Ebb-tidal delta response to jetty construction at three South Carolina inlets

1988 ◽  
pp. 364-381 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Hansen ◽  
Stephen C. Knowles
Keyword(s):  
South Carolina ◽  
Ebb Tidal Delta

scholarly journals Tidal and Storm Impacts on Hydrodynamics and Sediment Dynamics in an Energetic Ebb Tidal Delta

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 810 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kehui Xu ◽  
P. Ansley Wren ◽  
Yanxia Ma
Keyword(s):  
South Carolina ◽  
Reference Site ◽  
Time Series Data ◽  
Beach Nourishment ◽  
Hurricane Sandy ◽  
Sediment Dynamics ◽  
Series Data ◽  
Port Royal ◽  
Sediment Mobility ◽  
Ebb Tidal Delta

Bottom-mounted instrumentation was deployed at two sites on a large sandy shoal of an ebb tidal delta offshore of the Port Royal Sound of South Carolina of USA to collect hydrodynamics and sediment dynamics data. One site (“borrow site”) was 2 km offshore in a dredge pit for nearby beach nourishment and the other site (“reference site”) was 10 km offshore. In situ time-series data were collected during two periods after the dredging: 15 March–12 June (spring) and 18 August–18 November (fall) of 2012. Data at the reference site indicated active migrating bedforms from centimeters to decimeters tall, and sediment concentrations were highly associated with semidiurnal and fortnightly tidal cycles. In the fall deployment, waves at the reference site were higher than those at the shallow borrow site. Both Tropical Storm Beryl and Hurricane Sandy formed high waves and strong currents but did not generate the greatest sediment fluxes. The two sites were at different depths and distances offshore, and waves contributed more to sediment mobility at the reference site whereas tidal forcing was the key controlling factor at the borrow site. This study provides valuable datasets for the selection of sites, prediction of pit infilling, and the modeling of storm impact in future beach nourishment and coastal restoration projects.

scholarly journals SEDIMENT BYPASSING AT MIXED ENERGY TIDAL INLETS

1982 ◽  
Vol 1 (18) ◽  
pp. 68
Author(s):  
Duncan M. FitzGerald
Keyword(s):  
South Carolina ◽  
New England ◽  
Welding Process ◽  
Tidal Inlets ◽  
Wave Versus ◽  
Longshore Sediment Transport ◽  
The World ◽  
Ebb Tidal Delta ◽  
Copper River Delta ◽  
Central South

Inlet sediment bypassing, through the previously recognized mechanisms of stable inlet processes and ebb-tidal delta breaching, has been documented at six mixed energy (tide-dominated) coasts around the world including the coasts of: central South Carolina, Virginia, southern New Jersey, New England, the East Friesian Islands, and the Copper River Delta in Alaska. Regardless of the mechanism, the end product of the bypassing process is the formation of a large bar complex that migrates onshore and attaches to the downdrift inlet shoreline. Thus sediment bypassing is a discontinuous process at mixed energy tidal inlets. The morphology of the bar complexes is highly variable with widths ranging from 40-300m and lengths from 300 to over 1500m. Generally, the size of the bar complexes increases as inlet size increases and as the rate of longshore sediment transport increases. The frequency of bar welding events at mixed energy inlets varies from 3-7 years. The location where the bars attach to the downdrift beach and length of shoreline that is affected by the bar welding process is dependent on inlet size, orientation of the main ebb channel and wave versus tide dominance of the shoreline.

scholarly journals SAND CIRCULATION PATTERN AT PRICE INLET, SOUTH CAROLINA

1976 ◽  
Vol 1 (15) ◽  
pp. 108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duncan M. FitzGerald ◽  
Dag Nummedal ◽  
Timothy W. Kana
Keyword(s):  
South Carolina ◽  
Circulation Pattern ◽  
High Water ◽  
Tidal Currents ◽  
Main Channel ◽  
Phase Lag ◽  
Wave Refraction ◽  
Flood Duration ◽  
Ebb Tidal Delta ◽  
Process Measurements

