Boundary Layer Approach

© All Rights Reserved

12 views

Boundary Layer Approach

© All Rights Reserved

- Full Text 01
- Critical Reynolds Number in Pipe Flow
- Fillet White Paper
- Aerodynamics
- Convection Heat Transfer (Chapter 6)
- An Investigative Study of Gurney Flaps on a NACA 0036 Airfoil
- Formula SAE Shock Absorber Design
- Leonard Et Al-1995-International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids
- Lab 2 Reynolds Number Lab
- Numerical Study Using FLUENT of the Separation And
- FLOODING AND FLOW REVERSAL IN ANNULAR TWO-PHASE FLOWS
- Post-publication peer review of Van Metre et al. (2012a, 2012b)
- Convection
- Drlg310b Hydraulics 2
- Fully Developed Trubulencet
- Fluid Mech Course P
- AV-714_notes
- The Boundary Layer at the Bottom of a Solitary Wave and Implications for Sediment Transport
- 1997 Aiaa j Mittal
- turbmodel

You are on page 1of 11

Coastal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/coastaleng

Mohammad Bagus Adityawan a, b,, Hitoshi Tanaka b, Pengzhi Lin c

a

b

c

Water Resources Engineering Research Group, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jalan Ganesha 10, Indonesia

Department of Civil Engineering, Tohoku University, 6-6-06 Aoba, Sendai 980-8579, Japan

State Key Laboratory of Hydraulics and Mountain River Engineering, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610065, China

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:

Received 13 February 2012

Received in revised form 9 November 2012

Accepted 20 November 2012

Available online 20 December 2012

Keywords:

Breaking wave

Solitary wave

Wave runup

Boundary layer

Bed stress

Simultaneous coupling method

a b s t r a c t

The boundary layer is very important in the relation between wave motion and bed stress, such as sediment

transport. It is a known fact that bed stress behavior is highly inuenced by the boundary layer beneath the

waves. Specically, the boundary layer underneath wave runup is difcult to assess and thus, it has not yet

been widely discussed, although its importance is signicant. In this study, the shallow water equation (SWE)

prediction of wave motion is improved by being coupled with the k model, as opposed to the conventional

empirical method, to approximate bed stress. Subsequently, the First Order Center Scheme and Monotonic Upstream Scheme of Conservation Laws (FORCE MUSCL), which is a nite volume shock-capturing scheme, is applied to extend the SWE range for breaking wave simulation. The proposed simultaneous coupling method

(SCM) assumes the depth-averaged velocity from the SWE is equivalent to free stream velocity. In turn, free

stream velocity is used to calculate a pressure gradient, which is then used by the k model to approximate

bed stress. Finally, this approximation is applied to the momentum equation in the SWE. Two experimental

cases will be used to verify the SCM by comparing runup height, surface uctuation, bed stress, and turbulent intensity values. The SCM shows good comparison to experimental data for all before-mentioned parameters. Further analysis shows that the wave Reynolds number increases as the wave propagates and that the turbulence

behavior in the boundary layer gradually changes, such as the increase of turbulent intensity.

2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The boundary layer approach in approximating bed stress under

wave motion is crucial, especially in bed stress related analyses, i.e.

sediment transport and scouring. It is highly important in relevance to

coastal morphology changes. An extreme example of coastal morphology changes is given by the effect of a tsunami wave such as was shown

in the recent Great East Japan Tsunami, 2011 and the Great Indian

Ocean Tsunami, 2004. Studies on bed stress behaviors under wave

runup may provide better understanding of this phenomenon with

respect to future disaster.

The studies of tsunami effects on coastal regions are normally

conducted by eld assessment, modeling, or experiment. The solitary wave approach is commonly used in the study of tsunamis.

One of the leading studies on solitary wave runup is given by

Synolakis (1986, 1987) in which he conducted experiments and an

analytical solution for runup height. The work has been used as a

benchmark for other various models. The popularity of a modeling

approach in wave runup study is continuously increasing. Current

trends in wave runup modeling emphasize on travel time, runup

height or inundated area. However, studies emphasizing on bed

Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, Tohoku University, 6-6-06

Aoba, Sendai 980-8579, Japan. Tel./fax: +81 22 795 7453;

E-mail address: bagus@kasen1.civil.tohoku.ac.jp (M.B. Adityawan).

0378-3839/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2012.11.005

stress and boundary layer, especially under wave runup, are not

common yet. Boundary layer beneath the wave motion is essential,

especially in the coastal morphology changes. The sediment transport process under wave motion is closely related to the bed shear

stress, which is inuenced by the boundary layer beneath the wave

itself (Vittori and Blondeaux, 2008).

There are very limited resources regarding boundary layer for solitary waves, especially in open-channel umes. Measurement of turbulent behavior requires multiple wave cycles with the same initial

conditions of still water level. It is considered to be difcult and time

consuming to accomplish these conditions in open-channel umes.

Studies mainly use closed-channel umes, which may resemble the solitary prole to some extent. Liu et al. (2007) have reported that the bed

stress changes its sign in the deceleration phase to the opposite direction of the free stream velocity. Sumer et al. (2010) investigated and

proposed Reynolds number criteria for a boundary layer under solitary

waves. Tanaka et al. (2011) developed a new generation method for investigating the boundary layer under solitary waves. These studies have

provided valuable information on the boundary layer under solitary

wave motion. However, the boundary layer under wave runup has

not been investigated widely since the closed-channel umes experiment neglects the effect of nonlinearity. Recently, Sumer et al. (2011)

conducted breaking solitary wave experiments in an open channel.

Several measurements were performed, including the surface prole,

the bed stress and its uctuation. The experiment was conducted on a

168

sloping beach with 1/14 slope with an incoming wave Reynolds number

of 54,000. Based on criteria for solitary wave from Sumer et al. (2010),

this condition falls in the laminar region. However, the criterion was derived from a closed ume experiment. In this experiment, it was found

that the Reynolds number increases as the wave travels to the shore and

may reach as high as 300,000 with signicant turbulence observed.

