515
1 INTRODUCTION
According to Polish law, seaports that perform an
international logistics function are critical to the
countryʹs infrastructure. Understanding the
characteristics of waves in port areas, particularly
thoserelatedtoextremeevents,iscrucialforensuring
maritime safety, cargo handlinglogistics and design
assumptionsnecessary forstrength calculations.
The
Port of Gdynia is part of the 6th Trans‐European
Transport Network Corridor and is an important
element of the domestic import and export
infrastructure.AlthoughtheGdyniaPortisaninland
port and is protected by the Hel Peninsula, which
limitstherun‐upanddevelopmentofhigh
waves,in
theareaoftheGulfofGdańskwavescanexceed3m
[3, 4, 7, 14]. The highest maximum waves (99th
percentile) according to ERA5 re‐analysis, produced
by ECMWF (European Centre for Medium‐Range
Weather Forecasts) data from 1981‐2021 in this area
exceed 9.5 m. Similar
values, i.e. 9‐10 m, were
obtainedbyLeppäranta[11]andSoomere[15]inthe
southeasternpartoftheGulfofGdansk.Accordingto
calculated statistics based on meteorological data
from IMGW (Institute of Meteorology and Water
Management) and ERA5 re‐analysis the average
duration of the storm is over
98 hours. The average
heightofasignificantwaveonanannualbasisinthe
period1981‐2021intheGulfofGdańskis0.7m,inthe
stormyseason(September‐March)is0.8m,andinthe
stormlessseason(April‐August)itis0.5m[6].This
characteristic is
related to geographical conditions.
The Gulf of Gdańskis closed fromthenorth by the
Peninsula of Hel, from the south and west by land,
whiletheeasternpart remains open and adjoinsthe
waters of the open sea. The Gulf of Gdańsk is
dominated by winds from
the west and west‐north,
and as a consequence , the waves generated by the
windarecharacterizedbyasimilardistributionofthe
direction of wave propagation. Undoubtedly, an
essential role in the formation of extreme
hydrodynamicphenomenaisplayednotonlybythe
localandbyregionalclimate,including
theimpactof
NAO (North Atlantic oscillation), but also the
Waves, Currents and Seabed Level Change in the Port
of Gdynia During Extreme Events
P.Sapiega,T.Zalewska&A.Wochna
InstituteofMeteorologyandWaterManagement–NationalResearchInstitute,Gdynia,Poland
ABSTRACT:Theprimarypurposeofthepaperistoidentifyportareasmostexposedtoextremehydrodynamic
conditions (waves, sea currents, seabed level change). The results of modelling using SWAN wave model,
MIKE3Dmodel,andreanalysisandmeasurement
datawereusedinpaper.Swellmayexceed0.8mforwinds
exceeding15ms‐1fromthewestandsouth.Duringextremeconditions,seacurrentscanreach0.4ms
‐1
inthe
outerpartofthebayadjacenttotheport.Portbasinsdonotshowchangesinthethicknessoftheseabedforthe
givenmaximumvaluesofbottomcurrents.Themostextensivedepositionoftheseabedandshoresediments
(upto0.04m)isfoundon the Gdynia‐
Oksywie beach adjacenttotheportandtheapproachfairwayatthe
offshorecurrents.Theouterareaofthemainbreakwateristhemostexposedtoerosiveactivity(‐0.012m).
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 17
Number 3
September 2023
DOI:10.12716/1001.17.03.02
516
morphologyofthebottomandtheshapeofthecoast,
particularly in the vicinity of the port [13]. Previous
studies of wave run‐up in the Gdynia harbour area
have relied on semi‐empirical methods [20, 21] or
simulationsperformedonlow‐resolutiongrids,often
describingtheconditionsofthe
GulfofGdanskrather
than the harbour itself [5]. The complexity of
modelling in port areas is also due to the fact that
precisetoolsandadequateinputdataarerequiredfor
thispurpose,theresolutionofwhichcorrespondsto
theresolutionofthe computational grid without the
use of
inter‐ and extrapolation tools [12], and the
accuracyoftheinputdatatranslatesintotheaccuracy
of the simulations. In this study, the SWAN
(Simulating WAves Nearshore) model with a
computationalgridresolutionof5mx5mwasused,
whichgiveshighcomputationalaccuracyinallinner
harbour basins.
