ARTICLE IN PRESS

Computers & Geosciences 34 (2008) 1243–1262

www.elsevier.com/locate/cageo

Calculating wave-generated bottom orbital velocities from

surface-wave parameters$
Patricia L. Wiberga,, Christopher R. Sherwoodb
a
Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4123, USA
b
Coastal and Marine Geology, U.S. Geological Survey, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1598, USA
Received 12 October 2006

Abstract

Near-bed wave orbital velocities and shear stresses are important parameters in many sediment-transport and
hydrodynamic models of the coastal ocean, estuaries, and lakes. Simple methods for estimating bottom orbital velocities
from surface-wave statistics such as significant wave height and peak period often are inaccurate except in very shallow
water. This paper briefly reviews approaches for estimating wave-generated bottom orbital velocities from near-bed
velocity data, surface-wave spectra, and surface-wave parameters; MATLAB code for each approach is provided. Aspects
of this problem have been discussed elsewhere. We add to this work by providing a method for using a general form of the
parametric surface-wave spectrum to estimate bottom orbital velocity from significant wave height and peak period,
investigating effects of spectral shape on bottom orbital velocity, comparing methods for calculating bottom orbital
velocity against values determined from near-bed velocity measurements at two sites on the US east and west coasts, and
considering the optimal representation of bottom orbital velocity for calculations of near-bed processes. Bottom orbital
velocities calculated using near-bed velocity data, measured wave spectra, and parametric spectra for a site on the northern
California shelf and one in the mid-Atlantic Bight compare quite well and are relatively insensitive to spectral shape except
when bimodal waves are present with maximum energy at the higher-frequency peak. These conditions, which are most
likely to occur at times when bottom orbital velocities are small, can be identified with our method as cases where the
measured wave statistics are inconsistent with Donelan’s modified form of the Joint North Sea Wave Project (JONSWAP)
spectrum. We define the ‘‘effective’’ forcing for wave-driven, near-bed processes as the product of the magnitude of forcing
times its probability of occurrence, and conclude that different bottom orbital velocity statistics may be appropriate for
different problems.
r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ocean waves; Bed shear stress; Continental shelf; Wave boundary layer; MATLAB

1. Introduction
$
Code available from server at http://www.iamg.org/CGEditor/ Wind-generated waves on water induce orbital
index.htm. motion within the water column to a depth roughly
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 434 924 7546;
fax: +1 434 982 2137.
equal to half the wavelength of the surface waves.
E-mail addresses: pw3c@virginia.edu (P.L. Wiberg), When water depth is less than half the wavelength,
csherwood@usgs.gov (C.R. Sherwood). this wave-induced orbital motion extends to the

