dynamics of the ems estuary - universiteit utrechtswart104/phys_coast_docs/sample_report_p... ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Dynamics of the Ems Estuary
Physics of coastal systems
Jerker Menninga
0439738
Utrecht University
Institute for Marine and Atmospheric research Utrecht
Lecturer: Prof. dr. H.E. de Swart
1
Abstract
During the last decades anthropogenic influence affected the Ems estuary to a great extent. It
was observed that the tidal amplitude was amplified at the landward boundary, that the
location of the sediment trapping was shifted land inward and in addition that the suspended
sediment concentration strongly increased. Only little is known about the origin of this change
in sediment dynamics and in the recent years a lot of research is done. This report covers two
different models which both aims to find answers to this question. Chernetskey et al. (2010)
use a tidal approach and they try to explain the change of the sediment distribution with help
of tidal dynamics. In contrast Talke et al. (2009) neglect the effects of the tides and use a
subtidal model. Both models concludes that the asymmetric change of the suspended sediment
concentration (SSC) is caused by a SSC – Current feedback of the system. However Talke et
al. (2009) conclude that changes in the eddy viscosity, stress parameter and depth enhance the
asymmetry, while Chernetskey et al. (2010) conclude that the asymmetry is caused by
changes in the interaction between the M2 tide and the externally forces M4 tide.
2
Content
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Interest of investigation ............................................................................................... 3
1.2 Regional setting ........................................................................................................... 4
2 Hydrodynamics ................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Chernetsky et al. (2010) ............................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Model ......................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 Results ....................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Talke et al.(2009) ...................................................................................................... 10
3 Sediment Dynamics .......................................................................................................... 11
3.1 General model ........................................................................................................... 11
3.2 Talke et al.(2009) ...................................................................................................... 13
3.1.2 Solutions ................................................................................................................. 13
3.1.3 Results ..................................................................................................................... 13
3.3 Chernetsky et al. (2010) ............................................................................................. 15
3.2.1 Results ..................................................................................................................... 16
4 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 19
References ................................................................................................................................ 20
3
1 Introduction
1.1 Interest of investigation
In the recent history the Ems estuary is subjected to intensive investigation. This is because in
the last 25 years both flow as well as sediment dynamics has changed. For instance, the tidal
range towards the landward barrier has increased and has become even larger than the tidal
range at the entrance. Furthermore the suspended sediment concentration (SSC) has increased
as well as the location of the sediment trapping, the so called estuarine turbidity maximum
(ETM), which is shifted landward. The mechanics that play a role in the sediment trapping
and the change of the sediment dynamics is not yet well understood, but it is suggested that
the intensive deepening during the last decades is one of the most important factors.
Deepening of the navigational route is necessary, because three harbors and a shipyard for
cruise ships are located at the borders of the estuary (figure. 1) (Talke, 2009).
In 2009 Talke et al. published a research where they explained the shift of the ETM with an
extended version of a subtidal model, formulated by Hansen and Rattray (1965). With this
model a number of mechanisms of sediment trapping were identified. However others
suggested that changes in tidal behavior influence the sediment distribution (Chernetsky,
2010). Since the tidal range has changed for the Ems estuary it is interesting to investigate this
hypothesis. This was done in 2010 by a research of Chernetskey et al. (2010)
The aim of this report is to gain insight in which mechanism changed the tidal dynamics of
the Ems estuary during the last decades and which mechanisms may be held responsible for
the change of location of the sediment trapping. In order to so both researches of Talke et al.
(2009) and Chernetskey et al. (2010) will be covered. The second section presents an
overview of the hydrodynamics and especially the tidal dynamics. The third section covers
the sediment dynamics. Chapter two first discusses the subtidal approach and after that the
effect of the tides will be investigated.
fig. 1: Change of the bathymetry of the Ems estuary between 1980
(blue line) and 2005 (red line) (Chernetsky et al.2010).
4
1.2 Regional setting
The Ems estuary is located in the North of the Netherlands on the border with Germany. It
reaches from the barrier island Borkum to the tidal weir at Hebrum (figure 1) and is partially
well mixed. At the marine side, to the West of Emden, the water depth averages between 10
and 20 meters. To the East of Emden, where the estuary gets significantly narrower, a water
depth of about 7 meters is maintained. The river Ems is discharging fresh water with a yearly
average of 100 m3/s and is responsible for 90% of the fresh water input. Tidal flats cover
about 50% of the estuary and 80% of the Dollard subbasin. The dynamics of the system are
forced by a semidiurnal tide, freshwater flow from the river Ems and the wind. (Talke, 2009)
fig. 2: Overview of the Ems estuary (Chernetsky et al. 2010).