The high resolution of the
computationaldomainallowedfortheinclusionofall
piersandwharves,includingbreakwaters,whilethe
boundary conditions from thecoarsemodelallowed
foramoreaccuratesimulationinwhichwaverun‐up
isnotconstrained,asitcouldbeinamodelwithout
feedinginitial
conditionsfromanothermodel.Multi‐
pointmeasurementsofthedepthoftheharborseabed
allowed the construction of a bathymetric grid that
considers medium and small seabed formations,
which made it possible to perform simulations of
seabed thickness change. Simulations results of the
parameters of wind wave and swell, speed and
direction of sea currents, as well as the change in
seabedthickness,cancontributeto improvements in
theplanningofdredgingactivities,newinvestments,
andprotectionofthewaterfrontanditsinfrastructure.
The abilityto forecast the extreme values, including
the99thpercentileand100‐yrvaluereturn,willallow
tomakemoreaccuratecalculationsforestimatingthe
strengthofmarineandquaystructures.
2 METHODS
2.1 Studyarea
The study area is the port of Gdynia, located in the
centralpartoftheGulfofGdansk(Fig.1a).Theportis
locatedinthemajorpartofthecityand
covers755.4
hectares, ofwhichthelandareais508hectares.The
portʹs wharf is more than 17 km long, of which as
manyas11kmareusedfortransshipment.Formore
straightforward navigation, the generally accepted
nomenclature of port basin names was used to
characterize the parameters
described (Fig. 1b). The
port of Gdynia consists of 11 basins, as well as an
awanport and a main track that connects all the
basins. The port on the east side is bounded by a
breakwater with three culverts. Analyzing the
distribution of anemometric conditions used
measurement data from a station
located in the
southeastern part of the port, at the Ist. Presidental
basin.Atthesametime,theeasternboundaryofthe
domain (behind the breakwater) is the edge of the
boundary conditions implemented from a lower
resolution model and a spatially more extensive
domaincoveringthesouthernBalticSea.
Figure1.Studyarea:left–BalticSea(GulfofGdansk);right
–BasinsoftheportinGdynia
2.2 DescriptiontheMIKEmodel
MIKE 3D is a three‐dimensional numerical model
developed by the Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI)
for modelling many parameters of the aquatic
environment.Thispaperfocusesonmodellingocean
currents.MIKE3Disatoolthatsolvesthemomentum
andcontinuityprobleminthreeCartesiandirections.
The model simulates ocean currents by taking into
account the bathymetry of the bottom, density
changes and external forces such as meteorological
conditions (wind, atmospheric pressure) and other
hydrographicconditions.To analyzethedistribution
of sea currents, detailed bathymetric data obtained
from the Gdynia Port Authority was used, and an
irregulartriangulatedgridwas developed usingthis
datawithgradationalgriddensityinareasofcomplex
waterfront structures. The grid consists of approx.
6,000elements(Fig.2),andtenlayersofσareusedfor
verticaldescription.
Figure2. Triangular computational mesh with gradation
resolution
2.3 DescriptiontheSWANmodel
To analyze the spatial distribution of waves, the
SWAN model was used, a third‐generation model
that calculates wind‐generated wave parameters in
deepwater and nearshore zones. The study used
bathymetricdatafromthehydrographicworkofthe
GdyniaPortAuthority.Thecoastalconditionsatthe
easternboundaryoftheportdomainaretransmitted
from a coarse model with a southern Baltic domain
(Fig. 3a) and a resolution of about 1000 m. The
developed computational domain of the port witha
spatialresolutionof5meters(Fig.3b)allowsforthe
inclusion of all piers and
breakwaters, which are
essentialintheformation,extinctionandrefractionof
waves.Theboundaryconditionoftheportdomainis
the eastern boundary of the domain, behind the
breakwater(Fig.3a).Boththecoarsemodel,whichis
517
thesourceoftheboundaryconditionsandthetarget
model of Gdynia Harbor use a regular rectangular
computationalgrid.Themodel uses the ST6 physics
parameterization [16], and the coarse model was
verified with multi‐stream data sources in different
depthzones.
