Next Article in Journal
A Case Study on the Corrosion of an Aging Jack-Up Drilling Rig
Previous Article in Journal
Integration of Routine Core Data and Petrographic Analyses to Determine the Sandstone Reservoir Flow Units in the Bredasdorp Basin, Offshore South Africa
Previous Article in Special Issue
Joint Probability Distribution of Wind–Wave Actions Based on Vine Copula Function
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JMSE
Volume 13
Issue 3
10.3390/jmse13030494
jmse-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Impact of Silted Coastal Port Engineering Construction on Marine Dynamic Environment: A Case Study of Binhai Port

by
Xiaolong Deng
1,
Zhifeng Wang
1 and
Xin Ma
2,*
1
College of Engineering, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, China
2
Physical Oceanography Laboratory, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13(3), 494; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse13030494 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 10 February 2025 / Revised: 26 February 2025 / Accepted: 28 February 2025 / Published: 2 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Interaction between Atmospheric and Oceanic Dynamics at Mesoscale and Small Scale)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Siltation around the harbour entrance poses significant challenges to the navigational safety and operational stability of coastal ports. Previous research has predominantly focused on sedimentation mechanisms in sandy coastal environments, while studies on silt-muddy coasts remain scarce. This paper investigates the causes of siltation around the entrance of Binhai Port in Jiangsu Province, China, utilising field observation data and a two-dimensional tidal current numerical model, with emphasis on hydrodynamic variations and sediment dynamics. Observations reveal that tidal currents induce sediment deposition in the outer harbour entrance area, whereas pronounced scouring occurs near breakwater heads. During extreme weather events, such as Typhoons Lekima (2019) and Muifa (2022), combined wind–wave interactions markedly intensified sediment transport and accumulation, particularly amplifying siltation at the entrance, with deposition thicknesses reaching 0.5 m and 1.0 m, respectively. The study elucidates erosion–deposition patterns under combined tidal, wave, and wind forces, identifying two critical mechanisms: (1) net sediment transport directionality driven by tidal asymmetry, and (2) a lagged dynamic sedimentary response during sediment migration. Notably, the entrance zone, functioning as a critical conduit for water– sediment exchange, exhibits the highest siltation levels, forming a key bottleneck for navigational capacity. The insights gleaned from this study are instrumental in understanding the morphodynamic processes triggered by artificial structures in silt-muddy coastal systems, thereby providing a valuable reference point for the sustainable planning and management of ports.

1. Introduction

Coastal regions, endowed with abundant natural resources and strategic geographical advantages, have emerged as pivotal zones for global competition and development. Against the backdrop of global warming, sea-level rise, and intensified human activities [1,2,3], geomorphological evolution in deltaic regions has garnered widespread attention [4,5]. Ports, as quintessential manifestations of human activity and critical hubs for global trade, exert profound positive impacts on coastal urban development. The positive impacts of port-driven economies on coastal urban development include stimulated local economic growth, enhanced urban competitiveness, promoted employment and population mobility, and improved infrastructure. Notable examples such as the Port of Shanghai and the Port of Chattogram exemplify the pivotal role of ports in regional economies [6].
Ports contribute to coastal development through multifaceted mechanisms, particularly as engines for job creation and local economic advancement [7,8,9]. Approximately 80% of global trade relies on maritime transport, underscoring the indispensability of ports as components of international commerce [10,11]. Simultaneously, ports function as fundamental nodes and potential bottlenecks in global trade networks, facilitating sustainable trade exchanges [12]. However, the construction of ports gives rise to environmental and ecological challenges, particularly in the management of sediment and the effects of hydrodynamics. Despite the potential for further research in this area, the existing literature on nearshore hydrodynamic fields, suspended sediment dynamics, and the geomorphological evolution of subaqueous deltas induced by port infrastructure is limited. The existing studies have classified abandoned estuaries into three layers, with progressively weaker hydrodynamic forces from upper to lower strata [13]. Morphodynamic modelling further reveals that the intensity of the local tidal range governs deltaic morphology [14]. The results of the simulations indicate that post-construction flow velocities stabilise at a distance of 2 km from the port, while the tidal prism decreases by approximately 0.07% [15]. A wave–current coupled hydrodynamic model applied to the Zhuanghe Fishing Port project demonstrates minimal post-construction alterations to large-scale flow fields, with impacts confined to localised areas near the port [16]. Numerical simulations of hydrodynamic interactions at Cha Am Pier highlight sediment accumulation on updrift breakwaters, emphasising the criticality of understanding hydrodynamic conditions for effective downdrift erosion management [17].
In the context of numerous artificially excavated ports, the phenomenon of channel shallowing due to siltation is pervasive, with some ports experiencing sudden siltation events triggered by typhoons, storm waves, or cold surges [18]. Studies have demonstrated that localised channel engineering alters submarine topography, leading to the destabilisation of underwater slopes [19]. A notable example is Jiangsu Binhai Port, where severe recurrent siltation necessitates continuous maintenance dredging to ensure navigational safety. The challenges posed by high water content in dredged sediments and the operational complexities involved have resulted in low efficiency and elevated maintenance costs [20]. Post-construction siltation persists in harbour basins and navigation channels, even triggering erosional scour pits near the northern breakwater head, posing a threat to channel stability and breakwater integrity. The recent acceleration in coastal erosion following the northward shift in the Yellow River’s course has amplified the hydrodynamic and sediment transport impacts of Binhai Port’s development, positioning it as a critical research focus [21].
The aim of this study is to analyse the causes of excessive entrance siltation at Binhai Port, Yancheng, Jiangsu Province, through a morphodynamic process lens. To this end, a two-dimensional tidal current numerical model was developed to investigate post-construction hydrodynamic alterations, with the dual objectives of providing technical support for future dredging operations and offering novel insights into siltation mechanisms in silt-muddy coastal navigation channels.