5
2 Hydrodynamics
This section describes the hydrodynamic models used in the papers of Chernetsky et al (2010)
and Talke et al. (2009). There is a fundamental difference between the two approaches, since
Chernetsky et al. (2010) take the effects of tides into account, while Talke et al. use a subtidal
flow.
2.1 Chernetsky et al. (2010)
2.1.1 Model
In their research Chernetsky et al. use the width averaged shallow water equations. First they
assume that the width B(x) of the estuary is exponentially converging and can be written as,
. (1)
Here B0 is the width at the estuary entrance (at x = 0) and Lb the converging length. Next the
water depth is determined by the difference between the bed at z = -H(x) and the water
surface at z = δ(x). The undisturbed water level is set at z = 0. Now the width averaged
shallow water equations in the longitudinal direction can be determined. The momentum
equation reads
(2)
The first three terms on the left hand side represent the advective velocity in the longitudinal
direction, the fourth and fifth terms are the barotropic pressure (related to variations of the
free surface) and the baroclinic pressure (related to variations of the density) gradients. The
last term is the friction component and is related to the vertical eddy viscosity coefficient Av,
which represent small none defined mixing and dispersion processes (de Swart, 2010). The
eddy viscosity is parameterized as
where H0 represents
the water depth at the entrance.
Furthermore the continuity equation is a balance between variations of the longitudinal and
vertical velocities and the width averaged longitudinal velocity
. (3)
In general the density is denoted by contributions due to the salinity, suspended sediment
concentration and temperature. For simplicity Chernetsky et al. chose to neglect the
contribution of the suspended sediment concentration. For the Ems estuary this is
questionable, since the estuary is characterized by high sediment concentrations. Furthermore
the salinity is assumed to be vertically well mixed, which is also accompanied by Talke et al.
(2009). The along channel density distribution is modeled ass
6
. (4)
Here β converts salt into density and the term denote a tidal average of the salinity.
As mentioned earlier the water motion is forced by the tide. The tide consists of a semi
diurnal (M2) and its first overtide (M4) constituent. The elevation of the surface due to tidal
forcing is modeled as
(5)
In order to solve the equations Chernetsky et al. use the no stress and the kinamitic conditions
at the free surface.
and
. (6a)
At the bottom the bed is assumed to be impermeable, in other words; no vertical flow is
possible through the bed. Also partial slip condition is assumed near the bed.
(6b)
7
2.1.2 Results
2.1.2.1 Parameter input
Table 1 gives an overview of the used parameters and how they changed after deepening has
taken place. All the parameters are the result of field measurements, except the vertical eddy
viscosity coefficient Av and the stress parameter s. These values are obtained by calibrating
the model to the observed data. From the table it can be seen that the vertical eddy viscosity
has decreased from 0.019 m2s
-1 in 1980 to 0.049 m
2s
-1 in 2005 and the stress parameter has
decreased from 0.098 ms-1
in 1980 to 0.049 ms-1
. Furthermore the amplitudes of the externally
forced semi diurnal tide M2 and its first over tide M4 decreased over the years from 1.43 meter
to 1.35 meter and 0.25 meter to 0.19 meter, respectively.
2.1.2.2 Water Motion; tidal amplitude
The discussion of the water motion starts with the tidal amplitude. Figure 3 present the model
solution for the amplitude and the phase difference between the horizontal and vertical
amplitude of the semidiurnal tide. From figure 3a a clear amplification of the amplitude near
the weir at Hebrum is visible. The amplitude of the tide increases from approximately 1.03
meter in 1980 to 1.52 meter in 2005. The vertical amplitude at the entrance on the other hand
decreases from 1.43 meter to 1.35 meter. Furthermore from figure 3b it can be seen that the
phase difference between horizontal and vertical tidal amplitude tend to 90o at the weir for
both 1980 and 2005. This indicates that at the weir the tidal wave is characterized by a
standing wave (de Swart, 2010). Comparison with the 2005 solution shows that the phase
difference through the whole estuary is shifted towards 90o, so in 2005 the tidal wave has
become more resonant through the whole estuary.