Figure3. Computational regular rectangular grid with a
resolutionof5m(right:zoom)
2.4 Observedandreanalyzedata
Thispaperusesanemometricmeasurementdatafrom
astationlocatednearthe1st.BasinPresidental(Fig.1)
andreanalysisdata[1]aretheinitialvaluestoanalyze
andlearnaboutthe99thPercentileand100‐yrreturn
value in the Gdynia port area. The analysis uses
measurement data from the last 15 years, i.e. 2006‐
2021,witha temporalresolutionof1h,andreanalysis
data from 1976‐2017 representing the historical
background, and 2041‐2100 is the prediction of the
wave regime. The period 2041‐2100 was chosen to
identify changes in the furthest possible period
availablethatmayshowless knownconditionsthan
theperiodbefore2041.Thereanalysisdataarepoint
data. Values from the point closest to the port of
Gdynia(aprox.2.70Nm)wereimplementedintothe
coarse model as initial conditions to determine the
changeinwaveconditions.
3 RESULTS
3.1 Wind
wavesconditions
Todeterminethewave conditionsinthe areaofthe
port of Gdynia, anemometric data from the period
2006‐2021fromtheneareststationlocatedatthebasin
ofthe1stPresidential..Basedonthem,thedominant
wind direction (277°‐winds blowing from the west
account for
as much as 31% of all wind directions)
andtheaverage(4.23ms
‐1
)andmaximum(19.6ms
‐1
)
windspeedweredetermined.Waveconditionswere
selectedfortheseconditions.Forthehighestrecorded
speeds,i.e.exceeding19ms
‐1
,wavesintheinnerpart
oftheportexceeded0.55minsignificantwaveheight,
especially in the area of the awanportand the main
track. The determined average wind speed
correspondstowaveconditionswithsignificantwave
height not exceeding 0.39 m. With the same wind
conditions,thesouthern
partsofthe1st‐2ndand4th‐
7th basins are characterized by smaller values of
significantwaveheightthantheinnerpartoftheport,
i.e. 0.375‐0.38 m. The lowest values, i.e. 0.35 m of
significantwaveheight,arecharacterizedbytheouter
areaoftheport,directlybehind
themainbreakwater,
and this is the result of wave run‐up attenuation in
the1st‐3rdbasinsatthebreakwaterperpendicularto
the direction of wave propagation (Fig. 4). The
hatchedareaisthewar port areaandwasexcluded
fromfurtheranalysis.
