This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

Scribd Selects Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

P. 1

HydroandMorphoDynamicModelingofBreakingSolitaryWavesOveraFineSandBeach|Views: 3|Likes: 0

Published by jdj2007

See more

See less

https://www.scribd.com/doc/180992453/HydroandMorphoDynamicModelingofBreakingSolitaryWavesOveraFineSandBeach

11/02/2013

text

original

**beach. Part II: Numerical simulation
**

Heng Xiao

a,1

, Yin Lu Young

b,

⁎, Jean H. Prévost

a

a

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA

b

Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA

a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 12 December 2008

Received in revised form 29 November 2009

Accepted 13 December 2009

Available online 21 December 2009

Communicated by J.T. Wells

Keywords:

tsunami

solitary wave

sediment transport

mobile bed

morpho-dynamic modeling

wave–soil interaction

A comprehensive numerical model is developed to predict the transient wave propagation, sediment

transport, morphological change, and the elastodynamic responses of seabed due to breaking solitary waves

runup and drawdown over a sloping beach. The individual components of the numerical model are ﬁrst

validated against previous analytical, numerical, and experimental results. The validated numerical model is

then used to simulate breaking solitary wave runup and drawdown over a ﬁne sand beach, where the

experimental results are presented in (Young et al. 2010b. Hydro- and morpho-dynamic modeling of

breaking solitary waves over a ﬁne sand beach. Part I: Experimental study). The strengths and weaknesses of

the model are assessed through comparisons with the experimental data. Based on the results, sediment

transport mechanisms and wave–seabed interactions in the nearshore region are discussed.

© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and literature review

Tsunamis could lead to great losses among the population near the

coast within the reach of wave runup and subsequent ﬂooding. In

addition to hydrodynamic and debris impact, tsunamis could also

erode the coastlines and the soil supporting structural foundations

and roadways. In severe cases, structure collapse or soil failure

(liquefaction and slope instability) can occur. To fully assess the

impact of tsunamis, a comprehensive numerical model describing the

nearshore transformation of the waves, the wave-induced sediment

transport, and the transient responses of the sediment bed is needed.

In this section, previous research in each of the three aspects listed

above is ﬁrst reviewed, and the research needs are identiﬁed.

1.1. Wave propagation

The propagation of waves has been a subject of research for over a

century. Classical works include the analytical model by Carrier and

Greenspan (1958) and the extensions along this line (e.g. Tuck and

Hwang, 1972). More recently, Carrier et al. (2003) developed a more

ﬂexible analytical solution for wave runup on a plane beach. However,

analytical solutions often suffer fromsevere limitations such as simple

geometries, restricted initial conditions, and small steepness ratios

due to the complexity of the problem (Carrier and Greenspan, 1958;

Carrier et al., 2003). Therefore, analytical solutions usually only serve

as benchmark cases for numerical models.

Most numerical models for water wave transformations fall into

one of the following three categories according to the assumptions

(Lin and Liu, 2000): depth-averaged models, potential ﬂow models,

and Navier Stokes (NS) equation based models, arranged in the order

of increasing ﬂexibility, complexity, and computational cost. Potential

ﬂow models are not suitable for simulating breaking waves since the

irrotational ﬂow assumption is not valid during wave breaking. NS-

based models (including Reynolds averaged NS simulations, large

eddy simulations, and direction numerical simulations), on the other

hand, are computationally expensive, and surface tracking or interface

capturing methods are needed to locate the moving free surface. The

objective of this work is to improve the understanding and the

modeling capability of the global interactions between waves,

sediments, and soil beds, and thus a depth-averaged model is

sufﬁcient to simulate the wave propagation and transformation.

1.2. Cross-shore sediment transport

Sediment transport models are important in studying the

evolution of beach proﬁles. Many models of different complexities

have been proposed, validated, and used. Schoonees and Theron

(1995) gave a comprehensive review and evaluation of ten cross-

Marine Geology 269 (2010) 119–131

⁎ Corresponding author.

E-mail address: ylyoung@umich.edu (Y.L. Young).

1

Current address: Institute of Fluid Dynamics, ETH, Zurich, Switzerland.

0025-3227/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.margeo.2009.12.008

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Geology

j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ mar geo

shore sediment transport and morphological change models used in

coastal engineering research and practices. Sediment transport

models are also used in the studies of river dynamics. Cao and Carling

(2002) reviewed various empirical relations used for the modeling of

alluvial rivers. Despite signiﬁcant research efforts from both commu-

nities, the mechanisms of the sediment transport processes are still

not fully understood due to the wide variety of hydrodynamic,

morphological, and geological conditions. The assumptions based on

the data and conditions for one study may not be applicable for

another.

Most early sediment transport models employed energy ﬂux

approaches such as the CERC equation (USACE, 1984). A more recent

development is the force balance approach, where sediment transport

ﬂuxes are modeled as functions of local hydrodynamic and bed

conditions, which is more suitable for wave–sediment coupling. For

example, Cao et al. (2004) used empirical erosion and deposition

models based on local ﬂow and bed conditions, and coupled the

sediment transport model with ﬂuid motions to predict erosion

caused by dam break ﬂows. Simpson and Castelltort (2006) extended

the work of Cao et al. (2004) to 2D and predicted the morphological

changes caused by a train of long period waves running over a plane

beach. The simulation of Simpson and Castelltort (2006) showed

erosion immediately seaward of shoreline and deposition further

seaward of the erosion region. This pattern does not agree with the

experimental results of Kobayashi and Lawrence (2004) and Young

et al. (2010b-this issue) for solitary waves, where erosion was con-

sistently observed above the still water level, and deposition zone was

formed slightly seaward of shoreline. Although a direct assessment

of Simpson and Castelltort (2006) results is not possible since these

studies used different particle diameters, the difference between

predicted and observed morphological change patterns warrants fur-

ther investigations.

Although force balance based models often formulated the

sediment transport rate as a function of the Shields parameter,

which can be considered as a ratio of horizontal forces (viscous and

turbulent shear) and vertical forces (gravity and buoyancy) imposed

on a particle, several modiﬁcations have been proposed. The studies of

Drake and Calantoni (2001), Hoefel and Elgar (2003) and Puleo et al.

(2003), among others, suggested that ﬂuid acceleration played an

important role in sediment transport. Madsen and Durham (2007)

studied the effect of subsurface horizontal pressure gradient induced

by breaking waves. Nielsen (1997) showed that there were two

competing effects caused by exﬁltration, i.e. the reduction of effective

weight due to upward seepage and the reduction of horizontal shear

stresses on the particles due to the increase of the boundary layer

thickness (and opposite effects by inﬁltration). He suggested a modi-

ﬁed Shields parameter to accommodate the two effects. Later, Nielsen

et al. (2001) conducted ﬂume experiments with nonbreaking waves,

which found that inﬁltration impeded sediment motion for 0.2-mm

quartz. Based on the modiﬁed Shields parameter formulation

introduced in Nielsen (1997), they concluded that seepage could

impede or enhance sediment mobility depending on the particle

diameter and the hydraulic gradient. Similarly, Turner and Masselink

(1998) conducted ﬁeld measurements to quantify the two competing

effects. Simulations were conducted based on the formulation of

modiﬁed Shields parameter proposed according to their ﬁeld

observations. The results showed that the inﬁltration increased

transport rate during runup and the exﬁltration reduced transport

rate during drawdown, but the former dominated and thus the net

effect of ﬁltration was enhancement of the net upslope transport of

sediment. In both cases, the effect of particle sizes was not studied,

and thus the experiments were not able lend direct support to the

theoretical derivations.