Study on the boundary layer under solitary waves by Suntoyo and

Tanaka (2009) has shown good accuracy of bed stress approximation

from the boundary layer using a numerical model. Two equation

models are often used to assess the boundary layer properties with

k- and k being the most common. The k model has the ability

to accommodate the roughness effect of the bed boundary condition,

and is considered to be more accurate in assessing the boundary

layer properties (Adityawan and Adityawan, 2011). Adityawan and

Tanaka (in press) proposed the simultaneous coupling method

(SCM) to assess boundary layer under non-breaking solitary wave

runup. They developed the SCM that couples the SWE with the k

method. The basic idea is to obtain an efcient model such as the

SWE yet capable of assessing the boundary layer beneath the wave

itself. However, the wave Reynolds number in the experiment is

very low; hence, there was no signicant turbulence activity observed. Nevertheless, they have made it clear that bed stress assessment using the boundary layer approach provides information on

known bed stress behaviors under wave motion (i.e. phase shift

and sign change), which are not accessible when using the empirical

Manning approach.

The modeling of breaking solitary wave runup has been widely

studied through various different approaches. An accurate reproduction of breaking waves requires a 2D vertical system to simulate the

dissipation such as given by NEWFLUME (Lin et al., 1999) and

CADMAS SURF (Isobe et al., 1999). The breaking wave simulation in

the SWE and other depth-averaged models are not able to accurately

represent breaking waves. The Boussinesq model requires a breaking

term to be included, which is determined by a calibration process

with experimental or eld data. Zelt (1991) conducted a detailed

laboratory experiment and developed numerical models based on

the Boussinesq type of model, accommodating the constant friction

coefcient and articial dissipation for breaking waves. However, it

was found that the constant friction coefcient value was not a

good solution and should be adjusted in time and space. The SWE

based model, on the other hand, is relatively exible to modify and to

accommodate various treatments. Implementation of certain nite difference numerical schemes in the SWE enhances its capability in

modeling the breaking waves. The Leapfrog scheme performs well in

solving the SWE due to the nature of the scheme that provides diffusive

effect (Imamura, 1995). Thus, it is widely used in far eld tsunami simulations. Other nite difference numerical schemes, such as the Mac

Cormack scheme, were used to investigate runup of a uniform bore on

a sloping beach (Vincent et al., 2001). Conventional nite difference

methods suffer from high oscillation under shock. Articial dissipation,

i.e. Hansen (1962), or changing to a more dissipative scheme is commonly used to reduce the high oscillation. Nevertheless, these steps

must be taken with care. Implementation of a strong dissipation scheme

may lead to unrealistic results, such as the rapid decay of the wave.

Additionally, a weak dissipation scheme may lead to numerical errors

when dealing with abrupt changes. Moreover, articial dissipation

may require determination based on a trial and error procedure. Application of the Mac Cormack nite difference in combination with articial dissipation is given for the 2004 Tsunami, Banda Aceh (Kusuma et

al., 2008), which requires further enhancement of the method.

Finite volume schemes may provide robust ways to handle shock

in the SWE model. Li and Raichlen (2002) developed their model

based on the SWE without friction and veried their simulation

using experimental data from Synolakis (1986). The breaking wave

in their model was treated using the Weighted Essentially

Non-Oscillatory (WENO). WENO schemes achieve higher order

approximation by a linear combination of lower order uxes or reconstruction that provides a high order accuracy and non-oscillatory property near discontinuities. They concluded that the model is simple yet

reasonably suited for estimating solitary wave runup height. Modication of the Godunov-type scheme leads to a second order accuracy in

space such as Monotonic Upstream Scheme of Conservation Laws

(MUSCL) scheme (Toro, 1996). Combining it with the First Order

Centered Scheme (FORCE) (Toro, 2001) and Total Variation Diminished

(TVD) Runge-Kutta (Mahdavi and Talebbeydokhti, 2009) further enhanced the method. Employment of such scheme efciently enhances

the SWE capability for breaking wave simulations.

In this study, the SCM is enhanced using the FORCE MUSCL

shock-capturing scheme for breaking wave simulations. Two case studies of breaking solitary wave runup are used to verify the model. The

boundary layer assessment is veried with the latest open channel experiment by Sumer et al. (2011). This case is currently the only study

that provides detailed measurement on bed stress and turbulence

under solitary wave runup. The runup height estimation is veried

with the well-known canonical problems by Synolakis (1986). This

case has been widely used as numerical model benchmark for solitary

wave runup.

2. Methodology

2.1. Governing equations

The SWE consists of the continuity equation and the momentum

equation as follows:

h Uh

0

t

x

U

U

h zb 0

0

U

g

h

t

x

x

gravity, zb is the bed elevation, is uid density and 0 is the bed

stress. The Manning equation is commonly used to assess bed stress.

START

t=0

INITIAL CONDITION

t=1

k- model

u, v,

SWE model

h, U

t=2

k- model

u, v,

SWE model

h, U

FINISH

169

SWE domain

dx

h,U (SWE)

(2 3 times

of BL

thickness)

(Momentum)

k- domain

intial condition in

moving boundary

linear

for kextrapolation from

behind grids

Bed

Bed

dy

Fig. 2. Model domain for SCM.

The bed stress relation in the conventional Manning method is assumed linear to the square of velocity as shown below:

of continuity and momentum:

0

2 U jU j

gn

Rh 1=3

ui

0

xi

However, the SCM applied in this study approximate bed stress

from the boundary layer approach using the k model.