Figure4.Significantwaveheightformeanwindspeed(4.23
ms‐1)anddominantwinddirection(277°)
The values assimilated into the model are those
from the reanalysis (Tab.1) and include the
importanceoftheheightofthesignificantwave,not
the maximum, which is decidedly higher. The 99th
percentilewaveheightsofthesignificantwindsurge
andtherosette(Fig.5)arespatiallyclose.Theheight
of
the significant wind wave from the dominant
direction(277°)fortheforecastvalueforthe2041‐2100
perioddoesnotexceed1.7 minBasins 1st and2nd,
whileintheotherbasinsandtheawanportitisinthe
range of 1.75‐2.1 m. The highest values of the
swell
wavearecharacterizedbytheawanportandthetrack
and adjacent parts of the 4th‐9th basins, where the
value reaches up to 0.26 m. The smallest values of
significant wave height for both wind and swell
wavesareshownbytheareabehindthebreakwater,
wherethesevaluesdo
notexceed1.65mand0.21m,
respectively
Table1.Forecastedandhistoricalwaveparametersforthe
analysispointlocatedapprox.5kmfromthePortofGdynia
________________________________________________
period 99thpercentilevalue 100‐yrreturnvalue
________________________________________________
Hs 1976‐2017 2.23.8
2041‐2100 2.84.7
Tp 1976‐2017 10.113.9
2041‐2100 10.914.8
________________________________________________
The 100‐yr return value is a crucial value for
designersandengineers.Itisparticularlyimportantin
determiningtheboundaryparametersofwaveimpact
on hydraulic structures (Fig. 6). As with the 99th
percentile, the value from the reanalysis was
implemented into a coarse model and then fed into
the
boundary conditions of the port model. The
valuesintheonce‐in‐100‐yeareventaresignificantly
higherthantheextreme99thpercentile.Waveheight
valuesofasignificantwindwavefromtheprevailing
westerlywinddirectioncanreachupto3.6metersin
height,whileinthecaseof
aswell,itcanreachupto
1.2 meters. It should be taken into account that the
values given as initiating conditions are forecast
valuesderivedfromreanalysis.Inaddition,themodel
maynotcompletelyreflectactualconditions.Despite
such limitations, it is possible to identify the port
areasmostvulnerable
toabove‐averagewaves.
518
Figure5.99thpercentileofsignificantwaveheight fromthe
dominant direction: wind wave (left) and swell (right)
projectedfortheperiod2041‐2100
Figure6.100‐yrreturnvalueofsignificantwaveheightfrom
the dominant direction:windwave (left) and swell (right)
projectedfortheperiod2041‐2100
3.2 Swellcondtitions
Swell,whicharepost‐stormwavesmostoftencreated
whenwindsfromonedirectioninteract,canthreaten
moored vessels and ongoingunloading/loading. The
heightofthesignificantwaveisanessentialelement
thatiscrucialforshapingtheswellconditions.Swell
was determined for the highest projected significant
wave heights (100‐yr, 99th percentile). The highest
swellvaluesforboththe99thpercentile(upto0.26m)
andthe100‐yrreturnvalue(upto1.2m)occurredin
the4th‐7th basins,theawanport,andthemaintrack
(Figs. 5; 6). To identify the highest extreme values,
point data were extracted from reanalysis [1], and
99th percentile and 100‐yr return value values were
extractedfortheclosest point oftheport of Gdynia,
and these values were implemented as initial
conditionsinacoarsemodelsothattheresultsofthis
model could then feed as boundary
conditions into
the model in the port domain. Values were
determined for both the historical period 1976‐2017
andthepredictionperiod2041‐2100,whichmakesit
possibletotracepotentialchangesinthewaveregime
and identify the most vulnerable areas. In addition,
the paper analyzed simulations assuming four
scenariosinvolvingthehighestspeedscorresponding
tothefourmainwinddirections:N,S,W,andE(Fig.
