c - /

TIDAL PRISM - INLET AREA RELATIONSHIPS

G U I REPORT 3

February 1976

GENERAL INVESTIGATION OF TIDAL INLETS

A Program of Research Conducted Jointly by

U. S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia

U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi

GB
454
.154
U5
no.3 Department of the Army
1976 Corps of Engineers

APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED

 ~JTV , ; \ ■

-■v@r„ CoToia^.c

Destroy this report when no longer needed. Do not return

it to the originator.

Cover Photo: Drum Inlet, North Carolina, 13 March 1962

Courtesy of the U. S. Geological Survey
 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION DENVER LIBRARY
92099648
\
920 99648
Unclassified
S E C U R IT Y C L A S S IF IC A T IO N O F T H IS P A G E (When D ata E n tered)
R E A D INSTRUCTIONS
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM
1. REPO RT NUMBER 2. G O V T A C C E S S IO N NO. 3. R E C IP IE N T 'S C A T A L O G N U M B E R

GITI Report 3
4 . T I T L E (an d S u b title) 5. T Y P E O F R E P O R T & P E R IO D C O V E R E D

Final report)j
TTDAT. PRISM U INLET AREA RELATIONSHIPS —
6. P E R F O R M IN G O R G . R E P O R T N U M B E R

7. A U T H O R !» 8. C O N T R A C T O R G R A N T N U M B E R !»

r
James T. Jarrett ^
è
9. P E R F O R M IN G O R G A N IZ A T IO N N A M E A N D A D D R ESS 10. PR O G RA M E L E M E N T , P R O J E C T , T A S K
A R E A & W ORK U N IT N U M B E R S
U. S.^Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station
Hydraulics Laboratory ^
P. 0. Box 631, Vicksburg, Miss. 39180
11. C O N T R O L L IN G O F F IC E N A M E A N D AD D R ESS 12. REPORT D A T E

U. S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center ' February 1976 y

Kingman Building 13. number of pag es

Fort Belvoir, Va. 22060 55

14. M O N IT O R IN G A G E N C Y N A M E & AD D R ESS !’/ / dltieren t from C on tro llin g O ffic e) 15. S E C U R IT Y C L A S S , (o f th is report)

Unclassified
15a. D E C L A S S IF IC A T IO N /D O W N G R A D IN G
SCHEDULE

16. D IS T R IB U T IO N S T A T E M E N T (o f th is R ep ort)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. D IS T R IB U T IO N S T A T E M E N T (o f the a b str a c t en tered in B lo c k 20, i f differen t from Report)

18. S U P P L E M E N T A R Y NO TES

19. K E Y WORDS (C on tinu e on re v e rs e aid e if n e c e s s a r y an d id en tify by b lo ck number)

Tidal inlets
Tidal prisms

20. A B S T R A C T (C on tinue ana re v e rse atria tf n e c e s s a r y an d id e n tify by b lo c k number)

The tidal prism - inlet area relationships for inlets on sandy coast estab­
lished by M. P. O ’Brien were reanalyzed using his data and data published by
other investigators. In addition, tidal prism and inlet cross-sectional area
data developed in the Inlet Classification Study, a subfeature of the Corps of
Engineers General Investigation of Tidal Inlets, were also used. These data
result in a total of 162 data points for 108 inlets— 59 of which are located
on the Atlantic coast, 2b on the Gulf coast, and 25 on the Pacific coast of
(Continued)
DD , ^ 7 3 1473 E D IT IO N O F Í N O V 6 5 IS O B S O L E T E
Unclassified
S E C U R IT Y C L A S S IF IC A T IO N O F T H IS P A G E (When D a ta E n tered)
 ____________ Unclassified____________
S E C U R IT Y C L A S S IF IC A T IO N O F T H IS PAGEQW ian D a ta E n tered )

20. ABSTRACT (Continued).

the United States. The data are grouped into three main categories, namely:
(l) all inlets, (2 ) unjettied and single-jettied inlets, and (3 ) inlets with
two jetties. Within each of these three categories, the data are further
subdivided into: (a) inlets on all three coasts,'(b) inlets on the Atlantic
coast, (c) inlets on the Gulf coast, and (d) inlets on the Pacific coast.
Regression analysis was performed on each set of data to determine the equa­
tions of best fit and to establish 95 percent confidence limits for the equa­
tions and the constants in the equations. The results of the regression
analysis, which in all cases yielded an equation of the form A = CPn , in
which C and n are constants determined by the regression analysis, indi­
cate that the tidal prism - inlet area relationship is not a unique function
for all inlets but varies depending on inlet location and whether or not the
inlet has been stabilized with a dual jetty system.

Unclassified
S E C U R I T Y C L A S S I F I C A T I O N O F TH IS P A G E (W h en D a ta E n te r e d )
 FOREWORD

This report was* prepared by the Estuaries and Wave Dynamics Divi­
sions of the Hydraulics Laboratory at the U. S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station (WES) as one in a series of reports on the General
Investigation of Tidal Inlets (GITI). The GITI research program is under
the technical surveillance of the U. S. Army Coastal Engineering Research
Center (CERC) and is conducted by CERC, WES, and other Government and
private organizations. During the study of the Keulegan repletion coef­
ficient being done as a part of the Inlet Classification Study, the op­
portunity was taken to make this reanalysis of the relationships between
tidal prism and inlet area originally developed by M. P. O ’Brien in 1931.
Because the tidal prisms calculated to determine the repletion coeffi­
cient for tidal inlets also provide additional data on the relationship
between tidal prism and inlet area, advantage was taken of the new data
to investigate its effect on the previously developed relationships.
The study and report preparation were supervised by E. C. McNair
(former WES GITI Program Manager), CPT F. C. Perry, CE (present WES GITI
Program Manager), R. A. Sager, Chief of the Estuaries Division, R. W.
Whalin, Chief of the Wave Dynamics Division, and H. B. Simmons, Chief
of the Hydraulics Laboratory. Civilian members of the Coastal Engineer­
ing Research Board, Dean Morrough P. O ’Brien, Professor Robert G. Dean,
Professor Robert L. Wiegel, and Professor Arthur T. Ippen (former mem­
ber, deceased), were intimately involved in both the planning and review
of this report. CERC technical direction was conducted by C. Mason and
R. M. Sorensen. Technical Directors of CERC and WES were T. Saville, Jr.,
and F. R. Brown, respectively.
Comments on this publication are invited.
Approval for publication in accordance with Public Law 1 66, 79th
Congress, approved 31 July 19^5> as supplemented by Public Law 172, 88th
Congress, approved 7 November 1963:

Colonel, Corps of Engineers Colonel, Corpslot Engineers

Director Commander and m.rector
Waterways Experiment Station Coastal Engineering Research Center
 PREFACE

1. The Corps of Engineers, through its Civil Works program, has

sponsored, over the past twenty-three years, research into the behavior
and characteristics of tidal inlets. The Corps’ interest in tidal inlet
research stems from its responsibilities for navigation, beach erosion
prevention and control, and flood control. Tasked with the creation and
maintenance of navigable U. S. waterways, the Corps routinely dredges
millions of cubic yards of material each year from tidal inlets that
connect the ocean with bays, estuaries, and lagoons. Design and con­
struction of navigation improvements to existing tidal inlets are an
important part of the work of many Corps offices. In some cases, design
and construction of new inlets are required. Development of information
concerning the hydraulic characteristics of inlets is important not only
for navigation and inlet stability but also because inlets control the
daily exchange of water between bay and ocean. Accurate predictions of
the effects of storm surges and runoff also require an understanding
of inlet hydraulics during extreme conditions.
2. A research program, the General Investigation of Tidal Inlets
program, was developed to provide quantitative data for use in design of
inlets and inlet improvements. It is designed to meet the following
objectives:
To determine the effects of wave action, tidal flow, and
related phenomena on inlet stability and on the hydraulic,
geometric, and sedimentary characteristics of tidal
inlets; to develop the knowledge necessary to design
effective navigation improvements, new inlets, and sand
transfer systems at existing tidal inlets; to evaluate
the water transfer and flushing capability of tidal
inlets; and to define the processes controlling inlet
stability.

3. The GITI is divided into three major study areas: inlet clas­
sification, inlet hydraulics, and inlet dynamics.
si. The objectives of the inlet classification study are to
classify inlets according to their geometry, hydraulics,
and stability, and to determine the relationships that
exist among the geometric and dynamic characteristics and

2
 the environmental factors that control these characteris­
tics. The classification study keeps the general investi­
gation closely related to real inlets and produces an
important inlet data base useful in documenting the charac­
teristics of inlets.
b. The objectives of the inlet hydraulics study are to define
the tide-generated flow regime and water-level fluctuations
in the vicinity of coastal inlets and to develop techniques
for predicting these phenomena. The inlet hydraulics
study is divided into three areas: idealized inlet model
study, evaluation of state-of-the-art physical and numeri­
cal models, and prototype inlet hydraulics.
(1) The idealized inlet model. The objectives of this
model study are to determine the effect of inlet con­
figurations and structures on discharge, head loss,
and velocity distribution for a number of realistic
inlet shapes and tide conditions. An initial set of
tests in a trapezoidal inlet was conducted between
1967 and 1970. However, in order that subsequent
inlet models are more representative of real inlets,
a number of "idealized" models representing various
inlet morphological classes are being developed and
tested. The effects of jetties and wave action on the
hydraulics are included in the study.
(2) Evaluation of state-of-the-art modeling techniques.
The objectives of this portion of the inlet hydraulics
study are to determine the usefulness and reliability
of existing physical and numerical modeling techniques
in predicting the hydraulic characteristics of inlet/
bay systems, and to determine whether simple tests,
performed rapidly and economically, are useful in the
evaluation of proposed inlet improvements. Masonboro
Inlet, N. C., was selected as the prototype inlet
which would be used along with hydraulic and numerical
models in the evaluation of existing techniques. In
September 1969 a complete set of hydraulic and
bathymetric data was collected at Masonboro Inlet.
Construction of the fixed-bed physical model was
initiated in 196 9 , and extensive tests have been per­
formed since then. In addition, three existing
numerical models were applied to predict the inlet’s
hydraulics. Extensive field data were collected at
Masonboro Inlet in August 197^- for use in evaluating
the capabilities of the physical and numerical models.
(3) Prototype inlet hydraulics. Field studies at a number
of inlets are providing information on prototype
inlet/bay tidal hydraulic relationships and the
effects of friction, waves, tides, and inlet morphol­
ogy on these relationships.