Pritchard and Hogg (2005) developed an analytical solution for the

sediment transport of suspended sediment by a swash event caused

by a bore collapse on a plane beach. With their exact solutions, the

sediment entrainment in the swash zone and the sediment contribu-

tion during the bore collapse are identiﬁed. The asymmetry between

uprush and backwash events and the settling lag effects are

investigated for their roles in determining the onshore and offshore

net sediment transport. Their solution revealed important physical

insights in the swash zone sediment transport processes and provided

baseline benchmarks for future studies.

It can be seen that the sediment transport is a very complicated

process with many contributing factors. Although numerous modiﬁed

formulations have been proposed, many researchers still use the

classical models based solely on Shields parameters, and occasionally

on particle Reynolds number (e.g. Cao et al., 2004; Simpson and

Castelltort, 2006). This conservative approach is probably due to the

lack of systematic validation studies of the new models for different

hydrodynamic, morphological, and geological conditions. In addition,

most previous research efforts in sediment transport have been

directed toward wind waves, currents, or river ﬂows. Much less has

been done for tsunami induced sediment transport and associated

wave–seabed interactions in the nearshore region.

In this study, the erosion model ﬁrst proposed by Meyer-Peter and

Müller (1948) is adopted because of its simplicity and because it is

one of the most referenced models. Deposition and erosion ﬂuxes are

modeled separately since the two processes are governed by different

physical mechanisms (Cao et al., 2004; Simpson and Castelltort,

2006). The results obtained using Meyer-Peter and Müller (1948)

model is compared to those from the modiﬁed Shields parameter

formulation of Nielsen et al. (2001). Discussion of the comparison of

the two models is presented in Section 5.

1.3. Wave-induced seabed response

Wave–seabed interactions have been heavily researched and the

literature is abundant. An excellent recent review was given by Jeng

(2003), summarizing previous work on seabed dynamics induced by

waves, including analytical, numerical and experimental studies. This

problem is typically formulated in the framework of porous media

(Biot, 1941; Coussy, 2004), where the constituents (sand grains,

water, and for unsaturated cases, air) are assumed to be individual

continua, all interpenetrating each other and occupying the whole

domain, each being regarded as a phase.

The approach adopted in this work utilizes tools and knowledge

developed in both coastal engineering and soil mechanics com-

munities. Therefore, in this paper, “sediment” and “soil” are used

interchangeably to refer to the bed material. In both the physical

and numerical simulations, the beds consist of cohesionless sand

particles with negligible amounts of organic material, and the inter-

particle pores are ﬁlled with varying amounts of water and air.

The structure formed by solid grains is referred to as “matrix” or

“skeleton”.

The responses of the soil matrix and the pore ﬂuid are intrinsically

coupled, that is, the change of deformation and stress state of one

phase would inﬂuence those of other phases. Only under special

circumstances (e.g. rigid skeleton, incompressible ﬂuid, or one-

dimensional strain state) could they be uncoupled.

Recently, research efforts have been directed toward advancing

the understanding of the constitutive behaviors of the sand bed under

repeated or extreme loads where nonlinear soil behavior, liquefaction,

and slope instability are important. For example, liquefaction of sand

beds due to progressive waves was studied experimentally with a

centrifuge (Sassa and Sekiguchi, 1999) and latter numerically with

ﬁnite element methods (Sassa and Sekiguchi, 2001). In addition, the

propagation of liqueﬁed zones in sand bed under progressive wave

loading was studied using a simpliﬁed theoretical model and

validated experimentally by Sassa et al. (2001). However, these

studies were concerned with progressive wave loading over a ﬂat bed.

Hence, the responses and failure of coastal slopes due to long wave

120 H. Xiao et al. / Marine Geology 269 (2010) 119–131

runup and drawdown were not considered. Young et al. (2009a)

investigated the inﬂuence of solitary wave runup and drawdown on

the soil responses using an uncoupled wave–soil model. The wave

model was the same as the one presented here, but the sediment

transport processes were not considered.

In most tsunamis, there are only two or three waves that arrive

onshore. Although the wave periods are long, the event durations of

tsunamis are usually much shorter than those of storms. Therefore,

the nonlinear behaviors of soil are not as signiﬁcant. The focus of this

work is on the wave–seabed interactions. Hence, the soil is assumed

to be linear elastic, and the u

s

-p formulation is used, where the

displacements of soil skeleton (u

s

) and the pore pressure (p) are fully

coupled (Coussy, 2004). The systemof equations for u

s

and p is solved

with ﬁnite element method in a fully coupled approach (Prévost,

1997). More details are presented in Section 2.2.

1.4. Objectives

The objectives of this study are to develop and validate a

comprehensive numerical model to predict the transient hydrody-

namics, sediment transport and bed proﬁle changes, as well as bed

responses in the nearshore region under the impact of breaking

solitary waves. By complementing the experimental studies pre-

sented in (Young et al., 2010b-this issue), the goal is to improve the

understanding of sediment transport mechanisms and bed responses,

particularly due to breaking solitary waves runup and drawdown over

a ﬁne sand beach.

2. Mathematical formulation and numerical methods

2.1. Wave propagation coupled with sediment transport

Nonlinear shallow water equations (NSWE) have been used by

many researchers to study the long wave propagation near the coast

where the water is relatively shallow compared to the wave length

(e.g. Zoppou and Roberts, 2000; Kimet al., 2004; Wei et al., 2006). The

scalar transport equation is used to describe the sediment transport in

the water, and thus the coupled NSWE and sediment transport model

for a 2D problem can be written as (Cao et al., 2004):

∂U

∂t

+

∂F

∂x

= S ð1Þ

where the conservative variable U, the ﬂux F, and the source term S

are, respectively,

U = ½h; hu; hc

T

ð2Þ

F = ½uh; u

2

h + gh

2

=2; huc

T

ð3Þ

and

S =

q

e

−q

d

ð1−ϕÞ

; −ghðS

0

+ S

f

Þ−

ðq

e

−q

d

Þu

1−ϕ

; q

e

−q

d

_ _

T

ð4Þ

where t is the time; h is the water depth; u is the depth-averaged

velocity; c is the depth-averaged sediment concentration; ϕ is the bed

porosity; S

0

is the source term representing bottom slope, i.e. S

0

=dz/

dx, where z is the bed elevation. S

f

is the source term due to bottom

friction, which is modeled as follows:

S

f

=

n

2

uj uj

h

4=3

ð5Þ

where n is Manning's roughness coefﬁcient. In the dry portion of the

bed where the water depth h is almost zero, S

f

is set to zero. q

e

and q

d

are, respectively, the sediment erosion and deposition ﬂuxes, which

also needs to be modeled and will be discussed in Section 2.1.2.

2.1.1. Boussinesq equations: corrections for dispersion effects

When the wave is propagating from a distance far away from the

shoreline, the dispersion effect is important and the NSWE is not

suitable. Therefore, a Boussinesq model accounting for the dispersion

is necessary. Among others, Madsen et al. (1991) and Madsen and

Sørensen (1992) derived a Boussinesq-type equation with the

advantage of enhanced linear characteristic and relatively few

additional terms (Borthwick et al., 2006). To account for dispersion

effects, the conservative variable U and the source term S need to be

modiﬁed while the ﬂux F remains the same. The modiﬁed conserva-

tive variable and source term are denoted as U

⁎

and S

⁎

, respectively,

and have the following form:

U* =

h

hu + B +

1

3

_ _

d

2

ðhuÞ

xx

+

1

3

dd

x

ðhuÞ

x

.¸¸.