Table 1: Parameter input. (Chernetsky et al. 2010)
8
Chernetskey et al. (2010) investigate the tidal amplification by adopting two different
scenarios. The model input (table 1) shows that the main difference between 1980 and 2005 is
the change in water depth, the change of the vertical eddy viscosity and the change of the
stress parameter.
For the first scenario they fix the eddy viscosity and the stress parameter to the 1980 values
and they use the 2005 bathymetry. The second scenario is the opposite; the eddy viscosity and
the stress parameter are set to 2005 conditions and for the depth they use 1980 values. The
result for the semidiurnal M2 tide is represented in figure 3 as the solid (2005 bathymetry and
1980 Av and s) and dashed ( 2005 Av and s and 1980 bathymetry) black line. Figure 3a shows
that the amplitude is amplified when only deepening is taken into account, however the
amplitude is amplified even stronger when the eddy viscosity and the stress parameter are
reduced. Figure 3b shows that deepening of the system increases the phase difference between
the vertical and horizontal amplitude, hence the system becomes closer to resonance.
Reduction of the eddy viscosity and the stress parameter has the same contribution to the
relative phase shift. From this Chernetsky et al.(2010) concluded that both deepening and the
reduction of the eddy viscosity and the stress parameter contribute to the amplification of the
M2 tide.
The same procedure is carried out for the first overtide M4 (figure. 4). First it is recognized
that also the M4 tide is amplified from 1980 to 2005. Figure 4a shows the amplitude of the
vertical tide. The figure shows that the reduction of Av and s contributes stronger to the
increase of the vertical amplitude than the scenario where only deepening is taken into
account. Figure 4b shows that also for the M4 tide the system becomes closer to resonance. In
contrast to the vertical M4 amplitude, both scenarios contribute to the relative phase shift.
fig. 3: a) Modeled change of the tidal M2 amplitude as function of the estuary length due to the
deepened scenario and the reduction scenario. b) Modeled change of the relative phase of the
M2 tide as function of the estuary length of the deepened scenario.
9
From the sensitivity test can be concluded that, the deepening, the reduction of the eddy
viscosity and the reduction of the stress parameter contribute to the amplification of both the
M2 as the M4 tide. However, the amplitude of the M4 tide is mainly amplified by the reduction
of Av and s. This result is reasonable, since in general tidal waves lose energy due to friction at
the bottom and internally by small internal eddy’s. When the channel is deepened the tidal
wave is less affected by the bottom and the wave loses its energy slower, hence the amplitude
is less damped (de Swart, 2010). Secondly the stress parameter and the eddy viscosity are
reduced. It is believed that this results from dredging of the channel. By dredging sediments
are loosened and more sediment gets suspended. This results in a smooth and thin layer of
suspended sediment above the bed, which decreases the bottom roughness. The increase in
resonance of the system and the associated standing character of the tidal wave, should result
in a decrease of the tidal return flow. This result is also gained from the model and is shown
in figure 5.
fig. 4: a) Modeled change of the tidal M4 amplitude as function of the estuary length due to the deepened
scenario and the reduction scenario. b) Modeled change of the relative phase of the M4 tide as function of the
estuary length of the deepened scenario.
fig. 5: Change of the tidal return flow between 1980 (left) and 2005 (right)
10
2.2 Talke et al. (2009)
In their research Talke et al. (2009) developed a model based on the gravitational model of
Hansen and Rattray (1965). The model that is used assumes subtidal flow. This means that the
model is tidally averaged and it is assumed that the salinity (s) is well mixed in the vertical
and that the viscosity Av is constant. Another important assumption is morphodynamic
equilibrium. This means that it is assumed that there is no net import or export of sediments.
In other words, the model assumes a ‘tank’ of available sediment and it calculates how the
sediment is distributed over the area. Furthermore gravitational circulation is generated by a
balance between the baroclinic and barotropic pressure gradients. So the total pressure
gradient has to be equal to zero. The resulting balance is derived from the momentum balance
and hydrostatic balance, which respectively can be written as (de Swart, 2010)
(7)
(8)
The total pressure gradient can be written as
(9)
So the total pressure is written as the sum of the atmospheric pressure gradient, the barotropic
pressure gradient and the baroclinic pressure gradient (de Swart, 2010). Talke et al. (2009)
neglected the Coriolis force in equation (7) and the circulation due to the atmospheric
pressure gradient in equation (9). This result in the following balance
∫
,
- (10)
Furthermore the horizontal along channel velocity is written as
∫
. (11)
So the total width averaged along channel flow through a cross section of width b and depth H
is equal to the freshwater flow.