3
 c_. The basic objective of the inlet dynamics study is to
investigate the interactions of tidal flow, inlet
configuration, and wave action at tidal inlets as a guide
to improvement of inlet channels and nearby shore pro­
tection works. The study is subdivided into four specific
areas: model materials evaluation, movable-bed modeling
evaluation, reanalysis of a previous inlet model study,
and prototype inlet studies.
(1) Model materials evaluation. This evaluation was
initiated in 1969 to provide data on the response of
movable-bed model materials to waves and flow to
allow selection of the optimum bed materials for inlet
models.
(2) Movable-bed model evaluation. The objective of this
study is to evaluate the state-of-the-art of modeling
techniques, in this case movable-bed inlet modeling.
Since, in many cases, movable-bed modeling is the
only tool available for predicting the response of an
inlet to improvements, the capabilities and limita­
tions of these models must be established.
(3) Reanalysis of an earlier inlet model study. In 19579
a report entitled "Preliminary Report: Laboratory
Study of the Effect of an Uncontrolled Inlet on the
Adjacent Beaches" was published by the Beach Erosion
Board (now CERC). A reanalysis of the original data
is being performed to aid in planning of additional
GITI efforts.
(4) Prototype dynamics. Field and office studies of a
number of inlets are providing information on the
effects of physical forces and artificial improvements
on inlet morphology. Of particular importance are
studies to define the mechanisms of natural sand
bypassing at inlets, the response of inlet navigation
channels to dredging and natural forces, and the
effects of inlets on adjacent beaches.
k. This report is a secondary result of the research being con­
ducted as part of the inlet classification study. During a study of the
variation in the Keulegan repletion coefficient (K) with variations in
inlet geomorphology as a means of classifying inlets (report in prepa­
ration), a great deal of new tidal prism data was generated during the
calculation of Keulegan*s K for many inlets. The opportunity was
therefore taken to reexamine the relationships between tidal prism and
inlet area which were originally developed by M. P. 0 TBrien in 1931.

k
 CONTENTS
Page,
FOREWORD .......................................................... 1
PREFACE............................... 2
CONVERSION FACTORS, U. S. CUSTOMARY TO METRIC (Si)
UNITS OF M EASUREMENT............................................ 6
PART I: INTRODUCTION.............................................. 7
PART II: TIDAL PRISM - INLET AREA DATA USED IN THE ANALYSIS . . . 11
Cubature Method.............................................. 11
NOS Current Data Method...................................... 15
PART III: ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE................................... 19
PART IV: DISCUSSION OF RESULTS................................... 21
PART V: C ONCLUSIONS.............................................. 30
R E F E R E N C E S ........................................................ 31
TABLES 1-1*
PLATES 1-11+
APPENDIX A : NOTATION

5
 CONVERSION FACTORS, U. S. CUSTOMARY TO
METRIC (SI) UNITS OF MEASUREMENT

U. S. customary units of measurement used in this report can be con­

verted to metric (Si) units as follows:

Multiply By To Obtain
feet 0.30U8 metres
square feet 0.0929 square metres
cubic feet 0.0283 cubic metres
feet per second 0 . 30U8 metres per second

6
 TIDAL PRISM - INLET AREA RELATIONSHIPS

PART I: INTRODUCTION

1. The first known published relationship between the cross-

sectional area of a tidal inlet and the tidal prism were given by L. J.
LeConte1 in 1905 for harbor entrances on the Pacific coast. Using stan­
dard notation, LeContefs relationship can be expressed as:

A = 3.3 x 10"5P for unprotected entrances (l)

and

A = U. 3 x 10"”^P for inner harbor entrances (2)

where
A = gorge cross-sectional area below mean sea level (msl) , sq ft*
P = tidal prism corresponding to the spring range of tide, cu ft
LeConte cited conditions at the harbor entrances at San Diego, San Pedro,
San Francisco, and Humboldt, Calif., as fitting Equation 1.
2
2. In 1931, M. P. 0 fBrien established a relationship between the
cross-sectional area of an inlet and its tidal prism. This relationship,
based primarily on data pertaining to Pacific coast inlets, was

A = 1*.69 x ICt V 3-85 (3)

where
A = minimum cross section of entrance channel measured below msl,
sq ft
P = tidal prism corresponding to the diurnal or spring range of
tide, cu ft

In 1969, O'Brien reviewed this relationship in the light of additional

data that had become available since the initial study. Included in

* For convenience, symbols and unusual abbreviations are listed and de­
fined in the Notation (Appendix A ) . A table of factors for converting
U. S. customary units of measurement to metric (Si) units is presented
on page 6.

7
this review were data for 28 inlets, 9 on the Atlantic coast, 18 on the
Pacific coast, and 1* on the Gulf coast. 0 ?Brien concluded from this re­
view that the original relationship agreed closely with the contemporary
data for inlets with two jetties hut that inlets without jetties ap­
peared to be better represented by the linear relationship

A = 2.0 x 10"5P (it)

3. In 1971 I. V. Nayak investigated the relationship between the

tidal prism and the cross-sectional area in a model inlet. Two series
of tests were conducted with the model inlet, namely: (a) no jetties
without waves and with waves, and (b) twin jetties without waves and
with waves. From the results of his experiments, experiments conducted
at the University of Florida,^ and available prototype data, Nayak con­
cluded that the tidal prism - inlet area relationship for jettied inlets
could be approximated by

: j = 2.1+ x 103P°-15 (5)

or rearranging

A = It.17 x 10-i+P0 '85 (6)

For unjettied inlets, the only suitable relationship appeared to be

P/A = 5.3 x 101* or

A = 1.89 x 10 5P (7)

Although these relationships agree closely with those developed by

0 fBrien, the primary source of prototype data used by Nayak was O ’Brien.
In addition, from the test conducted with the unjettied inlet and no
waves, Nayak observed that the size of the cross-sectional area which
developed agreed closely with that produced in the test with the jettied
inlet. Also, for the test with the unjettied inlet with waves,

8
long-period waves produced smaller minimum cross-sectional areas than
did short-period waves.
1*. J. W. Johnson,^ working with inlets on the Pacific coast, used
hydrographic surveys available from the-Corps of Engineers and National
Ocean Survey (formerly USC&GS) navigation charts to measure entrance
areas and bay surface areas. Mean and diurnal tidal prisms were calcu­
lated by multiplying the bay surface area by the mean and diurnal tide
ranges near the inlet entrance. From his plot of mean tidal prism (P )
against cross-sectional area for all inlets, Johnson arrived at the
relationship

P = 9 x 10 3A1,13 (8)
m

or rearranging

A = 3.17 x 10
- l|p 0 .8 8 (9 )
m

When he extended the data to include laboratory data from the University
S 1* 7 '
of Florida and the University of California, 5 the resulting equation
was

J = s < 103P0 -10 (10 )

Again rearranging

UpO.90
A = 2.0 x 10
m
(11 )

For six unimproved inlets, Johnson simply averaged the Pm /A values for
these inlets and found

1+
f = 5 .5 x 10 ( 12 )

or

9
 A = 1.82 x i c f 5P (13 )
m

which is similar to the results of hoth O fBrien and Nayak,

5. The majority of the prototype data used by these investigators
were for Pacific coast inlets, most of which had been stabilized with
dual jetty systems. This report attempts to determine if inlets on all
three coasts of the United States follow the same tidal prism - inlet
area relationship, and also to establish what effect inlet stabilization
has on this relationship.

10
 PART II: TIDAL PRISM - INLET AREA
DATA USED IN THE ANALYSIS

6. Table 1 lists all of the tidal prism - inlet area data used for
this study and its source. A total of l62 data points are given in this
table for 108 inlets. Of the 108 Inlets, 59 are located on the Atlantic
coast, 2k on the Gulf coast, and 25 on the Pacific coast. Of the 162
data points, 92 are attributable to data published by other investigators
or are taken from Corps of Engineers prototype flow measurements, whereas
the remaining 70 data points, which are limited to the Atlantic and Gulf
coasts, are the result of computations made in connection with the Inlet
Classification Study at the WES. Two computational methods have been
employed to compute these additional 70 tidal prisms, one designated as
the ncubature method” and the other as the ”N0S current data method."
An explanation of these two methods follows.

Cubature Method

7. The cubature method for calculating tidal prisms takes into

account the time required for a tidal wave to propagate through the in­
let and into the bay, i.e., rather than assuming a uniform rise and fall
of the tide over the entire bay, the cubature method segments the bay
into subareas that have approximately the same "phase range." Phase
range is defined as the difference between the water-surface elevation
at a particular point in the bay at the time of a slack water in the in­
let (say, slack— flood begins) and the elevation at that same point at
the time of a subsequent slack water in the inlet (say, slack— ebb be­
gins). In other words, the phase range is the absolute difference in
water-surface elevation at a point in the bay that occurs during the
time water is either flowing into or out of an inlet. In order to ar­
rive at the phase range for various bays, the tide prediction informa-
Q
tion contained in the National Ocean Survey .(NOS) Tide Tables was used.
Tide prediction stations were grouped according to their applicability
to a particular inlet-bay system and the tidal amplitude for each tide

11
prediction station was tabulated along with the average time corrections
for high and low water relative to a reference station. Using an aver­
age ocean tide period of 12 hr and 25 min for a semidiurnal tide(Atlan­
tic coast) and 2k hr and 50 min for a diurnal tide (Gulf coast) and
assuming a sinusoidal variation of the ocean tide, average tide curves
were prepared for each tide prediction station. The Fire Island inlet-
bay system is used to illustrate this method. Although the phase dif­
ference between bay tide stations is not large, this inlet was selected
because of the comprehensive tidal data available. A set of average
tide curves for the inlet-bay system is shown in Figure 1. The location
of each of these tide prediction stations for this inlet is shown in
Figure 2. For most inlets, a tide prediction station is locatedin the
entrance or just bayward of the entrance (sta 70 for Fire IslandInlet).
Using the average tide curve for this inlet station and the average tide
curve for the ocean station nearest the inlet, slack water in the inlet
was taken as the time when the ocean tide curve crossed the inlet tide
curve. If tidal current tables are available, the time of slack water
can be obtained directly from the tables. The time interval between two
succeeding slack waters represents the time during which water flows
through the inlet. With slack water in the inlet thus determined, the
surface elevation at each bay tide prediction station was read from the
average tide curves for the times of two subsequent slack waters; the
difference between these two elevations for a particular station repre­
sents its phase range. This procedure is indicated in Figure 1, which
gives a tabulation of the two slack-water elevations and the resulting
phase range for the various tide stations. After determining the phase
range for each station, the bay was contoured into subareas of approxi­
mately the same phase range (Figure 2) and the average surface area of
the subareas was calculated as the mean of the high and low water-surface
areas. The average surface area of each subarea was then multiplied by
the phase range of that subarea to yield the volume of water entering

(or leaving) the subarea during the interval of time between succeed­
ing slack waters in the inlet. The total volume of water entering (or
leaving) the bay, which is the tidal prism, was then computed by