Boussinesq terms

hc

_

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

_

_

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

_

ð6Þ

and

S* =

q

e

−q

d

ð1−ϕÞ

−ghðS

0

+ S

f

Þ−

ðq

e

−q

d

Þu

1−ϕ

+ Bgd

3

η

xxx

+ 2Bgd

2

η

xx

.¸¸.

Boussinesq terms

q

e

−q

d

_

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

_

_

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

_

ð7Þ

where B is the dispersion coefﬁcient, which is taken as 1/15

(Borthwick et al., 2006); η is the wave elevation; and d=h−η is

the still water level. The subscripts x, xx, and xxx indicate the ﬁrst-,

second-, and third-order derivatives, respectively. The additional

terms does not need special treatments and the numerical schemes

for NSWE can be easily extended to Boussinesq equations.

In this study, the Boussinesq equations above are solved before the

wave breaks. During and after the wave breaking, the Boussinesq

terms are turned off to avoid numerical instability caused by the high

order derivatives in the dispersion terms, and the NSWE is thus

recovered. The breaking criterion is deﬁned as the water surface slope

being greater than 20°, or equivalently dη/dx>0.36 (Borthwick et al.,

2006).

2.1.2. Empirical modeling of erosion and deposition ﬂuxes

The deposition ﬂux is modeled as a function of the near-bed

sediment concentration, C

a

, and the particle settling velocity, ω

0

, in

quiescent water, following Cao et al. (2004):

q

d

= ω

0

ð1−C

a

Þ

m

C

a

ð8Þ

where the exponent m=2.0 is adopted. The local near-bed sediment

concentration is modeled as C

a

=αc, where α=min (2.0, (1−ϕ)/c).

The upper limit is set to ensure that the volume fraction of sand in the

water does not exceed that in the bed. The erosion ﬂux is formulated as:

q

e

=

A

n

ω

0

ðθ−θ

c

Þ

ﬃﬃﬃ

θ

p

= Re

1:2

p

if θ > θ

c

0 if θ ≤θ

c

_

ð9Þ

where θ is the Shields parameter; Re

p

is the particle Reynolds number

deﬁned as Re

p

= d

50

ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

ðs−1Þgd

50

_

= ν, that is, the Reynolds number

basedonmeanparticle diameter (d

50

) andthe relative velocity between

a freely settling particle and its surrounding calm water. The particle

Reynolds number characterizes the ﬂow type around the particle

(laminar for small Re

p

and turbulent for large Re

p

). The fall velocity, ω

0

,

121 H. Xiao et al. / Marine Geology 269 (2010) 119–131

is the terminal velocity of a single particle when released into quiescent

water (that is, when the gravity of the particle and the water resistance

balance). A

n

is a dimensionless coefﬁcient; s=ρ

s

/ρ

w

; ρ

s

is the density of

the particle; ρ

w

is the density of the water; d

50

is the mean particle

diameter. θ

c

=0.045 is the critical Shields parameter, below which no

erosion occurs. θ is Shields parameter deﬁned as:

θ =

u

2

*

ðs−1Þgd

50

ð10Þ

where u

*

is the friction velocity and is deﬁned as u

*

=

ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

τ

0

= ρ

w

_

=

ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

ghS

f

_

with τ

0

=ρ

w

ghS

f

being the bed shear stress. The erosion ﬂux in

Eq. (9) follows that of Meyer-Peter and Müller (1948) except for a

constant dimensionless factor A

n

, which is used to account for the

inﬂuence of bed compactness (porosity).

The erosion ﬂux model presented above was originally proposed

for steady state river-type ﬂows. The hydraulic gradient in the bed

(and thus the inﬁltration and exﬁltration) was not considered. To

account for this effect, Nielsen et al. (2001) introduced a modiﬁed

Shields parameter, θ

m

:

θ

m

=

u

2

*

1−α

w

u

*

_ _

gd

50

s−1−β

w

k

c

_ _: ð11Þ

The two dimensionless constants are α=16 and β=0.4, which

were determined by previous experimental studies (Conley and

Douglas, 1994); w is the exﬁltration velocity, which can be calculated

according to the hydraulic gradient at the bed surface according to

Darcy's law, which in turn can be obtained from the soil solver

presented in Section 2.2; k

c

is the hydraulic conductivity of the soil.

2.1.3. Morphological evolution

All the morphological changes are assumed to be caused by wave-

induced sediment transport, and thus the bed evolves solely due to

erosion and deposition ﬂuxes. Therefore, the following equation is

used to describe the elevation change of the bed:

dz

dx

=

q

d

−q

e

1−ϕ

ð12Þ

where z is the bed surface elevation.

2.1.4. Treatment of the wave breaking process

Wave breaking plays an important role in the wave propagation and

sediment transport processes because of its energy dissipation and

sediment entrainment capability. However, detailed modeling of the

breaking process poses great difﬁculties for numerical models. In this

study, the wave-breaking process is not modeled explicitly, but the

energy dissipation caused by wave breaking is accounted for implicitly.

Speciﬁcally, the breakingwave is representedas a discontinuity of water

depth and velocity in the solution. Whenever discontinuities occur in

the solution, the numerical methods as detailed in Section 2.1.5 would

dissipate more energy than for smooth solutions. Good correlations

between wave breaking and energy dissipation have been observed in

our simulations, but further investigations are needed to compare the

numerical energy dissipation and the physical energy dissipation.

The sediment entrainment due to wave breaking is not explicitly

accounted for. The sediment entrainment in the surf zone (including

the wave-breaking zone and bore runup region) is treated in the same

way as in the swash zone using the erosion model in Eq. (9). However,

since the wave-breaking zone is generally associated with larger

Shields parameter, the erosion ﬂux in this region is thus larger than

elsewhere. This can be interpreted as an implicit treatment of wave

breaking induced sediment suspension, although the detailed physics

is not modeled. This is illustrated in Section 4.2 with a plot of Shields

parameters (Eqs. (10) and (11)) during wave breaking in Fig. 9.

2.1.5. Numerical methods for the wave–sediment system

Finite volume method is used to solve the system of equations

describing the wave–sediment interactions. A second order Godunov-

type scheme with shock-capturing weight averaged ﬂux (WAF) is

used (Fraccarollo and Toro, 1995; Kim et al., 2004). At the interface of

two wet cells, an approximate Riemann solver HLLC is used

(Fraccarollo and Toro, 1995), which is based on the Harten–Lax–van

Leer (HLL) Riemann solver developed by Harten et al. (1983) but with

improved performance for contact discontinuity problems (such as

the sediment concentration in this system). At the dry–wet interface,

in place of the HLLC Riemann solver, an exact Riemann solver with

front speed from the analytical solution is used (Toro, 2000). A

threshold water depth is chosen to be 0.1% of the maximumstill water

depth, below which the cell is considered as dry.

To ensure numerical stability, the Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy (CFL)

number is limited to a value smaller than 1. The sediment terms

tend to impair the convergence performance of the system, and thus

smaller step size is necessary.

To simulate the far ﬁeld boundary at sea, a transmissive boundary

condition is implemented. To achieve this, the two Riemann in-

variants r

1

and r

2

are extrapolated along characteristic lines at the

transmissive boundary. Speciﬁcally, for shallow water ﬂows:

r

1

≡ u−2

ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

gh

_

= const along

dx

dt

= u−

ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

gh

_

r

2

≡u + 2

ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

gh

_

= const along

dx

dt

= u +

ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

gh

_

:

_

¸

¸

_

¸

¸

_

ð13Þ

2.2. Soil deformation and pore pressure

The soil skeleton and the pore water in the sediment bed are

modeled in the framework of poromechanics theory (Coussy, 2004).

