Sandbanks for coastal protection:

implications of sea-level rise

Part 2: current and morphological modelling��

Cui-Ping Kuang, Peter Stansby

February 2006

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper 87

Sandbanks for coastal protection:
implications of sea-level rise
Part 2: current and morphological
modelling

Cui-Ping Kuang, Peter Stansby

Manchester Centre for Civil and Construction Engineering,

UMIST, Manchester M60 1QD, UK

Tyndall Centre Working Paper No. 87

SUMMARY
The finite-element shallow-water solver TELEMAC-2D is applied to tidal flows in a
region off the coast of East Anglia, UK, as shown in Part 1, for a period of 216 hours in
year 2000. Boundary conditions for surface elevation and depth-averaged velocity are
provided by the UK continental shelf model CS3 of the Proudman Oceanographic
Laboratory, which uses a grid with about 11 km in the longitudinal and 18 km in the
latitudinal directions. Digitised bathymetry from Admiralty charts was provided by
METOC Ltd. under license. There is good prediction of tidal level measurement at
Lowestoft provided by the British Oceanographic Data Centre. The sediment transport
module SISYPHE is used to model morphodynamic change, assuming zero sediment flux
gradient at the outer boundaries. Results showed a small net increase in sediment volume
in the region, but importantly showed local regions of marked accretion on certain
sandbanks, notably Scroby bank, mainly due to suspended sediment transport. The effect
of Coriolis forcing is investigated. The aim of this Part is: to describe the methodology,
including data management; deduce, as far as possible, the significant physical
phenomena; determine qualitative effects; and discuss modelling limitations.

1. INTRODUCTION
In this Part we are concerned with the methodology for sediment transport and
morphodynamics driven by tidal currents for a coastal region off East Anglia, UK. In Part
1 results showed how increasing the bed level of sandbanks could be a means of
increasing the dissipation of wave energy important with sea-level rise. This bed level
increase might, for example, be achieved by dumping dredged material. It is important
that such material is not eroded away and, if tidal action causes accretion, this can only
happen due to wave action. The prediction of sediment transport on sandbanks due to
wave action remains quite uncertain, e.g. Williams et al.1. Although sediment transport
due to tidal action is a more mature area of prediction, there are still uncertainties and in
this study we are interested in relative, rather than accurate quantitative, predictions.

The finite-element TELEMAC software system is used. The unstructured mesh with
triangular cells is readily adapted to arbitrary geometries. The software was developed by
the National Hydraulics Laboratory (LNH) of the Research and Studies Directorate of the
French Electricity Board (EDF-DER) and is licensed in the UK through HR Wallingford.
The TELEMAC system provides grid generation, solvers for current and wave flows and
for sediment transport and morphodynamics, and data processing, for shallow-water
flows typical of fluvial, estuarine and coastal domains. For tidal currents the depth-
averaged code TELEMAC-2D is used. The module SISYPHE is used for sediment
transport.

2. THEORY OF CURRENT MODELLING

2.1. Mathematical Formulation
The two-dimensional Saint-Venant equations are solved by TELEMAC-2D. They are
derived from the Navier-Stokes and continuity equations by taking vertical averages. This
necessitates the assumptions of hydrostatic pressure and negligible vertical acceleration.
The water depth and the depth-averaged velocity are the main variables, with empirical
formulations for turbulence effects. A Cartesian reference frame (Shown in Figure 1, see
Appendix) is used, where the x and y axes define the horizontal plane and gravity acts in
the negative z direction. The equations are solved in non-conservation form, which can
be expressed as:

Continuity:
∂h → → →
+ u grad (h) + h div ( u ) = 0
∂t

Momentum:
∂u ∂u ∂u ∂Z 1 →
+u +v = −g + Fx + div(hν e grad u )
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂x h
∂v ∂v ∂v ∂Z 1 →
+ u + v = −g + Fy + div(hν e grad v)
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂y h
where h, u and v are water depth and velocity components in x and y directions
respectively. Z is the free surface elevation. ν e is the (kinematic) eddy viscosity defining

horizontal diffusion, and often also represents the effect of dispersion (due to the vertical
variation of velocity). Fx and Fy are forces in x and y directions, including bottom friction,
Coriolis forcing and the influence of the wind and atmospheric pressure.

2.2. Numerical Scheme and Model Parameters

The above equations were discretised as finite elements of triangular form and solved
using the fractional step method. The first step is for advection, using the SUPG (Stream
Upwind Petrov Galerkin) scheme for velocity and a mass conservative scheme without
sub-iterations for depth. The second step is for diffusion and source terms (i.e. terms
other than the advection terms), using the GMRES (Generalised Minimum RESidual)
solver with a Krylov space dimension of 3. An iteration accuracy of 10−4 was used and if
this was not achieved within 70 iterations (generally during start up) the computation
proceeded to the next step.

