Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/11681/10752| Title: | Summary report : model studies of Shrewsbury Inlet |
| Authors: | United States. Army. Corps of Engineers. New York District. McNair, Ernest C. Hill, Thomas C. |
| Keywords: | Hydraulic models Shrewsbury Inlet New York Harbor Small boat harbors Design Current velocity Tides Salinity |
| Publisher: | Hydraulics Laboratory (U.S.) Engineer Research and Development Center (U.S.) |
| Series/Report no.: | Miscellaneous paper (U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station) ; H-72-2. |
| Description: | Miscellaneous Paper Abstract: The existing comprehensive distorted model of New York Harbor was revised to include Shrewsbury and Navesink Rivers and subsequently was used to determine the effects of a proposed small-boat channel across the base of Sandy Hook Peninsula on (A.) the dispersion of dye injections in Raritan and Upper New York Bays, (B.) flooding within the two rivers and Sandy Hook Bay as a result of normal tides plus superimposed hurricane surges, (C.) recreational boating and commercial navigation, and (D.) general shoaling characteristics and maintenance requirements. An undistorted sectional model was used to determine effects of the smallboat channel on (a) the optimum location and length of the proposed protection jetties on the ocean end of the proposed small-boat channel, (b) transmission of wave .energy through the inlet into Sandy Hook Bay, and (c) detailed current velocities in critical locations for various flood and ebb discharges through the proposed small-boat inlet. The plans tested involved different channel alignments, different channel depths, and various lengths and locations for the jetties. The following general conclusions appear valid on the basis of model test results reported herein: (1.)None of the plans tested would have significant effects on water-surface elevations during normal tides or during hurricane surges. (2.) Current velocities and flow patterns would not be changed appreciably except in the immediate vicinity of the inlet. (3.) Current velocities in the new inlet for normal tides should not be excessive for safe navigation. (4.) None of the plans tested offered a unique advantage over other plans in relation to the crosscurrents during certain periods of the tide phase; however, the alignment of Plans 1 and 3 appeared to be better than that of Plans 2 and 4. (5.) For pollution sources in Raritan Bay, the influx of pollution into Sandy Hook Bay and Shrewsbury and Navesink Rivers would be reduced slightly. (6.) For pollution sources in Upper New York Bay, the influx of pollutants to Sandy Hook Bay and Shrewsbury and Navesink Rivers would be slightly increased. (7.) For pollution sources in Shrewsbury and Navesink Rivers, the flushing rate would be improved by construction of the inlet. (8.) The salinities in the problem areas are not adversely affected by installation of the small-boat inlet. (9.) Plan 3 would be less expensive to maintain than the other plans tested. (10.) Wave energy originating in the ocean and passing through the new inlet would have insignificant effects on wave heights along the Highlands shoreline. (11.) The wave climate between the jetties should not be difficult to navigate except possibly under certain combinations of ocean wave conditions and critical ebb discharges in the inlet. NOTE: This file is very large. Allow your browser several minutes to download the file. |
| Rights: | Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. |
| URI: | http://hdl.handle.net/11681/10752 |
| Appears in Collections: | Miscellaneous Paper |
Files in This Item:
| File | Description | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MP-H-72-2.pdf | 25.9 MB | Adobe PDF |  View/Open |