The soil deposit is assumed to be fully saturated (with either water or

air). The following equations are solved:

∇⋅σ + ½ð1−ϕÞρ

s

+ ϕρ

f

f = 0 ð14Þ

dðϕρ

f

Þ

dt

+ ∇⋅ðρ

f

q

f

Þ = 0 ð15Þ

with

dϕ

dt

= b∇⋅v

s

+

1

N

dp

f

dt

: ð16Þ

The following relation is assumed for pore ﬂuid ﬂux according to

Darcy's law:

q

f

= −

k

μ

f

⋅½∇p

f

−ρ

f

f : ð17Þ

Biot's coefﬁcient b and modulus N are deﬁned as (Coussy, 2004):

b = 1−

K

m

K

s

; and

1

N

=

b−ϕ

0

K

s

ð18Þ

where σ is the total stress tensor of the mixture; ϕ is the bed porosity

(same as that deﬁned in wave–sediment simulator in Section 2.1); ϕ

0

is the initial porosity; ρ

s

and ρ

f

are the solid and ﬂuid density; f is the

body force (gravity in this study); p

f

is the pore ﬂuid pressure; q

f

is the

mass ﬂux of the pore ﬂuid; v

s

is the solid velocity; k is the intrinsic

permeability tensor of the soil skeleton; μ

f

is the dynamics viscosity of

122 H. Xiao et al. / Marine Geology 269 (2010) 119–131

the pore ﬂuid; K

m

and K

s

are the bulk moduli of the ﬂuid and the solid

constituents, respectively.

For saturated porous media, the change of ﬂuid density is related

to the change of pore pressure by

dρ

f

ρ

f

= C

f

dp

f

ð19Þ

where C

f

is the pore ﬂuid compressibility.

The density of the pore ﬂuid ρ

f

is taken to be the water density

(ρ

w

) in the wet region below the water table and to be the air density

(ρ

a

) in the region above the water table. The pore water compress-

ibility is obtained by accounting for the air dissolved in the pore water,

which results in the increase of effective ﬂuid compressibility

compared with pure water. The compressibility of pore water is

estimated according to Verruijt (1969) as follows:

C

f

= S

r

C

w

+

1−S

r

p

a

ð20Þ

where S

r

is the degree of saturation of water in the pores, C

w

is the

compressibility of pure water (4.6×10

−10

m

2

/N), and p

a

is the abso-

lute pressure of the air (the atmospheric pressure, 10

5

Pa). The time

step size is determined according to Δt =0.003T

c

, where T

c

is the

characteristic consolidation time scale deﬁned as:

T

c

=

L

2

d

K +

4

3

G

μ

f

k

ð21Þ

where K and G are the bulk and shear moduli of the soil skeleton,

which can be expressed in terms of Young's modulus E and Poisson

ratio ν of the soil as K=E/[3(1−2ν)] and G=E/[2(1+ν)]. L

d

is the

shortest drainage path (represented by the maximum soil depth).

The solid stress and velocity are expressed in terms of solid

displacement ﬁeld u

s

as follows:

σ = σ

s

−bp

f

δ ð22Þ

σ

s

= C :

s

ð23Þ

ε

s

= ∇

ðÞ

u

s

v

s

=

∂u

s

∂t

ð24Þ

and the ﬂuid pressure is written as

p

f

= p

0

+ p

e

ð25Þ

where C is the constitutive tensor (fourth-order); The symbol “:”

denotes the contraction product of two tensors; ε

s

strain of the

skeleton; ∇

()

u

s

=(∇u

s

+u

s

∇)/2 is the symmetric part of tensor ∇u

s

; δ

is the second order unit tensor; p

0

is the initial ﬂuid pressure; p

e

is the

excess pore pressure; Eq. (22) shows that the total stress of the

mixture (σ) is decomposed into effective stress acting on the soil

skeleton (σ

s

) and pressure carried by the pore ﬂuid (p

f

). In Eq. (25),

the pore pressure, p

f

, is decomposed into an initial hydrostatic

component, p

0

, and an excessive component, p

e

.

The equations above are solved with a ﬁnite element program,

DYNAFLOW (Prévost, 1983a). The details of DYNAFLOW can be found

in (Prévost, 1983b, 1997), where various validation cases were also

presented.

As explained in Section 1, the nonlinear constitutive behavior of

the soil skeleton and the potential of bed slope failure are neglected in

the present calculations. Interested reader should refer to (Young

et al., 2009a) on this topic. In the present study, the wave loads on the

bed are assumed to be small enough and the duration of the loading is

short so that the soil behaves linear elastically and no failure model is

necessary. The focus is on the nearly saturated sand bed in the

nearshore region. Since the rate of wave loading and unloading is

much faster than the movement of the pore ﬂuid, the subsurface

water table is assumed to be ﬂat and stationary throughout the wave

loading cycle. The dynamics of the vadose zone (deﬁned as the

unsaturated portion above the initial subsurface water table) where

capillary effects and the interferences between water and air ﬂows do

play important roles is a subject of future work.

2.3. Coupling between the components

Based on the experimental observations, the amount of the

morphological change is negligibly small compared to the extent of the

soil domain and thus the bed surface proﬁle in the soil simulation is not

updated. However, the bed proﬁle changes may not be negligible

compared to the depth of the water column, particularly near the

maximum runup region. Hence, the wave–sediment transport and bed

evolution models are fully coupled. The amount of mass and momentum

exchange between the wave and the subsurface ﬂow is negligible

because the inﬁltration and exﬁltration velocities are very small

comparedto the depth-averagedwave velocities. Therefore, the coupling

between the wave and the subsurface hydrodynamics is neglected in the

present calculation.

3. Validation and calibration of numerical models

3.1. Validation of wave simulator

The NSWE wave simulator has been validated against numerous

cases. A benchmark case composed from the analytical solution of

Carrier et al. (2003) is shown here. In this case, a nonbreaking solitary

wave runs up over a smooth bed with a constant slope. The wave

proﬁles from three different time instances and the horizontal

excursion history of the shoreline are shown in Fig. 1. The simulation

results agree very well with the analytical solutions.

The wave solver has been also validated against the experimental

studies by Synolakis (1987), where a solitary wave with relative wave

height of H/d=0.3 runs up over a rigid, impermeable slope of 1:19.85.

The initial water depth is d=1 m. The toe of the slope is located at

x=19.85 m and the initial wave is centered at x=24.42 m. The

comparisonis showninFig. 2. Also showninthe ﬁgure is the numerical

solution of NSWE by Wei et al. (2006). When the dispersion terms are

turned off, the current solutions are almost identical to that of Wei et

al. (2006), whichis expectedsince bothmodels usedsimilar numerical

methods. The current Boussinesq-NSWE model predicted that wave-

breaking occurs at around the normalized time t

ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

g = d

_

≈19, which is

very close to the experimental results reported in (Synolakis, 1987),

while a pure NSWE solver tends to predict earlier breaking (Wei et al.,

2006). In the pre-breaking snapshot at t

ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

g = d

_

= 15 (top left plot in

Fig. 2), the improvement is signiﬁcant when the dispersion effects are

included. However, both numerical solutions agreed well with

experimental measurements post-breaking.

3.2. Calibration of the sediment transport model

Various sediment transport models were investigated by compar-

ing the numerical predictions with the experimental results of

Kobayashi and Lawrence (2004) and Young et al. (2010b-this issue).