7).Suchanalysiscanbehelpfulinplanningportand
othershipmaintenance/loadingoperationswherethe
wind direction forecast is known, and a high wind
speed warning has been issued. Variant (A) is
the
impact of the wind from the west (279°), where the
highest measured speed is 19.6 ms
‐1
. The most
exposed areas are the main harbor track and the
awanport,wherethewavesexceed0.6m.The1st‐3rd
basins and the southern parts of the 4th‐9th basins,
andtheareabehindthebreakwaterarecharacterized
by low values of swell wave heights, i.e. 0.3‐0.4 m
(Fig.7a).Variant(B)describesthespatialdistribution
ofswellwaveheightsforwindsfromthenorth(12°)
ataspeedof17.9ms
‐1
.AswithVariant(A),the4th‐
9th and awanport are the most vulnerable to high
waves, as these basins have relatively the longest
unrestricted wave run‐up. Variant (C) differs
dramaticallyfromthepreviousscenariosandpresents
a storm situation where the prevailing wind is an
easterlywind(102°)with
aspeedof15.1ms
‐1
.Higher
waverun‐upheightsinfrontofthebreakwateronthe
Gulfof Gdansk side are evident, where high waves,
i.e. 0.7 m, reach and break due to breakup by the
breakwater,hencebothhigherwaves0.65‐0.7mand
lowerwaves0.0‐0.2mareobservedatthis
location.In
the1st‐2ndbasins,theheightofthebreakingwaveis
intherangeof0.5‐0.7m,whileintherestoftheport
areas this value does not exceed 0.5 m (Fig. 7c). In
scenario (D), where the wind was inflicted from a
southerly direction (184°)
with the highest recorded
velocityfromthissectorofthedirection‐15.5ms
‐1
the
highest waves of the swellformed in the areas with
the largest unrestricted wave run‐up, i.e. parallel to
thebreakwateronthesideoftheGulfofGdansk,the
wavesatthislocationexceeded0.7m.Inotherparts
oftheport,theswellwas0.3‐0.6m
519
Figure7.Theheightoftheswellwaveduringhighestwind
speeds with corresponding wind directions: a) from the
south;b)fromthewest;c)fromthenorth;d)fromtheeast
3.3 Seacurrentsandseabedlevelchange
In the analysis of the distribution of surface sea
currentsgenerated,amongotherthings,bythewind,
two variants were calculated for the dominant
directionsofcurrentsoccurringinthispartoftheGulf
of Gdansk, i.e. from the south (longshore) and east
(offshore)
at a wind speed of 20 ms
‐1
. The selected
speed is the maximum value recorded by the
measuring stations locatedintheareaoftheportof
Gdynia. In both cases, the velocities of surface
currents reach up to about 0.40 ms
‐1
in the outer,
adjacenttotheport,partoftheGulfofGdanskand,in
thecaseofvariantB,alsointheawanportpart(Fig.8).
Variant A (longshore currents) is characterized by a
decrease in velocity and a multidirectional
distributionofcurrentsbehindthemainbreakwater,
which may
be due to wind resistance and the
extinctionoftheirvelocity.Inthe1st‐2ndbasins,the
currents are practically non‐existent, the simulated
value for both analyzed variants is in the range of
0.00‐0.04ms
‐1
.The3rdbasinandpartiallyinthe4th‐
7thbasinsadjacenttothemainrunway,reachspeeds
notexceeding0.12ms
‐1
invariantAand0.20ms
‐1
in
variantB.ThemainbreakwateroftheportofGdynia
isabarrierthatproperlyprotectstheportbasinsfrom
theeffectsofseacurrents,onlyapartoftheawanport,
duetoitsproximitytotheinfluenttrack,isexposedto
strongereffectsofhigherspeedsofsea
currents.
Intheanalysisofthechangeinseafloorthickness,
two dominant directions of bottom currentsand the
highest values of current velocity corresponding to
thesedirectionswereselected(Fig.9).Thefirstcaseis
that of bottom currents propagating from the south
(locallongshorecurrents),wherethehighestvalueof
thecurrentsʹvelocityis0.79ms
‐1
.Thesecondscenario
isthatofcurrentspropagatingfromtheeast(fromthe
sea/gulf),wherethehighestvelocityvalueis0.53ms
‐1
(Fig.9).Thesevaluesweresetasinitialvaluesinthe
dailysimulations.