0098-3004/$ - see front matter r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2008.02.010
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1244 P.L. Wiberg, C.R. Sherwood / Computers & Geosciences 34 (2008) 1243–1262
bed. Interactions between wave-generated water
motion and the bed influence surface waves through
frictional dissipation of wave energy, and influence
the bed through mobilization of bed sediment by
wave-motion-induced bed shear stresses. Mobiliza-
tion of bed sediment can alter bottom roughness,
e.g., through formation or elimination of small-scale
ripples, which in turn modifies wave energy dissipa-
tion and bottom drag for bottom boundary layer
flows. Wave energy dissipation, bottom roughness,
and sediment transport are important parameters
in many hydrodynamic and morphodynamic
models for the coastal ocean, lakes, and estuaries.
Proper representations of these parameters depend
on accurate estimates of wave-induced flow near
the bed.
Theoretical relationships have been derived for
wave-generated, near-bed flow under low-ampli-
tude, monochromatic waves. These have been
extended by Madsen (1994) to the more typical
case when a spectrum of waves is present, provided
the spectrum is known. Problems arise, however,
when only summary statistical parameters like
significant wave height and peak period are avail-
able, rather than the full spectrum, as is frequently
the case in archived wave data, model output, and
hindcasts. In these cases, orbital velocities can be
estimated by coupling significant wave height and
peak period with a generic spectral form to
approximate the contribution of the full wave
spectrum to flow at the bed (e.g., Soulsby, 1987).
In this paper, we review the methods for
calculating bottom orbital velocities from spectral
surface-wave data and from near-bed velocity
measurements. Then we consider methods for
estimating orbital velocities using surface-wave
statistics (significant wave height and peak period)
to parameterize a general spectral form. In applying
this parametric method, we consider two common
spectral forms that differ in shape. The accuracy of
the parametric method is confirmed by comparing
bottom orbital velocities calculated using this
method with values calculated from full spectra
and from direct measurements of near-bed velocity
for continental shelf sites on the US east and west
coasts. MATLAB codes for these methods are
provided in appendices; test cases are provided as
Supplementary material. We conclude with a dis-
cussion of uncertainties in bottom orbital velocity
calculations and of how to choose an appropriate
bottom orbital velocity statistic for calculations of
near-bed processes such as sediment transport.
2. Bottom orbital velocity from simple linear
wave theory
Interactions between surface waves and the
seabed are most conveniently expressed in terms of
the wave-induced orbital fluid motion close to the
bed. For small-amplitude, monochromatic waves,
linear wave theory predicts that the horizontal
component of orbital velocity, u0, evaluated at
z ¼ h (the bottom) is
Hp
u0 ¼ cosðkx  otÞ (1)
T sinhðkhÞ
where H is the wave height (twice the amplitude, a,
of sea-surface fluctuations), T is the wave period, h
is the water depth, k is the wavenumber (2p/L,
where L is wavelength), o is the radian frequency
(2p/T), x is the coordinate in the direction of wave
propagation, and t is the time; the vertical compo-
nent of orbital velocity approaches zero as z-h.
u0 varies sinusoidally through a wave period, reach-
ing a maximum velocity, commonly termed the
bottom orbital velocity ub, when j cosðkx  otÞj ¼ 1:
Hp oa
ub ¼ ¼ (2)
T sinhðkhÞ sinhðkhÞ
Bottom orbital velocities are directly proportional
to wave height and depend inversely on water depth
(Eq. (2)). The dependence of ub on wave period is
subtler, however, because period enters Eq. (2)
through k (¼ 4p2 =½gT 2 tanhðkhÞ, where g is the
gravitational acceleration) as well as T; solving for k
requires an iterative solution (see Appendix A).
Fig. 1 shows ub as a function of depth for periods
ranging from 4 to 14 s. The calculations were done
assuming H ¼ 1 m (local wave height); for other
values of H, ub should be multiplied by H. Because
the term T sinh(kh) decreases with increasing period,
longer period waves generate larger bottom orbital
velocities. The increase in ub with increasing T
becomes more pronounced as water depth increases.
In shallow water, the differences are smaller because
orbital velocities become
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi dominantly a function of
depth (ub ¼ a g=h when sinh(kh)Ekh).
Small-amplitude wave theory assumes the bed is
frictionless. Orbital velocities calculated using this
theory are in good agreement with observed oscilla-
tory flows under monochromatic waves except very
close to the bed where friction is important. Within
the thin layer of frictional influence (the wave
boundary layer), velocities increase with height
above the bottom from 0 to u0. Associated with
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P.L. Wiberg, C.R. Sherwood / Computers & Geosciences 34 (2008) 1243–1262
T=4s
6 measure of average and/or peak (dominant) wave
8 period over a given sampling interval.
100 10
12
ub (m/s)
14
10-1
H = 1m
10-2
100 101 102
Water depth (m)
Fig. 1. Bottom orbital velocity, ub, as a function of water depth h
for periods ranging from 4 to 14 s. Calculations assume local
wave height H ¼ 1 m. Assuming a deep-water wave height of 1 m
and conserving energy flux as waves shoal would produce a
somewhat higher value of local H and ub. For values of wave
height other than 1 m, indicated values of ub should be multiplied
by H. Breaks in curves represent depth-induced wave breaking:
wave heights are limited to 0.78 h (Dean and Dalrymple, 1991).
Curves end when h ¼ L/2. Longer period waves affect bed to
much greater depths than do those with short periods.
these velocity gradients are shear stresses, which are
greatest at the seabed and decrease to 0 near the top
of the wave boundary layer (e.g., Jonsson and
Carlsen, 1967; Jensen et al., 1989). Maximum values
of wave-generated bed shear stress, tbw, are com-
monly parameterized in terms of ub and a friction
factor, fw, as
rf w 2
tbw ¼ u (3)
2 b
where r is the fluid density (e.g., Jonsson, 1966;
Wiberg, 1995). ffi Wave shear velocity is defined as
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
uw ¼ tbw =r. Although wave-generated shear ve-
locities and shear stresses vary throughout a wave
period in response to variations in u0, estimates of
wave-related turbulent mixing and sediment trans-
port on time scales longer than a single wave period
are frequently based on tbw, the maximum stress
during each wave cycle.
3. Surface-wave statistics and spectral estimates
of ub
Wind-generated waves are not monochromatic.
Instead, a spectrum of wave frequencies and heights
are present. The characteristics of the surface-wave
field are often summarized in terms of root-mean-
1245
squared (rms) or significant wave height and some
Significant wave height, Hs, has traditionally been
defined as the average height of the highest one-
third of waves during a sampling interval (Longuet-
Higgens, 1952; Dean and Dalrymple, 1991). Assum-
ing surface-wave heights generally follow a Rayleigh
distribution as Longuet-Higgens (1952) argued and
others have verified, this definition of significant
wave height is equivalent to
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Z ffi
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
H s ¼ 4 m0 ¼ 4 S Z ðf Þ df (4)
where m0 is the variance of water surface elevation,
Z, and SZ is the spectral density of surface elevation
as a function of frequency, f ( ¼ 1/T) (e.g., Ochi,
1998). Significant wave height defined in terms of m0
is sometimes referred to as Hm0. The variance, m0,
can be calculated either directly from a water-level
time series or from the integral of the surface
elevation spectrum.pAP discrete ffiapproximation to the
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
latter, i.e., H s ¼ 4 S Z;i Df i , where the summa-
tion is taken over all frequency bins in the spectrum,
is used by the US National Data Buoy Center
(NDBC; www.ndbc.noaa.gov) to calculate signifi-
cant wave height from wave buoy measurements. pffiffiffi
For a Rayleigh distribution, H rms ¼ H s = 2.
There are several ways to define wave period from
time series or spectra of surface elevation. Zero-
crossing period is defined as the interval between
consecutive times when surface elevation crosses
zero going up or down. Average zero-crossing
periodpcan be estimated from wave spectra as
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
T z ¼ m0 =m2 , where m2 is the second moment of
R
the wave height spectrum (m2 ¼ f 2 S Z ðf Þ df ); this
is the method NDBC uses to calculate average wave
period (Earle, 1996). Mean period is defined as
Tm ¼ m R 0/m1, where m1, the first moment of SZ is
(m1 ¼ fS Z ðf Þ df ). Peak or dominant period, Tp, is
defined as the period corresponding to the fre-
quency band in the spectrum SZ with the most
energy. This is a less stable measure of wave period
than Tm or Tz, which are based on the integrated
wave field. Nevertheless, Tp is the most widely
reported measure of spectral wave period and is
useful for locating the peak in the wave energy
spectrum.
A spectrum of wave-induced orbital velocity at
the bottom boundary can be calculated from a
surface-wave spectrum SZ by applying Eq. (2) to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1246 P.L. Wiberg, C.R. Sherwood / Computers & Geosciences 34 (2008) 1243–1262
P 2 P 1=2
each frequency band i of the wave spectrum: f bz ¼ f i Su;i Df i S u;i Df i . A MATLAB file
to calculate bottom orbital velocity and period
4p2 o2i
Su;i ¼ 2
SZ;i ¼ S Z;i (5) from a measured wave spectrum is provided in
T 2i sinh ðki hÞ sinh2 ðki hÞ Appendix B.
(e.g., Soulsby, 1987). From this, a representative
bottom orbital velocity, ubr, can be calculated by 4. Estimates of ub from near-bottom velocity
summing the contributions from each frequency measurements
component of Su,i,
X Like surface waves, measured near-bottom velo-
u2br ¼ 2 S u;i Df i (6) cities are also not monochromatic, but instead
i
R include motions that range from very low frequen-
in analogy to a2rms ¼ H 2rms =4 ¼ 2m0 ¼ 2 S Z df and cies (tides, wind-driven currents, shelf waves) to
recalling that ub is the amplitude of wave orbital very high frequencies (turbulence). Wave motions
velocity at the bed. Combining Eqs. (5) and (6) often dominate bottom velocity spectra over periods
yields ranging from a few seconds and to a few tens of
" #!1=2 seconds. Following Eq. (6), which relates bottom
pffiffiffi X 4p2 orbital velocity to the variance of wave-induced,
ubr ¼ 2 S Z;i Df i (7)
i T 2i sinh2 ðki hÞ near-bed velocity, we can estimate ubr from near-
bottom velocity measurements as
The bottom orbital velocity, ubr, given by Eq. (7), pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
which Madsen (1994) terms the representative ubr ¼ 2ðvarðu0 Þ þ varðv0 ÞÞ (10)
bottom orbital velocity, is the amplitude of a where u0 ¼ u  ū and v0 ¼ v  v̄ are components of