The combination of deposition and erosion ﬂuxes in Eqs. (8) and (9)

was found to give good results and was adopted. To accommodate

different bed conditions, a coefﬁcient A

n

is introduced into the Meyer-

Peter and Müller (1948) model (see Eq. (9)), which depends only on

the bed compactness (porosity). Note that A

n

is not a fudge factor. The

wave–sediment interactions as given in Eqs. (1), (8), and (9)

represent a highly nonlinear and coupled process. Hence, it is not

123 H. Xiao et al. / Marine Geology 269 (2010) 119–131

possible to ﬁt the numerical predictions to the experimental results by

adjusting a single parameter if the essential dynamics of the coupled

processes were not modeled correctly.

The numerical model with erosion and deposition described in

Section 2.1 was used to simulate the case of three 30-cm solitary

waves runup and drawdown over a wave-modiﬁed 1:15 slope bed.

The bed proﬁles before and after the waves, as well as the amount of

morphological change are shown in Fig. 3. A

n

=0.35 was used in this

calculation, and is also used for the 60-cm solitary wave validation

study shown later in Section 4.

As shown in Fig. 3, the erosion and deposition patterns compare well

with the experimental measurements, especially considering the

complexity of the process. The deposition region, the erosion region, as

well as the transition point of the two regions are all captured correctly.

4. Comparison of numerical predictions and

experimental measurements

4.1. Model setup and parameters

The numerical model presented above was used to simulate the

case of a 60-cm breaking solitary wave runup and drawdown over a

wave-modiﬁed 1:15 plane slope beach. The wave conditions and

bathymetry in the simulation followed exactly with the experiments,

which has been described in detail in (Young et al., 2010b-this issue).

The experimental setup is brieﬂy summarized in Fig. 4 for complete-

ness. The left panel shows the general setup. The right panel shows

the nominal and actual bed proﬁles as well as the locations of the

sensors where numerical results are compared with experimental

measurements.

In the numerical simulation, a solitary wave with initial height of

H=60 cm was centered at x

0

=10 m at t =0 s over an initial offshore

water depth d=1 m. The initial condition was estimated according to

Tivoli and Synolakis (1995):

ηðx; 0Þ = Hsech

2

ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

3H

4d

3

¸

ðx−x

0

Þ

_

_

_

_

ð26Þ

uðx; 0Þ = ηðx; 0Þ

ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

g = d

_

: ð27Þ

The computational domain ranged from x=0 m to x=42 m. A

uniform mesh was used with 1000 cells with size Δx=0.042 m. The

CFL number C

n

=0.5 was used. The time step size was dynamically

adjusted according to the maximumvelocity (v

max

) in the systemand

the CFL number, i.e. dt =C

n

Δx/v

max

. Manning's coefﬁcient (n) was

taken to be 0.008. Since the wave did not reach the right boundary at

x=42 m during the simulation and during the experiment, the water

depth and ﬂow velocity were set to zero at this boundary. On the left

boundary at x=0 m, a “blended” reﬂective and transmissive

boundary was used, assuming 75% refection.

For the soil simulation, as with most soil mechanics problems, it is

assumed here that the bulk modulus of the soil grain was much larger

than that of the soil matrix, and thus 1/N≈0 and b≈1. Other material

parameters used in the computation are presented in Table 1.

The unsaturated zone was modeled by using the ﬂuid properties

(density and viscosity) of air. This treatment essentially assumed no

inﬁltration or exﬁltration occurred at the bed surface and thus might

not give accurate results in the unsaturated zone, but it would not

signiﬁcantly affect the accuracy of the nearly saturated zone belowthe

water table.

At the top boundary of the bed, on which the wave force acts, the

pressure was set to the hydrostatic pressure corresponding to the

instant wave height of the water column, and the effective stress was

set to be zero. Therefore, the boundary conditions on the top were

p

f

ðxÞ = ρ

f

ghðx; tÞ ð28Þ

σ

s

⋅n = −p

f

ðx; tÞ ð29Þ

where n is the outward normal of the bed surface. At other

boundaries, where the bed was in contact with the concrete wall

and ﬂume bottom, respectively, the displacements normal to the wall

is set to be zero. The pressure gradients (and thus ﬂuxes) normal to

the wall was also set to be zero. Initial pressure was set to be

hydrostatic. The displacement was initialized as follows: The domain

was ﬁrst allowed to consolidate under gravity with the presence of the

hydrostatic pressure from the initial water column until the system

reached steady state, and then the displacements of the whole soil

domain were set to be zero.

4.2. Comparison to experiments and evaluation of the numerical model

Fig. 5 shows the numerical and experimental time series of water

surface elevations at four representative locations in the nearshore

region. The water surface elevations were measured by wave gauges

(WG) or distance sonics (DS). WG8 was located at x=23 m, where

wave breaking occurred. Wave gauge 10 was located x=25 m. The

Fig. 1. Comparison of the NSWE predictions to the analytical solution of (Carrier et al.,

2003). (a) Wave proﬁles at three time instances. (b) Runup history.

124 H. Xiao et al. / Marine Geology 269 (2010) 119–131

wave plunged between WG8 and WG10. After the wave breaking,

large amounts of bubble rich white water (referred to as bore) was

formed and rushed up onshore. WG12 and DS2, located at x=27 m

(nominal shoreline) and x=29 m, respectively, measured the

height of the bore. WG10 and PPS1–4 shared the same cross-

shore location at x=25 m; WG12 and PPS5–8 shared the same

cross-shore location of x=27 m. The time series of the pore

pressure will be presented later. The readers are referred to

(Young et al., 2010b-this issue) for details of the experiment and

the sensor deployment.

Fig. 2. The wave proﬁles predicted by the current hybrid NSWE-Boussinesq model compared to the predictions of a pure NSWE model (Wei et al., 2006) and experimental

measurements by Synolakis (1987).

125 H. Xiao et al. / Marine Geology 269 (2010) 119–131

Fig. 5 shows that the general trend of the water surface elevation

variations are captured satisfactorily. All three wave gauges (WG 8, 10,

and 12) show two distinct peaks resulted from wave runup and

drawdown, occurred at approximately t =3 s and t =13 s, respectively.

The heights of the two peaks were predicted by the numerical model

withgoodaccuracy. The exceptionwas thesecondpeakof WG10, which

was slightlyunderpredicted. This was probablybecause it was locatedat

a region where interactions between the waves reﬂected by the beach

andthe waves running onshore were signiﬁcant. This effect couldnot be

modeled by the depth-averaged models (NSWE or Boussinesq). The

wave–wave interactions alsoexplainthe small wavelengthcomponents

present in the experiment but missing in the numerical results.

However, in general, the agreement was very good considering

complexity in the physical processes involving wave-breaking, bore

generation and collapse, and wave–wave interactions.

The cross-shore ﬂow velocities and sediment concentrations are

presented in Fig. 6. The ﬂow velocities and sediment concentrations

were measured by Acoustic Doppler Velocimeters (ADV) and Optical

Back-Scattering sensors (OBS). The velocity measurements are shown

in three representative locations: x=29 m (ADV5; 2 m onshore),

x=28 m (ADV4; 1 m onshore), and x=23 m (ADV8; 4 m offshore).

OBS4 and ADV8 were located 9 cm above the bed surface.