Figure8. Spatial distribution of surface wind‐driven sea
currentswithaspeedof20m/sforthedominantdirections,
i.e.fromthesouth(a)andfromtheeast(b)
Figure9.Maximumvaluesofseabottomcurrentsvelocities
fordominantdirectionsofcurrentpropagation:a)0.79ms‐1
fromsouth;b)0.53ms‐1fromeast
Animportantelementinmodellingchangesinthe
thickness of the substrate is its geological structure
(Fig. 10). Based on the lithological map of PIG‐PIB
[10],thetypeofsubstrateoftheareasadjacenttothe
portwasdetermined.Mostofthesubstrateissand,to
alesserextentsandy
silt(Gdyniacitybeachadjacent
to the southern part of the port) and sandy gravels
(Gdynia‐Oksywiebeach).Alsomarginallypresentare
mudsandsiltswithadmixtureofgravel.Thevalueof
graindiameterwasdeterminedforeachfraction,and
so for gravel admixed with sand‐6.3 mm, sand
admixed
with gravel‐2.0 mm, medium sand‐0.63
mmandsiltysand‐0.063mm.Thefractionofsiltand
silt admixed with gravel was not included in the
analysis due to its borderline occurrence and
insignificant share. Medium‐grained sands were
assumedasthesubstrateoftheinnerpartoftheport.
520
Figure10.LithologyoftheseabedneartheportofGdynia
(basedonPIG‐PIB,2005)
The coast, including the port of Gdynia and its
vicinity shows a balance of shore erosion and
accumulation (< 1 m/year) and locally dominant
erosion(>1m/year)[18].Althoughthebottomofthe
GulfofGdanskischaracterizedbyasmallvariationin
the thickness of bottom sediments, i.e. about
2
mm/year [17,19] local values of changes in the
thicknessofthesubstrate,aftertheimpactofextreme
velocities ofbottomcurrents,indicateabove‐average
erosion and deposition, especially in
anthropogenically transformed areas. It should be
emphasized that the results presented here concern
extremeeventsthatrepresentaminorcontribution
to
the overall processes, which are compensated on a
longertimescale. The obtained simulation resultsof
both variants (Fig. 11), characterize ephemeral
phenomena and correspond to ongoing studies of
seabedsedimenttransportin theareaofthe Gulf of
Gdansk [2, 8, 9]. The first variant (A), which is an
analysis of the conditions for the change in the
thicknessoftheseabedcausedbylongshorecurrents,
doesnotshowmuchchangeinsidetheharbour(0.0‐
0.25 cm). Accumulative character of sediment
transport is characterized by the beach adjacent to
Gdynia‐Oksywie(northernpartoftheadjacentcoast),
where the
change in the thickness of the bottom
showsfrom0.5cmto2.0cmincrement,andlocallyon
thesouthernpartofthecoastadjacenttotheport(city
beach), where the increase in the thickness of
sedimentsafter24hoursofinfluenceofseacurrents
withaspeedof0.79
ms
‐1
isabout0.5cm.Theerosive
areaunderstronglongshorecurrentsisthepartofthe
seabedadjacenttothemainbreakwaterandthepart
ofthenorthcoastbehindtheincline.Erosioninthese
areasreachesvaluesofupto1.2cmofchangeinthe
thickness reduction of
the seabed after the daily
impact of the extreme values of the speed of the
currents of variant A. Variant B is characterized by
greater spatial variability and larger changes in
seabed sediment thickness, despite the fact that the
adopted speed of currents is lower compared to the
valueofScenario
A.Theinnerpartoftheportshows
littleor no changein seabed sediment thickness, i.e.
0.0‐0.4cm.Erosionalchangesoftheseabedoccuronly
on the marginal section of the northern coastline,
adjacent to Gdynia‐Oksywie. The farther part of the
coast, closer to the port, shows
a depositional
character(about3.0cmofincrement).Theareaofthe
approach track to the port, perpendicular to the
coastline,ischaracterizedbyaccumulativegrowthof
bottomsediments,i.e.about1.6cm.