12
 T A B L E OF PHASE RANGES

EL AT EL AT PH AS E
E B B -S L A C K - F L O O D -S L A C K - RANGE
S T A T IO N F L O O D BE G INS E B B B E G IN S FT

O C EA N - 0 .4 0 + 0.20 0 ,60
70 D E M O C R A T P T - 0 .4 0 + 0.20 0.60
6 9 A C O A S T G U AR D STA - 0 .4 0 + 0.30 0 .70
68 F IR E IS. L IG H T - 0 ,3 3 + 0.30 0 .63
65A P O IN T O ' WOODS - 0 .3 5 + 0 .35 0.70
62 B E L L P O R T - 0 .2 2 + 0.27 0.49
63 P A T C H O G U E - 0 .2 4 + 0.28 0.52
64 S A Y V IL L E - 0 .2 0 + 0.23 0 .43
66 G R E A T R IV E R - 0 .2 4 + 0.28 0 .52
67 B A Y SHORE - 0 .3 0 + 0 .30 0 .60
71 O A K B E A C H - 0 .3 5 + 0.35 0 .70
72 B A B Y L O N - 0 .3 0 + 0 .30 0 .60
75 G ILG O H E A D IN G - 0 .5 0 + 0 ,5 5 1.05
76 B IL T M O R E SHORES - 0 .5 5 + 0 .60 1.15
6 8 A W EN D F IR E IS LA N D S - 0 .2 8 + 0 .30 0 .58

LEGEND

NOTE: C U R V E S FO R S T A T IO N S 67,
7 1 , 7 2 , 75, 76, A N D 68A
NO T SHOWN S IN C E T H E Y
A R E A L M O S T ID E N T IC A L W ITH
CURVES A L R E A D Y P L O T T E D
6 8 10 12 14 16 18
T IM E IN HOURS FROM LOW W A T E R IN T H E O C EA N * M T L = M E A N T ID E L E V E L

Figure 1. Average tide curves for Fire Island Inlet and Great South Bay, New York
Figure 2. Fire Island Inlet-Great South Bay location of NOS tide prediction stations
summing the volume change of each subarea.
8. In relating the tidal prism computed by the cubature method to
a minimum cross-sectional area, the inlet cross-sectional area was mea­
sured from NOS hydrographic surveys corresponding to the dates of tidal
observations used to determine the tide prediction constants and differ­
ences contained in the Tide Tables. This is a necessary prerequisite,
because these constants and differences are a function of the conditions
existing at the bay entrance when the tides were observed. In all in­
stances , the cross-sectional area was measured at the narrowest point in
the inlet. Although the narrowest point in the inlet is not always the
location of the minimum cross section, in most cases it closely coin­
cides. A total of 39 tidal prisms and inlet areas, shown in Table 1,
were computed by the cubature method.

NOS Current Data Method

9. Tidal current velocity observations made by the NOS in 31 in­

lets were used to compute tidal prisms for these inlets as shown in
Table 1. These current observations were generally made at one vertical
station near the throat of the inlet and consisted of continuous obser­
vations during one or more tidal cycles. Where possible, current obser­
vations made during spring tides were used to compute tidal prisms. If
observations were not available for spring tide conditions, the spring
tidal prism was estimated by a ratio of the bay tidal range during
spring conditions to the bay tidal range at the time of the current ob­
servations. The inlet cross-sectional areas at the current measurement
stations were obtained from NOS hydrographic surveys made at approxi­
mately the same time that the velocities were observed. Since the cur­
rent measurement stations were located near the deepest part of the
inlet where the velocities are usually greater than those through other
parts of the cross section, a systematic procedure was established to
reduce the observed velocities to a velocity that would be more repre­
sentative of the average velocity through the entire cross section.
This was accomplished by assuming that the velocity through the inlet

15
could be represented by Manning's equation:

V = H2.
n
h 2/3 s 1/2
e
( 1^)

where
n = friction coefficient
R = hydraulic radius
= energy gradient
Although the frictional resistance (n) varies over the cross section,
for these computations n was assumed to be constant for the entire
cross section; also, the variation in the energy gradient across the
cross section, , was neglected. Under these assumptions, the varia­
tion in velocity from one portion of the cross section to another can be
related by

V
1
(15)
V
2

where
V = velocities associated with flow segments 1 and 2,
respectively

R ^ R ^ = hy d r a u lic ra d d d

For those inlets that have a fairly simple cross section, the average
velocity through the entire cross section was computed as

V 2/3
avg _ R
(16)
n2 / 3
Vmeas " D

where
V = average velocity over the entire cross section
avg
V = observed velocity at the one vertical section
meas
R = hydraulic radius of the entire cross section

D = depth of water at the current meter location

10. For cross sections that were not of simple shape, the cross
section was divided into several smaller flow sections depending upon

l6
the complexity of the cross-sectional shape, and the hydraulic radius of
each section was determined. The average velocity through the section
in which the velocity meters were located (Section l) was computed by

2/3
1 R
avg =
(17)
V ,2/3
meas

where
= average velocity through Section 1
avg
R_^ = hydraulic radius of Section 1

The average velocities through the other sections were then computed by
Equation 15. An example of the above procedure is shown in Figure 3 for
the cross section at the current gaging station at the entrance to
Pensacola Bay.
11. By using the above procedure, average velocities were calcu­
lated at 1-hr increments during the tidal cycle. Discharges were cal­
culated over the entire tidal cycle by adjusting the area of the flow
cross section for fluctuations in tidal elevation. The discharges for
ebb and flood flows were numerically integrated separately and then
averaged to determine the tidal prism.
12. As for the cubature method, the minimum cross-sectional area
associated with the tidal prism computed from the NOS current data was
obtained at the narrow point in the inlet from surveys conducted by NOS
at approximately the same time that the current measurements were taken.

17
Figure 3. Example of computation of Vavg from NOS current velocity-
data at Pensacola Bay entrance
 PART III: ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE

13. The data contained in Table 1 were grouped into three main
categories, namely: (l) all inlets, (2) unjettied or single-jettied in­
lets, and (3) inlets with two jetties. Single-jettied inlets were not
analyzed separately due to the paucity of data available for these in­
lets. Within each of these three main categories, the data were further
subdivided into: (a) inlets on all three coasts, (b) inlets on the At­
lantic coast, (c) inlets on the Gulf coast, and (d) inlets on the Pa­
cific coast. For 11 of the 12 data groupings, the one exception being
the Gulf coast inlets with two jetties, sufficient data were available
to warrant a regression analysis to determine the equations that best
fit the data. As a first step in the analysis, the form of the best-fit
equation for each set of data was determined by fitting six different
functions, ranging from linear to hyperbolic, to the data. As a result
of this initial analysis, a power function of the form

A = CPn (18)

where C and n are constants determined by the regression analysis,

provided the best fit for all 11 data sets. The linear transform of
Equation l8 is

In A = In C + n In P (19)

lh, Having established the form of the best-fit equation for the
11 sets of data, a more detailed regression analysis was performed on
each set of data and 95 percent confidence limits were established for
the regression constants C and n as well as for the linear form of
the equations. A summary of the least-squares regression equations de­
termined for each data set is contained in Table 2 along with the 95 per­
cent confidence limit of the cross-sectional area (A) for the mean value
of the tidal prism (P) for each set of data. In this last instance, the
confidence limits are for the linear form of the equations, i.e., in

19
natural logarithms. Graphical representations of each of these 11 curves
are shown in Plates 1-11, along with a plot of the 95 percent confidence
limits and each data point used to determine the regression equation.
Superposition plots of the various curves related to all inlets, inlets
with one or no jetties, and inlets with two jetties are shown in
Plates 12, 13, and lU, respectively.

20
 PART IV: DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

15. From the superposition plots given in Plates 12-lH, and the
information contained in Table 2, the following observations can be made:
a. For the same tidal prism, unjettied or single-jettied in­
lets on the Atlantic coast appear to have larger cross-
sectional areas than unjettied or single-jettied inlets
on the Pacific coast (Plate 13).
b. Equations for unjettied or single-jettied inlets on the
Atlantic and Pacific coasts have larger exponents (n) than
do equations for inlets with two jetties on these coasts.
£. The P versus A equation for the unjettied Gulf coast
inlets closely approximates the equation computed for all
inlets with two jetties (compare Equation 2c with Equa­
tion 3a in Table 2).
d. There appears to be a slight difference in the P versus A
relationship for inlets with two jetties on the Atlantic
and Pacific coasts.

16. The differences between the curves for unjettied or single-

jettied inlets on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts as indicated in 13a,
above could be caused by the differences in the computational methods
used to determine the tidal prisms or they could be related to the dif­
ferences in wave and/or tide characteristics that exist between these

two coasts.
2 3
17. The majority of the tidal prisms computed by O'Brien ’ and
Johnson^ for the Pacific coast inlets, which constitute the major source
of data used to compute the regression equations for this coast, were
determined by multiplying the surface area of the bay by a tide range at
or near the entrance to the bay. Inasmuch as this particular method
does not account for phase and tide range differences that may exist for
various locations within the bay, the resulting tidal prisms may be
large compared with the tidal prisms computed by the cubature method.
On the other hand, the data points computed by the cubature and NOS cur­
rent methods for the Atlantic coast inlets generally plot below the
other data points for this coast; therefore, the elimination of these
points from the regression analysis would result in an equation that
would predict slightly larger cross-sectional areas for a given tidal

21
prism. The cumulative effect of both of these factors would be to draw
the two equations into closer agreement.
l8. In order to determine the influence that the tidal prisms
computed by the cubature and NOS current methods have on the regression
equation for unjettied or single-jettied inlets on the Atlantic coast,
computations were made excluding these data points. The resulting equa­
tion was :

A = 5.44 x io V -*06 ( 20 )

which predicts smaller cross-sectional areas than the equation using all
of the data (Equation 2b in Table 2), but still predicts larger areas
than the comparable regression equation for the Pacific coast. Compari­
son of Equation 20, which was computed using 16 data points, with Equa­
tion 2b in Table 2, which was computed using 50 data points, through
covariance analysis indicated that statistically no significant differ­
ence exists between the regression constants C and n . Therefore, an
additional covariance analysis was performed between Equations 2b and 2d
in Table 2, i.e., the equations for the unjettied and single-jettied in­
lets on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, respectively, to determine
whether or not the differences between these two equations are statisti­
cally significant. From the results of this covariance analysis and
consideration of the 95 percent confidence limits shown in Table 2, the
following can be concluded:
a_. The n exponents of these two regression equations are
greater than unity and could possibly be equal, i.e., the
curves could be parallel.
b. There is a high degree of confidence that the C coeffi­
cients for these two equations are unequal, with the co­
efficient for the Atlantic coast equation being greater
than that for the Pacific coast.
£. In light of & and b_ above, there is a high degree of con­
fidence that unjettied or single-jettied inlets on the
Atlantic coast do have larger cross sections for a given
tidal prism than do their counterparts on the Pacific
coast.
A discussion of the possible reasons for these differences follows.