The boundary layer is assessed using the k model. This model is

chosen because it has been shown to perform better in assessing boundary layer properties (Sana et al., 2009). Additionally, the model's capability to accommodate rough bed boundary condition (Suntoyo et al., 2008)

is important in the future development of the SCM. The governing

Begin

t=0

ui

u

P

2sij u i u j

uj i

t

xj xi

where ui and xi denotes the velocity in the boundary layer and location in

the grid, ui is the uctuating velocity in the x (i=1) and y (i=2) directions, P is the static pressure, is the kinematics viscosity, u i u j is

FORCE

i+1/2

MUSCL

V

t

i+1/2

(-)

i+1/2

(+)

FORCE

Delta

Delta

Central difference

loop

t = t+dt

i-1/2

TVD

i-1

i+1+1/2

i+1/2

i+1

i+2

MUSCL

End

t=T

Cell i

Fig. 3. Calculation method for breaking wave.

170

Toe

Initial Shoreline

x=0

Swash Zone

Solitary Wave

H

0.4

5.6

Measurement section

8

Swash Zone

Hydraulic

Jump

Wave breaks

0.15

0.15

(x,t)

ho

h(x)

tan

1/20

x=0

x0

x1

Fig. 4. Solitary wave runup on a sloping bottom sketch.

the Reynolds stress tensor, and Sij is the strain-rate tensor from the following equation.

1 ui uj

Sij

2 xj xi

!

6

Boussinesq's approximation (Boussinesq, 1897):

!

u i u j vt

ui uj

2

kij

3

xj xi

The turbulent kinetic energy and specic dissipation rate, in the

k model, equation is given as follows:

"

#

k

k

ui

k

ij

k

v vt

uj

xj

t

xj

xj

xj

"

#

2

ij i

v vt

uj

k

xj

t

xj

xj

xj

7

Table 2

Data source and parameters.

Parameter

Table 1

Measurement point location (Case 1).

Case 1

Case 2

Section

x (m)

h (t = 0) (m)

Toe

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

5.6

0.97

0.91

0.73

0.49

0.25

0.01

0.05

0.25

0.40

0.07

0.07

0.05

0.04

0.02

0.00

0.00

0.00

h0 (m)

H/h0

Slope

Incoming wave Re

Data source acquired for comparison

Spatial Re

Breaking wave sequence

Water level uctuation

Surface prole

Bed stress and k value

Run up height

0.4

0.175

1/14

54000

0.13

0.3

1/20

18000

O

O

O Dimensional

O (Non-dimensional)

O Dimensional

O (Non-dimensional)

171

1250000

1000000

Section 1

Re

750000

500000

2x105<Re<5x105(Sumer, 2010)

250000

0

-10

-5

10

15

x*

Fig. 5. Spatial Reynolds number (Case 1).

with being the kinematic viscosity of the uid and the eddy viscosity

(t) is given by

vt

10

= 3/40, * = 0.09, = 5/9, and = * = 0.5. The boundary condition

at the bottom is a no-slip boundary, hence a zero value of turbulent kinetic energy and velocity as well as the dissipation rate gradient. At the

free stream, it is assumed that the velocity gradient, turbulent kinetic

energy gradient and the dissipation rate gradient are zero.

2.2. Simultaneous coupling method (SCM)

There are two governing equations in the SCM as mentioned in the

previous section. They are the SWE and the k equation. The equations are calculated separately at each time step, however their results

are connected, allowing for simultaneous calculation. The basic idea behind the calculation is to upgrade the SWE model by replacing the Manning method with a more accurate method to approximate the bed

stress term within the momentum equation. The commonly used Manning approach will be replaced by a direct approach of bed stress in the

region near the bed using a k model.

Calculation begins with an initial condition of the parameters. An

initial value of friction coefcient is stated for bed stress calculation in

the SWE model (Tanaka and Thu, 1994). The velocity obtained from

the SWE model is applied as the free stream velocity boundary condition in the k model as given below:

P U

U

U

x

t

x

11

0

u

v vt

12

Fig. 1.

A grid system is developed to allow both models to be coupled simultaneously. The grid system for the method does not require a horizontal and vertical grid system to cover the whole domain from bed to

surface. The vertical grid is only required in the near bottom area to assess the boundary layer for bed stress calculation. The grid system limits

the model to simulating a beach with a slope of less than 1/5. In addition, a steep slope causes the boundary layer approach in the y-axis to

no longer apply since the boundary layer develops perpendicular to

the bed.

The water depth becomes very thin at the wave front. In this region,

the boundary layer may develop up to the surface. The boundary layer

thickness is dened as the location where the upper boundary velocity

ratio to free stream is larger than 99%. The limit for the region in which

the boundary layer does not develop up to the surface is dened as the

location where the boundary layer thickness and water depth ratio does

not exceed 33%. This limit acts as a moving boundary for the simulation,

which will change location at each time step. The values were chosen to

ensure the stability and the efciency of the simulation. A higher value

will be used to cover larger domains; however, the boundary will

change rapidly in each calculation step. Other values of threshold may

be applied but must not exceed 50% as shown by Tanaka et al. (1999).

Outside this region the bed stress is calculated using the momentum

equation in the SWE as proposed by Elfrink and Fredse (1993). The

500000

2x105<Re<5x105(Sumer, 2010)

400000

300000

Re

where U is the obtained free steam velocity from SWE, and P is the pressure applied in assessing thin boundary layer thickness as compared

with its water depth. Furthermore, the bed stress obtained from the

k model is applied in the momentum equation of SWE model.

200000

100000

0

-10

-5

x*

Fig. 6. Spatial Reynolds number (Case 2).

10

15

20

172

the boundary layer thickness (), the gradient of k, and u to the

y-axis is zero ( F/y = 0).

Uc H

and Talebbeydokhti, 2009), to extend the SWE capability for breaking

wave computation. This scheme was chosen since it was mainly developed to handle shock for wave breaking.