2. Study Area and Model Validation

2.1. Study Area and Model Setup

The Binhai Port area is located in Binhai County, Yancheng City, Jiangsu Province, on the erosive silty sand coastline of the abandoned Yellow River Delta, as shown in Figure 1a. The coastline of this region juts out into the sea and is characterised by strong nearshore wave dynamics, active sediment movement and a complex underwater topography with significant underwater slope erosion. The area has a turning point at the northern tip of the abandoned Yellow River estuary, where the direction of the coastline changes from northwest–southeast (NW-SE) to north–south (N-S). The terrain is generally flat, gently sloping from southwest to northeast towards the Yellow Sea, with ground elevations ranging from 2 to 3 m. The southern area has slightly higher terrain, forming a ridge-like landform. The coastline is subject to continuous erosion. Since the implementation of coastal protection works in the 1970s, the erosion rate has slowed down considerably, while the scour rate on the shoals has increased significantly [19,22]. Recent research suggests that the remaining nearshore section of the −15 m isobath along the Jiangsu coast offers favourable conditions for deepwater port development. According to nautical charts provided by the China Maritime Safety Administration (2014 and 2016 data), the water depth distribution in the Binhai Port area is shown in Figure 2. The −5 m, −10 m, and −15 m isobaths are approximately 0.9 km, 1.9 km, and 3.8 km from the coastline, respectively [19], providing suitable deep water conditions for the development of Binhai Port. The construction of Binhai Port started in July 2009, with the construction of the north and south breakwaters completed by June 2011. The 100,000-tonne multipurpose terminal officially started operations in October 2014. The breakwaters of the port are designed in a zigzag pattern, consisting of a northern breakwater 4880 m long and a southern breakwater 1985 m long. The depth of the water at the head of the northern breakwater is 14 m, while the depth of the southern breakwater is 10 m. The entrance width is 800 m and the distance between the two breakwaters is 2.3 km. These structures provide essential protection for the harbour and significantly influence sediment transport and the dynamic equilibrium of the surrounding marine environment. The wide study area for this model extends from 33.7° to 35.8° N and 119.7° to 122.45° E, while the narrow study area extends from 34.2° to 34.4° N and 120.15° to 120.45° E, as shown in Figure 1b. The simulation time frame was set from 1 February 2021 to 1 April 2021. The reliability of the model is supported by comparisons with measured data from validation points, the distribution and locations of which are shown in Figure 1b. One observation point and eight validation points (as shown in Table 1) were selected to compare the observed results with the simulated data for tidal levels, currents, and suspended sediment concentrations.
Prior to the start of the observations, the Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler was set to begin measurements on the hour, with measurements taken every 10 min. Each measurement session lasted 100 s with a continuous sampling frequency of 1 Hz. The average of each session was taken as the observation value. The pressure tide gauge was also configured to start observations on the hour, with measurements taken every 10 min. Each session lasted 60 s at a sampling frequency of 1 Hz and the average value was also taken as the observation value. Simultaneously with the turbidity measurements, seawater samples were taken from the surface at a depth of 0.6H and from the bottom every 2 h. The sediment concentration in the water samples was determined by the filtration and drying method.
The predominant wind direction in this region is from southeastern (SE) directions, followed by south-southeast (SSE), with strong winds predominantly originating from north (N) directions. The frequency of winds from various directions is demonstrated in Figure 3. Wind speed and direction measurements were performed using the DEM6 Portable Three-Cup Anemometer.
This study employs the Delft3D-Flow module for numerical modelling, with the computational grid constructed using the Grid-RFFGRID module comprising 225,319 cells. Bathymetric data were interpolated via the Grid-QUICKIN method, with a large-scale orthogonal curvilinear grid configuration as illustrated in Figure 2a.
The sediment sources in the study area were categorised into three types based on the existing literature: offshore sediment supply, terrestrial input, and localised sediment recirculation. The bathymetric inputs were derived from field measurements [23], with the minimum water depth set to 47 m and subjected to smoothing procedures. Figure 2b presents the simulated bathymetric distribution. To streamline boundary condition implementation, nested grid techniques were applied, where large-scale grid data provided boundary constraints for finer-resolution subdomains (see spatial domains in Figure 2c,d). The model domain features three open boundaries and one closed land boundary. The tidal forcing at the open boundaries was implemented using harmonic constants from 13 tidal constituents extracted from the TPXO9 global tidal database following the methodology of Fu et al. [24]. This approach has been demonstrated to demonstrate superior accuracy in Chinese coastal waters. A cold-start initialisation approach was adopted to ensure numerical stability during model spin-up.
Sediment Parameter Settings: According to the General Report on Ocean Investigation and Evaluation of Jiangsu Province [25], there is a significant spatial heterogeneity in the sediment distribution in the coastal areas of Jiangsu Province. The median particle size of sediments in the Yellow River Estuary ranges from 0.01 to 0.08 mm, indicating a relative size distribution predominantly composed of fine particles; hence, the sediment parameters in the model exhibit spatial heterogeneity. Based on the relationship between suspended sediment particle size and settling velocity determined through physical model experiments, the settling velocity was set between 0.01 and 1.4 mm/s. Utilising an empirical formula for particle size and erosion rate, this study set the erosion rate at 2 × 10−5 to 5 × 10−5 kg/m2/s, with critical erosion stress established at 0.6 to 0.12 N/m2, and a constant critical deposition stress of 0.05 N/m2. Sensitivity tests determined a time step of 0.5 min. The sediment concentration distribution in this region exhibits a characteristic of higher concentrations nearshore, decreasing significantly offshore. The average sediment concentrations near the −5 m and −10 m depth contours are approximately 0.98 and 0.58 kg/m2, respectively, while in deeper waters beyond −20 m, it falls below 0.1 kg/m2. Therefore, the sediment concentration boundary conditions for the south and northwest open boundaries were interpolated linearly from 1.0 kg/m2 on the landward side to the offshore northeastern boundary, where the sediment concentration was set to zero. For the closed boundary, a non-penetrable condition was applied, meaning the normal sediment concentration was zero.
Wave Parameter Settings: The wind field data utilised in the SWAN model was derived from ERA5, with the spatial extent of the model for the Jiangsu coastal waters spanning from 33.7° to 35.8° N and 119.7° to 122.45° E. The computational time step was set to one hour, with a storage time step also of one hour, and the breaking wave parameter was set to 0.86. During the simulation process, interactions between waves, as well as wave dissipation caused by whitecapping, bottom friction, and wave breaking, were considered.

2.2. Validation of Tidal Currents

As demonstrated in Figure 4, a comparison was made between the simulated and observed water levels at the designated station. The root mean square error (RMSE) is 0.1452 m, and the correlation coefficient is greater than 0.87, indicating the reliability of the model for further simulation work. Furthermore, as demonstrated in Table 2, the primary tidal harmonic constants of the tidal level simulation, in conjunction with the observed data and their discrepancies, are presented. The table shows that the largest amplitude error occurs for the M4 tidal component, with a difference of 10.4 cm, while the amplitude error for the O1 tidal component is 0 cm. With regard to phase lag, the M4 tidal component exhibits the greatest discrepancy, with a difference of 28.0°, while the O1 component demonstrates the least phase lag error, with a difference of only 0.3°. These comparative results demonstrate that the model performs well in simulating the tidal current field.
In order to enhance the precision of the model, a comparative analysis was undertaken between the observed and simulated values of flow velocity, flow direction, and sediment concentration at stations A1–A8. As demonstrated in Figure 5, the simulated flow velocities and directions exhibit a strong alignment with the observed data. The hydrodynamic numerical model that has been developed demonstrates a high degree of accuracy in replicating the flow field distribution, thereby providing reliable support for the analysis of the hydrodynamic characteristics of the coastal area.

2.3. Wave Model Validation

The SWAN wave model was forced by wind fields derived from the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model. The computational domain spanned 33.7° N–35.8° N, 119.7° E–122.45° E, with a 1 h computational time step and equivalent output interval. Depth-induced wave breaking was parameterized using a breaker index of 0.86. The simulations incorporated key wave dissipation mechanisms, including bottom friction, and depth-induced breaking, and nonlinear wave–wave interactions. Table 3: Geographic coordinates of the wave observation stations along the Jiangsu coast. Figure 6a shows the location map.
Validation against in situ wave observations from Jiangsu Binhai Station (4–14 August 2019); Figure 6b demonstrates strong agreement between the third-generation wave numerical model outputs and field measurements. Comparative analysis with annual wave buoy data reveals that the model achieves a wave height prediction error of <15% under routine sea conditions, with key statistical metrics including a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.89, root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.23 m, and mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.18 m. During the extreme wave event induced by Typhoon Lekima (2019), the model successfully captured the evolution of the maximum significant wave height (3.3 m), with a phase error of <1 h. This high-fidelity performance validates both the applicability of the model’s parameterization schemes in the shallow waters of northern Jiangsu and the reliability of the observational system. The results provide robust technical and data-driven support for coastal engineering design, storm surge forecasting, and marine environmental studies.