The experimental results for ADV5 and ADV4 shown in Fig. 6 still

contain some noises at t ≈5 s. As explained in (Young et al., 2010b-

this issue), this was because the two ADVs were initially dry. The data

Fig. 3. Morphological evolution caused by three consecutive 30-cm solitary waves

running over a nominally 1:15 beach (with 15min between the waves to allow the

water to return to a calm state). (a) The initial bed proﬁle and that after three waves

(numerical and experimental). (b) The amount of morphological change by three

waves (numerical and experimental). The envelopes in thin dash lines are the total

deposition and erosion from the numerical simulation, the sum of which being net

change (solid line).

Fig. 4. (a) Schematic of the experimental setup and deﬁnition. Not to scale. (b) Nominal

1:15 bed proﬁle (dashed line), actual bed proﬁle (solid line), and the sensors (symbols).

Not to scale. Only the sensors relevant to the numerical study are shown. OBS4 is co-

located with ADV8 (at x=23 m, 9 cm above bed surface).

Table 1

Physical and computational parameters used in the sediment/soil simulation.

Young's modulus of skeleton (E) 1.5×10

8

Pa

Poisson's ratio of skeleton (ν) 0.2

Density of soil grains (ρ

s

) 2650 kg/m

3

Intrinsic permeabilityof skeleton(k) 1.5×10

−11

m

2

Porosity of soil (ϕ) 0.4

Compressibility of pore water (C

f

) 2.5×10

−7

m

2

/N

Compressibility of air (C

a

) 1.0×10

−5

m

2

/N

Density of air (ρ

w

) 1.0×10

3

kg/m

3

Density of water (ρ

a

) 1.03 kg/m

3

Dynamics viscosity of water (μ

w

) 1.0×10

−3

kg m/s

Dynamics viscosity of air (μ

a

) 1.8×10

−5

kg m/s

Soil domain (L×D) 30 m (horizontal)×2 m (vertical)

Element shape Four-node quadrilateral

Element type Linear elasticity and scalar diffusion

(coupled)

Number of elements 300 (horizontal)×40 (vertical)=12,000

Element width (Δy) 10 cm

Element height (Δx) Varying from2.3 cm(top) to 9.1 cm(bottom)

Time step size (Δt) 0.047 s

126 H. Xiao et al. / Marine Geology 269 (2010) 119–131

obtained during the time when they were suddenly submerged by the

water were of poor quality. Between t =5 s and 12 s when the

experimental data were of good quality, the agreement of between

the numerical and the experimental results were quite good except

for a slight shift. In particular, the deceleration/acceleration rate of the

runup and the initial stage of the drawdown were well predicted. The

deceleration/acceleration rate could be valuable for evaluating the

forces acting on the coastal structures during tsunami impact. Another

quantity of interests to engineers (for the same reason) is the

maximum runup velocity at the two onshore locations, which

occurred at approximately t =5 s. After t =12 s, as the water

retreated seaward during the drawdown and the water level dropped

below the ADVs, no signal was collected by the ADVs until the

reﬂected wave from the wave maker arrived at this location.

The bottomright panel of Fig. 6 shows that the sediment suspension

time predicted by the numerical simulation correlates well with the

experiments, although the exact amount of entrained sediment was not

correctly predicted by the numerical model. The second peak in the

experimental results is due to the sediment carried by the water during

the drawdown. The discrepancy between measured and predicted

sediment concentrations could be due to both the limitations of the

capability of the numerical model and the accuracy of the experimental

measurements (e.g., signiﬁcant variations among different runs due to

the turbulent mixing). In particular, the numerical results for water

velocities and sediment concentrations were obtained based on the

depth-averaged values at the corresponding cross-shore locations,

while the experimental results were obtained from speciﬁc measure-

ment points. Due to the highly turbulent sediment mixing at this

location, the two values could be quite different for sediment

concentrations. It was visually observed during the experiments that

the sediment concentration distribution varies signiﬁcantly along the

depth of the water column. On the other hand, the overall good

agreement between the numerical simulation and the experimental

measurements on the velocity (ADV5 in the top left panel, ADV4 in the

top right panel, and ADV8 in the bottom left panel, of Fig. 6) suggests

that the velocity distribution along the depth is close to uniform.

Therefore, the approximations made in the derivation of shallow water

equations are reasonably goodinthe scenarioof the experimental setup.

The measured and predicted pore pressure time series are

presented in Fig. 7. In spite of the sophistication of the numerical

model for the soil bed, the agreement was not excellent. This was due

to unavoidable spatial variations of physical soil bed properties. In

most experiments involving sediment, this one included, there are

usually large uncertainties in the physical properties of the sediment

due to the difﬁculties in obtaining the in situ parameters and the large

spatial variations of soil properties.

Fig. 5. Time series of water surface elevation at four representative locations. Comparison of numerical simulation and experimental results. Top left: WG8 (x=23 m). Top right:

WG10 (x=25 m). Bottom left: WG12 (x=27 m, nominal shoreline). Bottom right: DS12 (x=29 m). Locations of these sensors are shown in Fig. 4. The time origin is shifted by 4.4 s

compared to the ﬁgures in (Young et al., 2010b-this issue).

127 H. Xiao et al. / Marine Geology 269 (2010) 119–131

Inthe experimental validationstudies, we usedone set of results from

PPS7 to calibrate the ﬂuid compressibility, and then used this value to

compute the results for all other pore pressure sensors. The permeability

of the soil was obtained from laboratory measurements of the sediment

samples taken from the bed. Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio were

obtained from values reported in the literature (Army Corps, 1990). The

results from the simulation and the experiments were then compared.

Fig. 7 shows reasonable agreement between the predicted and measured

pore pressure responses of PPS5–8. On the other hand, the agreement for

PPS1–4 results are not as good. The agreement can be improved by using

different material properties at this location (speciﬁcally, ﬂuid compress-

ibility, soil porosity, Young's modulus, and Poisson's ratio), but ad hoc

adjustments are not particularly meaningful. Nevertheless, the qualita-

tive features of the pore pressure response are well captured by the

numerical model. Speciﬁcally, the following aspects are noted:

1. The decay of the pore pressure signal along the depth. Note the

blurring of the peaks and the decrease in magnitude from top to

bottom. This shows the diffusive nature of pore pressure evolution

in the sediment bed.

2. The initial sudden increase of the pore pressure (a kink) at t ∼4 s.

This is particularly obvious for the bottomPPSs (PPS1–2 and PPS5–

6). This kink was due to the compression of the soil skeleton which

reduced the pore space and led to pore pressure increases. The

pressure increase due to skeleton compression arrived earlier than

that caused by the pressure diffusion.

The morphological changes predicted by the simulation and those

measured from the experiments are compared in Fig. 8. The same

coefﬁcients calibrated fromthe 30 cmwave experiments were used in

this prediction. The numerical results shown here were obtained with

the original Shields parameter given in Eq. (10). The Shields

parameter (Eq. (10)) and modiﬁed Shields parameter (Eq. (11)),

together with the wave and bed proﬁles, in the computational domain

during the initial period of the wave breaking (at t =2.94 s) are

shown in Fig. 9. Note the steep front of the wave proﬁle at x≈22 m,

which represents wave breaking, and the resulting larger Shields

parameter values in this region. This correlation suggests that the

sediment suspension due to wave breaking is partly accounted for in

an implicit way by the erosion ﬂux formula in Eq. (9). The role of

inﬁltration and exﬁltration on the bed erosion ﬂux will be presented

in Section 5. It is noted here that the Shields parameters computed

fromEqs. (10) and (11) are almost identical except in a region behind

the wave front (x=18 to 20 m). This is a region with upward seepage

Fig. 6. Time series of cross-shore velocities at three representative locations. Comparison of numerical simulation and experimental results. Top left: ADV5 (velocity at x=29 m and

3 cm above bed surface). Top right: ADV4 (velocity at x=28 m and 3 cm above bed surface). Bottom left: ADV8 (velocity at x=23 m and 9 cm above surface). Bottom right: OBS4

(concentration x=23 m; 9 cmabove bed surface. Co-located with ADV8). Locations of these sensors are shown in Fig. 4. The time origin is shifted by 4.4 s compared to the ﬁgures in

(Young et al., 2010b-this issue). Note that the numerical results were the depth-averaged values at the corresponding cross-shore locations, while the experimental results were

obtained from speciﬁc measurement points.