Figure11. Change in thickness of seabed sediments
according to conditions A – alongshore currents and B –
fromtheopensea
4 SUMMARYANDDISCUSSION
High‐resolution modelling with the use of
appropriate tools can be an important tool in
simulatinghazardoushydrodynamicphenomenaand
their effects, which must be taken into account in
futureplanning of port expansion, wharf protection,
dredging works, the reception of bulky vessels into
theportand
theberthingandunloadingofships,as
wellasinadaptationmeasures.Thepapershowsthat
simulationscalculatedusingtheMIKE3Dmodel(sea
currents, change in seabed thickness) and SWAN
(wind and swell waves) are an important source of
information in forecasting potential hazards. This
paperpresentsthecharacterization
ofthewindsurge
in the Gdynia post area, including the prediction of
extreme conditions. The forecasting of swell was
carried out for four scenarios, which include the
521
maximum values of wind speed measured at the
stationlocatedinthesouthernpartoftheportaswell
as for the extreme values of significant wave height
determined on the basis of reanalysis taking into
account the prediction for the period 2041‐2100. In
addition,thepaperincludesan
analysisofthespatial
distributionofseacurrentsintheareaoftheportof
Gdyniaandthechangeinthethicknessoftheseabed
causedbytheextremevaluesofthespeedofbottom
currents. Both of these factors, directly affect the
change in the shape of the seabed,
and thus the
conditions in the dredged waterways and the
potentialreleaseofhazardouspollutantsaccumulated
in port sediments.Knowing the detailed
characteristicsofwaveandseacurrentsineachbasin
under extreme storm conditions allows preventive
measures to be taken that can negate damage from
inadequate ship mooring and coastal
protection
safeguards, as well as support the decision‐making
process for ship traffic in the port. Knowing the
extremevalues,especiallythevaluesinaonce‐in‐100‐
yeareventcanbecrucialfor strength calculationsof
shoreline structures and infrastructure. The most
exposedpartoftheport,underextreme
conditions,is
the awanport (outport), where the speed of wind‐
generated currents (20 ms
‐1
) can reach 0.4 ms
‐1
. The
largestchangeinthethicknessofseabedsedimentsin
the case of the scenario assuming daily impact of
longshorecurrentswithaspeedof0.79ms
‐1
occurred
intheareaofthenorthernpartofthecoastadjacentto
theport(Gdynia‐Oksywiebeach),wheretherewasan
increaseinthicknessfrom0.5 cm to 2 cm, whilethe
largest erosion transport occurred at the main
breakwater. Currents from the eastern direction
(transport from the sea)
were characterized by
sedimentaccumulation(+2.0‐2.5cm)inthevicinityof
theportʹsapproachtrack.Itshouldbenotedthatthe
simulation assumed a daily impact of such strong
currents,whichintheactualdistributionrepresenta
small share and are ephemeral in nature, and the
sedimentological environment
of the seabed
maintains the balance of erosion‐accumulation
balanceonalongertimescale.
REFERENCES
[1]C3S: Caires, S., and Yan, K. 2020. Ocean surface wave
indicators for the European coast from 1977 to 2100
derived from climate projections. Copernicus Climate
Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS).
(AccessedonDD‐MMM‐YYYY),10.24381/cds.1a072dd6
[2]Cieślak, A., 1985. Ruch rumowiska wzdłuż wybrzeża
Polski
[Sediment motion along the coast of Poland],
PraceInstytutuMorskiego690.Gdańsk
[3]Cieślikiewicz, W., Herman, A. 2001. Wind wave
modelling overtheBalticSeaandthe Gulfof Gdańsk.
Inż.Mor.Geotech22,4,173‐184(inPolish)
[4]CieślikiewiczW.,HermanA.2002.
Numericalmodelling
ofwavesandcurrentsovertheBalticSeaandtheGulfof
Gdańsk.
[5]Cieślikiewicz W., Dudkowska A., Gic‐Grusza G. 2016.
PortofGdańskandPortofGdyniaʹsexposuretothreats
resultingfrom stormextremes.JournalofPolishSafety
and Reliability Association, Summer Safety and
ReliabilitySeminars,2016,vol.7,no.1,pp.29‐36
[6]CopernicusClimateChangeService(C3S)(2017):ERA5:
Fifth generation of ECMWF atmospheric reanalyses of
theglobalclimate.CopernicusClimateChangeService
Climate Data Store (CDS), date of access.
https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/home
[7]Cupial A., Cieslikiewicz W. 2020. Characteristics of
extreme
wind wave events in the Gulf of Gdańsk and
associated atmospheric conditions over the Baltic Sea.