22
 19- Consideration must first be given to some of the sources of
error that are inherent in the computational procedures for both the
cubature and NOS current data methods. Error is introduced in the cuba-
ture method by using bay areas that are means of the high- and low-water
areas. For bays with large expanses of marshlands which are inundated
during only part of the tidal cycle, considerable variation will exist
between high- and low-water areas which the mean areas may not ade­
quately describe. Also, since bay areas were measured from NOS naviga­
tion charts which are not frequently updated except in the vicinity of
navigation channels, the bay areas used in the computation may not rep­
resent the bay areas existing at the time the minimum cross-sectional
areas were measured and for which the average tide curves were developed.
With the NOS current method, error is introduced by the inability to
obtain changes in the flow cross-sectional areas due to channel beds
adjusting themselves to changes in velocity over the tidal cycle. In
addition, it was assumed that such variables as sediment size, range of
ocean tides, bay planform geometry and depth, freshwater input, and
wave climate would not affect the computations. Although it is assumed
that any errors introduced by these procedures and assumptions are small
in magnitude, they may account for some of the differences observed
between the various regression analyses.
20. The characteristics of the astronomical tides differ markedly
between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. However, these differences ap­
pear to be of minor importance with respect to their influence on the
P versus A relationships for unjettied and single-jettied inlets.
Tides on the Atlantic coast are semidiurnal, i.e., two highs and two
lows of almost equal magnitude occur each day, whereas on the Pacific
coast tides have a distinct diurnal inequality, i.e., there is a rela­
tively large difference in heights of successive high and low waters.
Although there is a difference in the shapes of the tide curves, the mag­
nitudes of the tidal ranges do not differ appreciably between the two

coasts. For example, the maximum ocean tide range recorded in the NOS
Tide Tables for the Pacific coast occurs in the vicinity of Willapa Bay
and Grays Harbor, Washington, which have a mean range of 6.5 ft and a

23
diurnal range of 8.6 ft. Excluding the northern coast of New England
(since no tidal prism area data for this region were used in the com­
putation of the regression equations), the maximum ocean tides on the
Atlantic side occur along the Georgia coast where the mean range is
about 6.8 ft and the spring range is 8.0 ft.
21. The tides are important insofar as they are responsible for
generating currents in the inlets. In this respect, the NOS Tidal Cur-
o
rent Tables contain information on the annual average maximum veloci­
ties for several of the inlets used in this study. Averages of these
velocities for inlets on the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts were
computed and are summarized in Table 3. Although current velocity data
are given for only 1+ unjettied and single-jettied inlets on the Pacific
coast, the average flood and ebb velocities for these 4 inlets are al­
most equal to the average velocities computed for the 21 unjettied and
single-jettied inlets on the Atlantic coast. Since tidal currents are
the primary movers of sediment in inlets, it would appear that unjettied
and single-jettied inlets on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts are
equal with regard to accommodating transportation of sediment.
22. A possible explanation for the observed differences in the
P versus A relationship for these inlets could be attributable to wave
climates. C. J. Galvin et al.10 have compiled information on the mean
wave conditions along the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts. The re­
sults of Galvin's compilation are shown in Figures U and 5 for mean
monthly wave heights and periods, respectively, and indicate that mean
wave heights and periods on the Pacific coast are considerably larger
than those on the Atlantic coast. Inasmuch as wave energy is a function
of the square of the wave height and since littoral transport is a
function of wave energy, the amount of littoral sediment entering the
Pacific coast inlets should be considerably greater than that entering
the Atlantic coast inlets. For a given amount of tidal energy (tidal
energy being a function'of the tidal currents), an inlet would be capa­
ble of accommodating a certain volume of sediment transport. Since a
greater volume of sediment is apparently deposited in the Pacific coast
inlets from the littoral regime, a relatively smaller portion of the

2h
 Figure U. Mean monthly wave heights for
five coastal segments^

Figure 5- Mean monthly wave periods (including

calms) for five coastal segments-^

25
total tidal energy would be available to scour and enlarge the inlet
compared with the Atlantic coast inlets.
23. Another indication that unjettied or single-jettied Pacific
coast inlets have smaller cross sections than those of the Atlantic
coast inlets is given by the ratio of the width of the inlet at mean sea
level (w) to its hydraulic radius at mean sea level (R). This ratio is
given for several inlets in Table 1, and a summary of the distribution
of the W/R ratios for inlets on the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts
is given in Table h. Although data are available for only six unjettied
and single-jettied inlets on the Pacific coast, the average value of W/R
for these inlets does appear to be significantly smaller than that for
similar type inlets on the Atlantic coast, especially since only one of
these inlets has a W/R ratio larger than 200 (Willapa Bay with W/R
= 1303). The significance of a small value of W/R is that the channel
is narrow and deep and consequently should be hydraulically more effi­
cient than a wide and shallow channel. Therefore, unjettied or single-
jettied inlets on the Pacific coast can accommodate larger volumes of
water per unit area than inlets on the Atlantic coast. The reason for
the small values of W/R for the Pacific coast inlets is not known, but
it is probably related to the higher rates of littoral drift that enters
the inlets.
2k. Regression equations computed for inlets with two jetties com­
pared with unjettied and single-jettied inlets essentially agree with the
findings of O ’Brien, Johnson, and kayak, i.e., the exponents (n) for un­
jettied and single-jettied inlets are larger than those for inlets with
two jetties. In the case of O ’Brien, Johnson, and Nayak, their expo­
nents were unity for unjettied inlets, whereas the regression analysis
computed exponents slightly larger than unity for unjettied and single-
jettied inlets on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The larger exponents
for uncontrolled and semicontrolled inlets indicate that a unit change
in the tidal prism through these inlets will result in larger changes
in the cross-sectional area than those which would occur in a controlled
inlet for a similar change in the tidal prism. This is due to the lat­
eral restrictions jetties impose on an inlet, resulting in these inlets

26
developing narrow and deep channels that are hydraulically more effi­
cient than the wide and shallow channels that characterize uncontrolled
or semicontrolled inlets. An indication of the relative difference in
the cross-sectional configuration of jettied and unjettied or single-
jettied inlets is given in Table k by the distribution and average val­
ues of the ratio W/R. For the most part, W/R is small for inlets with
two jetties (i.e., W/R < 100) and large for unjettied and single-jettied
inlets.
25. The data used to compute the regression equation for the un­
jettied Gulf coast inlets exhibited more scatter than the data used for
the other two coasts; therefore, the prediction equation for P versus A
on the Gulf coast would appear to be less reliable. In any event, the
relationship computed for the unjettied Gulf coast inlets is interesting
in that it agrees closely with the regression equation computed for all
inlets with two jetties.
26. Part of the scatter of the Gulf coast data may be attributed
to tidal characteristics. In the Gulf of Mexico, the tides are uni­
formly small and vary from diurnal to semidiurnal, depending upon the
declination of the moon. When the moon is near its extreme north or
south declination, the tides are diurnal. As the moon nears the equator,
tides in the eastern Gulf become negligible and vary only a few tenths
of a foot from high water to low water. In the western Gulf, tides are
small and become semidiurnal as the moon approaches the equator, al­
though there are periods during this time in which distinct inequalities
between successive highs and lows exist, much like the Pacific coast
tides. As a result of these tidal variations, astronomical tidal cur­
rents through the Gulf coast inlets are sometimes weak and variable. In
the NOS Tidal Current Tables, average maximum current velocities are
given for l6 unjettied Gulf coast inlets used in this analysis. The
average maximum velocities in these inlets (see Table 3) are 2.63 fps on
flood and 2.^5 fps on ebb, which are approximately 1 fps less than the
average maximum velocities in the Atlantic and Pacific coast inlets.
27. Inasmuch as the Gulf coast inlets are subject to frequent
periods in which the astronomical tidal currents are weak or nonexistent,

27
these inlets are susceptible to moderate variations in meteorological
conditions. Also, since an inlet’s astronomical tidal prism varies from
near zero to its diurnal value, the instantaneous cross-sectional area
of a Gulf coast inlet is highly dependent upon antecedent astronomical
and/or meteorological tide conditions. In all instances, the cross-
sectional areas of the Gulf inlets measured from NOS hydrographic sur­
veys were related to the diurnal tidal prism. However, an NOS survey
could reflect conditions at an inlet when the tidal prism had been
larger than the diurnal prism due to meteorological conditions or
smaller due to astronomical and/or meteorological effects. Since there
are wide variations in the Gulf tidal characteristics, the relatively
large scatter of the tidal prism - inlet area data cannot be due en­
tirely to measurement error.
28. If the relationship between P and A for the Gulf coast
inlets can be accepted as reasonably accurate, then the agreement be­
tween this relationship and that for all inlets with two jetties appears
to be related to the wave conditions in the Gulf. Referring to Fig­
ures H and 5 5 the waves in the Gulf are relatively small, in terms of
both height and period, compared with the other two coasts. Since waves
appear to have a relatively minor influence on the Gulf coast inlets,
the results of Nayak’s model study could possibly be extrapolated to the
prototype. Nayak observed that when his unjettied model inlet was op­
erated without waves, the equilibrium cross-sectional area that devel­
oped agreed closely with that which would be predicted by the equation
for jettied inlets.
29. The regression equation computed for all inlets with two jet­
ties (Equation 3a in Table 2) predicts a cross-sectional area that is
only 5.5 percent smaller than that predicted by O fBrienfs equation for
jettied inlets (Equation 3) for a tidal prism of 10 cu ft and 3.3 per­
cent larger for a tidal prism of 10~^ cu ft. The agreement between
3
these two equations is quite remarkable when one considers that O ’Brien
used only 17 data points for 17 inlets with two jetties (13 of the in­
lets are located on the Pacific coast) whereas Equation 3a in Table 2
was computed using 66 data points for 37 inlets (only 15 of which are

28
located on the Pacific coast). Even though there is good agreement be­
tween this regression equation and O'Brien's relationship, when the At­
lantic and Pacific coast inlets with two jetties are considered sepa­
rately, the resulting regression equations differ somewhat.
30. With respect to the Pacific coast inlets with two jetties,
the exponent (n) computed by the regression analysis (see Equation 3d in
Table 2) is exactly the same as that derived by O'Brien, i.e., O. 85.
However, the constant (C) is about 12.6 percent larger than O'Brien's.
Therefore, Equation 3d in Table 2 predicts cross-sectional areas
12.6 percent larger than O'Brien's equation. The equation for the jet-
tied Atlantic coast inlets (Equation 3b in Table 2) varies considerably
7 11
from O'Brien's. For example, with tidal prisms of 10 and 10 cu ft,
this equation predicts cross-sectional areas that are 38.1 percent
smaller and 5 h .9 percent larger, respectively, than those predicted by

Equation 3.
31. In order to determine whether or not the regression equations
for jettied Atlantic and Pacific coast inlets differ significantly, a
covariance analysis was performed between these two equations to test
the hypothesis that the two equations are identical. Results of this
analysis indicated that this hypothesis would not be rejected at the
60 percent confidence level, i.e., with the probability of making a mis­
take concerning this hypothesis at ^-0 percent, the hypothesis still
holds. Statistically, this probability is too large to reject the hy­
pothesis that the two equations are equal. Therefore, until more ac­
curate data are available to analyze P versus A relationships for jet-
tied inlets, O'Brien's equation (Equation 3) or Equation 3a in Table 2
should be used to estimate the cross-sectional area that an inlet should
develop once jetties are installed.
32. As a further note on the design of a dual jetty system, the
spacing of the jetties should be such as to yield a W/R ratio of less
than 100, inasmuch as over 80 percent of the two-jettied inlets used in
this analysis had ratios of W/R less than 100 (Table U).