2.4. Suspended Sediment and Wave Validation

The sediment field was calculated from 1 March 2021 to 1 April 2021. The validation period for suspended sediment during spring tides was from 14:00 on 12 March 2021 to 17:00 on 13 March 2021, and for neap tides from 14:00 on 22 March 2021 to 19:00 on 23 March 2021. The validation process entailed the utilisation of stations A1 through A8, which were employed to validate sediment concentrations under both pure tidal flow and the combined effects of wave and current interactions. The validation results are illustrated in the figure below:
As demonstrated in Figure 7, the simulated suspended sediment concentrations (SSCs) under combined wave–current interactions demonstrate a strong correlation with measured values across all the stations. However, the SSC variation exhibits a dual-peak pattern within a tidal cycle, contrasting with the quadruple-peak characteristics of tidal current velocities. The enhancement of wave height has been observed to result in increased sediment resuspension, leading to elevated SSC levels. Conversely, a reduction in wave height has been shown to result in a decline in SSC, although this response is less pronounced due to the influence of delayed settling effects, which are dictated by factors such as sediment grain size and hydrodynamic inertia. During late ebb phases, a significant decrease in SSC has been documented, attributable to the reduction in flow velocity, which concomitantly diminishes the sediment-carrying capacity. Given the non-negligible wave effects in the study area and the strong consistency between the simulated and observed SSC under wave–current coupling (Figure 7 and Figure 8), the adopted model incorporating wave–current interactions proves robust for capturing sediment dynamics in this silt-muddy coastal environment.

2.5. Validation of Erosion and Deposition

As demonstrated in Figure 8a, the bathymetric changes were measured over the period from 27 August to 9 November 2022. It is noteworthy that no dredging activities were conducted in the harbour basin or navigation channel during the observation period, thereby enabling the observations to serve as validation data for natural sedimentation. The results indicate that sedimentation in the navigation channel primarily occurs in the recirculation zone near the estuary, where bathymetric changes of 2–3 m were observed. Within the LNG harbour basin, the depth change was approximately 1 m, while the outer navigation channel exhibited an erosional trend.
The erosion and deposition distribution over a two-month period (September to October 2022) is presented in Figure 8b. The sediment distribution model results indicate that sedimentation is predominantly concentrated in the recirculation zone near the estuary. The sediment accumulation in the LNG navigation channel ranged from 2 to 3 m over the two-month period, while the harbour basin exhibited sedimentation of approximately 1–2 m. The intensity and spatial distribution of the modelled sedimentation align well with the measured results. The primary sedimentation zone in the navigation channel is concentrated in the recirculation zone, where weakened hydrodynamic forces result in sedimentation with a maximum thickness of 2.5–3.0 m. The accumulation extends in a tongue-shaped pattern into the harbour. In the LNG harbour basin, uniform sedimentation of 1.0 ± 0.2 m is observed, while the outer navigation channel exhibits an erosional trend due to increased tidal flux. These observations are indicative of the spatial heterogeneity of sediment transport pathways.
As demonstrated in Figure 8b, the modelled results under natural conditions, incorporating wave–current–sediment interactions for the study area from September to October 2022, are highlighted. The simulation successfully reproduces the observed sediment transport patterns, demonstrating that a sediment accumulation layer of 2.1–3.0 m forms monthly in the estuary recirculation zone, with a relative error of less than 15% compared to the measured values. Sediment accumulation along the axis of the LNG channel reaches 2.3–3.0 m. It is notable that the spatial gradient of sediment distribution and the isopleth morphology in the model closely match the measured data. In particular, in the estuary-to-harbour transition zone, the horizontal deviation between the simulated and observed sedimentation centres is less than 50 m. Since the construction of the northern breakwater of the coastal port area in June 2011, the jetting effect and localised wave reflection near the breakwater head have intensified flow velocities in this region, exacerbating seabed erosion near the breakwater head. The development of the scour pit near the breakwater head is outlined in Table 4. The scour pit has been observed to exhibit exponential growth, with a monthly average scour depth of 0.9–1.1 m, which is consistent with the modelled results of 0.95–1.05 m/month (relative error ≤ 8%).
From the perspective of system validation, the model achieves engineering-level accuracy in several key metrics, including natural sedimentation intensity (annual sedimentation rate deviation < 15%), scour pit development rate (phase error < 5 days), and spatial differentiation of erosion and deposition (similarity coefficient > 0.78). Of particular note is the agreement in sedimentation thickness within the estuary zone, where measured values of 2.5–3.0 m closely correspond to the simulated result of 2.7 m, thereby demonstrating the model’s capacity to capture the coupled processes of recirculation dynamics and flocculation-induced sedimentation.

3. Characteristics Analysis

3.1. Hydrodynamic Characteristics Analysis

As analysis nodes, the time of maximum ebb was set at 1:00 a.m. on 13 March 2021, while the time of maximum flood was chosen as 7:00 p.m. on 12 March 2021. The slack prior to flood occurrence was designated as 11:00 p.m. on 12 March 2021, and all slack preceding ebb times were set at 5:00 a.m. on 13 March 2021. The selection of these time nodes is based on tidal harmonic analysis and verified by the observed water levels (see Figure 2).
Tidal level analysis reveals that the study area is characterised by regular semidiurnal tidal currents [26]. The model utilises observational data from 2021 to perform a comparative analysis. As demonstrated in Figure 9, the overall flow pattern manifests smooth characteristics. During periods of flood tide, the tidal current flows predominantly in a southeastern direction, while during periods of ebb tide, the flow reverses to a northwestern direction. However, in the vicinity of the shoreline, a notable similarity is observed in the flow behaviour during both phases: the influence of boundaries and the underwater topography near the shore results in the flow direction aligning almost parallel with the shoreline and the isobaths. The nearly opposite directions of flood and ebb tides suggest that the study area exhibits a reciprocating flow pattern. Specifically, during flood tide, the flow direction ranges between 145° and 178°, while during ebb tide, it ranges between 319° and 353°.
During periods of spring tides, the flood tide moves from a northwest to a southeast direction. Upon reaching the northern breakwater, the current is obstructed by nearshore structures in the northwest section, which reduces the flow velocity. The current then moves towards the corner and southeastern sections of the northern breakwater, where these segments act as guiding structures, enhancing the flow velocity on their outer sides. The development of high-velocity zones is observed in the vicinity of the breakwater opening and the northern breakwater head, with maximum velocities reaching up to 1.2 m/s. As the current flows past the breakwater head, a clockwise eddy forms on the southern side of the breakwater. As this eddy develops, the water on its outer edge flows southeast along the southern breakwater, which also serves as a guiding structure, with velocities around 0.4 m/s. The current continues to evolve as it flows upstream along the southern breakwater and enters the harbour area. Upon encountering the southern side of the northern breakwater, the flow direction undergoes a change, with the northern breakwater acting as an additional guiding structure. This results in the formation of a counterclockwise eddy within the harbour. Within the semi-enclosed region of the harbour, flow velocities remain relatively slow, remaining below 0.2 m/s. The flow velocity continues to decrease as the flow enters the harbour’s interior.
During the ebb tide, the tidal flow retreats in the opposite direction to that of the flood tide. The current is impeded by the southern breakwater, leading to a reduction in flow velocity. The tidal current is influenced by the guiding effect of the southern breakwater, flowing along its length and converging with the outflowing current near the breakwater opening, forming a transverse flow at the southern breakwater head. On the northern side of the northern breakwater, after the ebb current passes through the opening and flows past the northern breakwater head, a circular eddy is formed, with its elliptical major axis longer than the minor axis. As the tidal current strengthens, the elliptical eddy undergoes further development and extends northwestward, reaching as far as the turning point of the northern breakwater. At this turning point, the tidal flow bifurcates into two branches: one flows southwestward to merge with the main ebb current, while the other flows southeastward along the northern breakwater. The northern breakwater functions as a guiding structure, exhibiting a flow velocity of approximately 0.3 m/s.
Within the confines of the breakwater, a clockwise eddy also comes into being. Due to the pronounced sheltering effects within the harbour basin, the flow velocity is relatively low, remaining below 0.2 m/s. Seawater flowing outward from the breakwater opening eventually joins the main ebb current. While the configuration of the coastal harbour exerts a certain degree of influence on the directions of flood and ebb currents outside the breakwaters, it does not result in a substantial alteration to the overall flow pattern of the entire study area.
The velocity distribution demonstrates a tendency for higher flow velocities in offshore regions and lower velocities within the harbour. This suggests that the flow velocity within the coastal harbour is, on average, lower than that of the surrounding waters. At the harbour entrance, the influence of the breakwaters results in the observation of maximum velocities, with the high-velocity region gradually expanding towards the shallows. However, it is important to note that the distribution of flow velocity does not always align perfectly with the bathymetry. Specifically, velocities are comparatively low near the coastal harbour, while they are higher near the eastern and northern boundaries.
In the sea area proximate to the harbour entrance, the maximum flow velocity during peak flood and peak ebb reaches 1.5 m/s. It is noteworthy that in the vicinity of the former Yellow River estuary, the area exhibiting equivalent flow velocities during peak ebb is typically more extensive compared to that during peak flood. A comparison of the flow fields for peak flood and peak ebb indicates that apart from specific cases influenced by shallow areas, the flow paths during flood and ebb tides are essentially consistent.
Within and in the vicinity of the coastal harbour, the recirculation zone in proximity to the harbour entrance is the most prominent region. This phenomenon can be attributed to the contraction effect of the breakwaters, resulting in interactions between the main flow and the recirculation, which promote mixing. Furthermore, the velocity gradient, caused by the higher flow velocity outside the harbour basin and the relatively stagnant water head inside, induces shear stress, triggering secondary recirculations. This, in turn, serves to augment the overall turbulence of the flow pattern within the area.
As illustrated in Figure 10, the highest cross-flow velocity among the three calculated points during the spring tide is observed at Point V1, which is located in proximity to the entrance of the harbour basin. At this location, the jetting effect at the tip of the breakwater is intensified, and the region with the highest flow velocity is primarily concentrated near the navigation channel. The velocity component perpendicular to the tidal current direction is more pronounced due to the navigation channel’s main axis being at a small angle to the current. This results in a more significant cross-flow phenomenon.