−1
For this study a Manning’s coefficient of 0.02 m 3 s for bottom friction will be seen to
give good predictions of tidal levels at Lowestoft. A constant Coriolis force with Coriolis
coefficient (f) 1.153×10-4 N m-1 s was used, given by the formula f = 2ϖ sin λ , where ϖ

is the angular velocity of the earth with value of 7.292×10-5 rad/s and λ is the average
latitude in the computational domain. An implicit coefficient of 0.6 was used for water
depth and velocity (1.0 being fully implicit and 0.0 being fully explicit). Mass balance
was checked at each time step.

The Elder model is used to represent longitudinal dispersion in the turbulence model for
horizontal diffusion with an eddy viscosity coefficient, K l = alU * h , where U * is the

friction velocity and al is the longitudinal dispersion coefficient, given a value of 6.

Transverse mixing is defined by the depth-averaged eddy viscosity, K t = atU *h with

at = 0.6 . Longitudinal and transverse here are with respect to the local flow direction and

the al and at given are default values.

2.3. Boundary Conditions and Bathymetry

The Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory (POL) provided, under licence, hourly surface
levels and velocities at 32 points on the grid shown in Fig.1 of Part 1 from their
continental shelf model CS3 for year 2000. Digitised bathymetry from Admiralty charts
was provided by METOC Ltd., also under licence. The coastline (assumed to be at the
LAT) is derived manually from the digitized bathymetry. The bathymetry data used in the
computational domain is derived using a simple self-written Fortran program and
changed to SINUSX data format that can be read by MATISSE. The computational mesh
and bathymetry data file used by TELEMAC-2D and SISYPHE are created by
MATISSE, as shown in Part 1. The datum of water surface level in CS3 is mean sea level
(MSL), while the bathymetry datum for this region is the lowest astronomical tide (LAT)
level at Lowestoft. A constant of 1.61m is added to surface levels in CS3 to convert from
MSL to LAT. This constant is based on tidal levels at Lowestoft since 1976. The surface
levels and velocities at all open boundary mesh points (shown in Fig.3 of Part 1) were
linearly interpolated from the data of CS3. This may introduce some inconsistency in
both water elevation and velocity at the boundary points. This is corrected using the
Thompson2 technique giving corrected values of velocity. To cover typical spring and
neap tides the simulation is started on 1st August, 2000 at 22.00 hours and finishes on 10th
August, 2000 at 19.00 hours, a simulation period of 213 hours. The time step is 20
seconds, giving a maximum Courant number of less than 0.3. The CPU time in a 1GHz
Intel Pentium 4 was about 10 hours.

3. APPLICATION OF CURRENT MODELLING TO EAST ANGLIA

The bathymetry and mesh are shown in Figs.2 and 3 of Part 1. Fig.2 shows the
comparison of the computed and measured water surface levels at Lowestoft. The
measured tidal levels were provided by BODC (British Oceanographic Data Centre). The
differences between computed and measured values are less than 6%. Another two
−1 −1
simulations with a Manning’s friction coefficient of 0.015 m 3 s and 0.025 m 3 s were
made, giving a difference in computed water surface levels of less than 10%, indicating
that these results are quite insensitive to Manning’s friction coefficient in this range. The
computed water levels and velocities at 8 selected internal points (shown in Figs.1 and 2
of Part 1) are shown in Fig.3 for comparison with those from the CS3 model. The tidal
period is about 12.5 hours. In general the maximum ebb velocities occur within one hour
either side of low tides on the South/North boundaries and the maximum flood velocities
within one hour of high tides on these boundaries. The maximum differences in velocity
magnitude are less than 4% except at points 6 and 8, where they are about 10% and 15%
respectively. There is complex bathymetry around points 6 and 8 (shown in Fig.2 of Part
1) which is less well resolved by the coarse grid of the CS3 model, the grid size being
about 15 km, than the TELEMAC-2D mesh which has a grid size of about 1km in this
region. The major differences are in the smaller u-components while the much larger v-
components, which are in the prominent ebb/flood (North/South) directions, are in close
agreement. The u-components have a prominent mean component in TELEMAC-2D
while the magnitudes of velocity amplitude are very similar in CS3. The u- and v-
components for both TELEMAC-2D and CS3 are always in phase. Fig.4 shows
computed velocity vector fields at four typical times (slack tide from flood to ebb,
maximum ebb, slack from ebb to flood, and maximum flood) from TELEMAC-2D.
There is some evidence of recirculations and wake behaviour in the Scroby area which is
quite complex. This appears to relate to the u-components from TELEMAC-2D being
much less than from CS3 which will not resolve such small-scale flow features with its
coarse mesh.