The FORCE-MUSCL scheme is based on a nite volume scheme. It

is basically a combination of several schemes, which covers both

high and low dissipation schemes (Lax Friedrich and Lax Wendroff),

with the application of a slope limiter. The grid reconstruction for

conservative variables in the SWE utilizes MUSCL, which is commonly used in nite volume. It handles shock by applying a slope limiter

function. This method adopted the Superbee-type-non-linear slope

limiter (Toro, 2001). Moreover, to ensure its stability, time derivation is solved using the TVD Runge Kutta scheme. Thus, the time

step for the computation is not constant. It has to follow the Courrant

number criteria. It is found that the Courrant number range of 0.4-0.8

provides an accurate result with efcient computation time. The ow

chart for the computation is shown in Fig. 3.

U U=U c

16

q

g=h0

17

0:5

t t g=h0

18

verication of the SCM, is given in Table 2.

The model is used to simulate two experimental cases of breaking

solitary wave runup on a sloping bottom from previous studies. The

rst one is the case of solitary wave runup by Sumer et al. (2011),

from here on referred to as Case 1, in which verication and analysis

are conducted mostly for the boundary layer. The second experiment

is the case of solitary wave runup by Synolakis (1986), from here on

referred to as Case 2, in which verication and analysis are

conducted for the water surface prole and runup height. Both

cases have a different bed slope value and incoming wave ratio to

still water depth. Case 1 provided measurement data for the time

variation of bed stress, bed stress uctuation, and surface uctuation

at measured point. Additionally, this case also provides illustration of

the breaking wave sequence. Parameters in Case 1 are given in their

dimensional form. On the other hand, Case 2 provided detailed measurements of the water level prole along the channel and the corresponding runup height, based on analytical and empirical methods.

The parameters in Case 2 are given in a non-dimensional form. Due

to the nature of its experiment, Case 2 has been widely used as a numerical model benchmark. The illustration for case 1 and case 2 is

given in Fig. 4(a) and (b), respectively.

The experiment in Case 1 was conducted on a sloping beach with 1/

14 slope. The incoming wave height ratio to the still water level (H/h0)

was 0.1775. Detailed measurement was conducted at 8 points. The location of these points is given in Fig. 4(a) and Table 1. The incoming wave

in Case 2 is given by H/h0 = 0.3, which corresponds to breaking wave

simulation. The beach slope was 1/20.

Case 2 is generally presented in non-dimensional parameter as follows. Linear dimension of horizontal distance (x) and vertical distance

(y) are divided by the still water depth (h0), giving non-dimensional

coordinates as follows:

x x=h0

13

h h=h0

14

=h0

b) Runup

d) Trailing wave

15

173

as in Sumer et al. (2011):

The SCM adopts an adaptive time step interval ensuring the stability of the computation for any grid size in horizontal direction.

The grid size in the horizontal direction for both cases is chosen to

capture the runup movement as accurately as possible. In this

study, the value is taken to be 0.1x*. On the other hand, the vertical

grid size is determined to ensure that the model can fully capture

the boundary layer thickness. The mesh size of the calculation for

Case 1 was given by 0.04 m horizontally and 0.0002 m vertically.

The mesh size of the calculation for Case 2 was given by 0.013 m horizontally and 0.0005 m vertically.

Re

Um

1

19

follow:

1

r

3

1

gH

4

h0

20

where H is the incoming wave height and h0 is the initial normal water

depth.

The incoming wave Re for Case 1 was 54,000. Based on criteria for

solitary wave from Sumer et al. (2010), this condition falls in the laminar region. However, it was found in the experiment that the Re value at

point 1 is 300,000. Moreover, bed stress measurement shows signicant

Verication of the SCM range of applicability is given by conducting

analysis on the spatial wave Reynolds (Re) number along the domain.

Toe

5.6 m

5.6 m Toe

0.97 m

10

Section1

10

Section1

SCM

(cm)

(cm)

SCM

5

-5

-5

-2

Section5

10

10

12

14

t (s)

t (s)

a) Toe

b) Section 1

5.6m Toe

0.25 m

0.01 m

Section5

10

12

14

5.6 m Toe

Section6 Section6

10

(cm)

SCM

SCM

-5

-5

0

10

12

14

t (s)

t (s)

c) Section 3

d) Section 5

5.6 m Toe

-0.25 m

Section8

10

Section8

SCM

(cm)

(cm)

-5

0

t (s)

e) Section 8

Fig. 8. Water level comparison (Case 1).

10

12

14

10

12

14

174

18,000. As in Case 1, this condition still falls within laminar conditions

based on the criteria by Sumer et al. (2010) Nevertheless, as it has

been shown by Sumer et al. (2011), higher Re with notable turbulence

behavior may occur in the shallower areas.

The spatial Reynolds number value for Case 1 is shown in Fig. 5.

Here, the non-dimensional distance (x*) is used as in Case 2

(Fig. 6). Case 2 is provided here to show that the SCM range covers

low and high Reynolds number regimes. The Reynolds number for

Case 1 at Section 1 from the simulation agrees with the experiment

value of approximately 300,000. The Reynolds number increases

drastically as it gets closer to the shoreline although the incoming

Reynolds number falls in the laminar region. The highest Reynolds

number based on the SCM may reach up to 1,100,000, located around

the initial position of the shoreline. The SCM is able to simulate all regimes, including transition and turbulence based on the classication by Sumer et al. (2010).

Similar behaviors were observed in Case 2 as shown in Fig. 6. A

signicant increase in the Reynolds number also occurred near the

shoreline. However, the highest Reynolds number was approximately

450,000, at similar locations to Case 1, around the initial position of

the shoreline. In both cases, a critical value of Re was achieved at the

shallow area. Moreover, the Reynolds number values in Case 2

exceeded these critical values in Case 1.

