Sensitivity study of St Andrew Bay rapid response system for Naval applications LCDR Patrice Pauly,...
-
Upload
arnold-mcbride -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Sensitivity study of St Andrew Bay rapid response system for Naval applications LCDR Patrice Pauly,...
Sensitivity study of St Andrew Bay
rapid response system for Naval applications
LCDR Patrice Pauly, French NavyThesis Advisor: Pr. Peter C. Chu, NPSSecond Reader: Steven D. Haeger,NAVOCEANO
Outlines
Geographic location
Hydrodynamic model used in this study
Forcing mechanisms and Sensibility study
Hydrochemical model and naval applications
Conclusion and recommendations
Geographic location - overview
Northeastern Gulf of MexicoPart of the Intracoastal highwayFed by Deer Point Lake dam
Deer Point Lake dam
Geographic location - bathymetry
Panama City BeachPanama City
West boundaryEast boundaryWest PassEast Pass
Point APoint B
Geographic location - bathymetry
Panama City BeachPanama City
West boundaryEast boundaryWest PassEast Pass
Point APoint B
City Beach
Geographic location - bathymetry
Panama City BeachPanama City
West boundaryEast boundaryWest PassEast Pass
Point APoint B
West boundary
East boundary
Geographic location - bathymetry
Panama City BeachPanama City
West boundaryEast boundaryWest PassEast Pass
Point APoint B
West Pass
East Pass
Geographic location - bathymetry
Panama City BeachPanama City
West boundaryEast boundaryWest PassEast Pass
Point APoint B
A
B
Hydrodynamic model – WQMAP
General equations:
Momentum equations
Continuity equation
Transport equation
Stability condition
222 11 11 222
11 22
1 u D g uvD g g guD uuvD v fDv
t g g
0
011
1v
gD D D ud A
D DR g
(1)
22 11
11 12 11 12 0uD g vD g
R g g R g gt
(2)
2 2
2 2 2 2 211 2211 22
1 1 1h h v
S u S v S S S S Sw D D D
t R g R g DR g R g
(3)
2 22 211 2211 22
12 2h h
tD D u v
R g R gR g R g
(4)
Hydrodynamic model – grid generation
Hydrodynamic model – bathymetry smoothing effects
Hydrodynamic model – WQMAP
Approximations:Shallow watersBoussinesqIncompressibility
Boundary conditions:No flow through surface or bottomNo flow perpendicular to the shorelineNo transport of salt at closed boundaries
Study configuration:3D-version with 10 layersRectangular 550m-wide cells grid2m-minimum cell depth applied after bathymetry smoothingTime step of 0.1min
Sensibility study - methodology
The control run featured with:Tidal time series at all open boundaries
Tidal residual time series at Gulf entrances
Wind time series
Fresh water supply from drainage sub-basins
21˚C constant water temperature
Constant salinity values of 22, 20 and 35 psu at West Bay, East Bay and West Pass open boundary respectively
293214
151
642
476257
242
55
All values in m3/s
Data analysis – fresh water supply
Bay county sub-basins flow
number flow [m3/s]1 0.5
2 0.8
3 ------
4 1.3
5 1.4
6 0.4
7 1.4
8 1.7
9 1
10 1.2
11 1.2
12 1
13 3.8
14 -------
15 0.7
16 0.9
17 38.1
Salinity impact and steady state
Model is featured with salinity only
Surface layer Bottom layer
Hydrodynamic model – steady state
Fresh water impact
This case was featured with a doubled river runoff.
-8+4
-1
-28
+21-7
-1
+55
Flux differences (m3/s) between this case and the control run
West Bay (top) – West Pass (middle) – Point A (bottom)
Data analysis – sea surface temperature
Data set collected at Panama City Beach Panama City Station
Averaged between2000-2004
Varies from 15˚C in winter up to 30˚C in summer
Well-mixed through the water column
Data analysis – wind
2004 average:0.12m/s
northwesterlies
May through September average:
4m/s from 155.
Can easily reach 20m/s and more during hurricane events
Jan. Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
dir. N N SSE S S WSW WSW E ENE N N N
speed 3.5 3.5 4 3.5 3 3 3 2.5 3 3 3 3.5
Wind values (m/s) averaged over the past 60 years.
Wind impacts
25m/s 20m/s
09/16 at 05:00 AM 09/16 at 01:20 PM
West PassWest BayEast Bay
Wind impact
We featured two cases:wind removeda normalized error (μ=0, σ=1m/s) applied on both u and v-components.
0-24
+21
-49
-24-6
-23
0
Flux differences (m3/s) between this case and the control run
Surface layer
Bottom layer
-90
-3
-2
-4-5
-13
0
Flux differences (m3/s) between this case and the control run
West BayWest Pass
Wind impact
We featured two cases:wind removeda normalized error (μ=0, σ=1m/s) applied on both u and v-wind components.