128 H. Xiao et al. / Marine Geology 269 (2010) 119–131

caused by the passage of the wave (which induced soil compression

immediately followed by decompression).

The erosion model was able to capture the bulk of the physical

process, which is evident from the good agreement of the erosion zone

on the shore face (x≈27.5–35 m), as shown in Fig. 8. The physics

contributed to the erosion in this region were high drawdown velocity

(upto3 m/s) andshallowwater depth(afewcentimeters), andpossibly

interactions with the permeable bed and ﬂuid acceleration, among

others. From the erosion ﬂux formulations (Eqs. (5), (9), and (10)), it

can be seen that both shallowwater depth and high velocity contribute

to high bed shear stress and consequently large erosion ﬂux. Therefore,

the good agreement in the predicted erosion/deposition patters by the

numerical model and those measured from the experiments was

expected. As explainedin(Younget al., 2010b-this issue), thedeposition

in the wave-breaking region was caused by the large recirculation

region caused by the hydraulic jump. Although the depth-averaged

model couldnot accurately simulate the recirculating ﬂow, it didpredict

a hydraulic jump at the end of the drawdown and sediment deposition

in this region due to the signiﬁcant decrease of the ﬂow velocity.

The thin layer of deposition at the runup tip (between x=35 mand

x=38.5 m) was also captured by the numerical model, consistent with

the experimental observations. The factors contributed to this deposi-

tion region included: shallow water depth, high sediment concentra-

tion, and most importantly, a brief period of ﬂow stagnation during the

transition between runup and drawdown phases. These features were

all well represented by the numerical model.

In summary, the numerical simulation compared well with the

experimental measurements. Although the depth-averaged hydrody-

namic model and the sediment transport model are relatively simple,

the global physical behavior was well captured, particularly during

the runup and the initial stage of the drawdown. In the later stage of

the drawdown, the effects of wave–wave interactions and the

recirculation ﬂow caused by hydraulic jump became signiﬁcant,

which could not be captured using a depth-averaged model. However,

the overall prediction performance of the model is satisfactory for the

spatial and temporal domains of interest. As to the computation of bed

responses, the u

s

–p formulation is adequate, and the ﬂuid–skeleton

coupling is necessary to correctly predict the observed pore pressure

evolution. However, the uncertainties and spatial variations of the

material properties, which are difﬁcult to obtain in situ, became the

bottleneck of accurate predictions.

5. Discussion

The effects of ﬁltration ﬂows are examined using the formulation of

Nielsen et al. (2001), where the Shields parameter is modiﬁed as shown

in Eq. (11). The simulated morphological change caused by a 60-cm

solitary wave with and without ﬁltration effects (Eqs. (11) and (10),

respectively), as well as the experimental measurements, are shown in

Fig. 10. It can be seen that both formulations gave satisfactory

agreements with the experimental results. At x≈21−23 m and

x≈25−27 m, the model with ﬁltration effects yield slightly better

comparison with experimental measurements. The slight favorable

comparison with experiments does not necessarily prove or disapprove

the superiority of the model accounting for the ﬁltration effects due to

the many uncertainties present inboththe model parameters andthe in

situ properties. Therefore, this issue still needs further investigations.

6. Conclusions

In this work, a comprehensive numerical model is developed with

the capability of modeling breaking solitary waves runup and

Fig. 7. Time history of the pore pressure variation at PPS1–4 (shown in the four subplots in the left column; located at x=25 m; Co-located with WG10) and PPS5–8 (shown in the

four subplots in the right column; located at the nominal shoreline, x=27 m; Co-located with WG12.). The time origin is shifted by 4.4 s compared to the ﬁgures in (Young et al.,

2010b-this issue).

129 H. Xiao et al. / Marine Geology 269 (2010) 119–131

drawdown over a mobile bed, including the effects of sediment

transport, morphological changes, and bed responses. The individual

components of the numerical model are ﬁrst validated against

previous analytical, numerical, and experimental studies. The simu-

lation results are compared to the data obtained from a set of large-

scale experimental studies with breaking solitary waves runup and

drawdown over a ﬁne sand beach presented in (Young et al., 2010b-

this issue).

The comparisons between numerical predictions and experimen-

tal measurements suggest that the current comprehensive numerical

model is able to capture the bulk of the physics during breaking

solitary wave runup and drawdown processes over a sand beach.

However, there are some discrepancies between the simulation

results and experimental measurements due to the limitations of

the depth-integrated wave simulator, the empirical nature of the

sediment transport model, as well as the uncertainties in the physical

properties of the bed material.

The study also suggests that including the ﬁltration effects in the

numerical model resulted in slightly favorable comparison to the

experimental results in some cases. However, due to the many

uncertainties in the model parameters, soil properties, and the limited

experimental results, deﬁnite conclusions cannot be made regarding

the role of ﬁltration ﬂows, which warrants further research.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge funding by the National

Science Foundation through the NSF George E. Brown, Jr. Network for

Earthquake Engineering Simulation (grant nos. 0530759 and

0653772) and through the NSF CMMI grant no. 0649155. Discussions

with Mr. Volker Roeber, and the data provided by Dr. Yong Wei are

gratefully acknowledged.

References

Army Corps, 1990. Engineering and Design: Settlement Analysis. Department of the

Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington DC. EM 1110-1-1904.

Biot, M.A., 1941. General theory of three-dimensional consolidation. Journal of Applied

Physics 12, 155–164.

Fig. 8. Morphological evolution caused by three consecutive 60-cm solitary waves

running onto a nominally 1:15 beach (with 15 min between the wave to allow the

water to return to a calm state). (a) The initial bed proﬁle and that after three waves

(numerical and experimental). (b) The amount of morphological change by three

waves (numerical and experimental). The envelopes in thin dash lines are the total

deposition and erosion from the numerical simulation, the sum of which being net

change (solid line).

Fig. 9. Variation of the Shields parameter according to Eq. (10) and modiﬁed Shields

parameter according to Eq. (11) during initial period of the wave breaking at t =2.94 s.

The wave and bed proﬁles are also shown as references.

Fig. 10. Inﬂuence of exﬁltration and inﬁltration on sediment transport and

morphological changes.

130 H. Xiao et al. / Marine Geology 269 (2010) 119–131

Borthwick, A.G.L., Ford, M., Weston, B.P., Taylor, P.H., Stansby, P.K., 2006. Solitary wave

transformation, breaking and run-up at a beach. Proceedings Institute of Civil

Engineering: Journal of Maritime Engineering 159 (3), 97–105.

Cao, Z., Carling, P., 2002. Mathematical modelling of alluvial rivers: reality and myth.

Part I: general overview. Water and Maritime Engineering 154, 207–219.

Cao, Z., Pender, G., Wallis, S., Carling, P., 2004. Computational dam-break hydraulics

over erodible sediment bed. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 130 (7), 689–703.