29
 PART V: CONCLUSIONS

33. An attempt was made to determine whether or not differences

exist between the tidal prism - inlet area relationships for inlets on
the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts of the United States, The con­
clusions reached from this analysis are: (a) unjettied and single-
jettied inlets on the three coasts do exhibit different P versus A
relationships as a result of the differences in the tidal and wave char­
acteristics between these three coasts, and (b) the available data do
not warrant any modification in the P versus A relationship for jet-
tied inlets as originally determined by O fBrien.

30
 REFERENCES

1. LeConte, L. J. , Discussion of "Notes on the Improvement of River

and Harbor Outlets in the United States," Paper No. 1009 by D. A.
Watts, Transactions, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol LV,
Dec 19059 PP 306-308.
2. O ’Brien, M. P . , "Estuary Tidal Prisms Related to Entrance Areas,"
Civil Engineering, Vol 1, No. 8, 1931, pp 738-739-
3. ____________ , "Equilibrium Flow Areas of Inlets on Sandy Coast,"
Journal, Waterways and Harbors Division, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Vol 95 5 No. WW1, Feb 1969, PP ^3-52.
If. Nayak, I. V., "Tidal Prism-Area Relationship in a Model Inlet,"
Technical Report HEL 2^-1, Feb 1971, Hydraulic Engineering Labora­
tory, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif.
5. Lin, P. M . , Modeling of the Sediment Transport in the Vicinity of
Inlet and Coastal Region, M.S. Thesis, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Fla., 1969.
6. Johnson, J. W . , "Tidal Inlets on the California, Oregon, and Wash-
ington Coasts," Technical Report HEL 2U-12, 1972, Hydraulic Engi­
neering Laboratory, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley,
Calif.
7. Delmonte, R. C. and Johnson, J. W . , "The Influence of Bed Material
Size on the Tidal Prism-Area Relationship in a Tidal Inlet," Tech­
nical Report HEL 2U-8, Aug 1971, Hydraulic Engineering Laboratory,
University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif.
8. National Ocean Survey, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra­
tion, "Tide Tables, East Coast North and South America, Including
Greenland," and "Tide Tables, West Coast North and South America,
Including the Hawaiian Islands."
9. __________ , "Tidal Current Tables, Atlantic Coast of North Amer­
ica," and "Tidal Current Tables, Pacific Coast of North America and
Asia."
10. Galvin, C. J. et al., "Nearshore Visual Wave Observations for
United States’ Coastlines," 1969, U. S. Army Coastal Engineering
Research Center, Washington, D. C.
11. Charlesworth, L. J . , Jr., Bay, Inlet and Nearshore Marine Sedimen­
tation: Beach Haven-Little Egg Inlet Region, New Jersey, Ph. D.
Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1968.
12. U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE, "Model Study
of Plans for Elimination of Shoaling in Absecon Inlet, New Jersey,"
Technical Memorandum No. 20^-1, Sep 19^3, Vicksburg, Miss.
13. Keulegan, G. H. and Hall, J. V., Jr., "A Formula for the Calculation
of the Tidal Discharge Through an Inlet," Bulletin of the Beach
Erosion Board, Vol U, No. 1, Jan 1950, pp 15-29.

31
lU. Bruun, P. and Gerritsen, F. , Stability of Coastal Inlets, North
Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, i 960.
15. Bruun, P . , Gerritsen, F., and Morgan, W. H . , "Florida Coastal Prob­
lems," Proceedings, Sixth Conference on Coastal Engineering, The
Engineering Foundation Council on Wave Research, 1958, p k63*
16 . U. S. Army Engineer District, Jacksonville, CE, "General and De­
tailed Design Memorandum - Ponce de Leon Inlet, Florida" (unpub­
lished), I96T 5 Jacksonville, Fla.
17. Reynolds, K. C., "Report on Tidal Entrances to Beach Erosion Board,
Corps of Engineers" (unpublished), 1951» Washington, D. C.
18. Keulegan, G. H . , "Tidal Flow in Entrances: Water-Level Fluctuations
of Basins in Communication with Seas," Technical Bulletin No. i k ,
Jul 1967, U. S. Army Committee on Tidal Hydraulics, CE.
19. Goodwin, C. R. et al., "Tidal Study of Three Oregon Estuaries,"
Bulletin No. 1970, Engineering Experiment Station, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, Oreg.
20. Committee on Tidal Hydraulics, CE, "Tillamook Bay, Oregon," Jan
1970, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE,
Vicksburg, Miss.

32
 Table 1

Tidal Prism and Cross-Sectional Area Data

Spring or Maximum Currents

Diurnal Hydraulic from NOS Tidal
Tidal MSL Area Radius Current Tables
Prism, P A R W/R ______ fps_______
Inlet/Data Source cu ft sq ft ft____ Ratio Flood Ebb

Atlantic Coast Inlets Without Jetties

1. Plum Island Sound, Mass. 0 ll 2 .7 0 2.53

NOS Current Data, Oct 1953 1.32 X 109 3.98 X io4 17.6 128

2. Fire Island Inlet, N. Y. 0 ll *+.05 *+.05

a. O'Brien (3) 2 .1 8 X 3.56 X
109 1 0 k
b. Cubature (NOS 1933) 1.86 X 109 *+.01 X 10 4 l*+.7 19 5

3. Jones Inlet, N. Y. Q ll
5.2*+ *+.39
a. O'Brien (3) 1.50 X
l°o 2 .8 9 X
1 0 b
b. Cubature (NOS 1933) 1.0*+ X 2.0*+ X 15.*+ 86
1.02 109
109 2.0*+ 10 86
c. NOS Current Data, Jul 1933 X X 15.*+
*+. Beach Haven Inlet (Little Egg Bay), N. J. Q ll
Cubature (NOS 1936) 1.51 X 109 2.53 X 10 4 9-3 293
5. Little Egg Inlet (Great Bay), N. J. Q ll
a. Cubature (NOS 1935) 1.72 X 3.83 X 10 4 13.3 2 16
10 Q
b. L. J. Chariesworth (ll) Cl. 93 X 109)
6. Brigantine Inlet, N. J. 8 k
Cubature (NOS 1936) 5.23 X 10° 1.22 X 10 19.2 33
7. Absecon Inlet (before jetties), N. J. Q
WES Model Report (12) 1.65 X 109 2.66 X 10* 35.6 21
8. Great Egg Harbor Entr, N. J. Q h
Cubature (NOS 1936-37) 2.00 X 109 7.01 X io4 12.3 *+60

9- Townsend Inlet, N. J. ft li
Cubature (NOS 1937) 5.56 X 10° l.*+2 X 104 1 8 .8 *+0
10. Hereford Inlet, N. J. Q ll
Cubature (NOS 1937) 1.19 X 109 3.57 X 10 4 12.0 2*+6
11. Chincoteague Inlet, Va. Q li
Cubature (NOS 193*+) 1.56 X 109 *+.*+*+ X 10 4 7.9 712

12. Oregon Inlet, N. C. Q h

Corps of Engrs, 19 6 5 Flow Meas 3.98 x 109 6.66 x 10 13.5 367

13. Ocracoke Inlet, N. C. Q 2.87 1+.05

Corps of Engrs, 1950 Flow Meas 5.22 X 109 9.68 x iok 13.8 *+35
1*+. Drum Inlet, N. C. •3
Corps of Engrs, 1936 Flow Meas 5 .8 2 X 10 8 7.70 X 10°
15. Beaufort Inlet, N. C. Q 2.53 2.53
a. Corps of Engrs, 1935-36 Flow Meas 5.0 X
109
8.66 X iok 17.5 250
b. Keulegan-Hall (13) (5.1 X 109)
l6. Carolina Beach Inlet, N. C. ft
Corps of Engrs, 1 9 6 7 Flow Meas 5.25 x 10° 7.6 X 103 13.2 *+*+
17. Stono Inlet, S. C. Q ll
3.21 *+.56
vo
CO
OJ

NOS Current Data, May 193*+ X 109 5 .*+3 X 10 4 10.3 8 19

18 . North Edisto River, S. C. Q ll *+.90 6.25

O'Brien (3) *+.58 X 109 9.95 X 10 4

19. St. Helena Sound, S. C. c;

Cubature (NOS 193*0 1 .5 3 X 1010 *+.66 X 10 5 21.2 10*+0
20. Port Royal Sound, S. C. q 3.0*+ 3.0*+
Cubature (NOS 193*+) 1.1+6 X 1 0 10 5-1+1 X 105 *+2.6 298
21. Calibogue Sound, S. C. Q q
3.72 1+.22
Cubature (NOS 193*+) 3 .6 1 X 109 1.53 X 109 3 8 .0 10 6

22. Wassaw Sound, Ga. Q q 2 .8 7 3.72

NOS Current Data, 193*+ 8.2 x 109 2.6*+ X 105 17.9 82*+
23. Ossabaw Sound, Ga. Q q
2.70 3.21
Cubature (NOS 193*+) 6 .8 1 X 109 3.17 X 105 1 6 .*+ 118 0

2*+. Sapelo Sound, Ga. Q q 3.55 *+.22

a. Cubature (NOS 193*+) 7.36 X
10Q 2 .1 6 X 2*+.9 3*+8
105
b. NOS Current Data, 193*+ 6.12 X 109 2 .1 6 X 105 2*+.9 3*+8
(Continued)

Note: Data in parentheses not used in analyses (Sheet 1 of 6)

 T ab le 1 (C on tinu ed)

S p rin g o r Maximum C u rren ts

D iu rn al H yd rau lic from NOS T id a l
T id a l MSL A rea R adius C urrent T a b le s
P rism , P A R W/R fp s
I n le t / D a t a Sou rce cu f t sq f t ft R a tio F lood Ebb

A t la n t i c C oast I n l e t s W ithout J e t t i e s (C ontinued)