In both gures (Figs. 5 and 6), the Reynolds numbers oscillate the

most in shallower area. The Re value is estimated from the maximum

velocity recorded at the corresponding point. The value of the maximum velocity may oscillate in shallower area due to the limiter function

that handles the shock.

3.2. Breaking wave sequence

Breaking wave sequence comparison from Case 1 is compared to the

sequence from the SCM. The sequence comparisons are shown in

Fig. 7(a)(d). It is clearly shown that the SCM may reproduce all of

the sequences as observed in the experiment. The breaking solitary

wave runup sequence starts with an increase in the incoming wave

height. This increase occurs along with wave deformation and follows

immediately after wave breaking. During the run down, the ow is

strong enough to move the shoreline in a seaward direction. This strong

ow creates a hydraulic jump-like behavior. The shoreline moves back

to its original position creating trailing waves. A similar behavior is observed in the SCM results.

3.3. Surface prole and runup height

Comparisons of free surface uctuation between the SCM data and

measured data for Case 1 at several points in the domain are given in

Bottom

Exp. (Synolakis, 1986)

SWE (Manning-FORCE MUSCL)

SWE (Manning-Mac Cormack)

0.6

a) t* = 15

0.5

0.4

NEWFLUME

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

-0.1

-5

10

15

20

10

15

20

10

15

20

x*

0.6

b) t* = 20

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

-0.1

-5

x*

0.6

c) t* = 25

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

-0.1

-0.2

-5

x*

Fig. 9. Free surface comparison (Case 2).

Breaking wave

R/h0

data in all sections. A more detailed surface prole and runup height is

given in Case 2. Case 2 is commonly accepted as a runup simulation

benchmark. Thus, several other models were compared for verication.

They are the SWE (SCM-FORCE MUSCL), SWE (Manning-FORCE

MUSCL), SWE (Manning-Mac Cormack) and NEWFLUME (Lin et al.,

1999). Here, the Manning roughness (n) value in the SWE is 0.01,

which was determined by trial and error to give the highest accuracy

of the runup height. This value corresponds well with the experiment

condition.

The wave prole comparison between the experimental data

and the numerical methods is shown in Fig. 9. The Mac Cormack

method is not able to provide a realistic wave prole at the top. It

produces a pointy-shaped wave top, followed by a near at water

surface which can be seen at t* = 15 and 20 in Fig. 9. It also fails

to give a realistic prole at the rst instances of motion of a breaking wave over a dry bed. At this location, shock and discontinuity

occur and cannot be accurately simulated with the Mac Cormack

method. The FORCE MUSCL method gives a better prole for comparison to the measured data than the Mac Cormack method.

Moreover, FORCE MUSCL with the SCM performs better than the

conventional Manning method.

The NEW FLUME undeniably provides very realistic and accurate

results (Fig. 9). In addition, the NEWFLUME provides detail on the kinetic energy especially near the surface. This ability is highly crucial in

breaking wave study and suspended load transport mechanisms.

However, the computation time is about 15 times that of the SWE

and 2 times that of the SCM (Table 3). Nevertheless, the simulation

result is highly informative (Lin et al., 1999).

Runup height comparison is given in Fig. 10. Here, the models

were used to simulate various incoming height condition. Implementation of the FORCE MUSCL method gives a much better

runup height comparison for the SWE-type model (Table 3). It

should be noted here that additional cases with different magnitudes of incoming wave were simulated for runup height comparison with the runup law (Synolakis, 1986) which were also used

to estimate the root mean square error value (RMSE) for each

model. The lowest RMSE value is given by SWE (SCM-FORCE

MUSLC), followed by SWE (Manning-FORCE MUSCL). The highest

error is given by SWE (Manning-Mac Cormack). The runup height

prediction in NEWFLUME depends highly on the method used for

constructing the surface. Therefore, this model was not included

in the RMSE comparison. In addition, non-breaking wave simulations from a previous study (Adityawan and Tanaka, in press) was

added in Fig. 10 to show the SCM range of applicability. It should

be noted here that Reynolds number for non-breaking wave case

is very low. Therefore, the Manning roughness value for non-SCM

model was adjusted (n = 0.046). The SWE (SCM) model gives a better estimation of the runup height than SWE (Manning). Details on

the non-breaking wave simulation can be found in the reference

(Adityawan and Tanaka, in press).

175

0.1

0.01

0.001

0.01

0.1

H/h0

Run Up Law (Synolakis, 1986)

SWE (SCM) non-breaking (Aditawan and Tanaka, 2011 b)

SWE (Manning) non-breaking (Adityawan and Tanaka, 2011b)

SWE (Manning-Mac Cormack)

SWE (Manning-FORCE MUSCL)

NEWFLUME

SWE (SCM-FORCE MUSCL)

Fig. 10. Runup height comparison (slope 1/20).

Case 1 provided valuable parameters regarding bed stress and k

values under solitary wave runup. Here, bed stress is normalized as

follow:

0

0

U c 2

21

Bed stress comparison between the SCM data and measured data at

several points in the domain is given in Fig. 11. Overall, the SCM result

shows good comparison with the measurement. However, discrepancies can be found especially during the down rush. As it was explained

earlier, the SCM employs moving boundary condition threshold, based

on the ratio of the boundary layer thickness to the corresponding

water depth for separating the region where the boundary layer approach is used. During the down rush, there can be sudden change in

the before-mentioned threshold due to the sudden decrease of the

water level resulting in less accurate bed stress estimation.

The measured bed stress uctuation at the corresponding points is

compared to the turbulent intensity from the SCM. Bed stress

Table 3

Model performance comparison (Case 2).

