Analytical and numerical analysis of tides and salinities in estuaries; part I: tidal wave propagation in convergent estuaries

Leo C. van Rijn

doi:10.1007/s10236-011-0453-0

Ocean Dynamics

November 2011, Volume 61, Issue 11, pp 1719–1741 | Cite as

Analytical and numerical analysis of tides and salinities in estuaries; part I: tidal wave propagation in convergent estuaries

Authors
Authors and affiliations

Leo C. van Rijn

Article

First Online: 10 July 2011

615 Downloads
44 Citations

Abstract

Analytical solutions of the momentum and energy equations for tidal flow are studied. Analytical solutions are well known for prismatic channels but are less well known for converging channels. As most estuaries have a planform with converging channels, the attention in this paper is fully focused on converging tidal channels. It will be shown that the tidal range along converging channels can be described by relatively simple expressions solving the energy and momentum equations (new approaches). The semi-analytical solution of the energy equation includes quadratic (nonlinear) bottom friction. The analytical solution of the continuity and momentum equations is only possible for linearized bottom friction. The linearized analytical solution is presented for sinusoidal tidal waves with and without reflection in strongly convergent (funnel type) channels. Using these approaches, simple and powerful tools (spreadsheet models) for tidal analysis of amplified and damped tidal wave propagation in converging estuaries have been developed. The analytical solutions are compared with the results of numerical solutions and with measured data of the Western Scheldt Estuary in the Netherlands, the Hooghly Estuary in India and the Delaware Estuary in the USA. The analytical solutions show surprisingly good agreement with measured tidal ranges in these large-scale tidal systems. Convergence is found to be dominant in long and deep-converging channels resulting in an amplified tidal range, whereas bottom friction is generally dominant in shallow converging channels resulting in a damped tidal range. Reflection in closed-end channels is important in the most landward 1/3 length of the total channel length. In strongly convergent channels with a single forward propagating tidal wave, there is a phase lead of the horizontal and vertical tide close to 90^o, mimicking a standing wave system (apparent standing wave).

Keywords

Tidal propagation Salinity Convergent estuary Prismatic channel Analytical model Numerical model

This is a preview of subscription content, to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

J. Dronkers of Deltares is gratefully acknowledged for his suggestions and checks improving the manuscript. Also, PK Tonnon of Deltares/Delft Hydraulics is gratefully acknowledged for performing and analyzing the DELFT2DH model runs.

Appendix I

The energy flux balance for depth-integrated tidal flow reads, as:

$$ d\left( {b\overline F } \right)/{\text{dx}} + b\;{D_w} = 0 $$

(1)

$$ b\;{\text{d}}\overline {\text{F}} /{\text{dx}} + \overline {\text{F}} {\text{db}}/{\text{dx}} + b\;{D_w} = 0 $$

(2)

with $ \overline F $ = energy flux per unit width per unit time and D _w = energy dissipation per unit area and time due to bottom friction, b = width of estuary channel, x = horizontal coordinate (positive in landward direction, x = 0 = mouth). The unit of each term is kgm/s³.

Since the work per unit time is defined as the product of force and velocity (=length per unit time), the instantaneous work done by the dynamic pressure force in a vertical section is:

$$ F{ =_o}\int {^h{P_d}\;\overline {\text{u}} \;{\text{dz}}} $$

(3)

The time-averaged (over the wave period) work done by the dynamic pressure force

$$ \overline F = {\left( {1/T} \right)_o}{\int {^T}_o}\int {^h\left( {{P_d}\overline u } \right)dz\;dt} $$

(4)

with, P _d = ρ g η = instantaneous pressure at height z above bed due to tidal water level variation, η = $ \widehat{\eta } $ cos(ωt), $ \overline u $ = Q _r/(bh) + $ \widehat{{\overline u }} $ cos(ωt + φ) = instantaneous tidal velocity at height z (assumed to be constant over the depth and equal to depth-averaged velocity), h _o = water depth to mean water surface level (h = h _o + η), b = width of estuary, Q _r = river discharge, φ = phase lead of velocity maximum with respect to water level maximum.