25. S t . C a th e rin e s Sound, Ga. 3 .2 1 3 .5 5

a. Cubature (NOS 1931+) 6 .9 b x i o 9 2 .3 9 x 1 0 9 3 1 .2 246
b . NOS C urrent D ata, 1931+ 8 .3 x 109 2 .3 9 x 10^ 3 1 .2 246
26. Doboy Sound, Ga. 3 .3 8 3 .3 8
4
C ubature (NOS 1931+) 4 .0 4 x 109 9 .9 1 x 10 23-7 177
27. Altam aha Sound, Ga. 1 .6 9 3 .2 1
C ubature (NOS 1931+) 2 .9 1 x 109 9 .2 3 x l Q k 8 .4 1310
28. Hampton R iv e r , Ga.
C ubature (NOS 1931+) 1 .0 1 x 109 4 .1 1 x 10 ^ 2 2 .7 80
29. S t . Simon Sound, Ga. 3 .5 5 3 .2 1
a. Cubature (NOS 1931+) 6 . 5b x i o 9 2.5.1 x 10^ 3 4 .2 180
b . NOS C urrent D ata, Mar 1931+ 1 .3 5 x 1010 2 .5 1 x 1 0 5 3 4 .2 180
30. S t . Andrew Sound, Ga. 3 .5 5 3 .7 2
a . C ubature (NOS 1934-35) 9 .8 6 x 109 3 .8 5 x 109 2 7 .0 528
b . NOS C urrent Data 1931+ 7 .0 x 109 2 .3 1 x 1 0 5
31. N assau Sound, F la . 2 .8 7 2 .8 7
b
C ubature (NOS 1931+) 2 .2 0 x 109 7 .2 5 x 10 1 5 .0 322
32. F t. George I n l e t , F l a . O
Cubature (NOS 1951+) 3 .1 1 x 10 8 .6 x io 3 6 .0 239
33. Old S t . A u g u stin e I n l e t , F la .
Bruun and G e r r it se n (ll+) 1 .3 1 x 109 2 .6 5 x 10^
34. Ponce de Leon, F la . (b e fo r e j e t t i e s )
a. Cubature 5-7*+ x 1 0 ?
b . Corps o f E n g rs, G.D.M. (1 6 ) 6 .19 X 1 0 °
c . Bruun and G e r r it s e n ( l b ) 4
5.6 5 x 1 0 ° 1 . 1 5 x 10 1 2 .8 70
35. Delaw are Bay E ntrance 3 .0 4 3 .2 1
O’ B rie n ( 3 ) 1 .2 5 x 1011 2.5 x 108

A tla n tic : C oast I n l e t s w ith One J e t t y

36. F ir e I s la n d I n l e t , N. Y. li
Corps o f E n g rs, Aug 1965 Flow Meas 1 .8 6 x i o 9 3.81 X 10 1 1 .7 278
37. E a st Rockaway I n l e t , N. Y. 3 .7 2 3 .8 8
a . O 'B rie n (3) 7 .6 x 1 0 ® 1 .1 5 x lo jj
b . C ubature (NOS 1931+) 4 .8 6 x 1 0 ° 1 . 1 8 x 10? 1 6 .6 43
c. NOS C urrent D ata, 193b 4 .0 x 1 0 ° 1 . 1 8 x 10 1 6 .6 43
38. Rockaway I n l e t , N. Y. 3 .0 4 4 .5 6
a . O 'B rien (3) 3 .7 x 109 8 .6 x io Jj
b . NOS C urrent D ata, Sep 1931+ 3 .4 x 1CK 1 .2 3 x 10^ 2 3 .0 233
39. Masonboro I n l e t , N. C.
Corps o f E n g rs, Sep 1969 Flow Meas 8 .5 5 x 108 1 .2 7 x 10k 1 2 .7 79
ho. S t . L u cie I n l e t , F la . k
a . C ubature (NOS 1930) 5 .9 4 x 108 1 .7 6 x 10 9 .2 208
b . Corps o f E n g rs, J a c k s o n v i l l e
D is t 5 .6 6 x 1 0 8

A t la n tic C o ast I n l e t s w ith Two J e t t i e s

1+1. N antucket I n l e t , M ass. 2 .0 3 2 .5 3

. 4
K e u le ga n -H all (13) 4 .3 2 x 1 0 8 1 . 2 6 x 10 1 2 .8 77
1+2. Sh inn ecock I n l e t , N. Y. 4 .2 2 3.88
C ubature (CE Area) 2 .1 9 x 1 0 8 5 .5 x 103
1+3. M oriches I n l e t , N. Y.
a . O 'B rien ( 3 ) 1 .5 7 x 10? 2 .0 4 x lo |j
b. Corps o f E n g rs, 19 67-68 Flow Meas 8 .4 6 x i o ti 1 .3 2 x 104 i 4 .4 64
1+1+. Sh ark R iv e r I n l e t , N. J .
Cubature 1 .4 8 x 1 0 8 3 .0 0 x 103 1 3 .2 17

(C on tinued)
(S h ee t 2 o f 6)
 Table 1 (Continued)
Spring or Maximum Currents
Diurnal Hydraulic from NOS T idal
Tidal MSL Area Radius Current 1T ables
Prism, P A R W/R fps
In let/D a ta Source cu f t sq f t ft Ratio Flood Ebb
A tla n tic Coast In le ts w ith Two J e ttie s (Continued)
1+5. Manasguan I n le t, N. J. 8 0 2 .8 7 3.01+
a. Cubature (NOS 1931+) 1.75 x 10 n 5.19 x i o 3 12 .3 3l+
b. Keulegan-H all (13) 1.7^5 x 10
1+6. Barnegat I n le t, N. J. 8 k 3.52 1+.22
a. Cubature (NOS 1936) 6.25 x 10 1.1+8 x 1CV 11+.2 73
b. Corps o f Engrs, 191+0-1+1 Flow Meas I . l 8 x 10' 1.6 2 x
c. Corps o f Engrs, 19^3 Flow Meas 7.5 x 10S 1.09 x 10u
d. Corps o f Engrs, 19^5 Flow Meas 7.1 x 10 1.31+ x 101+
e. Corps o f Engrs, 1968 Flow Meas 6.2 5 X 10 9.25 x 103
103
1+7* Absecon I n le t, N. J. Q li
O’B rien (3) 1.1+8 x 10 * 10 4

CO
CO
1—1
X
1+8. Cold Springs Harbor (Cape May), N. J. li 3.01+ 3.72
a. NOS Current Data, 19^7 6.50 x i o fì8 1.29 X 10 17.1 1+1+
b. Bruun, G erritsen , and Morgan (15) 1.70 x 1 0 ® I+.60X ?
io 4 15.2 50
10
c. Reynolds ( 1 7 ) 3.35 x 10 1.16 X

U9- Indian River I n le t , D el. O 0 3.01+ 3.55

Keulegan (l8 ) 5.2 5 x 10 9.66 X IO3 12.0 67
50. Winyah Bay, S. C. q 3.21 3.38
7.86

-=1-
Cubature (NOS 1935) 3.02 x 10* X 19.7 203

0
1—1
51. C harleston, S. C. q q 3.01+ 3.01+
O'Brien (3) 5.75 x 10* 1.1+1+ X 10*
52. Savannah River (Tybee Roads), Ga. q 2 .7 1+.39
NOS Current Data, Apr-May 1931+ 3.1 x 10 * 5.87 x io 4 21+.2 100
53. S t. Marys (Fernandina Harbor), F la. q q 3.88 1+.39
a. Cubature (NOS 1937) ^•77 x 10* 1.1+1+ x 33.2 130
b. Bruun, G erritsen , and Morgan ( 1 5 ) 6.20 x 10* 1 . 5 0 X 105
10*
5 h . St. Johns R iver, F la. 3.21 3.88
a. Cubature (NOS 1958-59) 1.73 x 10J? 5.73 38.5 39
t

X
OH OH
_=!-

b. Bruun, G erritsen , and Morgan ( 1 5 ) 1.90 x 10* 3.60 X

c. Corps o f Engrs, J a ck so n v ille q
D ist 3.92 x 10*
55. Fort P ierce I n le t, F la. 1+.39 5-21+
NOS Current Data, May 1930 5.81 x 108 1.20 x 10^ 1 3 .6 65
56. Jup iter I n le t, F la. 0
a. Cubature (NOS 1 9 6 7 ) 1.11 x 10 2.91 X IO3 9 .0 36
b. Corps o f Engrs, J a ck so n v ille
D ist 1 .02 x 10 8
57. Lake Worth I n le t, F la. Q 1+.05 6.08
a. NOS Current Data, Apr 1929 9.0 10®
X 9 .5 X 13 .2 73
b. Bruun, G erritsen , and Morgan (15) 8 .3 x 1 0 ° 1.52 X io 4
1 0 k

c. Corps o f Engrs, J a ck so n v ille 8

D ist 9 . 3 2 X 10
58. Port E verglades, F la. 1+ 1 .0 1
x 10 8
1.18
NOS Current Data, Feb 1967 3.0 2 .1 x i o 4 30.1+ 23
59. Bakers H aulover, F la. 8 1+.90 1+.22
Keulegan and H all (13) 3.6 x 10° 1+.38 x i o 3 11.9 31
Gulf Coast In le ts Without J e ttie s
6o. Captiva P ass, F la. q li 3.01+ 3.21
NOS Current Data, Aug i 960 1 .9 0 x 10* 2.87 x i o 4 15 .2 125
6 i. Boca Grande P a ss, F la. q 3.72 3.01+
NOS Current Data, 1959 1.26 x 1010 1 .6 6 x 10* 31.8 161+
6 2 . G asparilla P ass, F la. 1 .69 1 .86
a. NOS Current Data, Nov 1958 1+.7 x 108 1 .3 3 x 1 0 ì 8.5 185
b. Bruun and G erritsen (ll+) 1+.0 x i o ° 1.05 x i o 4
63. Stump P ass, F la. 8
3 . 6 1 x 10 5.90 x IO3 9U
•5
Cubature (NOS 1955-56) 7 .9

(Continued) (Sheet 3 o f 6)
 Table 1 (Continued)
Spring or Maximum C urrents
D iurnal H ydraulic from NOS T idal
T idal M3L Area Radius C urrent Tables
Prism , P A R W/R fps
In le t/D a ta Source cu f t sq ft ft Ratio Flood Ebb
Gulf Coast In le ts W ithout J e ttie s (Continued)
Midnight P ass, Fla. 3-01+ 2 .3 6
3.22 X 103
6 K .

a. Cubature (NOS 1955) 66

q
2 .6 1 X 7.0
b. NOS Current D ata, Mar 1955 2.8*+ X 10° 3.22 103
1 0 8
X 7.0 66
65. Big S arasota Pass, Fla. 2.53 1.6 9
NOS C urrent Data, Mar-Apr 1955 7.6 X 1 0 8 2.31 X 153
h

i o 4 12 .3
66. New P ass, F la. 2.70 1 .6 9
NOS Current Data, Sep 1953 *+.00 X 6.37 X 103 11.1+
A -3
K T 1+9
67. Longboat P ass, Fla. 3.01+ 2.70
a. NOS Current Data, Oct 1953 U.90 X l°g 1.11+ X 11+.5 51+
b. Bruun and G erritsen (ll+) 7.77 X 10 s 1.13 X 1 0
i o 4
b
59
68. S arasota P ass, Fla.
Cubature 8.10 X 10° 1.99 X 1 0 4 1+.2 1132
A