Method

Governing equation

Real time

Breaking wave

RMSE of run up height (R/h0)

Advantage

SWE

NEWFLUME

SCM-FORCE MUSCL

Manning (n = 0.01)

McCormack

FORCE MUSCL

SWE + k

Approx. 70 min

Very good

0.001

Breaking wave + boundary

layer

SWE

Approx. 15 min

Poor

0.032

SWE

Approx. 12 min

Very good

0.002

Breaking wave

RANS 2DV k-

Approx. 160 min

Excellent

breaking in details

176

5.6 m Toe

0.91 m

Section 2

1.5

5.6 m Toe

0.25 m

Section 2

SCM

Section 5

1.5

Section 5

SCM

0*

0.5

0*

0

-0.5

0.5

0

-0.5

-1

-1

0

10

12

14

10

a) Section 2

b) Section 5

5.6 m Toe

-0.25 m

Section 6

12

14

Section 6

Section 8

1.5

SCM

0*

t (s)

5.6 m Toe

0.01 m

1.5

t (s)

Section 8

SCM

0.5

0.5

0*

0

-0.5

-0.5

-1

-1

-1.5

0

10

12

14

10

t (s)

t(s)

c) Section 6

d) Section 8

12

14

However, they both show the turbulence behavior in the boundary

layer. Thus, similar behavior between the two parameters is expected.

It is found that the uctuation magnitude and occurrence time are

closely related to the estimated turbulent intensity value (Fig. 12).

Here, y is the non-dimensional height from the bottom with its

0.2

5.6 m Toe

0.91 m

Section 2

0.1

intensity given as,

k

k

2

g=h0 0:5 H

0.2

Section 2

0.2

5.6 m Toe

0.25 m

Section 5

22

Section 8

Section 5

0.1

0.1

-0.1

-0.1

0

10

12

14

10

12

14

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0

0

10

12

14

10

12

14

10

12

14

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

10

12

14

0

0.7

t (s)

k*

t (s)

0.8

t (s)

t (s)

0.6

0.6

t (s)

0.8

0.8

Section 8

-0.1

0

t (s)

5.6 m Toe

-0.25 m

k*

0.7

k*

0.7

y'

y'

0.0

0.0

0.0

a) Section 2

b) Section 5

Fig. 12. Turbulent intensity and bed stress uctuation comparison.

c) Section 8

stress uctuation, normalized as follow:

0

0

0

U c 2

23

is no signicant k value that is conrmed by the low value of bed

stress uctuation. On the other hand, the k value is high at the

runup, which is conrmed with a high magnitude of bed stress uctuation. Thus, the bed-generated stress plays an important role in the

overall process. Overall, the similarity of k values from the SCM data

and the measured bed stress uctuation conrms the SCM's ability

to assess a turbulent boundary layer.

It is interesting to note that turbulence behavior appears earlier as

the wave approaches the shoreline with respects to the wave shape. It

has been shown by Sumer et al. (2010) that turbulent activities shift

from a deceleration phase to an acceleration phase as the Re increases. The SCM results show that at Section 2 (Fig. 12(a), at Re =

350,000) turbulent activity under the wave runup is low. At Section

5 (Fig. 12(b), at Re = 400,000) the turbulence behavior under the

wave runup occurs around the wave peak. However, turbulence behavior under the wave runup appears earlier than the wave peak at

Section 8 (Fig. 12(c), at Re = 1,000,000).

4. Conclusions

The application of the boundary layer approach for breaking solitary wave runup simulation has been accomplished. The FORCE

MUSCL scheme has been implemented in the SCM. Two cases were

simulated to verify the SCM. In general, the SCM is able to reproduce

water surface evolution along with the general sequence of breaking

solitary wave runup. The SCM estimates bed stress directly from the

boundary layer, which leads to a higher accuracy. Runup height comparison shows that the SCM increases the SWE based model accuracy

in predicting water surface prole and the runup height.

The SCM data has been veried with the measured bed stress and

bed stress uctuation. The bed stress from the SCM shows good comparison to the measured value. In addition, the turbulent activity in

the boundary layer beneath the wave corresponds well to the measured bed stress uctuation. It is noted that as the wave approaches

the shoreline and the wave Reynolds number increases, turbulent activities may start earlier than the wave peak.

Overall, the SCM is a promising solution for boundary layer analysis under wave runup for future practical application. The SCM has

the simplicity of the SWE, yet it provides more details in terms of

the boundary layer. Future development may combine the basic

idea of the SCM with NEWFLUME. The SCM assumes uniform velocity

outside the boundary layer up to the surface. NEWFLUME may provide a better estimation of vertical velocity prole outside the boundary layer with the k- model. Therefore, the velocity outside the

boundary layer can be accurately estimated. The k model may

use this calculated velocity and utilize it to assess boundary layer.

Thus, the developed model may assess boundary layer as in the

SCM, yet be fully capable of simulating ow in detail as in NEWFLUME.

Both models were developed under different approaches and concerns.

The combination of both will be highly benecial for coastal sediment

transport related studies, since it may accurately predict both bed load

and suspended load.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the nancial supports from

Grant-in-Aid for Scientic Research from Japan Society for Promotion

of Science (No. 21360230, No. 22360193, and No. 2301367), the River

177

Environmental Management (FOREM), Japan, Open Fund from State

Key laboratory of Hydraulics and Mountain River Engineering

(SKLH-OF-0907), Natural Science Foundation of China (51061130547

and 51279120). The rst author is a Postdoctoral Fellow granted by

JSPS (No. P11367).

References

Adityawan, M.B., Adityawan, H., 2011. Boundary layer under oscillatory wave. ISRN Applied Mathematics 8 (Article ID 814045). http://dx.doi.org/10.5402/2011/814045.

Adityawan, M.B., Tanaka, H., in press. Bed stress assessment under solitary wave runup.

Earth Planets and Space, Tsunami: Science, Technology, and Disaster Mitigation 64,

945954.