monochromatic wave orbital motion with the same instantaneous velocity with means (indicated by
variance as the full spectrum (Soulsby, 1987; overbars) removed.
Madsen, 1994); ubr is also equivalent to the rms Strictly speaking, Eq. (10) is only true for error-
value of bottom orbital velocity. Assuming a free measurements of inviscid flow, because instru-
Rayleigh distribution of bottom orbital velocity, ment noise, turbulence, and low-frequency motions
we can define significant bottom orbital velocity ubs, not associated with surface waves all contribute to
in analogy to significant wave height, as the variance in measurements. In our experience
" #!1=2 with acoustic Doppler velocimeters, these contribu-
pffiffiffi X 4p2
ubs ¼ 2ubr ¼ 2 S Z;i Df i tions are small (a few percent) when waves are
i T 2i sinh2 ðki hÞ present and the instruments are operating properly,
(8) but it is wise to investigate the velocity spectra to
verify this. We often use an alternative approach
The assumption that bottom orbital velocity follows for calculating ubr based on near-bottom velocity
a Rayleigh distribution and the best choice of spectra that closely parallels Madsen’s (1994)
bottom orbital velocity (ubr, ubs or some other formulae. This method estimates the spectra, Suu
statistic) for calculations of flow and sediment and Svv, for the u and v components of velocity
processes at the sediment-water interface are exam- using the Welch method (e.g., Press et al., 1992) and
ined in a later section. determines the representative bottom orbital velo-
Madsen (1994) defined the representative wave city ubr as
frequency, fr, corresponding to ubr as rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
X
P ubr ¼ 2 S uv;i Df i (11)
f i S u;i Df i
i i
f br ¼ P (9)
Su;i Df i where Suv ¼ Suu+Svv is the combined horizontal
i
spectrum. As above,pffiffiwe ffi can define significant
We define the representative bottom wave period orbital velocity ubs ¼ 2ubr .
Tbr ¼ 1/fbr. This is consistent with the definition In practice, estimates from Eq. (11) match those
of wave period in terms of the first moment of from Eq. (10) to within a few percent. For example,
the wave spectrum (Tm above). Bottom frequency the mean ratio of ubr values from Eqs. (10) and (11)
or period can also be calculated based on the for 1403 hourly burst measurements in the Hudson
second moment, analogous to Tz above, giving Shelf Valley (discussed below) was 0.9999 and the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P.L. Wiberg, C.R. Sherwood / Computers & Geosciences 34 (2008) 1243–1262
standard deviation was 0.022; 90% of the values fell
between 0.965 and 1.033. The advantage of the
spectral approach is that it can also be used to
calculate representative near-bottom wave periods
(Eq. (9)), to filter out spectral energy contributions
outside the frequency range for waves, and to
estimate surface-wave heights as
0 11=2
BX Suv;i Df i C
H s ¼ 4@  2 A (12)
2pf i coshðki zuv Þ
i
sinhðki hÞ
where zuv is the elevation (above the bottom) of the
velocity measurements. Noise at high wavenumbers
can inflate the wave-height estimates, so only
frequencies in a limited range are used (we typically
consider 0.02pfp0.2 Hz for water depths on the
order of 10 s of m; the range would shift to higher
values in shallower water). This method will not
resolve contributions to Hs from high frequencies
whose associated wave motions have attenuated
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi (JONSWAP) spectrum (Hasselmann et al., 1973),
before reaching the bottom (i.e., f 4 g=ð4phÞ).
5. Calculating orbital velocity from Hs and Tp
Direct measurements of wave spectra from
nearby surface-wave buoys are ideal for determining
bottom orbital velocity time series for a site of
interest when high-frequency near-bottom velocity
measurements are not available. However, the
number of such buoys and the length of their
records are limited. Wave models, such as Wave-
Watch III (WW3; Tolman, 1999) and wave hind-
casts such as the Wave Information Study (WIS;
frf.usace.army.mil/WIS) can provide wave data at a
much larger number of locations, including specific
study sites, and for longer periods of time. Wave
models like WW3 calculate wave spectra, but
archived, gridded model output often includes only
significant wave height, dominant period, and
dominant wave direction. The same set of para-
meters is available for the WIS hindcasts.
Estimates of bottom orbital velocity for wind-
generated waves made with Eq. (2) using H ¼ Hs or
Hrms and T ¼ Tp, Tm or Tz are generally less
accurate than estimates made from full spectra.
Each combination of these produces a different
value ub; H ¼ Hrms and T ¼ Tp are the best choices
for estimating ubr (Soulsby, 1987). The increase in ub
with increasing T (Fig. 1) means that low-frequency
(long period) components of the wave spectrum
contribute disproportionately to the bottom orbital
1247
wave motions while higher-frequency (short period)
wave motion may be completely attenuated before
reaching the bottom. As a consequence, unless the
water is shallow with respect to the wavelength of
the waves, no general, single measure of wave height
and period used in Eq. (2) can capture the
contribution of the full wave spectrum to bottom
orbital velocity.
A better solution to the problem of calculating
bottom orbital velocity when measurements of near-
bed velocity or surface-wave spectra are not
available is to approximate the surface-wave spec-
trum with a generic surface-wave spectrum using
known values of wave height and period, and then
to use this estimated spectrum and Eq. (7) or (8) to
calculate bottom orbital velocities; we will refer to
this as the parametric method. A number of general
forms for wind-generated wave spectra have been
proposed, including the Pierson and Moskowitz
(1964) spectrum, the Joint North Sea Wave Project
and modifications of each (e.g., Mitsuyasu et al.,
1980). The general form of these spectra can be
written as
!x
ag2 f
S Z ðf Þ ¼
ð2pÞ4 f 5 f p
2 !4 3
f 5gexp½ðf f p Þ2 =ð2s2 f 2p Þ (13)
 exp4b
fp
where fp is peak frequency ( ¼ 1/Tp) and a, b, x, g,
and s are parameters that adjust the magnitude and
shape of the spectrum. Depending on the formula-
tion, the parameters are constant, functions of f/fp,
or functions of external variables, typically dimen-
sionless fetch x̄ ¼ gx=U 2 (where x is fetch length
and U is mean wind speed 10 m above the water
surface) or dimensionless peak frequency f̄ p ¼
f p U=g (Table 1). Values of f̄ p ¼ 0:13 are consistent
with fully developed seas (Pierson and Moskowitz,
1964; Alves et al., 2003) while larger values of f̄ p
correspond to fetch-limited conditions (e.g., Massel,
1996); values of f̄ p significantly less than 0.13 are
indicative of swell.
For the JONSWAP and Pierson–Moskowitz
spectra, x ¼ 0 so SZ(f)f5; other parameter values
are given in Table 1. Battjes et al. (1987) showed
that Eq. (13) provided a statistically significantly
better fit to ocean-wave data when SZf4 (x ¼ 1 in
Eq. (13)) rather than f5. Donelan et al. (1985)
proposed a modified form of the JONSWAP
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1248 P.L. Wiberg, C.R. Sherwood / Computers & Geosciences 34 (2008) 1243–1262
Table 1
Spectral parameter values for general spectral form given in Eq. (13), where f̄ p ¼ f p U=g and U is mean wind speed 10 m above water
surface
a b
Pierson–Moskowitza 0.0081 5/4
JONSWAP constant gb 0:033f̄ p
0:67 5/4
JONSWAP variable gc 0:033f̄ p
0:86 5/4
d 0:55
Donelan 0:0165f̄ p 1 1
a
Pierson and Moskowitz (1964).
b
Hasselmann et al (1973).
c
Mitsuyasu et al. (1980).
d
Donelan et al. (1985).
spectrum using this scaling (Table 1). Fig. 2
compares the shapes of the Donelan and JONS-
WAP spectra (Table 1) for fully developed
(f̄ p ¼ 0:13; Fig. 2a) and fetch-limited (f̄ p ¼ 0:50;
Fig. 2b) wave conditions. Two versions of the
JONSWAP spectrum are considered: one with a
constant g ¼ 3.3 (Cg; Hasselmann et al., 1973) and
the other with a variable g (Vg; Mitsuyasu et al.,
1980); g, termed the peak enhancement factor, is the
ratio of the spectral density maxima of the
JONSWAP and Pierson–Moskowitz spectra for
the same wave conditions. All spectra in Fig. 2
have been normalized to a variance of 1 for
comparison.
The normalized JONSWAP-Cg spectrum is in-
dependent of f̄ p and serves as a useful point of
reference. For the fetch-limited conditions, f̄ p ¼
0:50 (Fig. 2b), the three spectra are very similar. For
larger values of f̄ p , the peak of the Donelan and
JONSWAP-Vg spectra increase relative to the
JONSWAP-Cg spectrum, while they decrease for
smaller values of f̄ p because of the dependence of g
on f̄ p . The differences among the spectra are
pronounced for fully developed wave conditions.
Fig. 2a shows that the Donelan spectrum is broader
and has a much smaller peak (less than half the
JONSWAP-Cg peak value); the JONSWAP-Vg
peak falls in between the other two. Of the three,
the Donelan spectrum is most similar to the
Pierson–Moskowitz spectrum for fully developed
seas (Massel, 1996; Alves et al., 2003).
In the comparisons that follow, we focus on the
Donelan spectrum because it has been shown to
have the form most consistent with observed wave
spectra, and the JONSWAP-Cg spectrum with
g ¼ 3.3 because of its simplicity. The large differ-
x g s
0 1 –
0 3.3 0.7 for f/fpp1,0.9 for f/fp41
0 4:42f̄ p
0:43 0.7 for f/fpp1,0.9 for f/fp41
3
6:5 þ 2:6 lnðf̄ p Þ for f̄ p X0:16 0:08 þ 0:0013f̄ p
1:7 for f̄ p o0:16
ences in these two forms for fully developed wave
conditions provide useful information about the
sensitivity of orbital velocity calculations to the
shape of the surface-wave spectrum.
Given Tp, U10 and discrete frequencies fi spanning
an appropriate range of values (we let f/fp span
the range 0.2–5, corresponding to T/Tp ¼ 5–0.2),
Eq. (13) and Table 1 can be used to calculate SZ,i for
any of the spectral forms included in Table 1; Hs can
then be found using Eq. (4), orbital velocities can be
calculated using Eq. (7) or (8), and bottom period,
Tbr can be calculated from Eq. (9). For the problem
we are interested in—calculating bottom orbital
velocity from surface-wave parameters—we know
Tp and Hs, but not necessarily U10. As a result, we
can recast the spectrum given in Eq. (13) into one
that depends explicitly on Hs:
4
!x
wH 2s f p f
SZ ðf Þ ¼
16 f 5 f p
2 !4 3
f 5gexp½ðf f p Þ2 =ð2s2 f 2p Þ
 exp4b (14)
fp
(Appendix C); similar forms have been presented
by Chakrabarti (1986) and Soulsby (1987). The
parameter w, which rescales the spectrum given by
Eq. (14) such that Eq. (4) is still valid, is a constant
for the JONSWAP-Cg spectrum; for g ¼ 3.3,
w ¼ 3.28, as noted previously by Soulsby (1987).
For the Donelan spectrum, w is a function of
dimensionless peak frequency, f̄ p (Fig. 2c, Appendix
C), because g and s depend on f̄ p . Values of f̄ p
consistent with w can be estimated from empirical
expressions for a or dimensionless variance, e
(Appendix C); g and s can be calculated using the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P.L. Wiberg, C.R. Sherwood / Computers & Geosciences 34 (2008) 1243–1262 1249