ConferencePaper,EGU2020.
[8]Dudkowska A., Gic‐Grusza G. 2017. Wave‐induced
bedload transport – a study of the southern Baltic Sea
coastalzone.Geologos23,1.doi:10.1515/logos‐2017‐0001
[9]Gic‐Grusza,
G. & Dudkowska, A., 2014. Modeling of
wind wave induced sediment transport in the coastal
zone of Polish marine areas (Southern Baltic). Baltic
nternational Symposium (BALTIC), 2014 IEEE/OES,
Tallin,1–5.
[10]JeglińskiW.,UścinowiczS.,KramarskaR.,Przezdziecki
P., 2012.Mapa geologiczna polskich obszarów
morskich.PIG‐PIB.
[11]
Leppäranta M.,Myrberg, K. 2009. Physical
Oceanography of the BalticSea. Springer‐Verlag Berlin
Heidelberg
[12]LiuzhiZhao,VijayPanchang,WChen,ZDemirbilek,N
Chhabbra,2001. Simulationofwavebreakingeffectsin
two‐dimensional elliptic harbor wave models, Coastal
Engineering, Volume 42, Issue 4, Pages 359‐373, ISSN
0378‐3839,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378‐3839(00)00069‐7.
[13]Miętus M., Filipiak J., Owczarek M.2004. Klimat
wybrzeża południowego Bałtyku. Stan obecny i
perspektywy zmian [w:]Cyberski J.(red.)Środowisko
polskiej strefy południowego Bałtyku‐stan obecny i
przewidywane zmiany w przededniu integracji
europejskiej,GTNGdańsk,s.11‐44
[14]Róż
yńskiG.2010.WaveClimateintheGulfofGdańsk
vs.OpenBalticSeanearLubiatowo,Poland.Archivesof
Hydro‐EngineeringandEnvironmentalMechanics57,2,
167‐176.
[15]Soomere T., Behrens A., Tuomi L. et al. 2008.Wave
conditionsintheBalticProperandintheGulfofFinland
during
windstormGudrun.NaturalHazardsandEarth
SystemScience,CopernicusPublicationsonbehalfofthe
EuropeanGeosciencesUnion.8,1,37‐46.
[16]SapiegaP.,ZalewskaT.,StruzikP.2023.Applicationof
SWANmodelforwaveforecastinginthesouthernBaltic
Seasupplementedwithmeasurementandsatellitedata,
Environmental Modelling &
Software, 105624, ISSN
1364‐8152,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2023.105624.
[17]Uścinowicz S., 1997, The Gdańsk Basin, Prz. Geol., 45
(6),589–594,(inPolish)
[18]WeisseR.,DailidieneI.,HünickeB.,KahmaK.,Madsen
K.,OmstedtA.,ParnellK.,SchöneT.,SoomereT.,Zhang
W., Zorita E. 2021. Sea level dynamics and coastal
erosion intheBalticSea region. arth Syst. Dynam., 12,
871–898,https://doi.org/10.5194/esd‐12‐871‐2021
[19]Zalewska T., Przygrodzki P., Suplińska M., Saniewski
M., 2020, Geochronology of the southern Baltic Sea
sediments derived from 210Pb dating, Quaternary
Geochronology56(2020)101039.
[20]Zeidler, R. B. (Ed.). 1992. Assessment of
the
vulnerabilityofPoland`scoastalareasto sealevel rise.
H*T*S*.Gdańsk.165.
[21]Zeidler, R. B., Wróblewski, A., Miętus, M. et al. 1995.
Wind,waveandstormsurgeregimeatthePolishBaltic
coast. Polish coast: past, present, future. J. Coastal Res
22,33‐55.