Boussinesq, J., 1897. Theorie de l'ecoulement turbillonnant et tumultueux des liquides

dans les lits rectilignes a grande section. Gaulthier-Villars.

Elfrink, B., Fredse, J., 1993. The effect of the turbulent boundary layer on wave runup.

Progress Report, 74. Technical University of Denmark, pp. 5165.

Hansen, W., 1962. Hydrodynamical methods applied to oceanographic problems. Proc.

Symp. Math.-Hydrodyn. Meth. Phys. Oceanogr.

Imamura, F., 1995. Tsunami Numerical Simulation with the Staggered Leap-Frog

Scheme (Numerical Code of TUNAMI-N1 and N2). Disaster Control Research Center, Tohoku University.

Isobe, M., Takahashi, S., Yu, S.P., Sakakiyama, T., Fujima, K., Kawasaki, K., Jiang, Q.,

Akiyama, M., Oyama, H., 1999. Interim development of a numerical wave ume

for maritime structure design. Proceedings of Civil Engineering in the Ocean 15,

321326.

Kusuma, M.S.B., Adityawan, M.B., Farid, M., 2008. Modeling two dimension inundation

ow generated by tsunami propagation in Banda Aceh city. Proceedings of International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation.

Li, Y., Raichlen, F., 2002. Non-breaking and breaking solitary wave runup. Journal of

Fluid Mechanics 456, 295318.

Lin, P., Chang, K.-A., Liu, P.L.-F., 1999. Runup and rundown of solitary waves on sloping

beaches. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering 125 (5),

247255.

Liu, P.L.-F., Park, Y.S., Cowen, E.A., 2007. Boundary layer ow and bed shear stress under

a solitary wave. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 135, 449463.

Mahdavi, A., Talebbeydokhti, N., 2009. Modeling of non-breaking and breaking solitary

wave runup using FORCE-MUSCL scheme. Journal of Hydraulic Research 47 (4),

476485.

Sana, A., Ghumman, A.R., Tanaka, H., 2009. Modeling of a rough-wall oscillatory boundary layer using two-equation turbulence models. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering

135 (1), 6065.

Sumer, B.M., Jensen, P.M., Srensen, L.B., Fredse, J., Liu, P.L.-F., Cartesen, S., 2010. Coherent structures in wave boundary layers. Part2. Solitary motion. Journal of

Fluid Mechanics 646, 207231.

Sumer, B.M., Berke Sen, M.B., Karagali, I., Ceren, B., Fredse, J., Sottile, M., Zilioli, L.,

Fuhrman, D.R., 2011. Flow and sediment transport induced by a plunging solitary

wave. Journal of Geophysical Research 116, C01008.

Suntoyo, Tanaka, H., 2009. Numerical modeling of boundary layer ows for a solitary

wave. Journal of Hydro-Environment Research 3 (3), 129137.

Suntoyo, Tanaka, H., Sana, A., 2008. Characteristics of turbulent boundary layers over a

rough bed under saw-tooth waves and its application to sediment transport.

Coastal Engineering 55, 11021112.

Synolakis, C.E., 1986. The Runup of Long Waves, PhD Thesis. California Institute of

Technology, Pasadena CA.

Synolakis, C.E., 1987. The runup of solitary waves. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 185,

523545.

Tanaka, H., Thu, A., 1994. Full-range equation of friction coefcient and phase difference in a wave-current boundary layer. Coastal Engineering 22, 237254.

Tanaka, H., Sana, A., Kawamura, I., Yamaji, H., 1999. Depth-limited oscillatory boundary

layers on a rough bottom. Coastal Engineering Journal 41 (1), 85105.

Tanaka, H., Winarta, B., Suntoyo, Yamaji, H., 2011. Validation of a new generation system for bottom boundary layer beneath solitary wave. Coastal Engineering (59),

4656.

Toro, E.F., 1996. On Glimm-Related Schemes for Conservation Laws. Technical Report

MMU-9602. Department of Mathematics and Physics, Manchester Metropolitan

University, UK.

Toro, E.F., 2001. Shock-Capturing Methods For Free-Surface Shallow Flows. Wiley,

Chichester UK.

Vincent, S., Caltagirone, J.-P., Bonneton, P., 2001. Numerical modelling of bore propagation and runup on sloping beaches using a MacCormackTVD scheme. Journal of

Hydro-Environment Research 39 (1), 4149.

Vittori, G., Blondeaux, P., 2008. Turbulent boundary layer under a solitary wave. Journal

of Fluid Mechanics 615, 433443.

Wilcox, D.C., 1988. Reassessment of the scale determining equation for advanced turbulence models. AIAA Journal 26 (11), 12991310.

Zelt, J.A., 1991. The runup of nonbreaking and breaking solitary wave. Coastal Engineering 15, 205246.

- Full Text 01Uploaded byJan Gnat
- Critical Reynolds Number in Pipe FlowUploaded byStephen Mirdo
- Fillet White PaperUploaded byRod Manser
- AerodynamicsUploaded byadwankarparag
- Convection Heat Transfer (Chapter 6)Uploaded byAhmad Aiman Zaharin
- An Investigative Study of Gurney Flaps on a NACA 0036 AirfoilUploaded byFauzi Hussin Leo
- Formula SAE Shock Absorber DesignUploaded byjorge_tky
- Leonard Et Al-1995-International Journal for Numerical Methods in FluidsUploaded bybill
- Lab 2 Reynolds Number LabUploaded byalex carvajal
- Numerical Study Using FLUENT of the Separation AndUploaded byAbhiroop Das
- FLOODING AND FLOW REVERSAL IN ANNULAR TWO-PHASE FLOWSUploaded byNishant Manepalli
- Post-publication peer review of Van Metre et al. (2012a, 2012b)Uploaded byPavement Coatings Technology Council
- ConvectionUploaded bykranthi_371489158
- Drlg310b Hydraulics 2Uploaded byKaleem Mohammed
- Fully Developed TrubulencetUploaded byresocman
- Fluid Mech Course PUploaded byacz1129
- AV-714_notesUploaded byKhurram Jadoon
- The Boundary Layer at the Bottom of a Solitary Wave and Implications for Sediment TransportUploaded bySuntoyo Saja
- 1997 Aiaa j MittalUploaded byEslam Ezzatneshan
- turbmodelUploaded byAnil Kumar Matta
- Swirling 2Uploaded byAbdullah Kaymakcı
- 000-sdarticle_69Uploaded bymh_saddagh3317
- 1268Uploaded bysamira
- Fundamentals of Fluid FlowUploaded byGerardo
- 31295005905756Uploaded byknightfelix12
- Abhishek PptUploaded byabhishek_negi_41
- ME 412 Spring 2015-Project 5Uploaded byCarlos Alberto
- 03Uploaded bynawajha
- Scale Effects on Body of RevolutionUploaded byMuneeb Arshad
- liquidUploaded byibrahim daoud

- Table of Content - Physical Asset Management HastingsUploaded bySuntoyo Saja
- DNV 05Uploaded bySuntoyo Saja
- DNVGL-RP-0360.pdfUploaded bySuntoyo Saja
- RP-F107.pdfUploaded byNo
- References. (2018). Submarine Optical Cable EngineeringUploaded bySuntoyo Saja
- A Comparison of the Water Quality Between the Mangrove AreaUploaded bySuntoyo Saja
- A method to characterize the mechanical properties of undersea cables.pdfUploaded bySuntoyo Saja
- 2019 PamphletUploaded bySuntoyo Saja
- Brosur 1 RevisionUploaded bySuntoyo Saja
- CwkUploaded bySuntoyo Saja
- Sediment Intrusion Into Gamo Lagoon by Wave OvertoppingUploaded bySuntoyo Saja
- Delft3D-TRIANA User ManualUploaded bySuntoyo Saja
- install_ohmw_4.01.01.rc.03Uploaded byHeron Surbakti
- DS FLEX User ManualUploaded bySuntoyo Saja
- EA-2045 Appendix F-1 Alpine Geophysical Survey Report 0Uploaded bySuntoyo Saja
- NR Two VariablesUploaded bySuntoyo Saja
- Appendix a - D3D Sediment Transport and MorphologyUploaded bySuntoyo Saja
- AMM.862.326Uploaded bySuntoyo Saja
- AMM.862.332Uploaded bySuntoyo Saja
- Laboratory Study of Solitary-wave Transformation Over Bed-Form Roughness on Fringing ReefsUploaded bySuntoyo Saja
- The Boundary Layer at the Bottom of a Solitary Wave and Implications for Sediment TransportUploaded bySuntoyo Saja
- App9_Section13Uploaded bySuntoyo Saja
- Appendix01 LegislationUploaded bySuntoyo Saja
- Appendix3 Vessel EvaluationUploaded bySuntoyo Saja
- App9_Section4Uploaded bySuntoyo Saja
- Navigation Route in Jamuna RiverUploaded bySuntoyo Saja
- Sedimen Loaded Tidal River BerthUploaded bySuntoyo Saja
- Coastal Flood RiskUploaded byAmadu Farrow

- Laka IntroUploaded byakshay sewcharan
- B-2011_2012_EG_Shear Strength.pdfUploaded byFerdie Tolosa
- Challenges in Slope Engineering in Hong KongUploaded byFatin Amilin
- (1991 Ladd) Stability During Staged Construction (Terzaghi Lecture)Uploaded bysanpaz75
- 9696_s11_ms_13.pdfUploaded byTawanda B Matsokotere
- Effect of Nonlinearity on Dynamic Response of Earthen Dam_2Uploaded byMd Asif Raja
- EM 1110-1-2908 Engineering and Design - Rock FoundationsUploaded byAdrian Apaza Leon
- Geotechnical Engineering Vibro-ReplacementUploaded byDusty Spears
- Geology 3.pdfUploaded bygsudhanta1604
- Cross Section 01Uploaded byFaber William Marsahala Sitorus
- NHI13061 14-16Uploaded bysakolkong
- Synopsis MKAJUploaded byRenukadevi Rpt
- Central FederalUploaded byEmilio Gonzáles
- Ladd Terzaghi LectureUploaded byVinnie Hung
- [L Ribeiro e Sousa; Claudio Olalla; N Grossmann] (Zlibraryexau2g3p.onion)Uploaded byPrimajaya
- IntroductionUploaded byEnrique Avila
- Effect of Using Copper Slag as a Backfill in Retaining WallUploaded byInternational Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology
- 01. AMEC Geomatrix 2008 - Geotechnical EvaluationUploaded byMersi Buku
- Geotechnical Engineering - Wikipedia, The Free EncyclopediaUploaded byG.Ramesh
- Akhtar KamranUploaded byAnonymous D5s00DdU
- Pile Foundation Design a Student Guide IUploaded byKamran Ali
- Uet Lahore CourseUploaded bySufian Ahmad
- Lecture10 Excavations and Excavation SupportsUploaded byRsjBugtong
- ns qp.pdfUploaded byRajesh Salla
- Tutorial 32 Probabilistic Slope Stability AnalysisUploaded bychristh24
- Numerical Modeling of a Crib-wall FailureUploaded byIndriati Martha Patuti
- geotechnical engineeringUploaded byTrevor T Paraziva
- Evaluation of a Mine Panel FailureUploaded byalvaroaac4
- 1.Slope StabilityUploaded byDidik Yuan
- Professor Matthew Gilbert - Application of Computational Limit Analysis & Design in the Middle East.pdfUploaded byMasnun Rahman