smaller values of f̄ p A MATLAB file to perform

4 Donelan these calculations is provided in Appendix D.
-
fp = 0.13 Bottom orbital velocities and periods calculated
JONSWAP-C γ
using the Donelan spectrum and JONSWAP
JONSWAP-V γ
S/m0

2 spectrum (g ¼ 3.3) are compared in Fig. 3 for a

range of peak periods and water depths. The
Donelan spectrum gives bottom orbital velocities
0
that are about 5–10% smaller than values obtained
0 1 2 3 using the JONSWAP spectrum except when peak
f/fp period becomes small enough that its associated
wave orbital pmotion
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffidoes not extend to the bottom
(ToT deep ¼ 4ph=g) and only the low-frequency
4
- part of the spectrum contributes to bottom orbital
fp = 0.50 velocity. Although the relative differences become
large for small periods, the corresponding bottom
S/m0

2 orbital velocities are quite small. Bottom wave

period is less sensitive than bottom orbital velocity
to spectral form (Fig. 3b).
0
0 1 2 3 6. Intercomparison of ub calculated from wave
f/fp spectra, wave statistics and near-bed velocity

6 To evaluate the various methods for calculating

bottom orbital velocity, particularly the parametric
4 method (based on Hs and Tp and a general spectral
form), we selected two sites for which simultaneous
χ

2
0
10-2 10-1 100
- long-period Pacific Ocean swell propagates across a
fp
Fig. 2. Comparison of Donelan et al. (1985) spectrum and two
JONSWAP spectra, one with constant g ¼ 3.3 (Cg , Hasselmann
et al., 1973) and one with variable g (Vg, Mitsuyasu et al., 1980),
for (a) fully developed and (b) fetch-limited wave conditions.
Spectra are normalized to an area of 1; dimensionless peak
frequency f̄ p ¼ f p U=g. (c) Normalizing factor, w (Eq. (14),
Appendix C) as a function of f̄ p for three spectral forms. Larger
values of f̄ p are typical of fetch-limited waves while values of
0.13 are associated with fully developed waves; smaller values
are indicative of swell.
relationships in Table 1 once f̄ p is determined.
Several iterations through the relationships for w, f̄ p ,
g and s yield a set of values consistent with the
Donelan spectrum and the specified values of Hs
and Tp. For swell-dominated waves (relatively small
Hs and large Tp), f̄ p calculated using this approach
can be quite low (50.13). Because w is constant
(wffi2.0, Fig. 2c) and spectral shape becomes
constant (not shown) for f̄ p o0:05, values of w, g
and s consistent with f̄ p ¼ 0:05 can be used for
surface-wave buoy data, including wave spectra,
and near-bed velocity time series are available. One
site is at a depth of 60 m on the northern California
continental shelf near the Russian River, where
narrow shelf. The other is a site in the Hudson Shelf
Valley, in the apex of the mid-Atlantic Bight at a
water depth of about 39 m. This site, like most of
the US east coast, has a wide shelf and is often
dominated by locally generated waves caused by
winds associated with subtropical depressions,
frontal passages and occasional tropical storms.
Wave conditions have been recorded near the
edge of the Russian River shelf by NDBC buoy
46013 since 1981 (water depth ¼ 123 m). The
standard data reported for this and other NDBC
stations include hourly significant wave height,
average and dominant (peak) wave period, and
non-directional wave spectra; directional spectra are
available for some sites for a more limited period of
time (see www.ndbc.noaa.gov for a listing of wave
buoy locations and available data). During the
winter of 1991, a Geoprobe bottom tripod deployed
at a depth of 60 m, near the inner-mid-shelf
transition on the Russian River shelf, measured
velocity at 4 levels in the bottom 1.2 m of the water
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1250 P.L. Wiberg, C.R. Sherwood / Computers & Geosciences 34 (2008) 1243–1262