Generally, Q _r < < Q _tide. Thus:

$$ \begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {\overline F = {{\left( {1/T} \right)}_o}\int {{{^T}_o}\int {^h\left( {\rho \;g\;\eta \;\mu } \right)dz\;dt = \left( {\rho \;g\;{h_o}} \right){{\left( {1/T} \right)}_o}\int {^T\left( {\eta \;\overline u } \right)dt} } } } \hfill \\ {\overline F = \left[ {\rho \;g\;{h_o}\;{Q_r}/\left( {b{h_o}} \right)} \right] + \left[ {\left( {\rho \;g\;{h_o}\;\widehat\eta \;\overline u } \right){{\left( {1/T} \right)}_o}\int {^T} \cos \left( {\omega t} \right)\cos \left( {\omega t + \varphi } \right)dt} \right]} \hfill \\ { \overline F = \left[ {\rho \;g\;{h_o}\;{Q_r}/\left( {b{h_o}} \right)} \right] + \left[ {\left( {0.5\;\rho \;g\;{h_o}\;\overline \eta \;\hat{\bar{u}}} \right)\cos \left( \varphi \right)} \right]} \hfill \\ { \overline F = \left[ {\rho \;g\;{h_o}{Q_r}/\left( {b{h_o}} \right)} \right] + \left[ {\left( {0.25\;g\;{h_o}\;H\;\hat{\bar{u}}} \right)\cos \left( \varphi \right)} \right]} \hfill \\ \end{array} $$

(5)

Using the characteristics of a progressive wave in deep water: $ \widehat{{\overline u }} $ = ($ \widehat{\eta } $/h _o)c _o = (0.5H/h _o)c _o; φ = 0; $ \widehat{\eta } $ = 0.5H; c _o = (gh_o)^0.5 and assuming Q _r = 0, it follows that:

$$ \overline F = 0.125\;\rho \;g\;{H^2}{c_o} = \overline E \;{c_o} $$

(6)

with $ \overline E $ = 0.125 ρ g H ² = energy of a wave per unit area, c _o = wave propagation velocity.

Thus, the energy flux per unit width of a progressive wave in deep water is equal to the energy of a wave per unit length of the wave and the wave propagation velocity (similar to the expression used in short wave theory).

The instantaneous energy dissipation per unit area and time due to work done by the bed shear stress is:

$$ {D_w} = {\tau_b}\;\overline u = 0.125\;\rho \;{f^2}\;\overline u = 0.125\;\rho \;f\;{\widehat{{\overline u }}^3}\;{\cos^3}(\omega t) $$

(7)

with τ_b = bed shear stress = 0.125 ρ f $ \overline u $ _, ² f = friction coefficient = 8 g/C ², C = Chézy coefficient.

The time-averaged work done by the bed shear stress is:

$$ \begin{array}{*{20}c} {\overline{D} _{w} = 0.125\rho \;f\;\widehat{{\overline{u} }}^{3} {\left( {2/T} \right)}{\int\limits_o^{0.5T} {\cos ^{3} {\left( {\omega t} \right)}dt} }} \\ { = {\left( {1/{\left( {6\pi } \right)}} \right)}\rho \;f\;\widehat{{\overline{u} }}^{3} = {\left( {4/{\left( {3\pi } \right)}} \right)}\rho {\left( {g/C^{2} } \right)}\widehat{{\overline{u} }}^{3} \;} \\ \end{array} $$

(8)

Using linearized friction according to the Lorentz (1922, 1926) method, the same result is obtained.

The width and depth of the estuary channel is represented as:

$$ \begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {b{ } = { }{b_o}{ }\exp \left( { - \beta x} \right) = {b_o}\exp \left( { - x/{L_b}} \right)\;{\text{and}}\;{\text{thus}}\;db/dx = - \beta \;{b_o}\exp \left( { - bx} \right) = - \beta \;b} \hfill \\ {h = {h_o}{ }\exp \left( { - gx} \right) = {h_o}{ }\exp \left( { - x/{L_h}} \right)\;{\text{and}}\;{\text{thus}}\;dh/dx = - \gamma \;{h_o}\exp \left( { - \gamma x} \right){ } = - \gamma \;h} \hfill \\ \end{array} $$

(9)

with b _o = width at entrance x = 0, β = 1/L _b = convergence coefficient, γ = 1/L _h, L _b = convergence length scale for width, L _h = convergence length scale for depth. The length scale L _b is of the order of 10–50 km for most estuaries. The length scale L _h is much larger than L _b for most estuaries as the depth generally is fairly constant or very weakly decreasing in landward direction.