4. MORPHODYNAMIC MODELLING
4.1. Mathematical Formulation
The conservation form of the bottom evolution equation is given by
∂Z f →
+ div(Qs ) = 0
∂t
where Zf is the bottom elevation and Qs the solid volume transport per unit width as a
function of porosity. This is defined by standard sediment transport formulae in which
friction velocity is determined from output stored from TELEMAC-2D at hourly
intervals. These formulae are strictly valid for equilibrium conditions. The transport is
assumed to adapt instantaneously to the driving hydrodynamics without feedback, which
is adequate for small changes in bed level. The bed elevation is updated through the
above equation, which is solved by the module SISYPHE, at each time step. Meanwhile,
the currents from the TELEMAC-2D data file are also updated. SISYPHE is set up for
non-cohesive sediments of uniform size with diameters ranging from 0.1mm to 4 mm.

4.2 Numerical Scheme, Model Parameters and Boundary Conditions

SISYPHE makes use of the same finite-element mesh as TELEMAC-2D. The equation is
solved with a predictor-corrector scheme. This scheme can be split into three steps:
predictor step, corrector step and final step. The predictor step is solved through a finite
element method using the GMRES (Generalised Minimum RESidual) solver with a
Krylov space dimension of 3, as used in the second step for diffusion and source terms in
current modelling. For the corrector step, the sediment transport can be computed from
the assessment of the bottom depth at the end of the time step in the predictor step. The
implicit coefficient is again 0.6 as used in TELEMAC-2D. The final step is solved like
the predictor step.

Based on the reports, “South of North Sea Survey” by British Geological Survey in 19983
and “Understanding the behavior and engineering significance of offshore and coastal
sand banks” by HR Wallingford in 20014, the bed sediment varies from sand to
sand/gravel in the region of study. We are concerned with the morphodynamics of the
Scroby bank which has an average diameter of 0.4 mm and this was assumed for the
whole region. The densities of water and sediment are 1000 and 2665 kg/m3 respectively.

The same period in year 2000 was used as for TELEMAC-2D. As stated above, the
computed water depth and velocity at each grid node stored for hourly intervals in the
results file from TELEMAC-2D were used as the input current condition. A solid
boundary was used for the coastline and zero normal gradient sediment flux (free
boundary conditions) for the outer boundaries. The region was thus modelled as a box
independent of adjoining coastal regions. Although the time step was generally one hour
for computation of the bottom elevation, smaller time steps were also tested and showed
no effect on the results for sediment transport and bottom evolution.

4.3 Computational Results Using Different Sediment Transport Formulae

The sediment transport modelling was started 6 hours later than the current modelling,
and continued for a period of 200 hours, including 8 spring tides and 8 neap tides. The
standard Engelund-Hansen formula and Einstein-Brown formula were chosen for
sediment transport. The former includes bed load and suspended load, driven by depth-
averaged velocities, while the latter only gives bed load. Fig.5 shows computed bed
evolution fields (change in bed elevation) at the end of the computation period (after 200
hours), using the Engelund-Hansen formula (Fig.5a) and Einstein-Brown formula
(Fig.5b). Both show the major changes on and around the Scroby sandbank; the bed
levels increase in some places, and decrease in others. This is demonstrated in Fig.6
which shows time series of bed level evolution at three selected points (triangles in Fig.2
of Part 1) where the bed level increases, decreases, and is almost constant. Fig.7 shows
the time series of sediment volume in the whole domain using the Engelund-Hansen
formula. It can be seen that the net volume increases as the amount of sediment entering
the domain from the outer water body is greater than that leaving the domain. The
sediment mainly enters the domain during flood periods and leaves the domain during
ebb periods. This is more marked during spring tides. The average bed level growth,
averaged over the whole domain, is shown in Table 1. These average bed evolutions for a
flood, ebb and tidal period are 0.01952, -0.00942 and 0.01010 mm respectively, over the
period of 200 hours. The computed time series of sediment volume in the whole domain
using the Einstein-Brown formula is shown in Figure 8 to be similar to that using the
Engelund-Hansen formula, but with a much smaller growth rate. The average bed
evolutions, averaged over the whole domain, for a flood, ebb and tidal period are
0.00165, 0.00004 and 0.00168 mm respectively. The growth rate for bed load only is thus
about 1/6 of the total (due to suspended and bed load). So the suspended sediment
entering the domain under flood conditions is major contribution to the overall bed level
growth.

