<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:contributor>Lissa J. MacVean</dc:contributor>
  <dc:creator>Jessica R. Lacy</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2016</dc:date>
  <dc:description>&lt;p&gt;Waves propagating over broad, gently-sloped shallows decrease in height due to frictional dissipation at the bed. We quantified wave-height evolution across 7 km of mudflat in San Pablo Bay (northern San Francisco Bay), an environment where tidal mixing prevents the formation of fluid mud. Wave height was measured along a cross shore transect (elevation range&amp;minus;2mto+0.45mMLLW) in winter 2011 and summer 2012. Wave height decreased more than 50% across the transect. The exponential decay coefficient &amp;lambda; was inversely related to depth squared (&amp;lambda;=6&amp;times;10&lt;sup&gt;&amp;minus;4&lt;/sup&gt;h&lt;sup&gt;&amp;minus;2&lt;/sup&gt;). The physical roughness length scale&lt;i&gt; k&lt;sub&gt;b&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/i&gt;, estimated from near-bed turbulence measurements, was 3.5&amp;times;10&lt;sup&gt;&amp;minus;3&lt;/sup&gt; m in winter and 1.1&amp;times;10&lt;sup&gt;&amp;minus;2&lt;/sup&gt; m in summer. Estimated wave friction factor&lt;i&gt; f&lt;sub&gt;w&lt;/sub&gt; &lt;/i&gt;determined from wave-height data suggests that bottom friction dominates dissipation at high &lt;i&gt;Re&lt;sub&gt;w&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/i&gt; but not at low &lt;i&gt;Re&lt;sub&gt;w&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/i&gt;. Predictions of near-shore wave height based on offshore wave height and a rough formulation for&lt;i&gt; f&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sub&gt;w&lt;/sub&gt; were quite accurate, with errors about half as great as those based on the smooth formulation for&amp;nbsp;&lt;i&gt;f&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sub&gt;w&lt;/sub&gt;. Researchers often assume that the wave boundary layer is smooth for settings with fine-grained sediments. At this site, use of a smooth &lt;i&gt;f&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sub&gt;w&lt;/sub&gt; results in an underestimate of wave shear stress by a factor of 2 for typical waves and as much as 5 for more energetic waves. It also inadequately captures the effectiveness of the mudflats in protecting the shoreline through wave attenuation.&lt;/p&gt;</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.1016/j.coastaleng.2016.03.008</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>World Scientific Pub.</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>Wave attenuation in the shallows of San Francisco Bay</dc:title>
  <dc:type>article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>