The density is described as a function of the salinity and suspended sediment concentration.
This is in contrast to the previous model, where the density was only a function of salinity
(12)
Again β is a quantity that converts the salinity into density and γ is the relative density of the
suspended sediment to the water in order to convert the suspended sediment concentration to
density.
11
3 Sediment Dynamics
3.1 General model
Before the differences for the sediment dynamics between the tidal and subtidal approach can
be discussed, first an expression for the distribution of suspended sediment has to be derived.
Talke (2009) and Chernetsky (2010) use similar approaches.
The starting point is the concentration equation:
. (13)
This equation is a balance between the time evolution of the suspended sediment
concentration c and the divergence of the sediment flux F. The sediment flux can be
decomposed into three parts: the advective flux, the settling flux and the diffusive flux, these
are given by
(14a)
(14b)
(14c)
Here u represents the horizontal velocity field, w the vertical velocity component, ws the
settling velocity and Kh and Kv are respectively the horizontal and vertical eddy diffusion
coefficients (de Swart, 2010). Using equations (14a) to (15c) in equation (13) results in the
sediment concentration equation
( )
(
)
(
) (15)
The y-dependence is dropped, since Talke et al. (2009) assumes no variation over the width of
the estuary, while Chernetsky et al. (2010) take a width average. Nevertheless both
approaches result in the above equation. It is also realized that there is no flow and no
sediment flux through the top and bottom boundary, which result in the following conditions:
, (15a)
,
- (15b)
,
- (15c)
From these conditions the vertical sediment distribution can be derived. This is done be
vertically integrate the vertical sediment flux
∫ ,
-
(16)
12
This describes a balance between the deposition of sediment and the stirring due to eddies.
The solution for this is (de Swart (2010)
∫
(17)
Equation (17) is still not completely solved, since the bottom concentration Cb is still
unknown. To resolve this problem, equation (15) is integrated over depth, and it is realized
that there is no flow and no sediment flux through the top and bottom boundary, so the
vertical sediment flux vanishes. This result in
∫ ,
-
(18)
B is a constant of integration and is determined by the difference between erosion (E) and
deposition (D), hence B=E-D. However it is assumed that there is no net inflow or outflow of
sediment so B has to be zero. In other words, there is no along channel variation of the
vertically integrated horizontal flux, hence
∫ ,
-
(19)
This is called morphodynamic equilibrium (Talke et al. 2009).
13
3.2 Talke et al. (2009)
3.1.2 Solutions
In order to find an expression for the horizontal along channel velocity, the momentum
equation (eq.10) is integrated twice with respect to z. The resulting equation depend on the
salinity gradient, the bottom turbidity gradient and the surface slope. Finally the equation
reads
{ } (20)
So the along channel circulation depends on circulations due to baroclinic, suspended
sediment and freshwater contributors. This result is an extension on the known gravitational
model, presented by Hansen Rattray (1965), since circulation due to sediment is also taken
into account. When the along channel sediment gradient is set to zero, the original model is
recovered.
Next substituting (20) and the equation for morphodynamic equilibrium (19) into equation
(17) results in the solution for the bottom sediment distribution Cb
*
,
- + (21)
From the described solutions it becomes clear that both the along channel circulation, as well
as the sediment distribution vary in a cubic sense with the water depth. This result implies that
deepening of the channel has a nonlinear effect on the circulation and the sediment
distribution.
3.1.3 Results
To find how the sediment system reacts on changes of the various parameters, a sensitivity
study is done. Figure 6 shows the sensitivity test for the river discharge, vertical mixing and
water depth respectively. Figure 6a shows that when the river discharge increases, the
turbidity maximum shifts downstream. This is because when the river discharge weakens, the
near bottom currents (e.g. the salinity driven currents) that have an upstream direction become
more important and transports sediment in the upstream direction. In contrast, low discharge
values enhance the asymmetry of the sediment distribution. This can be understood by
evaluating equation (20). For low discharge values, the depth-depended terms become
relatively more important. Since the depth has a cubic relation, asymmetry in the sediment
distribution is enhanced. The same pattern can be seen for changing the mixing term (figure.