It is of interest to test the influence of Coriolis force which is known theoretically to

cause accretion of idealized, isolated sandbanks, e.g. Roos and Hulscher5. Coriolis causes
a residual circulation around a sandbank with the inwards centrifugal force (towards the
middle of the bank) moving sediment inwards. The tidal flow is recomputed with Coriolis
force set to zero in TELEMAC-2D and the morphological changes are computed using
the Engelund-Hansen formula. The computed time series of sediment volume in the
whole domain is shown in Fig.9. There is a significant difference from that including the
Coriolis force. The sediment leaves the domain during the second half of the ebb period
and the first half of flood period in spring tides, while it almost always leaves the domain
in neap tides. The average bed evolutions, averaged over the whole domain, for a flood,
ebb and tidal period are 0.01565, -0.01650 and –0.00085 mm respectively. The Coriolis
force thus causes the overall growth rates in the computational domain to be decreased
instead of increased.

The average bed level growth over the Scroby sandbank is shown in Table 2 and the
average bed level growth over the top of the Scroby sandbank in the range x:52000-
54000 m, y: 65000-71500 m is shown in Table 3. The comparison of time series of bed
evolution with and without Coriolis force at three selected points over Scroby sandbank
using the Engelund-Hansen formula is shown in Fig.10. It shows the Coriolis force
causes slightly increased accretion over the Scroby sandbank. The average bed level
growth over the offshore sandbank (north) and over the nearshore sandbank (south) is
given in Table 4 and 5. The computed sediment volume and average evolution over the
offshore sandbank (north) and nearshore sandbank (south) are shown in Fig.11.

The effect of mesh size is also tested. Fig.12 shows of time series of sediment volume
and average bed evolution above the –5 m level on the Scroby sandbank using the fine
mesh (as generally used in this paper), middle or intermediate mesh ( where the cell size
varies from 360-1530m) and a coarse mesh (with a cell size of about 1000 m). The results
for the fine and intermediate mesh are quite close, indicating numerical convergence,
while those for the coarse mesh are markedly different. This is consistent with the
wake/recirculating flows around sandbanks being resolved by the finer meshes but not by
the coarse mesh.

For the assumed a sea-level rise of 1 m, the computed time series of sediment volume and
average bed evolution above the –5 m level on the Scroby sandbank is shown in Fig.13.
The average bed evolutions for a flood, ebb and tidal period are changed from –0.591 to –
0.646 mm, -0.708 to –0.511 mm and –1.299 to –1.158 mm respectively.

Table 1. Computed average bed growth rate (mm/period) on the whole computational
domain
Cases Flood period Ebb period Tidal period

Engelund-Hansen formula with Coriolis force 0.01952 -0.00942 0.01010

Einstein-Brown formula with Coriolis force 0.00165 0.00004 0.00168

Engelund-Hansen formula without Coriolis force 0.01565 -0.01650 -0.00085

Table 2. Computed average bed growth rate (mm/period) on the Scroby sandbank
Cases Flood period Ebb period Tidal period

Engelund-Hansen formula with Coriolis force -0.591 -0.708 -1.299

Einstein-Brown formula with Coriolis force -0.369 -0.128 -0.497

Engelund-Hansen formula without Coriolis force -0.746 -0.551 -1.297

Table 3. Computed average bed growth rate (mm/period) on the top part of the Scroby
sandbank
Cases Flood period Ebb period Tidal period
 Engelund-Hansen formula with Coriolis force 0.204 0.234 0.438

Einstein-Brown formula with Coriolis force 0.0450 0.133 0.178

Engelund-Hansen formula without Coriolis force 0.206 0.243 0.448

Table 4. Computed average bed growth rate (mm/period) on the offshore (north)
sandbank
Cases Flood period Ebb period Tidal period

Engelund-Hansen formula with Coriolis force -1.062 -1.256 -2.318

Einstein-Brown formula with Coriolis force -0.429 -0.911 -1.330

Engelund-Hansen formula without Coriolis force -0.848 -1.066 -1.913

Table 5. Computed average bed growth rate (mm/period) on the nearshore (south)
sandbank
Cases Flood period Ebb period Tidal period