Assuming Q _r ≅ 0 (no river discharge), the energy flux balance expression becomes (h _o = water depth to mean sea level at entrance = constant along x; $ \widehat{{\overline u }} $ = peak tidal velocity along estuary):

$$ \begin{array}{*{20}l} {{bd\overline{F} /dx + \overline{F} db/dx + b\,D_{w} = 0} \hfill} \\ {{bd{\left[ {\left. {0.25\,\rho \,g\,h\,H\,\widehat{{\overline{u} }}} \right)\cos \varphi } \right]}/dx + {\left[ {0.25\,\rho \,g\,h\,H\,\widehat{{\overline{u} }}\cos \varphi } \right]}[ - \beta \,b] + {\left[ {(1/(6\pi ))\,\rho \,b\,f\,\widehat{{\overline{u} }}^{3} } \right]} = 0} \hfill} \\ {{0.25\,b\,\rho \,g\,\cos \,\varphi \,d{\left[ {h\,H\,\widehat{{\overline{u} }}} \right]}/dx + {\left[ {0.25\,\rho \,g\,h\,H\,\widehat{{\overline{u} }}\cos \varphi } \right]}[ - \beta \,b] + {\left[ {(1/(6\pi ))\,\rho \,b\,f\,\widehat{{\overline{u} }}^{3} } \right]} = 0} \hfill} \\ {{\cos \varphi \,d{\left[ {\left. {h\,H\,\widehat{{\overline{u} }}} \right)} \right]}/dx - \beta \,h\,H\,\widehat{{\overline{u} }}\cos \varphi + {\left[ {(2/(3\pi g))f\,\widehat{{\overline{u} }}^{3} } \right]} = 0} \hfill} \\ {{\cos \,(\varphi ){\left[ {\widehat{{\overline{u} }}H\,dh/dx + \widehat{{\overline{u} }}h\,dH/dx + H\,h\,d\widehat{{\overline{u} }}/dx} \right]} - \beta \,h\,H\,\widehat{{\overline{u} }}\,\cos \varphi + {\left[ {(2/(3\pi g))f\,\widehat{{\overline{u} }}^{3} } \right]} = 0\,} \hfill} \\ \end{array} $$

(10)

Assuming, d $ \widehat{{\overline u }} $/dx = ε $ \widehat{{\overline u }} $ and dH/dx = ε H (with ε being a small parameter), it follows that: d$ \widehat{{\overline u }} $/dx = ($ \widehat{{\overline u }} $/H) dH/dx, resulting in:

$$ \begin{array}{*{20}l} {{\cos \varphi {\left[ {\widehat{{\overline{u} }}H{\left( { - \gamma h} \right)} + 2\widehat{{\overline{u} }}\;h\;dH/dx} \right]} - \beta \;h\;H\;\widehat{{\overline{u} }}\cos \varphi + {\left[ {{\left( {2/{\left( {3\pi g} \right)}} \right)}f\widehat{{\overline{u} }}^{3} } \right]} = 0} \hfill} \\ {{dH/dx = 0.5{\left( {\beta + \gamma } \right)}H - \frac{{f\widehat{{\overline{u} }}^{2} }} {{3\pi \;g\;h\;\cos \varphi }}} \hfill} \\ \end{array} $$

(11)

Using $ \widehat{{\overline u }} = \left( {0.5H/{h_o}} \right)c\;\cos \varphi $ for a channel of constant depth h _o (see Table 1) and thus γ = 0, it follows that:

$$ dH/dx = 0.5\beta \;H - \frac{{f\;{H^2}{c^2}\;\cos \varphi }}{{12\pi \;g\;{{\left( {{h_o}} \right)}^3}}} $$

(12)

with H = tidal range, β = 1/L _b = converging length scale (e-folding length scale), h _o = depth (constant), $ \widehat{{\overline u }} $ = peak tidal velocity along channel, c = local wave speed, φ = phase difference between horizontal and vertical tide, f = 8 g/C ² = friction coefficient, C = Chézy coefficient, x = horizontal coordinate (positive in landward direction).

