Baroclinicity, Forcing Mechanism and Prediction of Chemical Propagation of San Diego Bay and Their ...

Baroclinicity, Forcing Mechanism Baroclinicity, Forcing Mechanism and Prediction ofand Prediction of Chemical Propagation of San Diego Chemical Propagation of San Diego Bay and Their Bay and Their

Effects on Naval ApplicationsEffects on Naval Applications

Baroclinicity, Forcing Baroclinicity, Forcing Mechanism and Prediction Mechanism and Prediction of chemical Propagation of of chemical Propagation of San Diego Bay and their San Diego Bay and their

Effects on Naval Effects on Naval ApplicationsApplicationsINTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION

STUDY SITE STUDY SITE

Forcing mechanismForcing mechanism BaroclinicityBaroclinicity

WQMAP MODELWQMAP MODEL

MODEL EVALUATIONMODEL EVALUATION

CHEMMAP MODELCHEMMAP MODEL

CHEMICAL THREAT CHEMICAL THREAT SCENARIOSSCENARIOS

CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS

INTRODUCTION/ INTRODUCTION/ IMPORTANCEIMPORTANCE

Littoral Waters: Littoral Waters: Special Special Operations, Mine Warfare, Operations, Mine Warfare, Expeditionary Warfare, Expeditionary Warfare, Object Drift, Search and Object Drift, Search and Rescue, Oil SpillRescue, Oil Spill

National Security: National Security: Prediction of propagation in Prediction of propagation in case of Chemical Attack or case of Chemical Attack or accident accident

Model evaluations: Model evaluations: RRequirements for prediction equirements for prediction of currents and tides of currents and tides worldwideworldwide


Effects on Naval Effects on Naval ApplicationsApplications

INTRODUCTION/ PURPOSEINTRODUCTION/ PURPOSE

DDetermine how well etermine how well 22D D depth-integrateddepth-integrated models will models will satisfy certain Navy satisfy certain Navy applications in coastal bays.applications in coastal bays.

Evaluate the models Evaluate the models WQMAP - CHEMMAP WQMAP - CHEMMAP purchased by NAVOCEANOpurchased by NAVOCEANO

Apply the CHEMMAP model Apply the CHEMMAP model in different threat scenarios in different threat scenarios in San Diego Bay in San Diego Bay



U in water column for NB1

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000

time-poins (every 10 sec)

U (c

m/s

ec)

STUDY SITE - SAN DIEGO STUDY SITE - SAN DIEGO BAYBAY

Importance: Large City, Importance: Large City, Host of a significant part of Host of a significant part of US Navy, near the bordersUS Navy, near the borders

Oceanographic Interest: Oceanographic Interest: Small Tidal Basin, Semi- Small Tidal Basin, Semi- Enclosed BayEnclosed Bay

Advantage: Historic Data Advantage: Historic Data


Effects on Naval Effects on Naval ApplicationsApplicationsZuniga jetty

STUDY SITE - STUDY SITE - CHARACTERISTICSCHARACTERISTICS

Average depth 6.5 m Average depth 6.5 m (measured from the mean (measured from the mean sea level). Northern/outer sea level). Northern/outer part narrower (1-2 km wide) part narrower (1-2 km wide) - deeper (up to 15 m) . - deeper (up to 15 m) . Southern/inner part wider (2-Southern/inner part wider (2-4 km wide) - shallower (less 4 km wide) - shallower (less than 5 m). than 5 m).

Average temperature 21 C Average temperature 21 C (range 14 – 26 C). Average (range 14 – 26 C). Average temperature during summer temperature during summer (late June to late August) 23 (late June to late August) 23 C. C.

Salinity (32.5 - 37.5 ppt) Salinity (32.5 - 37.5 ppt) and average 35 ppt (in and average 35 ppt (in summer 36 ppt). summer 36 ppt).



STUDY SITE – FORCING STUDY SITE – FORCING MECHANISMSMECHANISMS

Currents produced by tides Currents produced by tides (“tidal pumping” caused due (“tidal pumping” caused due to the flow difference to the flow difference between ebb and flood). between ebb and flood).