Engelund-Hansen formula with Coriolis force -0.210 -0.187 -0.397

Einstein-Brown formula with Coriolis force -0.087 -0.145 -0.192

Engelund-Hansen formula without Coriolis force -0.148 -0.113 -0.261

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Tidal flow simulations have been undertaken for a coastal region off East Anglia using
boundary conditions from the UK continental shelf model CS3 of POL and digitized
Admiralty bathymetry from METOC Ltd, both available under licence. The vertical
datum is different for both, being MSL for CS3 and LAT for the bathymetry. This was
not a problem for the region under consideration as the LAT datum for Lowestoft applies
everywhere. However difficulties can arise where different LAT datums apply within a
region and the boundaries are not clear. These input data were assimulated by
TELEMAC-2D which produced accurate predictions of tidal levels measured at
Lowestoft (available from BODC), with a constant Manning friction coefficient of
−1
0.02 m 3 s . While such accurate prediction may appear reassuring, further data,
particularly velocity data, is necessary for more complete assessment. It is notable that in
a local area of relatively shallow flow over complex bathymetry, over the Scroby Bank,
wake/recirculation type flows were sometimes observed with TELEMAC-2D but not
with the CS3 model with a much coarser mesh. The details of such flows clearly affect
sediment transport and morphodynamics and it is stressed that, for this study, we are
concerned with qualitative effects, in particular whether sandbanks, or parts thereof,
accrete or erode. The sediment transport/morphodynamics study using the SISYPHE
module, driven by TELEMAC-2D, shows that sediment load is mainly suspended rather
than bed load. Coriolis forcing has an effect on the average accretion within the whole
domain and can increase accretion slightly in shallow-water areas. There are local areas
on Scroby bank, which accrete significantly and are thus most suitable as a first choice
for sediment dumping to increase bed level for potential coastal protection from wave
action. However there appears to be no well-defined experimental data on such sandbank
morphodynamics for the validation of numerical models. Notably Stansby6 has shown
how wake behaviour can be quite sensitive to length scales in 3-D turbulence modelling
and this will influence morphodynamics. Of course TELEMAC-2D has a simplistic
approach to turbulence, appropriate for large-scale regional modeling, and the numerical
convergence achieved here should not be confused with simulation accuracy.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work (Tyndall project IT 1.37) is part of a larger project ‘towards an integrated
regional coastal simulator for the impact of sea-level rise in East Anglia’ and has been
funded through the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

7. REFERENCES

1. Williams, J.J., MacDonald, N.J., O’Connor,B.A. and Pan.S 2000 Offshore sand bank
dynamics, J. Marine Systems, 24, 153-173.

2. Thompson, K.W., 1987 Time dependent boundary conditions for hyperbolic systems.
J. Comp. Phys., 68, pp 1-24.

3. Evans C.D.R., Crosby A., Wingfield R.T.R., James, J.W.C., Slater M.P. and Newsham
R. Inshore seabed characterization of selected sectors of the English coast. British
Geological Survey, 1998, Technical Report WB/98/45.

4. Whitehouse R.J.S. Understanding the behavior and engineering significance of

offshore and coastal sand banks. HR Wallingford, 2001, Report SR 512

5.Roos,P.C. and Hulscher,S.J.M.H. 2002 Finite amplitude sandbanks, 28th Int. Conf. On
Coastal Engineering, ASCE, Cardiff.

6. Stansby, P.K. 2003 A mixing length model for shallow turbulent wakes, to appear J.
Fluid Mech., also IAHR Symp. On Shallow Flows, Delft, 16-18 June.
APPENDIX

h: water Z: free surface elevation

Y
Zf: bottom elevation

Fig.1 Schematic diagram of Cartesian coordination system

Fig.2. Comparison of computed and measured (from BODC) water surface levels at
Lowestoft
Fig.3. Comparison of computed water surface levels and velocities with those from CS3
at selected points 1 to 8, shown in Fig.1 in Part 1.
Fig.4. Computed velocity field at four typical times (slack from flood to ebb, maximum ebb,
slack from ebb to flood, maximum flood)
 (a) (b)

Fig.5. Bed evolution field at T = 206 h: a) using the Engelund-Hansen formula; b) using
the Einstein-Brown formula

Fig.6. Time series of bed evolution at three selected points around Scroby sandbank,
shown by triangles in Fig.2 in Part 1, using the Engelund-Hansen formula.
Fig.7. Time series of sediment volumes in the entire domain using the Engelund-Hansen
formula.
Fig.8. Time series of sediment volumes in the entire domain using the Einstein-Brown
formula.
Fig.9. Time series of sediment volumes in the entire domain using the Engelund-Hansen
formula without Coriolis forcing.
Fig.10 Comparison of time series of bed evolution with and without Coriolis forcing at
three selected points over Scroby sandbank, shown by triangles in Fig.2 in Part1, using
the Engelund-Hansen formula.
Fig.11 Time series of computed sediment volume, above the –5m level, and average bed
level over the offshore sandbank (north) and nearshore sandbank (south)
Fig.12 Comparison of time series of sediment volume, above the –5m level, and average
bed level on the Scroby sandbank using the fine, middle (intermediate) and coarse mesh.
Fig.13 Comparison of time series of sediment volume, above the –5m level, and average
bed evolution on the Scroby sandbank with tidal levels of year 2000 and with a
superimposed sea level rise of 1 m.
The trans-disciplinary Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research undertakes integrated research into the
long-term consequences of climate change for society and into the development of sustainable responses
that governments, business-leaders and decision-makers can evaluate and implement. Achieving these
objectives brings together UK climate scientists, social scientists, engineers and economists in a unique
collaborative research effort.
Research at the Tyndall Centre is organised into four research themes that collectively contribute to all
aspects of the climate change issue: Integrating Frameworks; Decarbonising Modern Societies; Adapting to
Climate Change; and Sustaining the Coastal Zone. All thematic fields address a clear problem posed to
society by climate change, and will generate results to guide the strategic development of climate change
mitigation and adaptation policies at local, national and global scales.
The Tyndall Centre is named after the 19th century UK scientist John Tyndall, who was the first to prove the
Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in atmospheric composition could bring
about climate variations. In addition, he was committed to improving the quality of science education and
knowledge.
The Tyndall Centre is a partnership of the following institutions:
University of East Anglia
UMIST
Southampton Oceanography Centre
University of Southampton
University of Cambridge
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
SPRU – Science and Technology Policy Research (University of Sussex)
Institute for Transport Studies (University of Leeds)
Complex Systems Management Centre (Cranfield University)
Energy Research Unit (CLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory)
The Centre is core funded by the following organisations:
Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC)
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
UK Government Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)