3.2. Analysis of Suspended Sediment Characteristics

3.2.1. Characteristics of Sediment Concentration

As demonstrated in Figure 11 there is a clear correlation between the average suspended sediment concentration (SSC) and hydraulic parameters (flow velocity and water level) at four monitoring stations. During spring tides, the distribution of SSC demonstrates relatively stable fluctuation amplitudes, indicating hydrologically stable conditions in nearshore areas. Conversely, during the flood tide phase, the sustained rise in water level engenders an augmentation in sediment resuspension frequency through the intensification of hydrodynamic forcing, thereby precipitating a gradual rise in SSC. This phenomenon is hypothesised to originate from effective bed shear stress-driven sediment entrainment from channel beds and adjacent deposits.
Conversely, during ebb tide phases, diminished water levels reduce flow competence for sediment suspension, triggering particle settling and consequent SSC decrease. This inverse relationship between SSC and water level highlights the dynamic interplay between sediment transport and tidal hydrodynamics. Specifically, the synergistic effects of rising water levels and accelerated flows during flood tides significantly enhance sediment mobilisation and transport efficiency. Conversely, the ebb tide phase is characterised by a decline in SSC, which is associated with reduced hydraulic energy and enhanced sedimentation.
The synchronised fluctuations in water level, flow velocity, and SSC values across tidal cycles further substantiate the predominance of tides on sediment dynamics. Phase-locked increases in all three parameters during flood tide transition to synchronous decreases during ebb phases, thus demonstrating tidal pumping as the primary control mechanism for suspended sediment redistribution in this estuarine system.

3.2.2. Characteristics of Suspended Sediment Distribution Under Pure Tidal Currents

The distribution of suspended sediment in the harbour area during four tidal phases (flood surge, ebb surge, flood slack, and ebb slack) is illustrated in Figure 12. As is apparent from the figure, during the ebb phases, the spatial extent of the high-concentration suspended sediment regions is generally larger than during the flood phases. Specifically, during the flood surge phase, the maximum suspended sediment concentration occurs in the northwest area outside the harbour basin, while the suspended sediment concentration inside the basin also increases. During the flood slack phase, the high-concentration region shifts in a southeastward direction, likely due to the advection transport of suspended sediment.
During the ebb surge phase, the high-concentration region undergoes a further expansion, which may be indicative of the outward transport of suspended sediment. A similar phenomenon is observed during the ebb slack phase, wherein the high-concentration region shifts northwestward, indicating a redistribution of sediment influenced by tidal currents.
The presence of three distinct suspended sediment bands in the vicinity of the coast is observed under both flood and ebb tides. The formation of these bands is likely attributable to the transportation of sediment in both northward and southward directions, respectively, towards Haizhou Bay and the Subei Radial Sand Ridges [26]. Furthermore, at the harbour entrance, the sudden decrease in flow velocity leads to the accumulation of sediment, resulting in the formation of banded distributions along the transport pathways.
Within the confines of the harbour basin, the suspended sediment concentration is found to be relatively low. However, as one moves outward towards the sea, the concentration initially increases and then gradually decreases. The average suspended sediment concentration in the sea area exceeds 0.5 kg/m3, which is generally higher than in the other coastal areas of China, thus classifying this region as one of the highest in terms of suspended sediment concentration along the Jiangsu coast.
This phenomenon can be attributed to two primary factors: (1) the presence of a substantial sediment supply resulting from coastal erosion and (2) the prevalence of stronger ebb currents near the coast in comparison to flood currents, which facilitate the transport of sediment towards the sea.
The isoconcentration contours of suspended sediment roughly follow the orientation of the coastline. This phenomenon can be explained by two factors: (1) the geomorphological features of the coastline dominate sediment transport patterns in the region, and (2) the coastal zone contains abundant terrigenous sediment inputs.
In summary, the spatial extent of suspended sediment distribution is greater in areas farther from the harbour basin, while the concentration inside the harbour basin is relatively low. During ebb phases, the maximum suspended sediment concentration and the area of high-concentration regions inside the harbour basin are significantly higher compared to flood phases.