Winds insignificant effect. Winds insignificant effect. Both westerly afternoon Both westerly afternoon winds and easterly morning/ winds and easterly morning/ evening winds less than 5 evening winds less than 5 m/secm/sec

Annual precipitation 0.26 Annual precipitation 0.26 m (in summer negligible – m (in summer negligible – less than 0.005 m) . No less than 0.005 m) . No significant river inflowsignificant river inflow



BAROCLINICITYBAROCLINICITY

Data used : 3 ADCP sites in Data used : 3 ADCP sites in summer 1993 (SPAWAR)summer 1993 (SPAWAR)

ADCP /velocity coefficient remarksNb1/u 97.16%Nb1/v 96.32%Nb2/u 91.89%Nb2/v 94.71%Bb/u 35.19%Bb/v 92.94%

Bb/u 49.53% Filtered Bb/v 100.00% Filtered




-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000

time-poins (every 10 sec)

U (c

m/s

ec)

BAROCLINICITY – EXCEPTIONBAROCLINICITY – EXCEPTION

u component near point u component near point Loma has great differences Loma has great differences in surface and bottom.in surface and bottom.

Reasons for discrepancies:Reasons for discrepancies:

Relatively open oceanRelatively open ocean(Influence of California (Influence of California CurrentCurrentas well as influence of as well as influence of Wind )Wind )

Data from ADCP very Data from ADCP very near to Zuniga jettynear to Zuniga jetty



U in water column for BB

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000

time-points (every 10 sec)

U (c

m/s

ec)

WQMAP MODEL WQMAP MODEL MAIN MAIN EQUATIONSEQUATIONS



WQMAP MODEL - WQMAP MODEL - APPROXIMATIONS AND APPROXIMATIONS AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONSBOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Hydrostatic Hydrostatic Boussinesq Boussinesq Land boundaries assumed Land boundaries assumed impermeable (normal impermeable (normal component of velocity set to component of velocity set to zero). zero).

At closed boundaries At closed boundaries transport of substance (i.e. transport of substance (i.e. salinity) is zero. salinity) is zero.

At open boundaries, At open boundaries, concentration specified during concentration specified during the inflow, using characteristic the inflow, using characteristic values.values.



MODEL EVALUATION/ MODEL EVALUATION/ VELOCITY COMPONENTSVELOCITY COMPONENTS

Data/Model comparison:Data/Model comparison:

Mean values differences: Mean values differences: 0.49–1.29 cm/s0.49–1.29 cm/s

Deviation values differences: Deviation values differences: 0.44 – 6.700.44 – 6.70

Correlation Coefficient : Correlation Coefficient : 91.66 - 92.60%91.66 - 92.60%

Root Mean Square Error: Root Mean Square Error: 6.73–9.02 cm/s6.73–9.02 cm/s

Error Coefficient Error Coefficient Variation:6.8 – 16.76Variation:6.8 – 16.76



U for nb2

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

7/10/1993 0:00 7/15/1993 0:00 7/20/1993 0:00 7/25/1993 0:00

Time (date)

U (c

m/s

ec)

U for nb1

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

7/10/1993 0:00 7/15/1993 0:00 7/20/1993 0:00 7/25/1993 0:00

Time (date)

U (c

m/s

ec)

MODEL EVALUATION/ MODEL EVALUATION/ ELEVATIONELEVATIONData/Model comparison:Data/Model comparison:

NOAA SPAWAR M2 (ampl dif) + 2.51 cm + 3.83 cmK1 (ampl dif) - 0.94 cm + 3.73 cmO1 (ampl dif) - 0.84 cm - 2.19 cmS2 (ampl dif) + 0.71 cm - 1.1 cm