For more information, visit the Tyndall Centre Web site (www.tyndall.ac.uk) or contact:
Communications Manager
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
Phone: +44 (0) 1603 59 3900; Fax: +44 (0) 1603 59 3901
Email: tyndall@uea.ac.uk
Tyndall Working Papers are available online at
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/working_papers/working_papers.shtml

Mitchell, T. and Hulme, M. (2000). A Country-by- Köhler, J.H., (2002). Long run technical change
Country Analysis of Past and Future Warming in an energy-environment-economy (E3)
Rates, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 1. model for an IA system: A model of
Kondratiev waves, Tyndall Centre Working Paper
Hulme, M. (2001). Integrated Assessment
15.
Models, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 2.
Adger, W.N., Huq, S., Brown, K., Conway, D. and
Berkhout, F, Hertin, J. and Jordan, A. J. (2001).
Hulme, M. (2002). Adaptation to climate
Socio-economic futures in climate change
change: Setting the Agenda for Development
impact assessment: using scenarios as
Policy and Research, Tyndall Centre Working
'learning machines', Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 16.
Paper 3.
Dutton, G., (2002). Hydrogen Energy
Barker, T. and Ekins, P. (2001). How High are
Technology, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 17.
the Costs of Kyoto for the US Economy?,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 4. Watson, J. (2002). The development of large
technical systems: implications for hydrogen,
Barnett, J. (2001). The issue of 'Adverse Effects
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 18.
and the Impacts of Response Measures' in the
UNFCCC, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 5. Pridmore, A. and Bristow, A., (2002). The role of
hydrogen in powering road transport, Tyndall
Goodess, C.M., Hulme, M. and Osborn, T. (2001).
Centre Working Paper 19.
The identification and evaluation of suitable
scenario development methods for the Turnpenny, J. (2002). Reviewing organisational
estimation of future probabilities of extreme use of scenarios: Case study - evaluating UK
weather events, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 6. energy policy options, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 20.
Barnett, J. (2001). Security and Climate
Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 7. Watson, W. J. (2002). Renewables and CHP
Deployment in the UK to 2020, Tyndall Centre
Adger, W. N. (2001). Social Capital and Climate
Working Paper 21.
Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 8.
Watson, W.J., Hertin, J., Randall, T., Gough, C.
Barnett, J. and Adger, W. N. (2001). Climate
(2002). Renewable Energy and Combined Heat
Dangers and Atoll Countries, Tyndall Centre
and Power Resources in the UK, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 9.
Working Paper 22.
Gough, C., Taylor, I. and Shackley, S. (2001).
Paavola, J. and Adger, W.N. (2002). Justice and
Burying Carbon under the Sea: An Initial
adaptation to climate change, Tyndall Centre
Exploration of Public Opinions, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 23.
Working Paper 10.
Xueguang Wu, Jenkins, N. and Strbac, G. (2002).
Barker, T. (2001). Representing the Integrated
Impact of Integrating Renewables and CHP
Assessment of Climate Change, Adaptation
into the UK Transmission Network, Tyndall
and Mitigation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 11.
Centre Working Paper 24
Dessai, S., (2001). The climate regime from
Xueguang Wu, Mutale, J., Jenkins, N. and Strbac,
The Hague to Marrakech: Saving or sinking
G. (2003). An investigation of Network
the Kyoto Protocol?, Tyndall Centre Working
Splitting for Fault Level Reduction, Tyndall
Paper 12.
Centre Working Paper 25
Dewick, P., Green K., Miozzo, M., (2002).
Brooks, N. and Adger W.N. (2003). Country level
Technological Change, Industry Structure and
risk measures of climate-related natural
the Environment, Tyndall Centre Working Paper
disasters and implications for adaptation to
13.
climate change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 26
Shackley, S. and Gough, C., (2002). The Use of
Tompkins, E.L. and Adger, W.N. (2003). Building
Integrated Assessment: An Institutional
resilience to climate change through adaptive
Analysis Perspective, Tyndall Centre Working
management of natural resources, Tyndall
Paper 14.
Centre Working Paper 27
Dessai, S., Adger, W.N., Hulme, M., Köhler, J.H.,
Turnpenny, J. and Warren, R. (2003). Defining
and experiencing dangerous climate change,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 28
Brown, K. and Corbera, E. (2003). A Multi-
Criteria Assessment Framework for Carbon-
Mitigation Projects: Putting “development” in
the centre of decision-making, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 29
Hulme, M. (2003). Abrupt climate change: can
society cope?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 30
Turnpenny, J., Haxeltine A. and O’Riordan, T.
(2003). A scoping study of UK user needs for
managing climate futures. Part 1 of the pilot-
phase interactive integrated assessment
process (Aurion Project), Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 31
Xueguang Wu, Jenkins, N. and Strbac, G. (2003).
Integrating Renewables and CHP into the UK
Electricity System: Investigation of the impact
of network faults on the stability of large
offshore wind farms, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 32
Pridmore, A., Bristow, A.L., May, A. D. and Tight,
M.R. (2003). Climate Change, Impacts, Future
Scenarios and the Role of Transport, Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 33
Dessai, S., Hulme, M (2003). Does climate policy
need probabilities?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper
34
Tompkins, E. L. and Hurlston, L. (2003). Report to
the Cayman Islands’ Government. Adaptation
lessons learned from responding to tropical
cyclones by the Cayman Islands’ Government,
1988 – 2002, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 35
Kröger, K. Fergusson, M. and Skinner, I. (2003).
Critical Issues in Decarbonising Transport: The
Role of Technologies, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 36
Ingham, A. and Ulph, A. (2003) Uncertainty,
Irreversibility, Precaution and the Social Cost
of Carbon, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 37
Brooks, N. (2003). Vulnerability, risk and
adaptation: a conceptual framework, Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 38
Tompkins, E.L. and Adger, W.N. (2003).
Defining response capacity to enhance climate