1.3 1.3
h = 15m

ubr-Donelan / ubr-JONSWAP-Cγ

Tbr-Donelan / Tbr-JONSWAP-Cγ
1.2 h = 30m 1.2
h = 60m
1.1 1.1

1 1

0.9 0.9

0.8 0.8
5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20
Tp Tp

Fig. 3. Comparison of (a) bottom orbital velocities, ubr, and (b) bottom periods, Tbr, calculated with JONSWAP (Hasselmann et al., 1973)
and Donelan et al. (1985) spectra for a range of water depths and peak periods. Values of ubr and Tbr for a Donelan spectrum are shown
relative to values calculated using a standard JONSWAP spectrum with g ¼ 3.3. ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi of ubrDonelan/ubrJONSWAPCg increase when peak
pValues
period becomes smaller than threshold period for deep-water waves, T deep ¼ 4ph=g.

column (Wiberg et al., 1994). Velocities were
measured once per second for 8.5 min every hour.
Hourly representative bottom orbital velocity,
ubrmeas, was calculated using the 8.5-min records
as indicated in Eq. (10). Buoy-recorded significant
wave height, wave period and ubrmeas are shown for
the period of the Geoprobe deployment in Fig. 4.
Estimates of bottom orbital velocity, ubrHrmsTp
calculated using Eq. (2) with H ¼ Hrms (¼ H s = 2)
and T ¼ Tp are reasonably good (Fig. 4c, Table 2),
except when Tpo8.8 s, the deep-water p wave thresh-
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi (Wiberg et al., 2002). Because the California shelf is
old for a water depth of 60 m (T deep ¼ 4ph=g). On
these occasions, ubrHrmsTp ¼ 0 whereas ubrmeas40
owing to contributions from the low-frequency
portion of the wave spectrum characterized by wave
periods greater than Tp. Mean Tp over the deploy-
ment was 11.6 s; mean Tz was 7.4 s. The combina-
tion of Hrms and Tp provided better agreement with
ubrmeas than combinations that included Hs and Tz;
Hs would be a better estimator of ubs. On only a few
occasions during the Geoprobe deployment was
Tpo8.8 s, whereas Tzo8.8 s about half of the time,
resulting in frequent and sometimes extended
periods when estimates of ubr based on Tz are
close to 0.
Representative bottom orbital velocities, ubrspec,
calculated using Eq. (7) and NDBC wave spectral
data from buoy 46013 for a depth of 60 m are in
substantially better agreement with the Geoprobe
measurements (Fig. 5b) than are estimates based on
Eq. (2). Using the Brier skill score (BSS, Brier,
1950) as a measure of the agreement between
calculated and measured (ubrmeas) values of ubr
for this 40-day period gives BSS ¼ 0.84 for ubrspec
compared to BSS ¼ 0.40 for ubrHrmsTp (Table 2).
The agreement is very good in this case even though
the buoy and the tripod are not located at the same
depth. Similarly good agreement has been observed
between NDBC buoy 46022 (located at a water
depth of 509 m) and sites on the Eel shelf, northern
pffiffiffi , California (water depths of 55–70 m) and between
NDBC buoy 46025 (at a depth of 860 m) and a 60-m
site on the Palos Verdes shelf, southern California
largely narrow and open, waves experience rela-
tively little modification as they traverse the outer
and mid-shelf (depths 450 m). On broader shelves
such as those on the US east coast, or in shallower
water, surface-wave buoy measurements closer to
the site of interest are likely to be required for
comparable agreement.
Spectral estimates of representative bottom wave
period, Tbrspec (Eq. (9)) overpredict Tbrmeas by an
average of 0.8 s (Fig. 5a) but agree relatively well.
The skill (BSS) of the spectral prediction of bottom
period is 0.09, but increases to 0.48 if the mean
difference between the two time series is removed,
indicating that the spectral calculations give the
correct temporal variation in period.
Representative bottom orbital velocities, ubrpar,
and bottom periods, Tbrpar, calculated for a depth
of 60 m during the winter of 1991 using the
parametric method with the Donelan et al. (1985)
spectrum are shown in Fig. 6; we used Hs and Tp
time series from NDBC buoy 46013 (Fig. 4) as
input. Estimated values of dimensionless peak
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P.L. Wiberg, C.R. Sherwood / Computers & Geosciences 34 (2008) 1243–1262 1251

Hs (m)
2

0
02/01 02/08 02/15 02/22 03/01 03/08
Tbr−meas
30 Tp
Tz
20
T (s)

10

0
02/01 02/08 02/15 02/22 03/01 03/08

ubr−meas
ubr−HrmsTp
0.6
ub (m/s)

0.4
0.2
0
02/01 02/08 02/15 02/22 03/01 03/08
1991

Fig. 4. Significant (a) wave height, Hs, and (b) average, Tz, and peak, Tp, period from NDBC buoy 46013, seaward of Russian River shelf,
northern California, during a period in winter of 1991 when a Geoprobe bottom tripod was deployed at a depth of 60 m. Dashed line in
(b) indicates minimum period needed for orbital motion to reach bed. Representative (b) bottom wave period, Tbrmeas, and (c) orbital
velocity, ubrmeas (Eq. (10)) calculated from Geoprobe near-bed velocity measurements are shown by red curves. (c) ubrmeas is compared
with orbital velocities calculated using Eq. (2) with Hrms and Tp (ubrHrmsTp).

Table 2
Brier skill scores (BSSa) comparing bottom orbital velocities calculated using measured spectra (ubr-spec) and parametric method (ubr-par)
for Donelan et al. (1985) and JONSWAP (Hasselmann et al., 1973) spectral forms (see Appendix D) with bottom orbital velocities
calculated from near-bed velocity measurements (ubr-meas) for a US west coast site (Russian River shelf) and east coast site (N.Y. Bight)

Representative orbital Near-bed velocity Measured wave Donelan spectrum JONSWAP Hrms and Tp using
velocities calculated data (Eq. (10)) spectra (Eq. (7)) ubr- (Eqs. (14) and (7), spectrum Eq. (2)
from: ubr-meas spec Table 1) ubr-par (Eqs. (14) and (7), ubr-HrmsTp
Table 1) g ¼ 3.3

Russian R. shelf, CA
Full record 1.00 0.835 (0.638)b 0.610 0.398
Convergent 1.00 0.838 0.696 0.668 0.454
conditionsc
Hudson Shelf Valley
Full record 1.00 0.875 (0.717)b 0.677 0.501
Convergent 1.00 0.890 0.768 0.731 0.558
conditionsc

BSS40 indicates that calculated values of ubr are a better predictor of measured values than is mean measured ubr; BSS ¼ 1 if agreement is
perfect. CalculatedP and measured ubr are P shown in Figs. 4–7.
a
BSS ¼ 1  ðubrmeas  ubrcalc Þ2 = ðubrmeas  ubrmeas Þ2 (Brier, 1950).
b
ubr-par in these cases was calculated using values of dimensionless peak frequency f̄ p obtained from a rather than dimensionless variance
e (see Appendix C).
c
These skill estimates were calculated just for times when Donelan parametric calculations converged (97% of record for Russian River
shelf and 89% of record for mid-Atlantic Bight). Times when calculations did not converge are indicated by black dots in Figs. 6 and 7.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1252 P.L. Wiberg, C.R. Sherwood / Computers & Geosciences 34 (2008) 1243–1262

25 Tbr−meas
Tbr−spec
20

T (s)
15

10

5
02/01 02/08 02/15 02/22 03/01 03/08
0.8
ubr−meas

0.6 ubr−spec
ub (m/s)

0.4

0.2

0
02/01 02/08 02/15 02/22 03/01 03/08
1991

Fig. 5. (a) Comparison of Tbrmeas calculated from Geoprobe near-bed velocity measurements with bottom wave period, Tbrspec,
calculated for a depth of 60 m using Eq. (9) and spectra measured by using NDBC buoy 46013 on Russian River shelf, northern California,
during winter of 1991. (b) Comparison of representative bottom orbital velocity calculated from Geoprobe near-bed velocity
measurements, ubrmeas, with orbital velocity, ubrspec, calculated using Eq. (7) and spectral wave data.