69. Pas s -a -G rille 2.03 2 .3 6

NOS C urrent Data, Apr 1950 1.1+2 X 109 3.5 X 1 0 4 17.7 112
Q

70. Johns Pass, F la. 3.38 2.53

a. Cubature (NOS 1951-52) 8.86 X
Q
5.03 X 11+.9
OOc
1+0
O
H
b. NOS Current Data, May 191+9 1+.96 XO
8.1+2 X 103 13.3
1 0 3
1+7
H

71. L ittle (C learw ater) P ass, F la. A 2.20 1.86

a. NOS Current Data, Jun 1951 6.8 X 108 2.23 X 6.3 560
b. Bruun, G erritsen , and Morgan (15) 5.2 X 10° 1.70 X 10 1 0 h

72. Big (Dunedin) P ass, F la. 1.69

3.76 X 108 1.1+1+ x 103
1 .6 9
a. NOS Current Data, Jun 1959 7.8 237
b. Bruun and G erritsen (ll+) 3 . 1 8 X 10° 6.0 X 103 191
73. E ast (D estin) P ass, F la.
a. Bruun and G erritsen (ll+)
Q
191
h

1.62 X 1.38 X
b. Corps o f Engrs, 1938 Flow Meas 1.57 X 109 1.72 X 10 4 11.1 ll+l
1 0 Q 1 0 t

7U. Pensacola Bay E n tr ., F la. 2.70 3 -0 1 +

a. NOS Current Data, Apr 19*+0 9.1+5 X 1.12 X 32.7 105
a

b . Bruun, G erritse n , and Morgan ( 1 5 ) 6.80 X 109 1.20 X 105

1 0 Q
1 0 5

75. Perdido P ass, Ala.

Corps of E ngrs, 1963 Flow Meas 5.81+ X 1 0 8 7-00 X 103
0

76. Mobile Bay E n tr., Ala. 2.36 2.53

a. NOS Current Data, Jun 1935 2.0 X 3.15 X 18.3 9 I+0
c
O O
I- 1 H
O
H

b. Corps o f Engrs, 1972 Flow Meas 3.1+ X 3.1*+ X 105

1 0 5
O
H

77. B arata ria P ass, La. 2.53 2.20

NOS C urrent Data, 19*+7 2.55 X 109 6.93 X 10 4 31.7 69
78. Caminada P ass, La. 2.53 2.53
NOS C urrent Data, 1933-3*+ 6 . 3 I+ X 1 0 8 1 . 2 6 X 10k 7.*+ 232
79. C alcasieu P ass, La. 2.87 3.88
Bruun and G erritsen (l*+) 2.97 X 109 2.08 X 1011 29
80 . San Luis P ass, Tex. Q
Cubature (NOS 1933-3*+) 5.81+ X 1 0 8 3.20 X i o 4 7.1+ 581+
Gulf Coast In le ts w ith Two J e ttie s
8 l. Venice I n le t, Fla. 1.86 1.52
a. Cubature (NOS 1955) 8.5 X ioJ 2.36 X 103 9.1 29
b . NOS Current D ata, May 1955 7.1+ X 10T 2.36 X 103 9.1 29
c. Corps o f Engrs, Jack so n v ille 7
D ist 9.1+1 X 10T
82. Galveston E n tr ., Tex. c 2 .8 7 3.88
a. O’B rien ( 3 ) including San Luis Pass 1.59 X 1°Q0 2.2 X 10 c
b . Cubature (NOS 193*0 5.91+ X 109 1.97 X 10 5
83. Aransas Pass, Tex. 0 1.52 2.03
a. Bruun and G erritsen (l*+) 1.76 X 109 1.6 X 1 0 h
b. Reynolds (17) 6.66 X KT 2.73 X 10h

(Continued) (Sheet 1* of 6)
 Table 1 (Continued)

Spring or Maximum Currents

Diurnal Hydraulic from NOS Tidal
Tidal MSL Area Radius Current Tables
Prism, P A R W/R fps
Inlet/Data Source cu ft sq ft ft Ratio Flood Ebb

Pacific Coast Inlets Without Jetties

8U. Willapa Bay, Wash. 1+.22 1+.22

a. O'Brien (3) 2 .5 0 x 1 0 ^ ° 3.9^ x 10^
b. Johnson (6) I . 7 3 x 10 1+.95 x 10P 19.5 1303
85. Siletz Bay, Oreg.
Oregon St Univ (1 9 ) 3.5 x 108 3.1+ x 103
86. Alsea Bay, Oreg. O
Oregon St Univ (19) 5 .O x 10 8.0 x 103

87. Tomales Bay, Calif.

a. O'Brien (3 ) 1.58 X 10 q 3 .6 x lo jj
b. Johnson (6) 1.1+9 x K T 2.12 x 10 I6 .O 83
88. Bolinas Lagoon, Calif.
Johnson (6) 1.31 x 108 1.3 x 103 6.6 30

89. San Francisco, Calif. 1+.05 1+.39

a. O'Brien (3 ) 5.! x IO ^ q 9.38 x 1 0 ^
b. Johnson (6) 5.1 x 10±U 9 .3I x Hr 177 30
90. Newport Bay, Calif, (before jetties)
Reynolds (1 7 ) 3-77 x 108 3.7 x 103

91. Punta Banda O

O'Brien (3 ) 2.99 x 10 5.1+6 x 103

Pacific: Coast Inlets with One Jetty

92. Tillamook Bay, Oreg. 5.07 1+.39

a. O'Brien (3 ) 2.11 x 10^ 3 .6 9 X 10!
b. Johnson (6 ) 2.15 x 10' 1 .5 T x i o £ 10.6 ll+O
c. Comm Tidal Hyd (20) 2.1+9 x 10^ 2 . 7 0 X 10

93. San Diego Bay, Calif. il 2.03 2.53

a. O'Brien (3 ) 3.38 x 10g 6 . 1 7 x 10.
b. Johnson (6) 2 . 5 2 x 10^ 7.12 x 10 38.0 1+8

Pacific Coast Inlets with Two Jetties

9b. Grays Harbor, Wash. 3.21 1+.73

a. O'Brien (3 ) 2.1+3 x 1Cl ° 2.85 x i 0 5
b. Johnson (6) 1.70 x 10 g 2.91 x H H 1+3 158
c. Bruun and Gerritsen ( lU ) 1.81+ x i o 1U 3.36 x n r

95. Columbia River, Oreg., Wash. 6 .0 8 7.09

a. O'Brien (3 ) 3.82 x 1 0 ^ 5.08 x 10^
b. Johnson (6) 3.87 x 10 U 1+.1+3 x H r 37.5 315
96. Nehalem River, Oreg. O 1+
a. O'Brien (3 ) 6.0 x 1 O 0 1.12 x 10
b. Johnson (6) 5.66 x 10° 9.61+ x n r 17.5 31
97. Yaquina Bay, Oreg. il 1+.05 3.88
a. O'Brien (3) 7-73 x 108 I .98 x 1 0 .
b. Johnson (6) 1.12 x 10g I .96 x 1 0 ? 19.6 51
c. Oregon St Univ (1 9 ) 1.12 x H T 2 . 2 0 x 10
98. Siuslaw River, Oreg. 1+ 1.52 1.86
a. O'Brien (3) 1+.61+ x 1 0 8 1.10 x 10.
b. Johnson (6) 3.66 x lOo 8.33 x 10 11.2 67
c. Comm Tidal Hyd (20) 1+.82 x 10

99- Umpqua River, Oreg. k 1.35 1.69

a. O'Brien (3 ) 2.20 x l0g 1+.62 x 10.
b. Johnson (6) 1.59 x 10' 3.3 x 10? 16.7 119
c. Comm Tidal Hyd (20) 2.20 x 1er 3.8 x 10
100. Coos Bay, Oreg. 3.01+ 3.72
a. O'Brien (3) 2.81+ x 10g 6 . 1 1 x ìo jj
b. Johnson (6) 2.51 x 10' 5.65 x 1 0 ? 2 7 .I+ 75
c. Comm Tidal Hyd (20) 2 .51 x 10* 5 .I+O x 10

(Continued)
(Sheet 5 of 6)
 T able 1 (Concluded)
S pring or Maximum C u rrents
D iurnal H ydraulic from NOS T id a l
T id al MSL Area Radius C urrent T ables
P rism , P A R W/R fp s
In le t/D a ta Source cu f t sq f t ft R atio Flood Ebb
P a c ific Coast I n le ts w ith Two J e t t i e s (C ontinued)
101. C o q u ille R iv er, Oreg. 2 .3 6 2.03
a. O 'B rien (3) 3 .8 9 x 10? 9.02 X 10^3
b. Johnson (6) 1 .7 7 x 10o 7 .0 3 x K T 11.3 55
c. Comm T id a l Hyd (20) ( 3 .8 9 x i o ° )
102. Rogue R iv e r, Oreg. 2.02 2.02
Comm T id a l Hyd (20) x 10 4.5 x 103
O
1 .5 1
103. Humboldt Bay, C a lif. 4 2 . 7O 3.38
a. O 'B rien (3) 4 .3 8 x io^ 7.55 I0k
X

b . Johnson (6) 3 .5 1 x KT 5.19 x 10 23.6 93

104. Bodega Bay, C a lif.
Johnson (6) 1.49 x io
O
5.12 x 10°3 16.4 19
105. Moss L anding, C a lif.
Johnson (6) 1 .4 l x io 8 4.12 X K T
3
IO .7 36
106 . Newport Bay, C a lif.
a. O 'B rien (3) x 10g
O
1.09 5.98

HO HO
X
b . Reynolds (17) 3.31 x 10

X
1.0

107. Camp P en d leto n , C a lif.

O 'B rien (3) l.l4 x io T 4.64 X 102
1 0 8 . M ission Bay, C a lif.
a. O 'B rien (3) 4 .2 108
X 1.04 x 10 4
b . Johnson (6) 4 .7 x io° 1.59 X 10^ 15.9 63
c. Bruun and G e rrits en (lU ) 4.24 x 10 8.5 x 103 236

(Sheet 6 o f 6)
 Table 2
Regression Equations of P Versus A ; Form of Equations A = CPn

Width of 95 %
95% Confidence 95% Confidence Confidence Limits Number of
Limits of C Limits of n of A for Mean P Data
Equation Lower Upper Lower Upper Natural Logarithms Points
1. All Inlets
a. Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts
A = 5 .Tit x io-5P°-95 5.36 X 10“ 5 6.13 X 10“ 5 0.91 1.00 1.70 615 162
b. Atlantic coast
A = 7 . 7 5 x ic T^ p 1 - 0 5 7 .lit X 10” 6 8. itl X 10“ 6 0.99 1.12 l.U 689it 79
c. Gulf coast
. ^ ^ n -li^O.84 -1* -1+
A = 5.02 x io P it. 25 X 10 5.93 X 10 0.73 0.95 2.03012 36
d. Pacific coast
A = 1.19 x 10-1*P0’91 1.0 7 X 10-* 1.32 X 1 0 -* 0.86 0.97 1.4 5 6 8 8 ^7