3.2.3. Characteristics of Suspended Sediment Distribution Under Wave–Current Coupling

As demonstrated in Figure 13, during the flood surge phase, the intensification of wind may increase surface wave activity, leading to elevated suspended sediment concentrations on the northwest side outside the harbour basin. This phenomenon also promotes the transport of suspended sediment into the harbour basin. As the flood slack phase approaches, weakening wind speeds or shifts in wind direction enhance the southward movement of suspended sediment, significantly intensifying advective transport during this period.
During the ebb surge phase, strong winds accelerate sediment transport outward, expanding the high-concentration region of suspended sediment. Even during the ebb slack phase, the continued influence of wind may cause the location of maximum suspended sediment concentration to shift upward. This suggests that wind not only influences water flow but also alters the deposition and redistribution patterns of suspended sediment. Consequently, suspended sediment concentrations are observed to exhibit an upward trend, attributable to the modifying effects of wind strength and direction on wave characteristics, which in turn leads to alterations in wave energy.
In circumstances where wave activity is absent, variations in suspended sediment concentrations are predominantly influenced by tidal currents. However, under wave–current interactions, waves significantly impact suspended sediment distribution by altering hydrodynamic conditions. The presence of waves has been shown to facilitate higher suspended sediment concentrations, particularly in the northwest region outside the harbour basin and within the basin itself. The stirring effect of wind waves enhances the resuspension of sediments and facilitates the inward transport of suspended sediment into the harbour basin. The coupling of waves and currents leads to a more complex spatial variation in suspended sediment concentration. For instance, during the ebb slack phase, the persistent impact of wind waves causes the high-concentration zone to “shift upward,” reflecting the influence of wind waves on sediment redistribution patterns. In conclusion, it is evident that waves significantly modify the distribution pattern of suspended sediment, which is otherwise predominantly influenced by tidal currents.
Tidal currents represent the predominant driving force in the distribution of suspended sediments. Changes in high-concentration areas and the extent of suspended sediment distribution are closely tied to the direction and strength of flood and ebb tidal currents. The stronger ebb currents in comparison to flood currents promote the outward transport of suspended sediment. The reduced flow velocity experienced in the vicinity of the harbour entrance gives rise to the deposition of sediment, resulting in a banded distribution pattern. This observation underscores the pivotal role of tidal currents in the transportation and deposition of sediments. However, the inclusion of wave activity significantly alters the dynamic characteristics of suspended sediment. Wind waves, by stirring water masses, enhance the capacity for the resuspension of sediment, particularly during high-energy events such as flood surges and ebb surges, where there is a significant increase in suspended sediment concentrations and rapid transportation. Furthermore, wind waves modify the direction and strength of tidal currents, thereby affecting the advective transport of suspended sediment and altering patterns of sediment deposition and redistribution.
In natural marine environments, tidal currents and waves frequently act in combination. A sediment transport model that considers only tidal currents may not accurately reflect real-world conditions. It is, therefore, vital to couple wave effects in order to achieve a more realistic simulation of suspended sediment concentration dynamics. The influence of waves on sediment movement patterns is significant, with alterations to hydrodynamic conditions, including bottom shear stress and wave–current interactions, being a primary factor. A more profound comprehension of the distribution of suspended sediment in the context of wave–current interactions is, therefore, essential to attain a comprehensive understanding of the intricate nature of sediment transport processes.

3.2.4. Characteristics of Suspended Sand Transport

As demonstrated in Figure 14, prior to the analysis of suspended sediment transport characteristics in the coastal area, it is acknowledged that the seabed sediment in this region predominantly comprises fine silt and clayey silt. In the context of high-velocity flows, these sediments are susceptible to erosion and transport. Within the port area, suspended sediment is primarily transported seaward. Moving outward from the port, the suspended sediment concentration is observed to be relatively high near the estuary, as illustrated in the figure. Furthermore, a clockwise circulation of suspended sediment transport is apparent near the breakwater, which likely promotes deposition in this region, contributing to sediment accumulation.
Exiting the port, the transport direction of the suspended sediment deflects, forming two primary transport pathways. One of these is directed northwestward toward Haizhou Bay, while the other heads in the opposite direction, southwestward toward the Subei Shoals. Consequently, the suspended sediment from the Huanghe River Estuary, which has been abandoned, is transported towards the southern tidal flats. Observations indicate that during periods of high-energy events, such as strong winds and waves, sediment transport becomes more pronounced in this region.
In summary, based on the numerical simulation results and previous studies, under normal conditions, suspended sediment transport in the Huanghe River Estuary occurs in two main directions: northwestward toward Haizhou Bay and southwestward toward the Subei Shoals [20]. The overall suspended sediment migration in this area is found to generally follow the northern trajectory along the Subei coastline. The predominant factors influencing sediment transport in this region are tidal currents and resuspension. It can be inferred that over extended periods, coastal areas are predominantly subject to erosion, with eroded sediments typically being transported southward, resulting in a pattern of erosion in the northern region and deposition in the southern region.

3.3. Analysis of Sediment Erosion and Deposition Characteristics

3.3.1. Erosion and Deposition Under Normal Weather Conditions

The analysis of field observation data and numerical simulation results indicates (as shown in Figure 15 that, prior to the implementation of the project, the sediment erosion and deposition processes in the study area exhibited significant spatiotemporal heterogeneity. In terms of spatial distribution, three distinct erosion–deposition units have been identified: the estuary, the main harbour basin, and the northern breakwater head. The evolution of these units is jointly controlled by tidal dynamics and local geomorphological conditions.
During the flood tide stage, as the tidal current propagates from the open sea into the harbour, the combined effects of the estuary’s narrowing and the abrupt change in harbour basin topography lead to the formation of a pronounced recirculation zone in the estuary region. The velocity field in this area exhibits a pronounced gradient, with maximum flow speeds of 3.5 m/s at the estuary rapidly decaying to below 0.8 m/s inside the harbour basin. This precipitous decline in flow velocity substantially mitigates fluid shear stress, consequently leading to the flocculation and settling of fine suspended sediments with a median grain size of d50 ≥ 0.03 mm. Over the course of 60 tidal cycles, a continuous deposition layer of a thickness ranging from 2.5 to 3.5 m forms in this region, exhibiting a vertical sorting pattern of finer sediments overlying coarser sediments.
During the ebb tide, the hydrodynamic system undergoes a reversal, resulting in the transport of eroded material from the main harbour basin downstream by the ebb current. The geometry of the basin, which is “funnel-shaped”, serves to constrain flow velocities, which gradually increase near the estuary. This increase in velocity creates a “corridor effect” that facilitates secondary sediment transport. It is estimated that approximately 40% of the suspended sediment undergoes redeposition in the transition zone from the harbour basin to the estuary, forming a wedge-shaped deposition layer 2–3 m thick. It is noteworthy that this depositional belt exhibits an asymmetric cross-sectional distribution, with greater thickness on the eastern side. This asymmetry can be attributed to the deflection of flow paths caused by Coriolis forces.
The evolution of the scour trench at the northern breakwater head is of particular hydrodynamic significance. Observations made in situ demonstrate that during both flood and ebb tides, a jetting effect occurs at the breakwater head, resulting in a 35% increase in flow velocity. Furthermore, the analysis of field observations indicates that the velocities of tidal currents in proximity to the breakwater waterhead exceed the critical threshold for initiating the motion of muddy clay layers. This is identified as the primary factor driving scouring. The intense hydrodynamic conditions in this area have been shown to lead to severe seabed erosion. The data indicates a positive correlation between scour intensity and tidal range and a pulsating development pattern during spring and neap tidal cycles.
The mechanisms underlying the aforementioned erosion and deposition patterns can be attributed to the following: Firstly, net sediment transport asymmetry induced by tidal asymmetry. Secondly, local flow field distortion is caused by abrupt topographic changes. And thirdly, lag effects in the dynamic depositional response during sediment transport. It is noteworthy that the estuary region, as the critical chokepoint for water and sediment exchange, experiences the highest sedimentation rates and consequently becomes the key bottleneck limiting navigation channel capacity.