A sand circulation pattern has been determined for Price Inlet, South Carolina, using wave refraction diagrams, littoral process measurements, bedform orientations and inlet hydraulic data. The dominant process acting on the ebb-tidal delta is wave swash which impedes the ebb-tidal currents and augments the flood-tidal currents. This produces a net landward transport of sand on the ebb-tidal delta as evidenced by the landward migrating swash bars. Bedform orientations and velocity measurements taken on the swash bars also support this conclusion. Countering the general landward transport direction is the ebb dominance of the main channel. This dominance can be explained by higher inlet efficiency at low water than at high water. Consequently, bay tide phase lag is larger at high than at low water resulting in a longer flood duration. This causes higher mean ebb-tidal currents and a consequent larger potential net ebb transport of sand. This inlet characteristic explains why little sand is transported inside the inlet, why the throat remains scoured and why sand entering the main channel is carried seaward.

An Ultrastructural Comparison of Hepatocytes from ADH+ and ADH−Peromyscus Maniculatus

1996 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
pp. 30-31
Author(s):  
J. T. Ellzey ◽  
D. Borunda ◽  
B. P. Stewart
Keyword(s):  
South Carolina ◽  
Adult Male ◽  
Uranyl Acetate ◽  
Model System ◽  
Deer Mice ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Genetic Stock ◽  
Hepes Buffer ◽  
Transmission Electron ◽  
Color Scanner

Genetically alcohol deficient deer mice (ADHN/ADHN) (obtained from the Peromyscus Genetic Stock Center, Univ. of South Carolina) lack hepatic cytosolic alcohol dehydrogenase. In order to determine if these deer mice would provide a model system for an ultrastructural study of the effects of ethanol on hepatocyte organelles, 75 micrographs of ADH+ adult male deer mice (n=5) were compared with 75 micrographs of ADH− adult male deer mice (n=5). A morphometric analysis of mitochondrial and peroxisomal parameters was undertaken.The livers were perfused with 0.1M HEPES buffer followed by 0.25% glutaraldehyde and 2% sucrose in 0.1M HEPES buffer (4C), removed, weighed and fixed by immersion in 2.5% glutaraldehyde in 0.1M HEPES buffer, pH 7.4, followed by a 3,3’ diaminobenzidine (DAB) incubation, postfixation with 2% OsO4, en bloc staining with 1% uranyl acetate in 0.025M maleate-NaOH buffer, dehydrated, embedded in Poly/Bed 812-BDMA epon resin, sectioned and poststained with uranyl acetate and lead citrate. Photographs were taken on a Zeiss EM-10 transmission electron microscope, scanned with a Howtek personal color scanner, analyzed with OPTIMAS 4.02 software on a Gateway2000 4DX2-66V personal computer and stored in Excel 4.0.

Use of the AMA Guides in State Workers' Compensation Systems: 2009 Update

2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-16
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
Jenny Walker
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
North Carolina ◽  
South Carolina ◽  
South Dakota ◽  
Rhode Island ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Specific Guideline ◽  
Compensation Systems

Abstract The AMAGuides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) is the most widely used basis for determining impairment and is used in state workers’ compensation systems, federal systems, automobile casualty, and personal injury, as well as by the majority of state workers’ compensation jurisdictions. Two tables summarize the edition of the AMA Guides used and provide information by state. The fifth edition (2000) is the most commonly used edition: California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Vermont, and Washington. Eleven states use the sixth edition (2007): Alaska, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wyoming. Eight states still commonly make use of the fourth edition (1993): Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, South Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia. Two states use the Third Edition, Revised (1990): Colorado and Oregon. Connecticut does not stipulate which edition of the AMA Guides to use. Six states use their own state specific guidelines (Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, and Wisconsin), and six states do not specify a specific guideline (Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Virginia). Statutes may or may not specify which edition of the AMA Guides to use. Some states use their own guidelines for specific problems and use the Guides for other issues.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document