Surface layer
Bottom layer
East Bay
Data analysis – tides from NOAA
NOAA website provides:
Tidal gauge time seriesTidal constituents
Panama City Beach station:amplitude in cm phase
in deg.K1: 15.89 (0.3) 296.2 (1)O1: 15.84 (0.3) 284.8 (1)Q1: 3.4 (0.3) 270.7 (5.5)
M2: 3.4 (0.1) 287.4 (1.5)S2: 2 (0.1) 303.1 (2.5)
Data analysis – tides from NOAA
NOAA website provides:
Tidal gauges time series Tidal constituents
Panama City Beach
collected data studyNOAA
prediction data
amplitude [cm]
phase [deg]
amplitude
phase
K1 15.89 (0.3) 296.2 (1) 14.5286.
7
O1 15.84 (0.3) 284.8 (1) 14.1284.
5
Q1 3.4 (0.3)270.7 (5.5) 3.1
273.4
M2 3.4 (0.1)287.4 (1.5) 3.4
277.1
S2 2 (0.1)303.1 (2.5) 2
274.5
form ratio 5.90 --- 5.30 ---
Data analysis – tides from Wxtide32
Embedded tidal software Wxtide32Uses open data only Almost Worlwide
Provided time series for all open boundaries
Panama City BeachNOAA prediction
dataTide and current
software
amplitude [cm]
Phase [deg]
amplitude [cm]
Phase [deg]
K1 14.5 286.7 15.53 (0.1)313.9
(1)
O1 14.1 284.5 15.95 (0.1)302.3
(1)
Q1 3.1 273.4 3.5 (0.1) 295 (4)
M2 3.4 277.1 2.3 (0.1)329.5
(1)
S2 2 274.5 0.7 (0.1)325.2
(3)
form ratio 5.30 --- 10.50 ---
Tidal impact on speed
West Pass
West Bay
Tidal impact on salinity
East Bay
West Bay
Tidal impact on salinity at point A
Two remarks:salt propagates trough two different processesebb and flood tides are not equally long
Tidal impact
-4-1
0
-2
-3-2
-1
0
Flux differences (m3/s) between this case and the control run
This case was featured with a modified K1-coefficient amplitude (14.5cm in stead of 15.5) at West Pass.
Data analysis – tidal residuals
Due to:Wave setup
Storm surge
Averages 7.73 cmwith a 13.6 cm standard deviation
West PassWest Bay
Residual impact
-123-104
-72
-392
-289-177
-180
0
Flux differences (m3/s) between this case and the control run
East Bay
Surface layer
Bottom layer
This case was featured without residual time series
WQMAP coupled rapid response models
CHEMMAP overview
Use of Ethylene GlycolSinkerHighly solubleNon volatile
10 tons released within 10 hoursRelease at bottom
Wind impact:3% of wind speed20˚ drift to the right
Chemical database:international referencesphysical properties (solubility, volatility, floatability)
Chemical fate model:Lagrangian approachspreading, entrainment, evaporation, dispersion, dissolution, sedimentation and degradationvertical velocity relies on Stoke’s Lawmass transported with wind field and WQMAP issued currents.
Release the 1st of June – 12:00am
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Mass Balance for ethylene glycol
%
Time (days)
Surface Water Column Ashore Evaporated
Decay Sediment Cleaned
Spill dispersion after 3 weeks
Release the 1st of June – 12:00am
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Maximum Dissolved Concentrations85.6890W, 30.1497N for ethylene glycol
Con
cent
ratio
n (m
g/m
3)
Time (days)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Maximum Concentration at any Location (Horizontally and Vertically) for Dissolved
Co
nc
en
tra
tio
n (
mg
/m3
)
Time (days)
0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5
15.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Maximum Dissolved Concentrations85.7426W, 30.1863N for ethylene glycol
Con
cent
ratio
n (m
g/m
3)
Time (days)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Maximum Dissolved Concentrations85.7337W, 30.2207N for ethylene glycol
Con
cent
ratio
n (m
g/m
3)
Time (days)
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Maximum Dissolved Concentrations85.8237W, 30.2742N for ethylene glycol
Con
cent
ratio
n (m
g/m
3)
Time (days)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Maximum Dissolved Concentrations85.8409W, 30.2785N for ethylene glycol
Con
cent
ratio
n (m
g/m
3)
Time (days)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Maximum Dissolved Concentrations85.7608W, 30.2908N for ethylene glycol
Con
cent
ratio
n (m
g/m
3)
Time (days)
Wind effects on spill propagation
No wind simulation Inversed wind simulation
Release time influence – stochastic model
Run number for worst case scenario
50 cases from1st of June
to31st of August
Release location influence
Time response delay
Minimum time to exceed a threshold
Conclusion
The hydrodynamic model:shows the baroclinicity of St Andrew Bay system,proved the fresh water input accuracy not to be essential,proved the tidal residual to run the fluxes in the whole basin,confirmed the wind influence on stratification,allowed the salt diffusion process to be identified.
The hydrochemical model:enhanced the aforementioned conclusions,emphasizes the importance of wind in driving pollution.
Future improvements and recommendations
The hydrodynamic model:Is underground seepage realistically modeled by river cells ?Are the open boundaries correctly located ?the smoothing process effects should be further investigated,strong weather events impact should be evaluated.
The hydrochemical model:Should include vertical salinity distribution.
Please offer OC 4212 – Tides.
Questions