3.3.2. Sediment Change Under Extreme Weather Conditions

Abrupt deposition is a term used in the field of port and navigation engineering to describe the severe sedimentation caused by a single severe weather event, such as strong winds, which significantly impacts the normal operation and navigation of vessels. During storms or typhoons, storm surges and elevated offshore wave heights—often several times or even dozens of times greater than those under calm weather conditions—intensify sediment transport on the seabed and along the coast. This process leads to abrupt sedimentation in ports and navigation channels. In the context of engineering projects, abrupt deposition poses significant risks. In some cases, a single abrupt deposition event may exceed the cumulative sedimentation of several months. Irrespective of whether the port and navigation projects are located in silty or muddy coastal zones, abrupt deposition can occur under certain conditions.
The data sets for this study were obtained from two typhoons, “Lekima” in 2019 (the 9th typhoon of 2019, Figure 16b) and “Muifa” in 2022 (the 12th typhoon of 2022, Figure 16a). The weather processes during these events were selected for studying abrupt sedimentation under different terminal design scenarios in this project. The calculation period for each event is shown in Table 5. A 24 h timeframe was selected for the analysis of the impacts of each typhoon on different scenarios. Hourly outputs of significant wave height, peak wave period, and mean wave direction were extracted for the purposes of analysis.
As illustrated in Figure 17, the deposition distribution of each scenario is shown during the 24 h period of different typhoon events. During Typhoon “Lekima”, the sediment deposition in the study area was primarily concentrated at the estuary, with a maximum deposition thickness of approximately 0.5 m. In contrast, during Typhoon “Muifa”, the deposition at the estuary reached about 1 m. The characteristics of erosion and deposition distribution during Typhoon “Muifa” (Figure 17a) and Typhoon “Lekima” (Figure 17b) exhibit significant differences. As demonstrated in Figure 17b, during Typhoon “Lekima”, the deposition was predominantly concentrated within the estuary region, exhibiting an augmented deposition area and a substantial escalation in intensity. The maximum deposition thickness attained a value of approximately 0.5 m. Concurrently, the channel region underwent significant erosion, a consequence of the potent hydrodynamic forces at play. In comparison with the standard conditions, the powerful storm surge and wave action during Typhoon “Lekima” significantly enhanced sediment transport and deposition.
In contrast, the erosion and deposition distribution during Typhoon “Muifa”, as illustrated in Figure 17a, exhibited heightened intensity. In comparison with Typhoon “Lekima”, both the intensity and extent of deposition in the estuary region were significantly greater, with the maximum deposition thickness reaching 1 m, which is twice that of Typhoon “Lekima”. This suggests that the stronger storm surge during Typhoon “Muifa” accelerated rapid sediment accumulation. The channel region exhibited the most pronounced erosion, while the nearshore region experienced an expansion of the erosion area due to wave propagation and storm surge effects. Consequently, as typhoon intensity escalates, the disparities in erosion and deposition patterns become increasingly evident, manifesting predominantly as heightened deposition within the estuary region and erosion within the channel region.

4. Discussion

The study area exhibits a pronounced asymmetry in semi-diurnal tidal patterns [27], similar to the situation observed in the Yangtze River estuary: flood currents predominantly flow southeast, while ebb currents retreat northwest. The inflow of water within the channel is obstructed, resulting in a reduced ebb velocity. In addition, the effects of breakwaters and Coriolis forces further enhance the ebb and flow process in the channel. The breakwater structures create significant velocity gradients between the inner and outer harbour zones, resulting in flow rates in the harbour basin that are 40-60% lower than in adjacent coastal areas. This reduction in flow velocity favours sediment resuspension and localised deposition, a phenomenon also observed in the Dinh An estuary in Vietnam [28], which was mainly attributed to the reduction in flow velocity.
Suspended sediment concentration (SSC) shows a correlation with tidal patterns. Sediment transport rates vary between coastal ports depending on wave climate and other nearshore characteristics, while changes in hydrodynamic conditions are a major cause of severe siltation in curved channel sections [28]. As water levels and velocities increase, high tides increase SSC, whereas ebb tides decrease SSC as hydrodynamic energy decreases. Near the entrance, a sudden reduction in flow velocity triggers sediment accumulation, with SSC isopleths closely following depth contours.
Under regular tidal conditions, sediment transport is predominantly controlled by tidal currents and resuspension, similar to the situation in the Tay Estuary where sediment deposition is largely influenced by the morphology of the tidal currents [29]. This results in significant siltation within the harbour, while the outer channel experiences less erosion. Due to flow deflection, intense scour occurs near the breakwater heads, with scour depth positively correlated with tidal range (R = 0.78). Some alongshore drifting sediments are intercepted by the southern breakwater, making the entrance area a bottleneck for sediment transport and accumulating the highest levels of siltation, similar to conditions observed in the ports of Chennai and Visakhapatnam [30].
Extreme events such as typhoons Lekima and Muifa enhanced sediment dynamics through storm surges and wave action. The increased wave action caused sediments on the inner continental shelf to be resuspended by strong tidal currents and transported into the entrance channels [31], resulting in sedimentation within the harbour. Silt thickness at the entrance reached 0.5 m during Lekima and 1.0 m during Muifa, illustrating how climate-hydrodynamic interactions exacerbate sedimentation.