25
Tbr−meas
20 Tbr−par
T (s)

15

10

5
02/01 02/08 02/15 02/22 03/01 03/08

0.8
ubr−meas
0.6 ubr−par
ub (m/s)

0.4

0.2

0
02/01 02/08 02/15 02/22 03/01 03/08
1991

Fig. 6. (a) Comparison of bottom wave period, Tbrpar, calculated from Donelan spectrum (Eqs. (14), Table 1), with Tbrmeas calculated
from Geoprobe near-bed velocity measurements. (b) Comparison of bottom orbital velocity, ubrmeas, calculated from Geoprobe near-bed
velocity measurements with orbital velocity calculated from Donelan parametric spectrum, ubrpar. Black dots correspond to times when
wave spectra were bimodal and calculations using a Donelan spectrum did not converge (see Appendix C), indicating that surface-wave
parameters were inconsistent with this unimodal spectral form.

frequency f̄ p for this record are small, consistent velocities calculated from the parametric spectra
with swell-dominated wave conditions; f̄ p 40:13 are similar to those calculated from measured
during only 6% of the record. Bottom orbital spectra and from Geoprobe near-bed velocity
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P.L. Wiberg, C.R. Sherwood / Computers & Geosciences 34 (2008) 1243–1262 1253

measurements (BSS ¼ 0.70); the BSS for the
JONSWAP spectrum is only slightly smaller (Table 2).
The black dots at the bottom of Figs. 6a and 6b
indicate times when the parametric method using
the Donelan spectrum with f̄ p calculated based on e
(see Appendix C) did not converge, indicating that
the wave conditions were not consistent with a
simple, unimodal spectral form. During most of
these times, the measured spectra were bimodal,
with the largest peak at a frequency higher than
0.11 s1, the inverse of the threshold period for
deep-water waves (Tdeep ¼ 8.8 s). The other spectral
forms (JONSWAP and the Donelan spectrum with
f̄ p calculated based on a (see Appendix C)) yield
values of ubrpar for these times, but they are
significantly smaller than ubrspec or ubrmeas.
because the disproportionately large contribution
of the lower-frequency part of the spectrum to ub
and Tb is missing in parametric spectral estimates
for these bimodal spectra. Thus, one advantage of
using the Donelan spectrum with f̄ p calculated
based on e for the parametric method is that it
identifies wave parameters that are inconsistent with
a general unimodal spectral form.
Neither spectral form yields values of Tbrpar with
a skill score BSS40 relative to Tbrmeas. Factors
that contribute to the discrepancy between Tbrpar
and Tbrmeas include the blockiness of the buoy-
reported values of Tp used in the parametric
calculations and the presence of wave conditions
during which Tp drops to values near the deep-water
threshold (Tdeep ¼ 8.8 s; dashed line in Figs. 4b
and 6a) but sufficient wave energy is present at
frequencies lower than the parametric spectra can
account for (though the calculations converge) to
produce higher values of Tbrmeas. These instances
are generally associated with low values of ubrmeas.
Wave conditions have been recorded in the mid-
Atlantic Bight at NDBC buoy 44025 since 1975
(40.241N, 73.171W, water depth 39 m). During the
spring of 2006, a Sontek acoustic Doppler veloci-
meter (ADV) measured orbital velocities 0.6 mab at
Hudson Shelf Valley site A (40.391N, 73.791W ), a
39-m site approximately 55 km west of buoy 44025
(Fig. 7). Estimated values of f̄ p for this record are
larger than for the northern California shelf,
consistent with a greater proportion of locally-
generated wave conditions; f̄ p 40:13 during 27% of

0.4 ubr−meas
ubr−spec
0.3
ubr−par
ubr (m/s)