6b). For large mixing values, the sediment is able to stay longer in suspension. This result in
excluding sediment from the system. Also, decreasing of the mixing term result in a relative
increase of the asymmetric depth. As expected an opposite trend is shown for depth variations
(figure. 6c). Increasing the depth result in stronger asymmetry of the sediment distribution and
an upstream shift of the turbidity maximum.
14
fig. 6:Sensitivity study of a) the freshwater discharge, b) the vertical eddy viscosity and vertical eddy diffusivity and c) the
depth. (Talke et al. 2009)
15
3.3 Chernetsky et al. (2010)
From the previous paragraph it became clear that changing the depth, river discharge and
vertical mixing parameters affected the sediment dynamics in for the subtidal approach. The
Ems estuary however is a tidal embayment, so it is convenient to study the effect of the tide to
the sediment distribution. Chernetsky et al. did this in their research, with help of the same
model described in section 3.1. However, since tides are now allowed in the system, equation
(19) has to be tidally averaged. First it is realized that the that the velocity and the sediment
concentration can be written as the sum of the mean and the perturbation
(22)
(23)
Combining equation (22) and (23) result in
(24)
Next the boundary conditions state that there is no sediment flux into or out of the domain, so
when taking the tidal average of (24) the first term on the right hand side will vanishes. Using
this, Chernetsky et al. (2010) found an expression for the tidally averaged morphodynamic
equilibrium equation
⟨∫ (
)
⟩ (25)
where δ represents the free water surface and ⟨ ⟩, represents a tidal average.
For their analysis, Chernetsky et al. (2010) describe equation (25) in terms of the erosion
coefficient a(x), which is the horizontal distribution of the total erodible material. In order to
do so two new function are introduced, F which represent the vertically integrated horizontal
distribution due to the turbulent eddies and T which represents the vertically integrated
horizontal distribution due to horizontal flow transportation
⟨∫
⟩ (26)
⟨∫ (
(
))
⟩ (27)
Using equation (26) and (27) into equation (25) result in a differential equation for the erosion
coefficient
(28)
The transport parameter T can schematically be represented as the sum of the transport
contributors from the residual flow Tres, the semi diurnal tide TM2 and its first overtide TM4 and
transport due to diffusion Tdiff: T = Tres+ TM2+ TM4+ Tdiff.
16
3.2.1 Results
From equation (28) the location of the estuary turbidity maximum (ETM) can be determined.
Since the available eroded sediment concentration reaches maximum values at the ETM, the
erosion coefficient a will also reach its maximum. In addition the gradient of the erosion
coefficient will be zero at the ETM. Since a reaches its maximum, the transport parameter
should be zero in order to obey morphodynamic equilibrium. So the four contributors of the
transport parameters should balance at the ETM.
In order to investigate the relative importance of the different transport contributors,
Chernetsky et al. plotted the different transport functions for course and fine silt for both 1980
and 2005 (fig. 7). From the figure it can be seen that for fine silt between 1980 and 2005, the
ETM was shifted about 20 kilometers land inward. This shift can almost completely be
attributed to transport due to the M2 tide, since this transport function remains constant stream
upward, almost until 50 kilometers. This is in contrast with the 1980 situation, where this
function reaches its maximum around 10 kilometers and decreases almost linear after that.
For course silt the plot gives a different view. In 1980 the ETM was located around 10
kilometers from the entrance. The M2 contributor was the only agent that transported
sediment stream upward and decreases rapidly behind the ETM. In 2005 however two ETM’s
are visible. The first is located about 15 kilometers from the entrance and the second around
45 kilometers. For the first ETM the M2 component is the main contributor. In agreement with
fig. 7:Dimensionless transport function and its components. a and b show fine silt and c and d
coarse silt. (Chernetskey et al. 2010)
17
1980 it decreases close to the entrance, however in 2005 it reaches a certain positive constant
value at the location of the first ETM. After that it remains constant for several kilometers
before it decreases further and becomes an exporting contributor. Another difference between
1980 and 2005 is the shift of the transportation due to the M4 tide. Until 20 kilometers the M4
contributor becomes less negative and after that it becomes more positive. As a result the M4
tide transports sediment stream upward in the second half of the modeled area. Together with
the M2 contribution, this results in the second ETM.