5. Conclusions

This study investigates sediment accumulation upstream of coastal harbour channels using field data. To further investigate the causes of sediment accumulation in deep water channels, a hydrodynamic numerical model was developed. The model was validated using measured tidal heights, flow velocities, directions and suspended sediment concentration (SSC). Two case studies were examined, one under normal weather conditions and the other under extreme weather conditions, to explain the mechanisms leading to entrance siltation. The results highlight the significant impact of the coastal harbour on the morphological dynamics of the coastal marine area, with a pronounced velocity gradient between the inner and outer harbour zones favouring sediment resuspension and localised deposition. The interaction between extreme climatic events and hydrodynamics amplified the sediment dynamics, increasing the sediment thickness at the entrance. Through a detailed analysis of the sedimentation challenges faced by coastal ports, the proposed modelling approach can be applied to other geographical regions with different hydrodynamic and morphological characteristics to assess their transferability. This will allow for comparative studies, making it applicable not only to the current port dredging management plans, but also to the planning of new port sites in coastal areas [30].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.D. and Z.W.; methodology, X.D. and Z.W.; software, X.D.; validation, X.D.; investigation, X.D.; resources, Z.W. and X.M.; data curation, X.D.; writing—original draft preparation, X.D.; writing—review and editing, Z.W. and X.M.; visualization, X.D.; supervision, Z.W.; project administration, Z.W. and X.M.; funding acquisition, Z.W. and X.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported financially by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2022YFC3104205) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (42377457).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Due to privacy, the data supporting the results of this study are not publicly available. However, they can be accessed upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Marine Big Data Center of the Institute for Advanced Ocean Study of the Ocean University of China for providing data conversion and storage, and for the professional and technical services provided by Yujie Dong.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Murray, N.J.; Phinn, S.R.; DeWitt, M.; Ferrari, R.; Johnston, R.; Lyons, M.B.; Clinton, N.; Thau, D.; Fuller, R.A. The global distribution and trajectory of tidal flats. Nature 2019, 565, 222–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Tognin, D.; D’Alpaos, A.; Marani, M.; Carniello, L. Marsh resilience to sea-level rise reduced by storm-surge barriers in the Venice Lagoon. Nat. Geosci. 2021, 14, 906–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Warrick, J.A.; Buscombe, D.; Vos, K.; Bryan, K.R.; Castelle, B.J.; Cooper, J.A.G.; Harley, M.D.; Jackson, D.W.T.; Ludka, B.C.; Masselink, G.; et al. Coastal shoreline change assessments at global scales. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 2316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Frazler, D.E. Recent deltaic deposits of the Mississippi River:their development and chronology. Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc. Trans. 1967, 17, 205–230. [Google Scholar]
  5. Mikhailov, V.N.; Mikhailova, M.V. Delta formation processes at the Mississippi River mouth. Water Resour. 2010, 37, 515–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Saha, R.C. Chattogram Port: A dedicated service institution to evolve the country boldly. Marit. Technol. Res. 2023, 5, 258294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sakalayen, Q.; Chen, P.S.L.; Cahoon, S. The strategic role of ports in regional development: Conceptualising the experience from Australia. Marit. Pol. Manag. 2017, 44, 933–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Santos, A.M.P.; Salvador, R.; Soares, C.G. A dynamic view of the socioeconomic significance of ports. Marit. Econ. Logist. 2018, 20, 169–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jia, H.Y.; Lampe, O.D.; Solteszova, V.; Strandenes, S.P. Norwegian port connectivity and its policy implications. Marit. Pol. Manag. 2017, 44, 956–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bottasso, A.; Conti, M.; Ferrari, C.; Tei, A. Ports and regional development: A spatial analysis on a panel of European regions. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 2014, 65, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Li, W.Y.; You, Z.J.; Cai, Z.Z.; Sui, Y. Club convergence and allometry in Chinse mainland coastal container ports. Ocean Coast Manag. 2022, 230, 106376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zhu, G.R.; Xie, Z.L.; Xu, H.; Liang, M.; Cheng, J.; Gao, Y.; Zhang, L. Land reclamation pattern and environmental regulation guidelines for port clusters in Bohai Sea, China. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0259516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chen, X.Y.; Liu, D.H.; Lu, J. The sedimentary environment of current estuary and abandoned estuary at the modern Yellow River delta. Adv. Mater. Res. 2012, 356, 914–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Su, M.; Yao, P.; Wang, Z.B.; Zhang, C.K.; Stive, M.J. Exploratory morphodynamic hindcast of the evolution of the abandoned Yellow River delta, 1578–1855 CE. Mar. Geol. 2017, 383, 99–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhang, L.; Cheng, J.; Jiang, H.; Xie, H. Impact of port planning on hydrodynamics and water environment: Case study of Dongjiakou Port area of Qingdao Port. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Smart Transportation and City Engineering (STCE 2022), Chongqing, China, 12–14 August 2022; p. 1246002. [Google Scholar]
  16. Li, X.; Xie, M.X.; Li, M.G. Numerical Modeling of the Hydrodynamics for Zhuanghe Fishing Port. Adv. Mater. Res. 2013, 765–767, 2952–2956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Saengsupavanich, C.; Yun, L.S.; Lee, L.H.; Sanitwong-Na-Ayutthaya, S. Intertidal intercepted sediment at jetties along the Gulf of Thailand. Front. Mar. Sci. 2022, 9, 970592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tan, Z. Risk Management Research in Port Depth Maintenance Program. Master’s Thesis, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian, China, 2012. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  19. Pei, Y.; Lu, P. Study on the Coastal Stability of Binhai Harbour and It’s Impact from Deep Waterway Project. Mod. Transp. Technol. 2011, 8, 87–91. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  20. He, R.; Xu, B.; Yao, L.; Qing, Y.; Hu, Y. Construction technology optimization of maintenance dredging project in Binhai port area, Yancheng. Port Waterw. Eng. 2019, 7, 217–225. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  21. Jin, H. Coastal Evolution Process and Nearshore Suspended Sediment Research of the Abandoned Yellow River Delta. Master’s Thesis, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China, 2014. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  22. Zhang, R.; Lu, L.; Wang, Y. The mechanism and trend of coastal erosion of Jiangsu Province in China. Geogr. Res. 2002, 21, 469–478. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  23. Cheng, H.; Miao, R.; Yu, H.; Xing, G.; Gao, P.; Zhao, Y. Hydrological Observation Report for the Optimization of Overall Layout of Binhai Port; Technical Report; CCCC First Harbor Consultants Co., Ltd.: Tianjin, China, 2021. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  24. Fu, Y.; Zhou, X.; Zhou, D. Accuracy analysis of ocean tidal model over China seas based on the gauge data. Sci. Surv. Mapp. 2017, 42, 28–32. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  25. Jiangsu 908 Special Project Office. Comprehensive Survey and Assessment Report of Jiangsu Offshore Marine Areas; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2012. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  26. Zhang, L.; Chen, S.; Yi, L. The sediment source and transport trends around the abandoned Yellow River Delta, China. Mar. Georesources Geotechnol. 2016, 34, 440–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kuang, C.P.; Chen, W.; Gu, J.; He, L.L. Comprehensive analysis on the sediment siltation in the upper reach of the deepwater navigation channel in the Yangtze Estuary. J. Hydrodyn. 2014, 26(2), 299–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Nguyen, V.T.; Zheng, J.H.; Zhang, J.S. Mechanism of back siltation in navigation channel in Dinh An Estuary, Vietnam. Water Sci. Eng. 2013, 6, 178–188. [Google Scholar]
  29. Dobereiner, C.; McManus, J. Turbidity maximum migration and harbor siltation in the Tay Estuary. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1983, 40, s117–s141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sarma, K.G.S. Siltation and coastal erosion at shoreline harbours. Procedia Eng. 2015, 116, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chuanteng, L.; Yufang, H.; Xiaofeng, L.; Xianbo, Z. Numerical Simulation of Sudden Siltation in Yangtze Estuary under Extreme Weather. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Hydroinformatics 2024, Beijing, China, 27–31 May 2024; p. 142. [Google Scholar]
Jmse 13 00494 g001
Figure 1. (a) Geographical location of the study area; (b) distribution of observation points and eight characteristic points. It should be noted that the shaded area in panel (b) represents the study region. (Note: The geographic location map is sourced from Google Earth.)