0.2

0.1

0
04/13 04/18 04/23 04/28 05/03 05/08 05/13 05/18 05/23 05/28

25 Tbr−meas
Tbr−spec
20
Tbr−par
15
Tbr (s)

10

0
04/13 04/18 04/23 04/28 05/03 05/08 05/13 05/18 05/23 05/28
2006

Fig. 7. Comparison of bottom orbital velocities and periods measured in Hudson Shelf Valley with estimates from NDBC buoy 44025.
(a) Direct estimates of ubrmeas from acoustic Doppler velocimeter (ADV) measurements at 0.6 m above bottom (Eq. (10)) compared with
estimates of ubrspec from buoy spectra and ubrpar from buoy Hs and Tp and a Donelan spectrum. (b) Comparison of measured
representative wave period, Tbrmeas with estimates Tbrspec and Tbrpar based on measured or estimated spectra (Eq. (9)).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1254 P.L. Wiberg, C.R. Sherwood / Computers & Geosciences 34 (2008) 1243–1262
the record. Once again, bottom orbital velocities
calculated from the measured surface-wave spectra
(ubrspec) agree very well with values calculated from
near-bed velocity data (ubrmeas) (BSS ¼ 0.88; Table
2). Bottom orbital velocities calculated using the
parametric method with the Donelan .spectrum,
ubrpar, are also in good agreement (BSS ¼ 0.77;
Table 2). The Donelan parametric method doesn’t
converge for 11% of the measured wave conditions,
again indicating wave parameters inconsistent with
the general, unimodal spectral form. There remain
some low-energy conditions when ubrpar drops
toward zero whereas the values derived from near-
bed velocity and measured spectra remain some-
what higher (Fig. 7b). These are associated with
time when Tp is near or below the threshold period
of 7.1 s for deep-water waves at a depth of 39 m, but
there are minor peaks at longer periods. These low-
frequency peaks are reflected in the large values of
Tbrspec during these times whereas Tbrmeas and
Tbrpar tend to be lower (Fig. 7a). This contributes
to the fact that neither Tbrspec nor Tbrpar is a good
predictor (BSS40) of Tbrmeas for this time series.
7. Uncertainties in spectral estimates of bottom
orbital velocity
There are a number of assumptions involved in
calculating bottom orbital velocities from measured
or estimated surface-wave spectra that should be
kept in mind when applying these methods. First,
the relationship between surface-wave conditions
and orbital velocity (Eq. (2)) assumes that wave
amplitude is small relative to wavelength, in which
case the waves can be considered linear. As wave
steepness increases, estimates of bottom orbital
velocity based on Eq. (2) become increasingly
inaccurate. Long-period waves, which have the
greatest effect on bottom orbital velocity (Fig. 1),
have long wavelengths and generally can be
considered low amplitude outside the nearshore
zone. Steep waves in the open ocean are usually
short period waves generated by local winds that are
unlikely to contribute much to bottom orbital
velocity. As waves enter shallow water, their
steepness increases and they become nonlinear. As
a result, the spectral methods described here should
be used with caution in shallow water.
The wave statistics used here and elsewhere, e.g.,
the relationship between m0 (the variance of surface
elevation) and Hs, assume a narrow-banded spec-
trum, i.e., a spectrum with a dominant central peak.
However, it is common practice to use these metrics
for all measured spectra even though the statistical
relationships may no longer be exactly satisfied. The
formulations presented for bottom orbital velocity
assume the absence of currents or very-low
frequency oscillatory motion (e.g., internal waves).
The presence of a net flow will bias the orbital
velocities in the direction of the net flow during a
sampling interval.
Spectral estimation of bottom orbital velocity
using surface-wave observations, whether they are
measured spectra or parametric spectra scaled to
measured Hs and Tp, assumes that the measure-
ments represent the wave conditions at the site of
interest. Given the relatively long distances between
surface-wave buoys in most areas, consideration
should be given to whether wave dissipation,
refraction, shoaling, local wind forcing, or wave-
current interactions would be likely to substantially
change the waves between the buoy locations and
the sites of interest. Ideally, the distance between the
buoy and the study site should be short and the
bathymetry simple. Gridded Hs and Tp from wave
models or hindcasts should similarly be at a
resolution small enough to resolve effects of
dissipation, refraction and shoaling on wave height.
One potential source of uncertainty in applica-
tions of the parametric method that appears not to
have a large effect on calculated bottom orbital
velocity is the relative magnitude of the spectral
peak. Despite the large difference in spectral
maxima for low values of dimensionless peak
frequency, f̄ p (Fig. 2a), the Donelan et al. (1985)
and the JONSWAP (Hasselmann et al., 1973)
spectral forms give similar values for ubrpar at the
two sites considered in this study, even though
f̄ p p0:13 during a large fraction of the records.
Fig. 3 suggests differences in bottom orbital velocity
of 5–10% depending on the spectral form used in
applications of the parametric method.
Larger errors are likely to occur when this
method is applied to wave conditions that are
inconsistent with the unimodal spectrum assumed in
all of these spectral forms. The largest discrepancies
between ubrmeas or ubrspec and ubrpar are observed
for cases when the measured spectra are bimodal,
with the larger peak at higher frequencies (Figs. 6
and 7). In these cases, calculations of ubrpar based
on the Donelan spectrum do not converge, because
the measured wave parameters are inconsistent
with a unimodal spectrum. Thus, this method is
useful for identifying these cases. Fortunately,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P.L. Wiberg, C.R. Sherwood / Computers & Geosciences 34 (2008) 1243–1262
bottom orbital velocities are usually small under
these conditions, and are unlikely to contribute
much to near-bed dynamics. Bottom orbital velo-
cities will also be small for low sea-state conditions,
which may also not be well described by a simple
unimodal spectrum. Finally, wave spectral formula-
tions such as the JONSWAP and Donelan spectra
assume that waves are traveling in one dominant
direction. Wave fields with significant directional
spreading or intersecting wave trains will not be well
represented using these spectral forms.
8. Representation of bottom orbital velocities for
calculations of near-bed processes
Madsen (1994) argues that because the wave-
induced bottom shear stress, tbw, is proportional to
the square of bottom orbital-velocity amplitude, ub
(Eq. (3)), the full spectrum of orbital motions are
best represented by ubr as defined in Eq. (7), because
a sinusoidal motion with this amplitude has the
same variance as the near-bed wave-induced velo-
city spectrum. Researchers have used a wide range
of statistics to characterize near-bottom orbital
motions for shear stress and sediment-transport
calculations. Many have followed Madsen’s (1994)
guidance and use ubr (e.g., Soulsby, 1997; Wright
et al., 1999), but many others (e.g., van Rijn, 1993;
Sherwood et al., 1994; Wiberg et al., 2002; Li and
Amos, 2001) used ubs (larger than ubr by a factor of
pffiffiffi
2) derived either from spectra (Eq. (8)) or from Hs
and Tp (Eq. (2)). Other measures have also been
used, including ub1/10 (Wiberg et al., 1994); u1/10,
for ‘‘irregular’’ waves (Soulsby and Whitehouse,
2005; O’Donoghue et al., 2005); and the ‘‘highest
wave velocity measuredyduring each hourly burst’’
(Cacchione and Drake, 1990; caption for their
Fig. 8, p. 752).
The distinctions among these measures of bottom
orbital velocity are important because wave-dependent
near-bed parameters such as bed shear stress
and sediment-transport rates are nonlinear func-
tions of wave motion. Madsen’s (1994) argument is
that, because stress goes as u2, the appropriate
orbital velocity is proportional to the velocity
variance. Arguments for a more extreme statistic
for sediment-transport calculations are based on the
reasoning that transport increases nonlinearly with
bed shear stress, but the influence of the most
energetic wave motions is mitigated by their
infrequent occurrence. If dominant conditions are
defined as those that maximize probability of
1255
occurrence, p, times magnitude of the forcing, x,
the effective forcing can be defined as the value
associated with the peak in the distribution of px.
Similar arguments are used to calculate the effective
discharge that maximizes sediment flux in rivers
(e.g., Wolman and Miller, 1960; Lenzi et al., 2006).
The probability distribution function (PDF) for a
Rayleigh distribution is
x
pðxÞ ¼ expðx2 =2b2 Þ (15)
b2
where b is the parameter that determines the width
and center of the PDF. If the distributionphas ffiffiffiffiffiffiffi been
normalized such that xrms ¼ 1, then b ¼ 0:5 and
x ¼ 0.886. It follows that the peaks in the distribu-
tions of pxn occur at x ¼ 1, 1.23, and 1.414 for
n ¼ 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
Assuming that wave-induced near-bottom velo-
cities follow a Rayleigh distribution and processes
are forced by u0 (the full time series of orbital
velocity at the bed (Eq. (1)) rather than orbital
velocity amplitude, ub (Eq. (2))), the effective u0 is in
fact u0rms. If, however, a process is dominated by
u20 (as one might argue frictional forces are) or u30
(for sediment transport), then the effective value
of u is correspondingly pffiffilarger.
ffi In particular, the
peak of pu30 occurs at 2u0rms ¼ ubr . Assuming a
Rayleigh distribution for u0 also allows us to infer
that u1=10 ¼ 1:8u0rms ¼ 1:27ubr (following the rela-
tionships for Rayleigh distributions in Dean and
Dalrymple, 1991).
Do wave-induced near-bottom motions (u0)
follow a Rayleigh distribution like surface waves?
We might expect they would, given the linear
relationship between surface and bottom wave
conditions. Empirical support is provided by
measurements at the Hudson Shelf Valley site
(Fig. 7). Fig. 8 shows a typical histogram and
cumulative distribution of instantaneous, normal-
ized wave-induced current speeds from a 17-min
burst at 4 Hz of velocity measurements made at
the Hudson Shelf Valley site A on April 10,
2006. Wave-induced current speeds were deter-
mined as
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
jUj ¼ ðu  ūÞ2 þ ðv  v̄Þ2 (16)
where u and v are instantaneous horizontal compo-
nents of current velocity and ū and v̄ are burst-
averaged values. The measured distributions compare
well with a theoretical Rayleigh PDF (Eq. (15)) and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1256 P.L. Wiberg, C.R. Sherwood / Computers & Geosciences 34 (2008) 1243–1262