2. Unjettied or Single-Jettied Inlets

a. Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts
A = 1.04 x 10-5P1,03 9.47 X io "6 1.13 X 10” 5 0.97 1.10 1.78570 96
b. Atlantic coast
A = 5-37 x 10_6P1,0T it.86 X io -8 5.92 X 10"6 0.99 1.16 I.it06l 0 50
c. Gulf coast
A = 3.51 x 10_1*P0 '86 2.97 X 10 -4 U .16 X 10'1* 0.73 0.99 1.86524 30
d. Pacific coast
A = 1 . 9 1 x io-6?1 ’10 1-57 X io -6 2.32 X io”6 0.99 1.21 1.61031 16

3. Inlets with Two Jetties

a. Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts
A = 3.76 x l O ^ P 0,86 3.44 X io-u k.ll X io~k 0.8l 0.92 1.44345 66
b. Atlantic coast
A = 5-77 x 10_5P0-95 it. 98 X 10"5 6.69 X 10~5 0 .8 1 1.09 1.61274 29
c. Gulf coast
Insufficient data for
regression analysis
d. Pacific coast
A = 5-28 x lO_ltP0,85 it. 96 X 10^ 5.23 X 1 0 -* 0.8l 0.88 0 .712 89 31
 Table 3
Annual Average Maximum Velocities in Tidal Inlets from
NOS Tidal Current Tables for Inlets Used to
Determine P Versus A Relationships

Number Average Average

of Maximum Flood Maximum Ebb
Coast/Type of Inlet Inlets Velocity, fps Velocity, fps
Atlantic
Unjettied or single jetty 21 3.33 3-73
Two jetties Ik 3.k3 3.97
All inlets 35 3.37 3.83
Gulf
Without jetties 16 2.63 2.45
Two jetties 3 2 .0 8 2.48
All inlets 19 2.54 2.45
Pacific
Unjettied or single jetty k 3.84 3.88
Two jetties 10 2 .8 0 3.21
All inlets l4 3.10 3.40

Table k
Number of Inlets with W/R Ratio Within Stated Range

Range o f W/R
1 101 201 301
to to to to Average
Coast/Type of Inlet 100 200 300 500 >500 W/R

Atlantic
Unjettied. or single jetty 9 5 10 5 7 337
Two jetties 14 1 1 0 0 67
All inlets 23 6 11 5 7 254

Gulf
All inlets 8 7 2 0 4 243
Pacific
Unjettied or single jetty 4 1 0 0 1 272
Two jetties 9 2 0 1 0 90
All inlets 13 3 0 1 1 157
 101
r

j 7 "
/
TT "V~
7 i
EG EN D
yf V c1/
□ A T L A N T IC C O A S T -N O J E T T IE S
/ ft J /
■ A T L A N T IC C O A S T -O N E J E T T Y V '
/ /
X A T L A N T IC C O A S T -T W O J E T T IE S
A GULF C O A S T - N O J E T T IE S
/ * V / □
□ 7
/

▲
o
GULF C O A S T -T W O JE T T IE S
P A C IF IC C O A S T -N O J E T T IE S r
/
" S ------ 7
nD
c
/
//

• P A C IF IC C O A S T -O N E J E T T Y / V
(P )

/ -- ¿ / ----
A / n-
V P A C IF IC C O A S T -T W O J E T T IE S / X i
/ c i- / * i /
FT3

,y
/ E *
/
X £ (i / ’ tr ■ /A
// ?,
(S P R IN G OR D IU R N A L )

✓ \
7 ?
•y i /
% ■ j
] /
O a X
/ A /
/
□
/ x 'j f / 1 /

r * if A t~ s r /
V« y / \
V* . /
i i tnr i> a

/ /
I
X /

A6
> A
■ A
;
T ID A L P R IS M

V lr

/
/ 4 7 /
T> 'r
V V
/
/

'i
" " /

/
/ / /Ar /
V 7 /

^ 7. *
.0
k /
r—
a '

.K&y
P| && Á
A
r
1
/

£ 4 r
J
A xia/y
- 0\

Lj
>r
\

_ L ¿
102 103 iO 4 105 106
M IN IM U M CROSS S E C T IO N A L AREA OF IN LE T ( F T 2 ) BELOW MSL ( A )

N O TE : REGRESSION CURVE W ITH 95 PERCENT

CO NFIDENCE LIM ITS .

TIDAL PRISM VS
CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA
ALL INLETS ON ATLANTIC,
GULF, AND PACIFIC COASTS

PLATE 1
 NOTE: REGRESSION CURVE WITH 95 PERCENT
CONFIDENCE LIMITS.

TIDAL PRISM VS
CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA
ALL INLETS ON ATLANTIC COAST

PLATE 2
I-
Ll.

_J
<
z
CC
D
O

2
(0
CL
CL

<
Q
l-

M INIMUM CROSS SECTIONAL AREA OF INLET ( F T 2 ) BELOW MSL ( A )

NOTE: REGRESSION CURVE WITH 95 PERCENT

CONFIDENCE LIMITS.

TIDAL PRISM VS
CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA
ALL INLETS ON GULF COAST

PLATE 3
 10

NOTE: REGRESSION CURVE WITH 95 PERCENT

CONFIDENCE LIMITS.

TIDAL PRISM VS
CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA
ALL INLETS ON PACIFIC COAST

PLATE 4
 M INIMUM CROSS SECTIONAL AREA OF INLET ( F T 2 ) BELOW MSL ( A )

NOTE: REGRESSION CURVE WITH 95 PERCENT

CONFIDENCE LIMITS.

TIDA L PRISM VS
CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA
INLETS ON ATLANTIC,
GULF, AND PACIFIC COASTS
WITH ONE OR NO JETTIES

PLATE 5
 TID A L PRISM (SPRING) F T 3 (P )

NOTE: REGRESSION CURVE WITH 95 PERCENT

CONFIDENCE LIMITS.

TIDAL PRISM VS
CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA
INLETS ON ATLANTIC COAST
WITH ONE OR NO JETTIES

PLATE 6
 101
y -
------r"/
y
/
/
/
/ a y

7
/
7 y'
/
/ 7
/
✓ 7
/ *
/
— 7
j a / y
y
' ~ A ---------- r
/
/
✓ 7 “

/ 7

<n ( /
7 ^

I- / T
ü. /
A
/
------- Z 7
-J
< /
Z
CE
/ L A A /
>/
2 /
o j
/
? — A— y/ — *J1 A /
r
2
(0 ”7
f —it
A A /
A—
CE iA- 'Z \ Z
/ A A
/
CL /
/
/
t tr " ä A 7
< >
A Y /
Û A
/ /
K j/ Z/
/ /
/ à
Y/ Sf
Z _____
y
/

A /- A ./
£ .AA y
■é '/Y ■ %
%z. Y L f
àZ Xy _ ..Æ
 y ¿A
0 °/ ê (
/
ê /
-A $
/ /
/ /
_____ Z . .6_______
102 103 104 10 * 10 *
M IN IM U M CROSS SECTIONAL AREA OF INLET ( F T 2 ) BELOW MSL ( A )

NOTE: REGRESSION CURVE WITH 95 PERCENT

CONFIDENCE LIMITS.

TIDAL PRISM VS
CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA
INLETS ON GULF COAST
WITHOUT JETTIES

PLATE 7
 10

NOTE: REGRESSION CURVE WITH 95 PERCENT

CONFIDENCE LIMITS.

TIDAL PRISM VS
CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA
INLETS ON PACIFIC COAST
WITH ONE OR NO JE TT IE S

PLATE 8
10

MINIMUM CROSS SECTIONAL AREA OF INLET ( F T 2 ) BELOW MSL ( A )

NOTE: REGRESSION CURVE WITH 95 PERCENT

CONFIDENCE LIMITS.

TID A L PRISM VS
C RO SS-SECTIO NAL AREA
INLETS ON ATLANTIC,
GULF, AND PACIFIC COASTS
WITH TWO JETTIES

PLATE 9
 M IN IM U M CROSS SECTIONAL AREA OF INLET ( F T 2 ) BELOW MSL ( A )

NOTE: REGRESSION CURVE WITH 95 PERCENT

CONFIDENCE LIMITS.

TIDAL PRISM VS
CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA
INLETS ON ATLANTIC COAST
WITH TWO JETTIES

PLATE 10
io 1

M INIMUM CROSS SECTIONAL AREA OF INLET ( F T 2 ) BELOW MSL (A )

NOTE: REGRESSION CURVE WITH 95 PERCENT

CONFIDENCE LIMITS.

TIDAL PRISM VS
CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA
INLETS ON PACIFIC COAST
WITH TWO JETTIES

PLATE 11
 10

<
z
DC
D
D
QC
o
o
z

2
to
a:
a.
_i
<
Q
I-

M IN 1M U M CROSS S E C T IO N A L AREA OF IN L E T ( F T 2 ) BELOW MSL ( A )

TIDAL PRISM VS
CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA
REGRESSION CURVES FOR ALL INLETS

PLATE 12
MINIM UM CROSS SECTIONAL AREA OF INLET ( F T 2 ) BELOW MSL (A )

TIDAL PRISM VS
CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA
REGRESSION CURVES FOR INLETS
WITH ONE OR NO JETTIES

PLATE 13
 101

TIDAL PRISM VS
CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA
REGRESSION CURVES FOR INLETS
WITH TWO JETTIES

PLATE 14
 APPENDIX A: NOTATION

A Minimum cross section of the entrance channel measured

below msl, sq ft; gorge cross-sectional area below msl,
sq ft
C Regression constant
D Depth of water at the current meter location, ft
n Friction coefficient, regression constant
P Tidal prism corresponding to the diurnal or spring range
of tide, cu ft
Mean tidal prism, cu ft
m
R Hydraulic radius at mean sea level, ft
Hydraulic radii of Sections 1 and 2, respectively, ft
R1 ’R2
Energy gradient
e
V Velocity, fps
V Average velocity measured over entire cross section, fps
avg
Observed velocity at the one vertical section, fps
meas
Velocities associated with flow segments 1 and 2, fps
V V2
Average velocities through Sections 1 and 2, respectively,
avg avg fps
W Width of inlet at mean sea level, ft

A1
 In accordance with ER 70-2-3, paragraph 6c(l)(h),
dated 15 February 1973» a facsimile catalog card
in Library of Congress format is reproduced below,

Jarrett, James T
Tidal prism - inlet area relationships, by James T.
Jarrett. Vicksburg, Miss., U. S. Army Engineer Water­
ways Experiment Station, 1976.
1 v. (various pagings) illus. 27 cm. (U. S.
Army. Corps of Engineers. GITI report 3)
General investigation of tidal inlets; a program of
research conducted jointly by U. S. Army Coastal Engi­
neering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia ¿andj
U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Includes bibliography.

1. Tidal inlets. 2. Tidal prisms. I. U. S.

Coastal Engineering Research Center. II. U. S.
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
(Series: U. S. Army. Corps of Engineers. GITI report 3)
GB454.T5.U5 no.3