change policy, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 39
Klein, R.J.T., Lisa Schipper, E. and Dessai, S.
(2003), Integrating mitigation and adaptation
into climate and development policy: three
research questions, Tyndall Centre Working Paper
40
Watson, J. (2003), UK Electricity Scenarios for
2050, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 41
Kim, J. A. (2003), Sustainable Development and
the CDM: A South African Case Study, Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 42
Anderson, D. and Winne, S. (2003),
Innovation and Threshold Effects in
Technology Responses to Climate Change,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 43
Shackley, S., McLachlan, C. and Gough, C. (2004)
The Public Perceptions of Carbon Capture and
Storage, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 44
Purdy, R. and Macrory, R. (2004) Geological
carbon sequestration: critical legal issues,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 45
Watson, J., Tetteh, A., Dutton, G., Bristow, A.,
Kelly, C., Page, M. and Pridmore, A., (2004) UK
Hydrogen Futures to 2050, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 46
Berkhout, F., Hertin, J. and Gann, D. M., (2004)
Learning to adapt: Organisational adaptation
to climate change impacts, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 47
Pan, H. (2004) The evolution of economic
structure under technological development,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 48
Awerbuch, S. (2004) Restructuring our
electricity networks to promote
decarbonisation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 49
Powell, J.C., Peters, M.D., Ruddell, A. & Halliday, J.
(2004) Fuel Cells for a Sustainable Future?
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 50
Agnolucci, P., Barker, T. & Ekins, P. (2004)
Hysteresis and energy demand: the
Announcement Effects and the effects of the
UK climate change levy, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 51
Agnolucci, P. (2004) Ex post evaluations of CO2
–Based Taxes: A Survey, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 52
Agnolucci, P. & Ekins, P. (2004) The
Announcement Effect and environmental
taxation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 53
Turnpenny, J., Carney, S., Haxeltine, A., &
O’Riordan, T. (2004) Developing regional and
local scenarios for climate change mitigation
and adaptation, Part 1: A framing of the East
of England, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 54
Mitchell, T.D. Carter, T.R., Jones, .P.D, Hulme, M.
and New, M. (2004) A comprehensive set of
high-resolution grids of monthly climate for
Europe and the globe: the observed record
(1901-2000) and 16 scenarios (2001-2100),
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 55
Vincent, K. (2004) Creating an index of social
vulnerability to climate change for Africa,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 56
Shackley, S., Reiche, A. and Mander, S (2004) The
Public Perceptions of Underground Coal
Gasification (UCG): A Pilot Study, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 57
Bray, D and Shackley, S. (2004) The Social
Simulation of The Public Perceptions of
Weather Events and their Effect upon the
Development of Belief in Anthropogenic
Climate Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 58
Anderson, D and Winne, S. (2004) Modelling
Innovation and Threshold Effects
In Climate Change Mitigation, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 59
Few, R., Brown, K. and Tompkins, E.L. (2004)
Scaling adaptation: climate change response
and coastal management in the UK, Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 60
Brooks, N. (2004) Drought in the African Sahel:
Long term perspectives and future prospects,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 61
Barker, T. (2004) The transition to
sustainability: a comparison of economics
approaches, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 62
Few, R., Ahern, M., Matthies, F. and Kovats, S.
(2004) Floods, health and climate change: a
strategic review, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 63
Peters, M.D. and Powell, J.C. (2004) Fuel Cells for
a Sustainable Future II, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 64
Adger, W. N., Brown, K. and Tompkins, E. L.
(2004) The political economy of cross-scale
networks in resource co-management, Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 65
Turnpenny, J., Haxeltine, A., Lorenzoni, I.,
O’Riordan, T., and Jones, M., (2005) Mapping
actors involved in climate change policy
networks in the UK, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 66
Turnpenny, J., Haxeltine, A. and O’Riordan, T.,
(2005) Developing regional and local scenarios
for climate change mitigation and adaptation:
Part 2: Scenario creation, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 67
Bleda, M. and Shackley, S. (2005) The formation
of belief in climate change in business
organisations: a dynamic simulation model,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 68
Tompkins, E. L. and Hurlston, L. A. (2005) Natural
hazards and climate change: what knowledge
is transferable?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 69
Abu-Sharkh, S., Li, R., Markvart, T., Ross, N.,
Wilson, P., Yao, R., Steemers, K., Kohler, J. and
Arnold, R. (2005) Can Migrogrids Make a Major
Contribution to UK Energy Supply?, Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 70
Boyd, E. Gutierrez, M. and Chang, M. (2005)
Adapting small-scale CDM sinks projects to
low-income communities, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 71
Lowe, T., Brown, K., Suraje Dessai, S., Doria, M.,
Haynes, K. and Vincent., K (2005) Does tomorrow
ever come? Disaster narrative and public
perceptions of climate change, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 72
Walkden, M. (2005) Coastal process simulator
scoping study, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 73
Ingham, I., Ma, J., and Ulph, A. M. (2005) How do
the costs of adaptation affect optimal
mitigation when there is uncertainty,
irreversibility and learning?, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 74
Fu, G., Hall, J. W. and Lawry, J. (2005) Beyond
probability: new methods for representing
uncertainty in projections of future climate,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 75
Agnolucci,. P (2005) The role of political morphological modelling Tyndall Centre Working
uncertainty in the Danish renewable energy Paper 87
market, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 76