From this result Chernetsky et al. concluded that the change of the sediment trapping location
is mainly the result of changes in transport due to the M2 tide, both for fine and coarse silt. To
understand which mechanism is responsible for the change of the transportation by the M2
tide, the TM2 component is decomposed in two main components; the interaction between the
M2 velocity and both the M4 and the residual velocity. This is denoted by and
respectively. The relative importance of the two transportation components to the change of
TM2 is shown in figure 8. From the figure it can be seen that both for fine and coarse silt the
component shows no significant changes between 1980 and 2005. So it can be concluded
that this component is not responsible for the change of TM2. The profile for however
remains for both fine and coarse silt at higher values in 2005 than it did in 1980. Furthermore
it follows the profile of TM2 in 2005.
fig. 8:Components of the dimensionless transport function TM2 (Chernetskey et al.
2010)
18
With this result the component is decomposed further in advective contribution, free
surface contribution, no-stress contribution and the M4 external forcing. This can
schematically be represented as:
, respectively. In order to
investigate which of these components contributes to the change of and as a consequence
to the change of TM2, figure 9 is analysed. From the figure it can be seen that for both fine and
coarse silt the external forcing of the M4 interaction with the M2 velocity is the main
contributor to the change of . Where the other contributors show no significant change
between 1980 and 2005, the remains positive longer and as a consequence is responsible
for the change of .
From this Chernetsky et al.(2010) concluded that the change of the sediment trapping is the
main result from changes in the asymmetry of the tides.
fig. 9: Components of the dimensionless transport function 𝑇𝑀 𝑀
19
4 Conclusions
This report aims to find the processes responsible for the change in tide and sediment
dynamics of the Ems estuary. To this end two papers and two different approaches are
discussed; the paper of Chernestky et al. (2010), which makes use of a tidal approach and the
paper of Talke et al. (2009), which uses a subtidal approach. The biggest similarity between
the two is the conclusion that the change in dynamics is because of asymmetry of the basin.
However, since the basic assumptions differ in great extent, also different conclusions are
drawn.
Since tides are not considered in a subtidal approach, the change of the tide dynamics is only
explained with help of the paper of Chernetskey et al (2010).
To explain the tide dynamics Chernetsky et al (2010) adopted two different scenarios. The
first scenario fixes the eddy viscosity and stress parameter to the initial values and uses the
2005 bathymetry. The second scenario is the opposite.
From this, it is concluded that both the semidiurnal tide as well as its first overtide are
changed due to changes of the stress parameter, eddy viscosity and basin depth. This result is
reasonable, since deepening of the channel, result in less influence of the bottom to the tidal
wave. So less energy is lost due to friction. Secondly the tidal wave is amplified, because the
eddy viscosity and the stress parameter are reduced This can be explained because due to
dredging more sediment is in suspension and a thin film of fluid sediment covers the bottom
and reduces the stress parameter.
Both models are able to explain the change in sediment trapping and both models conclude
that asymmetry is the keyword. Talke et el. (2009) use an extended version of a classical
subtidal model, first formulated by Hansen and Rattray. The extension also deals with
sediment circulation. With this model it is concluded that the change of sediment trapping,
result from changes of the freshwater discharge, eddy viscosity and depth.
Chernetsky et al. tried to relate the change in sediment trapping by changes in tidal
characteristics. They modeled the contributions to sediment transport of both the M2 and M4
tides. From this they concluded that the change of sediment trapping was a result of the
change of transport contributions of the M2 tide. After this they subdivided this contribution
further to M2 interactions with the first overtide velocity and the residual velocity. From this it
was concluded that the interaction between the M2 and M4 velocity infects the location of the
sediment trapping. From another subdivision it was concluded that interactions of the
externally forced overtide and the semidiurnal tide are responsible of the change in sediment
trapping.
20
References
Chernetskey, A.S., Schuttelaars, H.M., Talke, S.A., 2010, The effect of tidal asymmetry and
temporal settling lag on sediment trapping in tidal estuaries, Ocean Dynamics 60:1219-1241
Hansen, D.V. , Rattray M. jr., 1965, Gravitational circulation in strait and estuaries. Journal
of Marine Research 23: 104-122
de Swart, H.E., 2010, Physics of Coastal Systems, lecture notes. IMAU, Utrecht University
Talke, S.A., de Swart, H.E., Schuttelaars, H.M.,2009, Feedback between residual circulations
and sediment distribution in highly turbid estuaries: An analytical model. Continental Shelf
Research 29:119-135