2005
DOI: 10.1061/(asce)0733-950x(2005)131:6(267)
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reducing Harbor Siltation. II: Case Study of Parkhafen in Hamburg

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The exchange coefficient, f e , normally ranges between 0.005 and 0.05 (Kuijper et al 2005). A successful means to reduce f e emerged from Christiansen (1987) and more recently outlined by Smith et al (2001).…”
Section: Kso and Ksm Semi-enclosed Harbour Basinsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…The exchange coefficient, f e , normally ranges between 0.005 and 0.05 (Kuijper et al 2005). A successful means to reduce f e emerged from Christiansen (1987) and more recently outlined by Smith et al (2001).…”
Section: Kso and Ksm Semi-enclosed Harbour Basinsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Successful implementations of such strategies have been well documented (e.g. Kuijper et al 2005;Winterwerp et al 1994) but in spite of these, not all harbors, and especially not all riverine harbors, are designed with the potential consequences of siltation in mind.…”
Section: Momentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The exchange coeffi cient depends on the entrance geometry and can range from 0.005 to 0.05, an order of magnitude difference (Kuijper et al 2005). The most pronounced impact is related to the orientation of the small craft harbor entrance channel to the fl ow.…”
Section: Riversmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The most pronounced impact is related to the orientation of the small craft harbor entrance channel to the fl ow. Vanoni (1975) and Kuijper et al (2005) both present results indicating that the horizontal exchange coeffi cient, and the diversion of stream fl ow and sediment into a harbor mouth (or branch channel), decrease with increasing downstream branch angle [ Fig. 2-55(b)].…”
Section: Riversmentioning
confidence: 99%