Barker, T., Pan, H., Köhler, J., Warren., R and

Winne, S. (2005) Avoiding dangerous climate
change by inducing technological progress:
scenarios using a large-scale econometric
model, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 77

Agnolucci,. P (2005) Opportunism and

competition in the non-fossil fuel obligation
market, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 78

Ingham, I., Ma, J., and Ulph, A. M. (2005) Can

adaptation and mitigation be
complements?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 79

Wittneben, B., Haxeltine, A., Kjellen, B., Köhler, J.,

Turnpenny, J., and Warren, R., (2005) A
framework for assessing the political economy
of post-2012 global climate regime, Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 80

Sorrell, S., (2005) The economics of energy

service contracts, Tyndall Centre Working Paper
81

Bows, A., and Anderson, K. (2005) An analysis of

a post-Kyoto climate policy model, Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 82

Williamson, M. Lenton, T. Shepherd, J. and

Edwards, N. (2006) An efficient numerical
terrestrial scheme (ENTS) for fast earth
system modelling Tyndall Centre Working Paper
83

Kevin Anderson, Alice Bows and Paul Upham (2006)

Growth scenarios for EU & UK aviation:
contradictions with climate policy, Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 84

Michelle Bentham, (2006) An assessment of

carbon sequestration potential in the UK –
Southern North Sea case study Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 85

Peter Stansby, Cui-Ping Kuang, Dominique

Laurence and Brian Launder, (2006) Sandbanks
for coastal protection: implications of sea-
level rise - Part 1: Application to East Anglia
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 86

Peter Stansby and Cui-Ping Kuang, (2006)

Sandbanks for coastal protection: implications
of sea-level rise – Part 2: current and