References

Davies LJ (1964) A morphogenic approach to the worlds’ shorelines. Z Geomorphol 8:127–142Google Scholar
De Kramer J (2002) Water movement in Western Scheldt Estuary (in Dutch). Dep. of Physical Geography, Report ICG 02/6. University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Dronkers JJ (1964) Tidal computations in rivers and coastal waters. North-Holland, New York, p 518Google Scholar
Dronkers J (2005) Dynamics of coastal systems. World Scientific, Hackensack, p 519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer KR (1997) Estuaries: a physical introduction. Wiley and Sons, Aberdeen, UKGoogle Scholar
Friedrichs CT (1993) Hydrodynamics and morphodynamics of shallow tidal channels and intertidal effects. Ph. D. Thesis. Mass. Inst. of Technology, Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst. Woods Hole, Massachusetts, USAGoogle Scholar
Friedrichs CT, Aubrey DG (1994) Tidal propagation in strongly convergent channels. J Geophys Res 99(C2):3321–3336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godin G (1988) Tides. Centro de Investigacion Cientificia y de Educacion Superior de Ensenada, MexicoGoogle Scholar
Green G (1837) On the motion of waves in a variable canal of small depth and width. Trans Cambridge Philos Soc 6:457–462Google Scholar
Harleman DRF (1966) Tidal dynamics in estuaries, part II: real estuaries. In: Ippen AT et al (eds) Estuary and coastline hydrodynamics. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
Hunt JN (1964) Tidal oscillations in estuaries. Geophys J R Astron Soc 8:440–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ippen A (1966) Tidal dynamics in estuaries, part I: estuaries of rectangular cross-section. In: Ippen AT et al (eds) Estuary and coastline hydrodynamics. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
Jay DA (1991) Greens’s law revisited: tidal long-wave propagation in channels with strong topography. J Geophys Res 96(C11):20585–20598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb H (1963, 1966) Hydrodynamics. Cambridge Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Lanzoni S, Seminara G (1998) On tide propagation in convergent estuaries. J Phys Res 103:30793–30812Google Scholar
Le Blond PH (1978) On tidal propagation in shallow rivers. J Geoph Res 83:4717–4721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Floch JF (1961) Propagation de la marée dans l’estuaire de la Seine et en Seine-Maritieme. Centre de Recherches et d’études Océanographiques, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
Lorentz HA (1922) Including resistance in tidal flow equations (in Dutch). De Ingenieur, The Netherlands, p 695 (in Dutch)Google Scholar
Lorentz HA (1926) Report Commission Zuiderzee 1918–1926 (in Dutch). Den Haag, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
McDowell DM, O’Connor BA (1977) Hydraulic behaviour of estuaries. MacMillan Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
Parker BB (1984) Frictional effects on the tidal dynamics of a shallow estuary. Doctoral Thesis. John Hopkins University, USAGoogle Scholar
Parker BB (1991) The relative importance of the various nonlinear mechanisms in a wide range of tidal interactions. In: Parker BB (ed) Tidal hydrodynamics. Wiley, New York, pp 237–268Google Scholar
Pieters T (2002) The tide in the Western Scheldt Estuary (in Dutch). Document BGW-0102. Consultancy tidal waters. Vlissingen: The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Prandle D (2003a) Relationships between tidal dynamics and bathymetry in strongly convergent estuaries. J Phys Oceanogr 33:2738–2750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prandle D (2003b) How tides and river flows determine estuarine bathymetries. Prog Oceanogr 61:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prandle D (2004) Salinity intrusion in partially mixed estuaries. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 54:385–397Google Scholar
Prandle D (2009) Estuaries. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prandle D, Rahman M (1980) Tidal response in estuaries. J Phys Oceanography 10:1552–1573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savenije HHG (2005) Salinity and tides in alluvial estuaries. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
Savenije HHG, Toffolon M, Haas J, Veling EJ (2008) Analytical description of tidal dynamics in convergent estuaries. J Geophys Res 113:C10025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speer PE, Aubrey DG (1985) A study of non-linear tidal propagation in shallow inlet/estuarine systems, part II: theory. Estuarine, Coastal Shelf Science 21:207–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Rijn L (1993, 2011) Principles of fluid flow and surface waves in rivers, estuaries, seas and oceans. Aqua Publications, The Netherlands, p 750, www.aquapublications.nl
Verspuy C (1985) Lecture notes: long waves (in Dutch). Delft University of Technology, Delft, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Leo C. van Rijn
- 1
Email author

1.Deltares and University of UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands

Analytical and numerical analysis of tides and salinities in estuaries; part I: tidal wave propagation in convergent estuaries

Abstract

Keywords

Notes

Acknowledgments

References

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Personalised recommendations

Cite article