M2 (ph dif) + 0.75 o - 1.71 o

K1 (phdif) - 26.08 o - 25.94 o

O1 (ph dif) + 29.58 o - 45.33 o

S2 (ph dif) - 48.96 o + 5.41 o



TIDE FREQ AMPL AMP.ERR PHASE PH ERR SNR MSF 0.0028219 0.0061 0.014 266.81 160.24 0.2 *2Q1 0.0357064 0.0067 0.003 337.90 21.94 6.8 *Q1 0.0372185 0.0364 0.002 76.81 4.66 2.4e+002 *O1 0.0387307 0.1952 0.003 125.14 0.86 5e+003 *NO1 0.0402686 0.0096 0.003 19.17 16.04 13 *K1 0.0417807 0.3773 0.002 60.54 0.44 2.5e+004 J1 0.0432929 0.0026 0.002 97.99 69.16 1.2 *OO1 0.0448308 0.0157 0.002 129.23 9.23 40 *UPS1 0.0463430 0.0047 0.003 289.53 32.85 2.7 *N2 0.0789992 0.1226 0.014 203.96 7.74 75 *M2 0.0805114 0.5804 0.015 270.27 1.36 1.6e+003 *S2 0.0833333 0.2144 0.013 267.04 3.93 2.6e+002 ETA2 0.0850736 0.0077 0.011 7.45 98.73 0.48 *MO3 0.1192421 0.0042 0.001 258.54 22.76 8.5 *M3 0.1207671 0.0021 0.001 172.85 40.42 2.4 *MK3 0.1222921 0.0085 0.001 219.46 10.21 33 *SK3 0.1251141 0.0026 0.001 208.56 32.29 3.7 *MN4 0.1595106 0.0039 0.002 15.82 21.09 6.1 *M4 0.1610228 0.0107 0.001 75.84 8.11 71 *MS4 0.1638447 0.0074 0.002 71.22 11.13 23 S4 0.1666667 0.0014 0.001 66.29 51.91 1.2 *2MK5 0.2028035 0.0037 0.001 185.30 24.66 6.6 2SK5 0.2084474 0.0003 0.001 258.37 225.54 0.057 2MN6 0.2400221 0.0029 0.002 355.66 52.92 1.5 *M6 0.2415342 0.0059 0.002 52.23 22.32 6.5 *2MS6 0.2443561 0.0080 0.003 72.33 18.29 10 2SM6 0.2471781 0.0019 0.002 83.37 75.50 0.65 *3MK7 0.2833149 0.0042 0.002 108.25 31.28 3.4 *M8 0.3220456 0.0007 0.000 295.35 30.49 3.3

MODEL EVALUATION/ MODEL EVALUATION/ CONCLUSIONCONCLUSION

2D Model satisfactory for 2D Model satisfactory for well-mixed areas of the Bay well-mixed areas of the Bay (less accurate for the (less accurate for the entrance)entrance)

Few Discrepancies due to Few Discrepancies due to proximity of ADCPs to the proximity of ADCPs to the shore, bathymetry errorsshore, bathymetry errors



U for nb1

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

7/10/1993 0:00 7/15/1993 0:00 7/20/1993 0:00 7/25/1993 0:00

Time (date)

U (c

m/s

ec)

V for nb1

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

7/10/1993 0:00 7/15/1993 0:00 7/20/1993 0:00 7/25/1993 0:00

Time (date)

V (c

m/s

ec)

CHEMMAP MODELCHEMMAP MODEL

Predicts trajectory/ fate of Predicts trajectory/ fate of floating, sinking, floating, sinking, evaporating, soluble and evaporating, soluble and insoluble chemicals and insoluble chemicals and product mixtures. product mixtures.

Estimates the distribution Estimates the distribution of chemical elements on the of chemical elements on the surface, in the water column surface, in the water column and in the sediments. and in the sediments.

Langrangian approachLangrangian approach




Effects on Naval Effects on Naval ApplicationsApplications Methanol Benzene Ammonia Chloro-

benzene

TCE Napthalene

(gas)

Floatation Floater Floater Floater Sinker Sinker Sinker/ Air

dispersed

Solubility High High High Normal High Semi

Volatility High High High Semi Semi None

Absorption Dissolves Moderate Slight Moderate Moderate Moderate

Flammability High High High High

Water/Air

rapid

interaction

No No No No

CHEMMAP MODEL CHEMMAP MODEL SELECTION OF CHEMICALSSELECTION OF CHEMICALS

CHEMICAL THREAT CHEMICAL THREAT SCENARIOSSCENARIOS

12 scenarios (6 chemicals in 12 scenarios (6 chemicals in North and South San Diego North and South San Diego Bay)Bay)

Methanol (1 barrel Methanol (1 barrel released in depth 1m).released in depth 1m). Benzene (10 tons in depth Benzene (10 tons in depth 1m). 1m). Ammonia (200 tons in Ammonia (200 tons in depth 3m). depth 3m). Chlorobenzene (200 tons Chlorobenzene (200 tons in depth 3m). in depth 3m). Trichloroethylene (200 Trichloroethylene (200 tons in depth 3m). tons in depth 3m). Naphthalene (200 tons in Naphthalene (200 tons in depth 3m).depth 3m).



