Chapters Functional Design 