Carrier, G., Greenspan, H., 1958. Water waves of ﬁnite amplitude on a sloping beach.

Journal of Fluid Mechanics 4, 97–109.

Carrier, G., Wu, T., Yeh, H., 2003. Tsunami run-up and draw-down on a plane beach.

Journal of Fluid Mechanics 475, 79–99.

Conley, D.C., Douglas, L.I., 1994. Ventilated oscillatory boundary layers. Journal of Fluid

Mechanics 273, 261–284.

Coussy, O., 2004. Poromechanics. John & Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.

Drake, T.G., Calantoni, J., 2001. Discrete particle model for sheet ﬂow sediment

transport in the nearshore. Journal of Geophysical Research 106 (C), 19859–19868.

Fraccarollo, L., Toro, E., 1995. Experimental and numerical assessment of the shallow

water model for two-dimensional dam-break type problems. Journal of Hydraulic

Research 33 (6), 843–864.

Harten, A., Lax, P., van Leer, B., 1983. On upstream differencing and Godunov-type

schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws. SIAM Review 15 (1), 35–61.

Hoefel, F., Elgar, S., 2003. Wave-induced sediment transport and sandbar migration.

Science 299, 1885–1887.

Jeng, D.S., 2003. Wave-induced sea ﬂoor dynamics. Applied Mechanics Review 56 (4),

407–429.

Kim, D., Cho, Y., Kim, W., 2004. Weighted averaged ﬂux-type scheme for shallow water

equations with fractional step method. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130 (2),

152–160.

Kobayashi, N., Lawrence, A., 2004. Cross-shore sediment transport under breaking

solitary waves. Journal of Geophysical Research 109, C030047.

Lin, P., Liu, P., 2000. A numerical study of breaking waves in the surf zone. Journal of

Fluid Mechanics 259, 239–264.

Madsen, O.S., Durham, W.M., 2007. Pressure-induced subsurface sediment transport in

the surf zone. Proceeding of Coastal Sediments '07. ASCE, New Orleans, LA, pp.

82–95.

Madsen, P.A., Sørensen, O.R., 1992. A new form of the Boussinesq equations with

improved linear dispersion characteristics. Part II: a slowly-varying bathymetry.

Coastal Engineering 18 (3), 183–204.

Madsen, P.A., Murray, R., Sørensen, O.R., 1991. A new form of the Boussinesq equations

with improved linear dispersion characteristics. Part I. Coastal Engineering 15 (4),

371–388.

Meyer-Peter, E., Müller, R., 1948. Formulas of bed-load transport. Proc. 2nd meeting,

IAHR. Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 39–64.

Nielsen, P., 1997. Coastal groundwater dynamics. Proceeding of Coastal Dynamics '97.

ASCE, Plymouth, pp. 546–555.

Nielsen, P., Robert, S., Møller-Christiansen, B., Oliva, P., 2001. Inﬁltration effects on

sediment mobility under waves. Coastal Engineering 42, 105–114.

Prévost, J.H., 1983a. DYNAFLOW: A Nonlinear Transient Finite Element Analysis

Programme. Dept. of Civil Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. (last

updated 2008).

Prévost, J.H., 1983b. Implicit–explicit schemes for nonlinear consolidation. Computer

Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 39, 225–239.

Prévost, J.H., 1997. Partitioned solution procedure for simultaneous integration of

coupled-ﬁeld problems. Communications in Numerical Methods in Engineering 13,

239–247.

Pritchard, D., Hogg, A.J., 2005. On the transport of suspended sediment by a swash event

on a plane beach. Coastal Engineering 52, 1–23.

Puleo, J., Holland, K., Plant, N.G., D.S., Hanes, D., 2003. Fluid acceleration effects on

suspended sediment transport in the swash zone. Journal of Geophysical Research

108 (3350). doi:10.1029/2003JC001943.

Sassa, S., Sekiguchi, H., 1999. Wave-induced liquefaction of beds of sand in a centrifuge.

Géotechnique 49 (5), 621–638.

Sassa, S., Sekiguchi, H., 2001. Analysis of wave-induced liquefaction of sand beds.

Géotechnique 51 (2), 115–126.

Sassa, S., Sekiguchi, H., Miyamoto, J., 2001. Analysis of progressive liquefaction as a

moving-boundary problem. Géotechnique 51 (10), 847–857.

Schoonees, J.S., Theron, A.K., 1995. Evaluation of 10 cross-shore sediment transport/

morphological models. Coastal Engineering 25 (1), 1–41.

Simpson, G., Castelltort, S., 2006. Coupled model of surface water ﬂow, sediment

transport and morphological evolution. Computers & Geosciences 32, 1600–1614.

Synolakis, C., 1987. The runup of solitary waves. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 185, 523–545.

Tivoli, V., Synolakis, C., 1995. Modeling of breaking and nonbreaking long wave

evolution and runup using VTSC-2. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean

Engineering 121, 308–316.

Toro, E., 2000. Shock-Capturing Methods for Free-Surface Shallow Flows. John Wiley &

Sons, Ltd.

Tuck, E., Hwang, L., 1972. Long wave genertion on a sloping beach. Journal of Fluid

Mechanics 51, 449–461.

Turner, I.L., Masselink, G., 1998. Swash inﬁltration–exﬁltration and sediment transport.

Journal of Geophysical Research 103 (C), 30813–30824.

USACE, 1984. Shore Protection Manual, 4th Edition. Department of the Army, U.S. Corps

of Engineers, Washington, DC.

Verruijt, A., 1969. Elastic storage of aquifers. In: De-Wiest, R.J.M. (Ed.), Flow through

Porous Media. Academic Press, New York, pp. 331–376. Ch. 8.

Wei, Y., Mao, X., Cheung, K., 2006. Well-balanced ﬁnite-volume model for long wave

runup. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering 132 (2),

114–124.

Young, Y.L., White, J.A., Xiao, H., Borja, R.I., 2009a. Liquefaction potential of coastal

slopes induced by solitary waves. Acta Geotechnica 4 (1), 17–34.

Young, Y.L., Xiao, H., Maddux, T., 2010b. Hydro- and morpho-dynamic modeling of

breaking solitary waves over a ﬁne sand beach. Part I: Experimental study. Marine

Geology 269 (3-4), 107–118 (this issue).

Zoppou, C., Roberts, S., 2000. Numerical solution of the two-dimensional unsteady dam

break. Applied Mathematical Modelling 24, 457–475.

131 H. Xiao et al. / Marine Geology 269 (2010) 119–131

Turbulence structures affecting stone stability in backward-facing step flow

unsteady behavior of back-facing step flow

수변 복합문화 공간 조성, KNCOLD

Implications of climate variability
and hydrologic dynamics in modeling

02_chapter02

water resources planning and management

Telemac2d model GUI Interface

BlueKenue

Local_Scour_Free_Surface_Mesh.pdf

introduction of Finite-Volume-Method

TELEMAC code instructions

Coupled model of SWE and sediment transport on unstructured mesh

openfoam model snappyhexMesh tutorial

openfoam model tutorial

openfoam mesh generation

The-Social-Life-of-Small-Urban-Spaces

a depth integrated model for suspended transport

sedimentation and erosion

minor loss of hydraulics

Riv Sys Bars

Vignoli

Gnu Plot

Experimental Study and Numerical Simulation of Sediment Transport in a Shallow Reservoir

EFDC Theory & Tech Aspects of Sed Trans (2003 05)

- Read and print without ads
- Download to keep your version
- Edit, email or read offline

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

CANCEL

OK

You've been reading!

NO, THANKS

OK

scribd