4.7 Article

SWAN predictions of waves observed in shallow water onshore of complex bathymetry

Journal

COASTAL ENGINEERING
Volume 58, Issue 6, Pages 510-516

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.coastaleng.2011.01.013

Keywords

Waves; Modeling; Refraction

Funding

  1. Office of Naval Research
  2. National Science Foundation
  3. National Security Science and Engineering Faculty

Ask authors/readers for more resources

SWAN model predictions, initialized with directional wave buoy observations in 550-m water depth offshore of a steep, submarine canyon, are compared with wave observations in 5.0-, 2.5-, and 1.0-m water depths. Although the model assumptions include small bottom slopes, the alongshore variations of the nearshore wave field caused by refraction over the steep canyon are predicted well over the 50 days of observations. For example, in 2.5-m water depth, the observed and predicted wave heights vary by up to a factor of 4 over about 1000 m alongshore, and wave directions vary by up to about 10, sometimes changing from south to north of shore normal. Root-mean-square errors of the predicted wave heights, mean directions, periods, and radiation stresses (less than 0.13 m, 5 degrees, 1 s, and 0.05 m(3)/s(2) respectively) are similar near and far from the canyon. Squared correlations between the observed and predicted wave heights usually are greater than 0.8 in all water depths. However, the correlations for mean directions and radiation stresses decrease with decreasing water depth as waves refract and become normally incident. Although mean wave properties observed in shallow water are predicted accurately, nonlinear energy transfers from near-resonant triads are not modeled well, and the observed and predicted wave energy spectra can differ significantly at frequencies greater than the spectral peak, especially for narrow-band swell. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available