Figure 1. (a) Geographical location of the study area; (b) distribution of observation points and eight characteristic points. It should be noted that the shaded area in panel (b) represents the study region. (Note: The geographic location map is sourced from Google Earth.)
Jmse 13 00494 g001
Jmse 13 00494 g002
Figure 2. The grid and bathymetry of the study area (a,b) and the grid and bathymetry of the small-scale model (c,d) are presented.
Figure 2. The grid and bathymetry of the study area (a,b) and the grid and bathymetry of the small-scale model (c,d) are presented.
Jmse 13 00494 g002
Jmse 13 00494 g003
Figure 3. Rose diagrams of wind in the study area. (Note: The data are sourced from the “Hydrological Observation Report for the Optimization Plan of Coastal Port Layout”, April 2021.)
Figure 3. Rose diagrams of wind in the study area. (Note: The data are sourced from the “Hydrological Observation Report for the Optimization Plan of Coastal Port Layout”, April 2021.)
Jmse 13 00494 g003
Jmse 13 00494 g004
Figure 4. Tidal validation chart.
Figure 4. Tidal validation chart.
Jmse 13 00494 g004
Jmse 13 00494 g005
Figure 5. Validation of flow velocity and direction. (a) Comparison between simulated and observed flow velocities; (b) comparison between simulated and observed flow directions.
Figure 5. Validation of flow velocity and direction. (a) Comparison between simulated and observed flow velocities; (b) comparison between simulated and observed flow directions.
Jmse 13 00494 g005
Jmse 13 00494 g006
Figure 6. Wave height validation chart. (a) Schematic of the observation station’s geographic location. (b) Comparison of simulated and measured wave heights in August 2019.
Figure 6. Wave height validation chart. (a) Schematic of the observation station’s geographic location. (b) Comparison of simulated and measured wave heights in August 2019.
Jmse 13 00494 g006
Jmse 13 00494 g007
Figure 7. Validation of suspended sediment concentrations during tidal cycles. (a) Neap tide; (b) spring tide.
Figure 7. Validation of suspended sediment concentrations during tidal cycles. (a) Neap tide; (b) spring tide.
Jmse 13 00494 g007
Jmse 13 00494 g008
Figure 8. Comparison of erosion and deposition in the study area. (a) Measured bathymetric changes; (b) simulated erosion and deposition distribution.
Figure 8. Comparison of erosion and deposition in the study area. (a) Measured bathymetric changes; (b) simulated erosion and deposition distribution.
Jmse 13 00494 g008
Jmse 13 00494 g009
Figure 9. Flow field during maximum flood and ebb (spring tide). (a) Maximum flood; (b) slack before flood; (c) maximum ebb; (d) slack before ebb.
Figure 9. Flow field during maximum flood and ebb (spring tide). (a) Maximum flood; (b) slack before flood; (c) maximum ebb; (d) slack before ebb.
Jmse 13 00494 g009
Jmse 13 00494 g010
Figure 10. Distribution of characteristic points and magnitudes of flow velocity in cross-flow calculations. (a) Characteristic points; (b) flow velocity.
Figure 10. Distribution of characteristic points and magnitudes of flow velocity in cross-flow calculations. (a) Characteristic points; (b) flow velocity.
Jmse 13 00494 g010
Jmse 13 00494 g011
Figure 11. Relationship between average suspended sediment concentration, average flow velocity, and water level at each station. (a) Station A1; (b) Station A2; (c) Station A5; (d) Station A6.
Figure 11. Relationship between average suspended sediment concentration, average flow velocity, and water level at each station. (a) Station A1; (b) Station A2; (c) Station A5; (d) Station A6.
Jmse 13 00494 g011
Jmse 13 00494 g012
Figure 12. Distribution of suspended sediment concentration under tidal currents. (a) Flood surge and (b) flood slack; (c) ebb surge; (d) ebb slack.
Figure 12. Distribution of suspended sediment concentration under tidal currents. (a) Flood surge and (b) flood slack; (c) ebb surge; (d) ebb slack.
Jmse 13 00494 g012
Jmse 13 00494 g013
Figure 13. Suspended sediment concentration distribution under wave–current interactions. (a) Flood surge; (b) flood slack; (c) ebb surge; (d) ebb slack.
Figure 13. Suspended sediment concentration distribution under wave–current interactions. (a) Flood surge; (b) flood slack; (c) ebb surge; (d) ebb slack.
Jmse 13 00494 g013
Jmse 13 00494 g014
Figure 14. Suspended sediment concentration and distribution.
Figure 14. Suspended sediment concentration and distribution.
Jmse 13 00494 g014
Jmse 13 00494 g015
Figure 15. Erosion and deposition distribution in the study area.
Figure 15. Erosion and deposition distribution in the study area.
Jmse 13 00494 g015
Jmse 13 00494 g016
Figure 16. Wave field distribution under Typhoons “Muifa” and “Lekima”. (a) Path of Typhoon “Muifa”; (b) path of Typhoon “Lekima”; (c) wind field during Typhoon “Muifa”; (d) wind field during Typhoon “Lekima”; (e) wave field during Typhoon “Muifa”; (f) wave field during Typhoon “Lekima”.
Figure 16. Wave field distribution under Typhoons “Muifa” and “Lekima”. (a) Path of Typhoon “Muifa”; (b) path of Typhoon “Lekima”; (c) wind field during Typhoon “Muifa”; (d) wind field during Typhoon “Lekima”; (e) wave field during Typhoon “Muifa”; (f) wave field during Typhoon “Lekima”.
Jmse 13 00494 g016
Jmse 13 00494 g017
Figure 17. Erosion and deposition distribution under different typhoons. (a) Typhoon “Muifa”; (b) Typhoon “Lekima”.
Figure 17. Erosion and deposition distribution under different typhoons. (a) Typhoon “Muifa”; (b) Typhoon “Lekima”.
Jmse 13 00494 g017
Table 1. Coordinates of observation data points.
Table 1. Coordinates of observation data points.
StationLongitude (°E)Latitude (°N)Observation InstrumentsMeasured Parameters
OB (Observation Point)120.3034.26KELLER Pressure Tide GaugeTidal Level
A1 (Validation Point)120.2934.34Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP)/OBS-3A Turbidimeter
RBR Concerto Turbidimeter		Velocity/
Direction/
Sediment Concentration
A2 (Validation Point)120.3134.32Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP)/OBS-3A Turbidimeter
RBR Concerto Turbidimeter		Velocity/
Direction/
Sediment Concentration
A3 (Validation Point)120.3134.31Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP)/OBS-3A Turbidimeter
RBR Concerto Turbidimeter		Velocity/
Direction/
Sediment Concentration
A4 (Validation Point)120.3034.30Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP)/OBS-3A Turbidimeter
RBR Concerto Turbidimeter		Velocity/
Direction/
Sediment Concentration
A5 (Validation Point)120.3234.29Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP)/OBS-3A Turbidimeter
RBR Concerto Turbidimeter		Velocity/
Direction/
Sediment Concentration
A6 (Validation Point)120.3434.29Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP)/OBS-3A Turbidimeter
RBR Concerto Turbidimeter		Velocity/
Direction/
Sediment Concentration
A7 (Validation Point)120.3034.29Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP)/OBS-3A Turbidimeter
RBR Concerto Turbidimeter		Velocity/
Direction/
Sediment Concentration
A8 (Validation Point)120.3034.28Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP)/OBS-3A Turbidimeter
RBR Concerto Turbidimeter		Velocity/
Direction/
Sediment Concentration
Note: The ocean current observation was conducted using an acoustic Doppler current profiler produced by Nortek, a company based in Norway.
Table 2. Comparison of harmonic constants at tide gauge stations.
Table 2. Comparison of harmonic constants at tide gauge stations.
StationTidal ConstituentObservedSimulatedAmplitude (cm)Phase Lag (°)
Phase Lag Difference
Amplitude (cm)		Phase Lag (°)Phase Lag Difference
Amplitude (cm)		Phase Lag (°)
OBQ12.3329.22.6327.4−0.21.8
O122.3329.422.3329.10.00.3
K120.237.918.936.21.31.8
N212.1208.116.5208.6−4.4−0.5
M283.3223.088.1224.2−4.8−1.2
S228.2290.831.0293.3−2.8−2.5
M423.111.412.739.410.4−28.0
MS419.886.113.5108.46.3−22.3
Table 3. Geographic coordinates of monitoring stations.
Table 3. Geographic coordinates of monitoring stations.
Station NameLongitudeLatitude
Jiangsu Binhai Statio120.2983° E34.26° N
Table 4. Monitoring results of punching pit depth development in Binhai Port Area.
Table 4. Monitoring results of punching pit depth development in Binhai Port Area.
Monitoring timeSeptember 20159 April 20169 May 2016
Maximum blunt depth/m−21.9−35.7−36.5
Table 5. Calculation time of each typhoon process.
Table 5. Calculation time of each typhoon process.
Typhoon NameCalculation Time (Beijing Time)
Lekima (LEKIMA)20:00 August 10–20:00 11 August 2019
Plum Blossom (Muifa)0:00 September 15–0:00 16 September 2022
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Deng, X.; Wang, Z.; Ma, X. Impact of Silted Coastal Port Engineering Construction on Marine Dynamic Environment: A Case Study of Binhai Port. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, 494. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse13030494

AMA Style

Deng X, Wang Z, Ma X. Impact of Silted Coastal Port Engineering Construction on Marine Dynamic Environment: A Case Study of Binhai Port. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 2025; 13(3):494. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse13030494

Chicago/Turabian Style

Deng, Xiaolong, Zhifeng Wang, and Xin Ma. 2025. "Impact of Silted Coastal Port Engineering Construction on Marine Dynamic Environment: A Case Study of Binhai Port" Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 13, no. 3: 494. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse13030494

APA Style

Deng, X., Wang, Z., & Ma, X. (2025). Impact of Silted Coastal Port Engineering Construction on Marine Dynamic Environment: A Case Study of Binhai Port. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 13(3), 494. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse13030494

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop