Sandbanks for coastal protection: implications of sea-level rise Part 3: wave modelling��

Cui-Ping Kuang and Peter Stansby February 2006

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research

Working Paper 88

Sandbanks for coastal protection: implications of sea-level rise part 3: wave modelling

Cui-Ping Kuang and Peter Stansby

Manchester Centre for Civil and Construction Engineering, UMIST, Manchester M60 1QD, UK

Tyndall Centre Working Paper No. 88


SUMMARY An offshore wave energy spectrum is tracked inshore taking account of shoaling and refraction due to bathymetry and currents, energy losses due to whitecapping and bottom friction, wind-wave generation, quadruplet wave-wave interactions; and the nearshore processes of depth-induced breaking and triad wave-wave interactions. The finite-element code TOMAWAC is used which is efficient and well suited for largescale modelling. Diffraction is not modelled and may be significant over shallow sandbanks of interest here. Comparisons are made with wave fields measured experimentally over elliptical and circular shoals. Predictions by TOMAWAC are quite accurate for directional waves with broad spreading, but less so with narrow spreading. A diffraction code including otherwise similar physics, ARTEMIS, performs better for narrow spread waves, although not necessarily for broad spread waves. Field tests for TOMAWAC are also encouraging. Given that TOMAWAC with broad spread waves appears to avoid, or at least considerably reduce, the need for diffraction, the nearshore wave fields due to broad and narrow spread waves offshore were compared for the East Anglian coastal region. Close to the shore, wave heights were almost identical, suggesting that an efficient ray tracking code like TOMAWAC with broad spread waves is a valid tool for nearshore wave field prediction.

1. INTRODUCTION Wave propagation in coastal zones drives most coastal processes and is thus fundamental to a regional coastal simulator. There are many complex effects for linear, random, directional, wave fields while nonlinear, wave-breaking and boundary-layer effects are significant in shallow water, particularly inshore. There are broadly two classes of wave model: phase-resolving and phase-averaged. As the name implies, phase-resolving resolves wave flows within a wave period and a wavelength in a time-stepping computation with sufficiently fine spatial discretisation. Models are generally based on the Boussinesq equations which are of similar form to the depthaveraged shallow-water equations with additional terms to account for frequency dispersion. There has been a massive research effort in this area in the past decade following the original suggestion of Peregrine1. Nonlinear wave propagation from deep water may now be simulated rather accurately, e.g. Madsen et al.2. While 2

shoreline runup may be simulated, e.g. Stansby3, there are rather ad hoc empirical devices to account for wave breaking processes and, less significantly, bed friction, as reviewed in Liu and Losada4. Such approaches are highly efficient in 1-D but less so in 2-D due to the nature of the equations to be solved, involving cross-coupling terms, and computational domains are typically limited to 1-10km. This approach is however most realistic for driving nearshore sediment transport processes, and hence morphology. While progress is also being made with direct solutions to the NavierStokes/continuity/turbulence equations, particularly through the volume-of-fluid (VOF) approach (e.g. Liu and Losada4), such methods are restricted to several wavelengths and are far from a practical approach.

Phase-averaged models are presently of most relevance to large-scale coastal problems and have developed from ray-tracing methods for refraction and shoaling in the 1960’s, as described in Dean and Dalrymple5 for example. This approach has been generalised to allow the input of directional wave spectra by solving the wave energy transport equation. Perhaps the most widely used code of this type is the WAM (WAve Model) model, described in Hasslemann et al.6, which is intended for ocean and coastal conditions. The following physical processes are accounted for: • • • • • • Wave propagation in time and space Wave generation by wind Shoaling and refraction due to bathymetry Shoaling and refraction due to current Energy losses due to whitecapping and bottom friction Quadruplet wave-wave interactions

The WAM code is limited in nearshore regions and the SWAN (Simulating WAves Nearshore) code, described in Booij et al.7 and Ris et al.8, has been developed which also accounts for: • • Depth-induced breaking Triad wave-wave interaction

SWAN solves for the wave action density spectrum rather than energy density, because in the presence of currents wave action is conserved while energy density is not. WAM uses spherical coordinates and is explicit in time and SWAN uses a


Cartesian mesh and is implicit. Both are widely used and indeed WAM has been used over a large region to provide boundary conditions for SWAN to give more accurate inshore wave conditions by Wornom et al.9, who found that depth-induced breaking had a prominent influence while triad wave-wave interaction did not. Attempts have been made to include wave diffraction effects through the use of the mild slope equation to give the propagation velocities but this has not proved numerically robust. It has however been formulated within a parabolic approximation giving good numerical stability (Mase10), who tested for various situations with and without diffraction. While this did not always show exact agreement with analytical results, of most relevance here, wave spectral propagation over an elliptic shoal was tested showing quite marked effects of diffraction for directional waves with narrow spread but very little with broad spread. Indeed for engineering predictions diffraction is often assumed to be a local effect which does not affect far field wave heights, e.g. Dean and Dalrymple5.

In this study we use the code TOMAWAC (Telemac-based Operational Model Addressing wave Action Computation) with an efficient characteristics-based, mathematical formulation and finite-element spatial discretisation; this is

unstructured, allowing complex domains to be covered and grid refinement in regions of strong bathymetric variation. This is thus a different formulation from SWAN. Wave fields are compared with those measured experimentally over circular and elliptical shoals and with the diffraction code ARTEMIS. Finally TOMAWAC is applied to the East Anglian coastal region and results for inshore wave fields due to broad-spread and narrow-spread, offshore, directional waves are compared.


2.1. TOMAWAC (Telemac-based Operational Model Addressing Wave Action Computation; Benoit11)

The following form of equation for the propagation of the energy spectrum is used by TOMAWAC:
∂ ( BF ) • ∂ ( BF ) • ∂ ( BF ) • ∂ ( BF ) • ∂ ( BF ) +x +y +θ + fr = BQ ∂t ∂x ∂y ∂θ ∂f r (1)


where F(x,y,θ,σ,t) is the directional wave energy spectrum, B =

CC g 2πσ


Cg (2π ) 2 kf r


C = σ / k is the phase velocity, Cg is the group velocity, k is the wave number, σ is

the relative angular frequency, f r is relative frequency and θ is the wave propagation direction. From the linear wave theory (Komen et al.12), the propagation rates in the above equation can be expressed as:
x = C g sin θ + U x y = C g cosθ + U y
• •

(2) (3) (4)

r k ~ r 1 ∂σ ~ Gn (d ) − G n (U ) θ =− k ∂d k

r~ r 1 ∂σ ∂d r r [ ( + U∇d ) − C g k Gt (U )] (5) 2π ∂d ∂t r where d is the water depth and U is the depth-averaged current velocity vector. The ~ ~ operators Gn and Gt refer to the computation of a function gradient in directions that r r are respectively normal ( n ) and tangential ( t ) to the characteristic curve with the fr =

direction θ:
rr ∂g ∂g ~ − sin θ Gn ( g ) = n ∇g = cosθ ∂x ∂y


rr ∂g ∂g ~ Gt ( g ) = t ∇g = sin θ + cosθ ∂x ∂y


Besides, using the dispersion relation σ 2 = g k tanh(kd ) , the following relationship can be derived: ∂σ σk = ∂d sinh(2kd ) (8)

On the left hand side of the Eq.(1), the first term represents the temporal (or local)

evolution of the spectrum. The next two terms with x and y given by Eqs.(2) and (3) represent spatial wave propagation with shoaling in finite water depth. The next term with θ given by Eq.(4) represents refraction from bathymetric variation (first term on the right hand side of Eq.(4) ) and current gradients (second term on right hand side of
• •

Eq.(4) ). The final term on the left hand side of Eq.(1) with f r given by Eq.(5)


represents relative frequency changes resulting from sea level variation, in space and time, and from spatial current variation.

On the right hand side of the Eq.(1), Q represents the contributions of the following source terms: i) energy input by wind; ii) energy dissipation by whitecapping; iii) energy dissipation by bottom friction; iv) energy dissipation due to depth-induced breaking; and v) non-linear resonating quadruple and triad wave-wave interactions. Various state-of-the art formulations for each of the terms are available in Benoit et al.13.

A fractional step method was used to solve the equation: a convection step without source terms and a time-integration step for the source terms. In the convection step, a characteristic method (piecewise ray method) is used. If the convection field is stationary, the characteristics can be traced back only once, at the beginning of the computation. This step consumes very little computation time since it only consists in an interpolation operation at each time step. This method is unconditionally stable and efficient. The time-integration of source terms is semi-implicit following that used in the WAM-Cycle 4 model (WAMDI Group14, Komen et al.12) which enables the use of a long time step (about 20-30 min. in an oceanic environment). Further, the finite element technique allows flexible discretization of the spatial domain.

2.2. ARTEMIS (Agitation and Refraction with TElemac on the MIld Slope equation; Alebrecht15)

The code ARTEMIS solves the mild slope equation for velocity potential (Berkoff16) on a finite element mesh. The following elliptic form includes additional dissipative effects, resulting from bathymetry-induced breaking and bottom friction, in the complex term (Booij17 , also De Firolamo18):
∇(CC g ∇φ ) + CC g ( k 2 + ikµ )φ = 0

W is the dissipation coefficient (CC g )1 / 2

where φ is the reduced velocity potential, µ =

with W a dissipation function. Usual approximations associated with linear theory


apply, with irregular waves considered as the linear superposition of regular waves. The method is suitable for modelling wave resonance and seiching in harbours and wave fields due to combined refraction/diffraction/reflection in small bays. However refraction by currents is not included.

To solve the elliptic equation, the real and imaginary parts are separated and the parts of the velocity potential are solved by a pre-conditioned conjugate gradient method on a finite-element mesh.

The nearshore processes included in TOMAWAC and ARTEMIS are very similar apart from the above exceptions.


Comparisons will be made with wave fields measured experimentally over circular and elliptical shoals. Both TOMAWAC and ARTEMIS input JONSWAP wave spectra, while the experiments below use TMA spectra. The JONSWAP spectrum can be written as the following product:

S ( f ,θ ) = J ( f ) G (θ )


The frequency component J(f) is given by:
2 ⎡ ⎛ f −1 ⎞ ⎤ ⎢ fp ⎟ ⎥ exp ⎢ −0.5⎜ ⎜ σ ⎟ ⎥ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ ⎢ ⎝ ⎠ ⎥ ⎢ ⎣ ⎦

⎡ ⎛ f ⎞ ⎤ J ( f ) = δ H s2 f p4 f −5 exp ⎢ −1.25 ⎜ p ⎟ ⎥ γ ⎢ ⎝ f ⎠ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦


where Hs is the significant wave height, fp is the peak frequency and σ is a dimensionless parameter which is determined as follows: if f ≤ fp, σ = 0.07 if f > fp, σ = 0.09 (12) (13)

γ is a real number ranging from 1 to 7, which determines the width of the frequency
spectrum and δ is a weight coefficient that depends on γ, such that:


δ =

0.0624 0.230 + 0.0336γ − 0.185 1.9 + γ


The directional distribution G(θ) is often chosen in the following form

G = G0 cos 2 s [(θ − θ 0 ) / 2]


where θ is the angle of wave propagation direction, θ0 is the main direction of wave propagation. s is a positive real exponent such that small s indicates high spread and vice versa. G0 is a constant determined by normalizing G such that:
θ max ϑmin

∫ G dθ = 1


where θmin and θmax indicate the limits of wave propagation direction. The TMA spectrum (Bouws et al.19) was used in the experiments on waves over shoals by Vincent et al.20 and Chawla et al.21. The frequency component is similar to that of the JONSWAP spectrum, but the directional component was obtained using a wrapped normal directional spreading function (Borgman22), given by: D(ϑ ) = ( jσ m ) 2 1 1 J ]cos j (θ − θ 0 )} + ∑ {exp[− 2π π j =1 2 (17)

where J is the number of terms in the series (chosen as 50) and σm is a parameter which determines the width of the directional spreading. We can see that the Eq.(17) is of discrete form. When J is large enough, it tends to a continuous spectrum. A trialand-error method was used in transform between σm in Eq.(17) and s in Eq.(15). σm is computed for different s and the s value corresponding to an experimental value of σm is obtained by interpolation. Large σm corresponds to small s and vice versa. In this way the directional spreading functions are made approximately similar.

3.1 Random directional waves over submerged shoals


The laboratory experiments of Chawla et al.21 were computed using TOMAWAC and ARTEMIS. The computational domain is the same as that used in the experiments, covering an area of 18m × 18m. The centre of the circular shoal was located at (5.0m, 8.98m) with a bottom radius of 2.57 m. The bathymetry at any point in the shoal, in metres, is given by:

Z = −(h + 8.73) + 82.81 − ( x − 5) 2 − ( y − 8.98) 2


where h is the water depth away from the shoal. All tests were run in 40 cm water depth, giving a depth over the centre of the shoal of only 3 cm. This bathymetry and a mesh of 17344 triangular elements with 8845 nodes are shown in Fig.1 (See Appendix). The mesh size varied from 0.12 to 0.34 m, with an average value 0.2 m. Based on the linear dispersion relationship, wavelength is about 1.4m, giving about 7 elements per wavelength.

Four test cases (3-6) in Chawla et al.’s experiments were computed and test parameters shown in Table 1. A JONSWAP spectrum was input at x = 0 m in the computations, with parameters as shown in Table 1. A spectral peakedness value of

γ = 10 defines the width of the frequency spectrum. In TOMAWAC, frequency and
direction were discretised as 13 and 18 segments respectively, with a minimum and maximum frequencies of 1 Hz and 3 Hz respectively. An initial wave height of 0.005 m with the same spectrum was input. The time step was 0.5 s and 240 steps were computed were computed to reach a steady state. The formulation of Battjes & Janssen23 was used to compute wave breaking. The formulation for bottom friction follows Hasselmann et al.6 and Bouws and Komen 24 with a coefficient taken as 0.038 m2/s3 in accordance with the standard value being used in the model WAM-Cycle 4. As in the experiments, fully absorption condition were used on the boundary at x = 18 m. The two lateral boundaries also used the absorption condition. In ARTEMIS, the frequency was discretised as 13 segments, with minimum and maximum values of 1 Hz and 1.67 Hz respectively. This reduction appeared necessary for numerical stability. Other parameters and boundary conditions are the same as for TOMAWAC. Fig.2 shows an example of a comparison of computed wave fields from TOMAWAC and ARTEMIS for test 6, with broad directional spreading. The wave fields show


some clear differences. The difference in focussing around the centre of the shoal was more pronounced with narrow spreading. However direct comparison with wave height measurement is more revealing and Fig.3 shows the measurement locations. Figs. 4-10 show comparisons of computed and measured wave heights, normalised by the onset value, for tests 3-6 along transects A-A, B-B, C-C, D-D, E-E, F-F and G-G respectively. All results show that for broad directional spreading, tests 4 and 6, TOMAWAC gives good predictions which are generally better than those of ARTEMIS. For narrow spreading, tests 3 and 5, ARTEMIS generally (but not always) gives better predictions, in particular showing the increased wave heights over the shoal due to diffraction.

Table 1 Parameters for Incident Waves in Chawla et al.’s experiments Case Period (s) 3 4 5 6 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.71 Frequency (Hz) 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.41 Wave Height (m) 0.0139 0.0156 0.0233 0.0249 10 10 10 10 γ σm (deg) 5 20 5 20 50 6 50 6 s

A similar study was made for the experiments of Vincent et al.20 for an elliptic shoal, in this case with a relatively large minimum depth over the shoal of 15.24cm compared with a deep water value of 45.72cm. There was a relatively broad frequency spectrum with γ = 2 . However the results and agreement with experiment were quite similar and are not reproduced here.

3.2 Wave fields on the East Anglian coast

Wave field predictions using TOMAWAC for a significant height of 8m and a period of 10s on the Eastern boundary, propagating from east to west, have been presented in Part 1. Since TOMAWAC gives good predictions with broad spread waves even when diffraction occurs, examples of results with broad and narrow spread are now compared for this region. The bathymetry and mesh are shown in Figs. 2 and 3 in Part 1.


JONSWAP spectra with γ = 3.3 and a directional spread parameter, s, of 2 and 20 (broad and narrow) were used. Wave frequency and direction were divided into 17 and 36 segments respectively and the frequency was varied from 0.04 Hz to 0.25 Hz. Use of such limits is standard practice to avoid numerical problems caused by very low and high frequencies. Free boundary conditions were used on the north and south. With a time step of 20s, 360 time steps were sufficient to reach a steady state in a computational time of 2 hours. In the computational domain, the water level was typical of a spring tide with an average level of 4.0 m above LAT. To start the computation an initial significant wave height was set to 0.5 m with the same spectrum as at the incident boundary. Bottom friction dissipation and depth-induced breaking dissipation were included as in Part 1. Fig. 11 shows the computed wave fields for broad and narrow directional spreading (s = 2 and 20 respectively). It can be seen they are almost the same except for the regions near the north and south boundaries. Figs. 12 and 13 show comparisons for s=2 and 20 of computed wave height along a line marked by crosses (at depths of about 5 m) and a line marked by circles (at depths of about 10 m), as shown in Fig. 2 of Part 1. It can be seen there is negligible difference where the depth is about 5 m, but some difference near the south and north boundaries where the depths is about 10 m.
3.3 Ocean measurements off France (Benoit et al.25)

The developers of TOMAWAC, Benoit et al.25, used TOMAWAC to simulate the storm of January 25, 1990 along the French Atlantic Coasts and in the English Channel, which had been previously modelled with the WAM model (Benoit and Teisson26). The computed time series of wave heights were compared with buoy measurements at Ouessant (at the entrance to the Channel with a water depth of 108 m) and Flamanville (inside the Channel with a water depth of 18 m) and the results of WAM. The two model results compare very well with each other and the agreement with the buoy data is also satisfactory (Fig.3 in the paper of Benoit et al.25). But there are great differences between both models in the nearshore zone where wave heights from the WAM model increase in an unrealistic way for depths less than about 12m. The inclusion of depth-induced breaking in TOMAWAC keeps this wave height at a more physical level (Fig. 4 in the paper of Benoit et al.25). Although no measurements were available at this location during the storm, the ratio of significant wave height to


water depth of about 0.4 is consistent with what is expected due to depth-limited breaking in the surf zone, e.g. Tajima and Madsen27.


The finite-element code TOMAWAC has been used to compute the propagation of directional wave spectra inshore. It is efficient and well suited to large-scale modelling at the cost of omitting diffraction. However comparisons with experiments on wave fields over circular and elliptic shoals indicate that this is insignificant for broad-spread waves, but not for narrow-spread waves. For the latter the finite-element code ARTEMIS, solving the mild-slope equation, generally gives improved results although there are restrictions associated with numerical stability. Running TOMAWAC for the East Anglian coastal region with narrow and broad spread waves showed only small differences at about 10m depth and negligible differences at 5m depth. This suggests that the use of a code such as TOMAWAC with broad spread spectra is a useful tool for nearshore wave prediction, even when diffraction over shoals occurs.


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


1. Peregrine,D.H. 1967 Long waves on a beach, J. Fluid Mech., 27, 815-827.

2. Madsen,P.A., Bingham,H.B. and Liu, H. 2002 A new Boussinesq method for fully nonlinear waves from deep to shallow water, J. Fluid Mech., 462, 1-30.

3. Stansby,P.K. 2003 Solitary wave run up and overtopping by a semi-implicit finitevolume shallow-water Boussinesq model, to appear J. Hydr. Res.


4. Liu, P.L.-F. and Losada, I.J. 2002 Wave propagation modelling in coastal engineering, J. Hydr. Res., 40(3), 229-240.

5. Dean, R.G. and Dalrymple, R.A. 2000 Water wave mechanics for engineers and scientists, Advanced Series On Ocean Engineering – Vol.2, World Scientific.

6. Hasslemann, S., Hasslemann, K., Buer, E., Janssen, P.A.E.M., Komen,G.J., Bertotti,L., Lionello, P., Guillaume, A., Cardone, V.C., Greenwood, J.A., Reistad,M., Zambresky, L. and Ewing, J.A. 1988 The WAM model – A third generation ocean wave prediction model, J. Phys. Oceanog., 18, 1775-1810.

7. Booij, N., Ris, R.C. and Holthuijsen, L.H. 1999 A third generation wave model for coastal regions, Part I: Model description and validation, J. Geophys. Res., 104, C4, 7649-7666.

8. Ris, R.C., Booij, N. and Holthuijsen, L.H. 1999. A third-generation wave model for coastal regions, Part II: Verification, J.Geophys. Res. 104, C4, 7667-7681.

9. Wornom, S.F., Welsh, D.J.S. and Bedford, K.W. 2001 On coupling the SWAN and WAM wave models for accurate nearshore wave predictions, Coastal Engrg. J., 43(3), 161-201.

10. Mase,H. 2001 Multi-directional random wave transformation model based on energy balance equation, Coastal Engrg. J., 43(4), 317-337.

11. Benoit, M. 2002. TOMAWAC software for finite element sea state modelling – Release 5.2 theoretical note. HP-75/02/065/A.

12. Komen, G.J., Cavaleri, L.,Donelan, M., Hasselmann, K., Hasselmann S. and Janssen P.A.E.M. 1994. Dynamics and Modelling of Ocean Waves. Cambridge University Press, 532.


13. Benoit M., Marcos, F. and Becq F. 1996. Development of a third generation shallow-water wave model with unstructured spatial meshing. Proc. 25th Int. Conf. Coastal Eng. (ASCE), Orlando, Florida, USA.

14. WAMDI Group, 1988 The WAM-model – A third generation ocean wave prediction model, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 18, 1775-1810.

15. Aelbrecht, D. 1997. ARTEMIS software – Version 3.0 theoretical note. HE42/97/002/B.

16. Berkhoff, J.C.W. 1976. Mathematical models for simple harmonic linear water waves. Wave diffraction and refraction. Delft Hydraulics Lab. Publication No. 163.

17. Booij, N. 1981. Gravity waves on water with non-uniform depth and current. Ph.D thesis, Technical University of Delft, The Netherlands.

18. De Girolamo, P., Kostense, J.K. and Dingemans, M.W. 1988. Inclusion of surfbreaking in a mild-slope model. Comput. Modell. Ocean Engrg., 221-229.

19. Bouws, E., Gunther, H., Rosenthal, W., and Vincent, C. 1985, Simularity of the wind wave spectrum in finite depth water. J. Geophys. Res. 90, 975-986.

20. Vincent C.L., Briggs M.J. 1989 Refraction-diffraction of irregular waves over a mound. J. Waterway, Port, and Ocean Engrg., 115, 269-284.

21. Chawla, A., Ozkan-Haller, H.T. and Kirby, J.T. 1998 Spectral model for wave transformation and breaking over irregular bathymetry, J. Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engrg., 124(4), 189-198.

22. Borgman, L.E. (1984) Directional spectrum estimation for the Sxy gages. Tech. Rep., Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

23. Battjes, J.A. and Janssen, J.P.F.M. 1978. Energy loss and set-up due to breaking of random waves. Proc. 16th Int. Conf. Coastal Eng., Vol.1, 649-660. Hamburg. 14

24. Bouwse, E. and Komen, G.J. 1983. On the balance between growth and dissipation in an extreme depth-limited wind-sea in the southern North Sea. J. Phys. Oceanog., Vol. 13, 1653-1658.

25. Benoit M., Marcos, F. and Becq F. 1997. TOMAWAC: a prediction model for offshore and nearshore storm waves. Proc. 27th IAHR Congress, San Francisco, California, USA. or EDF HE-42/97/036/A.

26. Benoit, M. and Teisson, C. 1995. Spectral wave modeling along the French Atlantic Coasts and in the Channel. Proc. 26th IAHR Congress, Vol.3. 156-161.

27. Tajima,Y. and Madsen, O.S. 2002 Shoaling, breaking and broken wave characteristics. Proc. 28th Int. Conf. Coastal Engineering, ASCE, Cardiff.





Fig.1. Bathymetry (a) and mesh (b) for the circular shoal case of Chawla et al.(1998)




Fig.2 Computed normalised wave height field using TOMAWAC (a) and ARTEMIS (b) for Test 6 (larger wave height with broad directional spread)


Fig.3 Scheme of measurement locations for the circular shoal of Chawla et al.(1998)


Fig.4 Comparison of computed and measured normalized wave height profiles along transect A-A (y=8.98 m) for Tests 3-6 in Table 1.


Fig.5 Comparison of computed and measured normalized wave height profiles along transect B-B (x=13.7 m) for Tests 3-6 in Table 1.


Fig.6 Comparison of computed and measured normalized wave height profiles along transect C-C (x=11.0 m) for Tests 3-6 in Table 1.


Fig.7 Comparison of computed and measured normalized wave height profiles along transect D-D (x=8.2 m) for Tests 3-6 in Table 1.


Fig.8 Comparison of computed and measured normalized wave height profiles along transect E-E (x=6.3 m) for Tests 3-6 in Table 1.


Fig.9 Comparison of computed and measured normalized wave height profiles along transect F-F (x=5.0 m) for Tests 3-6 in Table 1.


Fig.10 Comparison of computed and measured normalized wave height profiles along transect G-G (x=3.7 m) for Tests 3-6 in Table 1.




Fig.11 Computed wave height fields for the East Anglian coastal region using different directional wave spreading with wave propagation from the East: a) broad spread, s=2; b) narrow spread, s=20.


Fig.12 Comparison of computed wave heights along a line with marked crosses in Fig.2 (Part 1) for waves from the East with narrow spread (s=20) and broad spread (s=2).

Fig.13 Comparison of computed wave heights along a line with marked circles in Fig.2 (Part 1) for waves from the East with narrow spread (s=20) and broad spread (s=2).


The trans-disciplinary Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research undertakes integrated research into the long-term consequences of climate change for society and into the development of sustainable responses that governments, business-leaders and decision-makers can evaluate and implement. Achieving these objectives brings together UK climate scientists, social scientists, engineers and economists in a unique collaborative research effort. Research at the Tyndall Centre is organised into four research themes that collectively contribute to all aspects of the climate change issue: Integrating Frameworks; Decarbonising Modern Societies; Adapting to Climate Change; and Sustaining the Coastal Zone. All thematic fields address a clear problem posed to society by climate change, and will generate results to guide the strategic development of climate change mitigation and adaptation policies at local, national and global scales. The Tyndall Centre is named after the 19th century UK scientist John Tyndall, who was the first to prove the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in atmospheric composition could bring about climate variations. In addition, he was committed to improving the quality of science education and knowledge. The Tyndall Centre is a partnership of the following institutions: University of East Anglia UMIST Southampton Oceanography Centre University of Southampton University of Cambridge Centre for Ecology and Hydrology SPRU – Science and Technology Policy Research (University of Sussex) Institute for Transport Studies (University of Leeds) Complex Systems Management Centre (Cranfield University) Energy Research Unit (CLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory) The Centre is core funded by the following organisations: Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC) Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) UK Government Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) For more information, visit the Tyndall Centre Web site ( or contact: Communications Manager Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK Phone: +44 (0) 1603 59 3900; Fax: +44 (0) 1603 59 3901 Email:

Tyndall Working Papers are available online at Mitchell, T. and Hulme, M. (2000). A Country-byCountry Analysis of Past and Future Warming Rates, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 1. Hulme, M. (2001). Integrated Assessment Models, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 2. Berkhout, F, Hertin, J. and Jordan, A. J. (2001). Socio-economic futures in climate change impact assessment: using scenarios as 'learning machines', Tyndall Centre Working Paper 3. Barker, T. and Ekins, P. (2001). How High are the Costs of Kyoto for the US Economy?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 4. Barnett, J. (2001). The issue of 'Adverse Effects and the Impacts of Response Measures' in the UNFCCC, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 5. Goodess, C.M., Hulme, M. and Osborn, T. (2001). The identification and evaluation of suitable scenario development methods for the estimation of future probabilities of extreme weather events, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 6. Barnett, J. (2001). Security and Climate Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 7. Adger, W. N. (2001). Social Capital and Climate Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 8. Barnett, J. and Adger, W. N. (2001). Climate Dangers and Atoll Countries, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 9. Gough, C., Taylor, I. and Shackley, S. (2001). Burying Carbon under the Sea: An Initial Exploration of Public Opinions, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 10. Barker, T. (2001). Representing the Integrated Assessment of Climate Change, Adaptation and Mitigation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 11. Dessai, S., (2001). The climate regime from The Hague to Marrakech: Saving or sinking the Kyoto Protocol?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 12. Dewick, P., Green K., Miozzo, M., (2002). Technological Change, Industry Structure and the Environment, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 13. Shackley, S. and Gough, C., (2002). The Use of Integrated Assessment: An Institutional Analysis Perspective, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 14. Köhler, J.H., (2002). Long run technical change in an energy-environment-economy (E3) model for an IA system: A model of Kondratiev waves, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 15. Adger, W.N., Huq, S., Brown, K., Conway, D. and Hulme, M. (2002). Adaptation to climate change: Setting the Agenda for Development Policy and Research, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 16. Dutton, G., (2002). Hydrogen Energy Technology, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 17. Watson, J. (2002). The development of large technical systems: implications for hydrogen, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 18. Pridmore, A. and Bristow, A., (2002). The role of hydrogen in powering road transport, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 19. Turnpenny, J. (2002). Reviewing organisational use of scenarios: Case study - evaluating UK energy policy options, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 20. Watson, W. J. (2002). Renewables and CHP Deployment in the UK to 2020, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 21. Watson, W.J., Hertin, J., Randall, T., Gough, C. (2002). Renewable Energy and Combined Heat and Power Resources in the UK, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 22. Paavola, J. and Adger, W.N. (2002). Justice and adaptation to climate change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 23. Xueguang Wu, Jenkins, N. and Strbac, G. (2002). Impact of Integrating Renewables and CHP into the UK Transmission Network, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 24 Xueguang Wu, Mutale, J., Jenkins, N. and Strbac, G. (2003). An investigation of Network Splitting for Fault Level Reduction, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 25 Brooks, N. and Adger W.N. (2003). Country level risk measures of climate-related natural disasters and implications for adaptation to climate change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 26 Tompkins, E.L. and Adger, W.N. (2003). Building resilience to climate change through adaptive management of natural resources, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 27

Dessai, S., Adger, W.N., Hulme, M., Köhler, J.H., Turnpenny, J. and Warren, R. (2003). Defining and experiencing dangerous climate change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 28 Brown, K. and Corbera, E. (2003). A MultiCriteria Assessment Framework for CarbonMitigation Projects: Putting “development” in the centre of decision-making, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 29 Hulme, M. (2003). Abrupt climate change: can society cope?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 30 Turnpenny, J., Haxeltine A. and O’Riordan, T. (2003). A scoping study of UK user needs for managing climate futures. Part 1 of the pilotphase interactive integrated assessment process (Aurion Project), Tyndall Centre Working Paper 31 Xueguang Wu, Jenkins, N. and Strbac, G. (2003). Integrating Renewables and CHP into the UK Electricity System: Investigation of the impact of network faults on the stability of large offshore wind farms, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32 Pridmore, A., Bristow, A.L., May, A. D. and Tight, M.R. (2003). Climate Change, Impacts, Future Scenarios and the Role of Transport, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 33 Dessai, S., Hulme, M (2003). Does climate policy need probabilities?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 34 Tompkins, E. L. and Hurlston, L. (2003). Report to the Cayman Islands’ Government. Adaptation lessons learned from responding to tropical cyclones by the Cayman Islands’ Government, 1988 – 2002, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 35 Kröger, K. Fergusson, M. and Skinner, I. (2003). Critical Issues in Decarbonising Transport: The Role of Technologies, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 36 Ingham, A. and Ulph, A. (2003) Uncertainty, Irreversibility, Precaution and the Social Cost of Carbon, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 37 Brooks, N. (2003). Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: a conceptual framework, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 38 Tompkins, E.L. and Adger, W.N. (2003). Defining response capacity to enhance climate change policy, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 39

Klein, R.J.T., Lisa Schipper, E. and Dessai, S. (2003), Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy: three research questions, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 40 Watson, J. (2003), UK Electricity Scenarios for 2050, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 41 Kim, J. A. (2003), Sustainable Development and the CDM: A South African Case Study, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 42 Anderson, D. and Winne, S. (2003), Innovation and Threshold Effects in Technology Responses to Climate Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 43 Shackley, S., McLachlan, C. and Gough, C. (2004) The Public Perceptions of Carbon Capture and Storage, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 44 Purdy, R. and Macrory, R. (2004) Geological carbon sequestration: critical legal issues, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 45 Watson, J., Tetteh, A., Dutton, G., Bristow, A., Kelly, C., Page, M. and Pridmore, A., (2004) UK Hydrogen Futures to 2050, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 46 Berkhout, F., Hertin, J. and Gann, D. M., (2004) Learning to adapt: Organisational adaptation to climate change impacts, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 47 Pan, H. (2004) The evolution of economic structure under technological development, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 48 Awerbuch, S. (2004) Restructuring our electricity networks to promote decarbonisation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 49 Powell, J.C., Peters, M.D., Ruddell, A. & Halliday, J. (2004) Fuel Cells for a Sustainable Future? Tyndall Centre Working Paper 50 Agnolucci, P., Barker, T. & Ekins, P. (2004) Hysteresis and energy demand: the Announcement Effects and the effects of the UK climate change levy, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 51 Agnolucci, P. (2004) Ex post evaluations of CO2 –Based Taxes: A Survey, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 52

Agnolucci, P. & Ekins, P. (2004) The Announcement Effect and environmental taxation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 53 Turnpenny, J., Carney, S., Haxeltine, A., & O’Riordan, T. (2004) Developing regional and local scenarios for climate change mitigation and adaptation, Part 1: A framing of the East of England, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 54 Mitchell, T.D. Carter, T.R., Jones, .P.D, Hulme, M. and New, M. (2004) A comprehensive set of high-resolution grids of monthly climate for Europe and the globe: the observed record (1901-2000) and 16 scenarios (2001-2100), Tyndall Centre Working Paper 55 Vincent, K. (2004) Creating an index of social vulnerability to climate change for Africa, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 56 Shackley, S., Reiche, A. and Mander, S (2004) The Public Perceptions of Underground Coal Gasification (UCG): A Pilot Study, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 57 Bray, D and Shackley, S. (2004) The Social Simulation of The Public Perceptions of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 58 Anderson, D and Winne, S. (2004) Modelling Innovation and Threshold Effects In Climate Change Mitigation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 59 Few, R., Brown, K. and Tompkins, E.L. (2004) Scaling adaptation: climate change response and coastal management in the UK, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 60 Brooks, N. (2004) Drought in the African Sahel: Long term perspectives and future prospects, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 61 Barker, T. (2004) The transition to sustainability: a comparison of economics approaches, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 62 Few, R., Ahern, M., Matthies, F. and Kovats, S. (2004) Floods, health and climate change: a strategic review, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 63 Peters, M.D. and Powell, J.C. (2004) Fuel Cells for a Sustainable Future II, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 64

Adger, W. N., Brown, K. and Tompkins, E. L. (2004) The political economy of cross-scale networks in resource co-management, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 65 Turnpenny, J., Haxeltine, A., Lorenzoni, I., O’Riordan, T., and Jones, M., (2005) Mapping actors involved in climate change policy networks in the UK, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 66 Turnpenny, J., Haxeltine, A. and O’Riordan, T., (2005) Developing regional and local scenarios for climate change mitigation and adaptation: Part 2: Scenario creation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 67 Bleda, M. and Shackley, S. (2005) The formation of belief in climate change in business organisations: a dynamic simulation model, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 68 Tompkins, E. L. and Hurlston, L. A. (2005) Natural hazards and climate change: what knowledge is transferable?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 69 Abu-Sharkh, S., Li, R., Markvart, T., Ross, N., Wilson, P., Yao, R., Steemers, K., Kohler, J. and Arnold, R. (2005) Can Migrogrids Make a Major Contribution to UK Energy Supply?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 70 Boyd, E. Gutierrez, M. and Chang, M. (2005) Adapting small-scale CDM sinks projects to low-income communities, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 71 Lowe, T., Brown, K., Suraje Dessai, S., Doria, M., Haynes, K. and Vincent., K (2005) Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narrative and public perceptions of climate change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 72 Walkden, M. (2005) Coastal process simulator scoping study, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 73 Ingham, I., Ma, J., and Ulph, A. M. (2005) How do the costs of adaptation affect optimal mitigation when there is uncertainty, irreversibility and learning?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 74 Fu, G., Hall, J. W. and Lawry, J. (2005) Beyond probability: new methods for representing uncertainty in projections of future climate, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 75

Agnolucci,. P (2005) The role of political uncertainty in the Danish renewable energy market, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 76 Barker, T., Pan, H., Köhler, J., Warren., R and Winne, S. (2005) Avoiding dangerous climate change by inducing technological progress: scenarios using a large-scale econometric model, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 77 Agnolucci,. P (2005) Opportunism and competition in the non-fossil fuel obligation market, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 78 Ingham, I., Ma, J., and Ulph, A. M. (2005) Can adaptation and mitigation be complements?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 79 Wittneben, B., Haxeltine, A., Kjellen, B., Köhler, J., Turnpenny, J., and Warren, R., (2005) A framework for assessing the political economy of post-2012 global climate regime, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 80 Sorrell, S., (2005) The economics of energy service contracts, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 81 Bows, A., and Anderson, K. (2005) An analysis of a post-Kyoto climate policy model, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 82 Williamson, M. Lenton, T. Shepherd, J. and Edwards, N. (2006) An efficient numerical terrestrial scheme (ENTS) for fast earth system modelling Tyndall Centre Working Paper 83 Kevin Anderson, Alice Bows and Paul Upham (2006) Growth scenarios for EU & UK aviation: contradictions with climate policy, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 84 Michelle Bentham, (2006) An assessment of carbon sequestration potential in the UK – Southern North Sea case study Tyndall Centre Working Paper 85 Peter Stansby, Cui-Ping Kuang, Dominique Laurence and Brian Launder, (2006) Sandbanks for coastal protection: implications of sealevel rise - Part 1: Application to East Anglia Tyndall Centre Working Paper 86 Peter Stansby and Cui-Ping Kuang, (2006) Sandbanks for coastal protection: implications of sea-level rise – Part 2: current and

morphological modelling Tyndall Centre Working Paper 87 Peter Stansby and Cui-Ping Kuang, (2006) Sandbanks for coastal protection: implications of sea-level rise – part 3: wave modelling Tyndall Centre Working Paper 88