CHEMICAL THREAT CHEMICAL THREAT SCENARIOS/ RESULTS SCENARIOS/ RESULTS NORTH SAN DIEGO BAYNORTH SAN DIEGO BAY

In 3 hours: San Diego In 3 hours: San Diego port/cityport/cityIn 10 hours: Entire North In 10 hours: Entire North SD BaySD BayIn 12 hours: Outside SD In 12 hours: Outside SD BayBayIn 16-30 hours: Naval In 16-30 hours: Naval StationStationIn 5 days: Heavy impact In 5 days: Heavy impact on NSon NSIn 20 Days: South BayIn 20 Days: South BayIn 32 Days: The entire SD In 32 Days: The entire SD Bay Bay



CHEMICAL THREAT CHEMICAL THREAT SCENARIOS/ RESULTS SCENARIOS/ RESULTS SOUTH SAN DIEGO BAYSOUTH SAN DIEGO BAY

In 12 hours: Naval In 12 hours: Naval StationStation

In 15-17days: Small part In 15-17days: Small part of absorbed or dissolved of absorbed or dissolved chemical in San Diego chemical in San Diego city/portcity/port

After 32 days: No effect After 32 days: No effect to North San Diego Bay to North San Diego Bay



Comparison of different Comparison of different chemicals’ results after chemicals’ results after spilling in South San Diego spilling in South San Diego BayBay

CHEMICAL THREAT CHEMICAL THREAT SCENARIOS SCENARIOS RESULTS FOR FLOATERSRESULTS FOR FLOATERS

Methanol: after 3 days 45-Methanol: after 3 days 45-50% in water column, after 50% in water column, after 20 days less than 5% - rest 20 days less than 5% - rest decayed. decayed.

Benzene: 45% Benzene: 45% evaporates. After 2 days evaporates. After 2 days 30-50% in water column, 30-50% in water column, after 20 days 8-18% - rest after 20 days 8-18% - rest decayed. decayed.

Ammonia: After 3 days Ammonia: After 3 days 50-75% in water column, 50-75% in water column, after 20 days 8-18% - rest after 20 days 8-18% - rest decayed. decayed.



CHEMICAL THREAT CHEMICAL THREAT SCENARIOS SCENARIOS RESULTS FOR SINKERSRESULTS FOR SINKERS

Chlorobenzene: After 5 Chlorobenzene: After 5 days 65 - 97% in water days 65 - 97% in water column, after 20 days 50-column, after 20 days 50-90% - rest decayed. 90% - rest decayed.

Trichloroethylene: After 5 Trichloroethylene: After 5 days 60-93% in water days 60-93% in water column, after 20 days 38-column, after 20 days 38-71% - rest decayed. 71% - rest decayed.

Naphthalene (gas/air Naphthalene (gas/air dispersed): After 5 days 33 dispersed): After 5 days 33 - 78% in water column, - 78% in water column, after 20 days 12-33% - rest after 20 days 12-33% - rest decayed. decayed.



APPLICATION APPLICATION CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS Great danger/ Great danger/ vulnerability: vulnerability:

In the North San Diego In the North San Diego Bay, contamination of Bay, contamination of city/port, Bay – small city/port, Bay – small reaction time. reaction time.

In the South San Diego In the South San Diego Bay, contamination only Bay, contamination only of Southern part of Southern part (including Naval (including Naval Station). Station).

When in the South, bigger When in the South, bigger percentage of chemical and percentage of chemical and for more time remains in for more time remains in the water column. the water column.



GENERAL CONCLUSIONS GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

San Diego purely San Diego purely barotropicbarotropic

San Diego Bay purely tidal San Diego Bay purely tidal forcingforcing

22D D depth-integrateddepth-integrated models models should be applied should be applied to semi-enclosed, well-to semi-enclosed, well-mixed, tidal basins. WQMAP mixed, tidal basins. WQMAP - CHEMMAP far from perfect - CHEMMAP far from perfect but useful but useful

Discrepancies mainly due Discrepancies mainly due to proximity of ADCP sites to proximity of ADCP sites to shoreline, bathymetry to shoreline, bathymetry errorserrors



RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCHFURTHER RESEARCH

Use of better bathymetry, Use of better bathymetry, finer grid and more recent finer grid and more recent ADCP measurements (and ADCP measurements (and more distant from the more distant from the shore).shore).

More detailed More detailed comparison of 3D vs. 2D comparison of 3D vs. 2D model and application for model and application for drift and for instantaneous drift and for instantaneous current prediction.current prediction.

Classified thesis with Classified thesis with data about real chemical data about real chemical threat (e.g. anthrax) - not threat (e.g. anthrax) - not available to foreigners. available to foreigners.




-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000time-points (every 10 sec)

U (c

m/s

ec)

U for nb2

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

7/10/1993 0:00 7/15/1993 0:00 7/20/1993 0:00 7/25/1993 0:00

Time (date)

U (c

m/s

ec)

QuestionQuestions? s?

Questions?Questions?

Date post:	25-Feb-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lynda
View:	28 times
Download:	0 times

Baroclinicity, Forcing Mechanism and Prediction of Chemical Propagation of San Diego Bay and Their ...

Documents