1
|U|rms = 0.07, |U| = 0.15,
ubr = 0.11
0.8
bhat = 0.71, SkB = 0.99,

Cumulative Probability
Probability 0.1 SkW = 1.00
0.6

0.4
0.05

0.2

0 0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
Normalized speed |U| /|U|rms Normalized speed |U| / |U|rms

Fig. 8. Comparison of measured near-bottom velocities with Rayleigh distribution. (a) Histogram of current speeds (normalized by rms
speed) in a typical 17-min burst (4096 measurements at 4 Hz) measured 0.6 mab at 40-m depth in Hudson Shelf Valley and best-fit
Rayleigh distribution (dark line). (b) Cumulative probability distributions of measurements (dashed line) and best-fit Rayleigh distribution
(gray line).

cumulative distribution F (the integral of Eq. (15)) parameterizing sediment-transport calculations in

 terms of bottom orbital velocity in general, and ubs
x2
F ðx; bÞ ¼ 1  exp  2 (17)
2b
fit to the data, where x ¼ jUj=jUjrms , the normalized
speed (Fig. 8). The results shown in Fig. 8 are typical
of the majority of bursts in the 2-month record of
bottom velocity at this site.
It is common to use bottom orbital velocity, ub,
the amplitude of near-bed wave-induced velocity,
rather than u0, the full wave-induced velocity
record, to parameterize wave-generated flow at the
bed in calculations of sediment-transport and other
wave-related near-bed processes. The PDF of the
amplitude of a narrow-band, Gaussian random
process, such as surface waves, follows a Rayleigh
distribution (Longuet-Higgens, 1952). This should
extend to bottom orbital velocities pffiffias
ffi well. This is
the basis for assuming that ubs ¼ 2ubr . If we were
to argue that near-bed wave-driven processes are
forced by p ubffiffiffi (rather than u0), then the peak of pu3b
occurs at 2ubr ¼ ubs and the peak of pu2b occurs at
1:23ubr , close to the value of u1/10.
The decision as to whether u0 or ub best represents
near-bed wave processes may depend on the
problem and conditions of interest. For example,
sediment is only mobilized when the velocity is large
enough that the associated shear stress exceeds
the critical shear stress for initial motion. This is
most likely to be true when u ¼ ub, an argument for
specifically, assuming transport is proportional to
u3b . Other processes, as well as sediment transport
under high-energy conditions, may more effectively
integrate wave motion over the full wave cycle. This
would argue for basing pffiffiffi calculations on some
statistic of u0, such as 2u0rms ¼ ubr . Furthermore,
while we have characterized processes in terms
of the most probable value of forcing, other
characterizations, e.g., in terms of the average
or expected value of forcing, might also be
appropriate depending on the problem of interest.
Given these considerations, there may be no single
‘‘best’’ parameterization of near-bed wave-induced
velocity.
9. Conclusions
Bottom orbital velocities, a measure of the
variance or energy of wave-induced bottom orbital
motion at the bed, can be calculated in several ways
depending on the available data. Calculations of
bottom orbital velocity from near-bed velocity
measurements and from wave spectral data mea-
sured at nearby surface-wave buoys are in excellent
agreement at two sites on the US east and west
coasts with different wave climates. How close
a buoy has to be to a site of interest to provide
good estimates of ubr depends on the extent of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P.L. Wiberg, C.R. Sherwood / Computers & Geosciences 34 (2008) 1243–1262 1257

surface-wave transformation between the sites. In the 0538 (PLW) and by the Coastal and Marine
absence of near-bed velocity or spectral data, bottom Geology Program, US Geological Survey (CRS).
orbital velocity can be estimated using significant This paper has benefited from comments from Brad
wave height and peak period to parameterize a Butman, Jessica Lacy, Andrea Ogston, and two
general spectral form, thereby producing an approx- anonymous reviewers. Any use of trade, product, or
imate surface-wave height spectrum from which firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does
orbital velocity and bottom period can be calculated. not imply endorsement by the US Government.
Estimates made using the Donelan et al. (1985) and
JONSWAP (Hasselmann et al., 1973) spectral forms
Appendix A. Methods for calculating kh
agree well with bottom orbital velocities calculated
from velocity and spectral data at both sites
The wavenumber, k, required for orbital-velocity
considered here. Calculations of ubrpar using the
calculations using linear theory appears implicitly in
Donelan spectrum do not converge during wave
the dispersion equation
conditions characterized by a bimodal spectrum and
a dominant high-frequency peak, as these conditions o2 ¼ gk tanhðkhÞ (18)
are inconsistent with the general unimodal spectral
and there is no direct method for determining k
form assumed in these calculations. The parametric
exactly. Practical solutions include iterative methods
spectral method is particularly useful for calculating
and various direct formulae; several of these have been
spatial fields of bottom orbital velocity from gridded
evaluated recently by Soulsby (2006). Iterative solution
surface-wave significant wave height and peak
using the Newton–Raphson method (Press et al., 1992)
period, such as wave models and hindcasts produce.
is efficient and can produce results to user-specified
Calculations of wave-driven sediment-transport or
accuracy (within the numerical precision of the soft-
other near-bed wave processes will vary depending
ware and computer used). Soulsby (2006) provides a
on the choice of bottom wave velocity statistic, e.g.,
concise version of this method, along with accuracy
representative or significant bottom orbital velocity,
estimates that allow it to be used with a fixed number
used to parameterize the effective wave velocity. The
of iterations without the need to perform convergence
best choice may depend on the specific problem being
tests. Our MATLAB implementation of his method is
addressed, but this general issue is one that merits
listed in Appendix E. A popular direct method by
further consideration.
Hunt (1979) cited in Dean and Dalrymple (1991)
involves a high-order polynomial, and several methods
Acknowledgements found by Carvalho (personal communication, 2006)
using an automatic problem solver involve nested
The authors gratefully acknowledge support by approximations. We implemented in MATLAB two
ONR Grants N00014-01-1-0690 and N00014-04-1- versions of the Newton–Raphson method and six

Table A1
Comparison of computational speed and accuracy of several methods for determining kh (wavenumber  depth), a term in linear wave
dispersion equations

Newton–Raphsona Newton–Raphsonb Huntc Gilbertd Fentone Carvalho Carvalho Carvalho

(Eq. (1))f (Eq. (2))g (Eq. (16))h

Relative time 1 0.24 0.20 0.13 0.35 0.49 0.36 0.79

MAD (  106) 0 63  109 578 2900 7400 124 139 29

Relative time was computed using MATLAB implementations over a large practical range of depths and periods; MAD is mean absolute
deviation of results minus Newton–Raphson method results with specified accuracy better than 106.
a
Newton–Raphson iteration following Press et al., (1992) until convergence better than 106.
b
Concise Newton–Raphson method of Soulsby (2006) with three iterations.
c
Hunt fifth-order polynomial (Hunt, 1979, cited in Dean and Dalrymple, 1991).
d
G. Gilbert method cited in Soulsby (2006).
e
Fenton (1990).
f
Carvalho (personal communication, 2006), his Eq. (1).
g
Carvalho (personal communication, 2006), his Eq. (2).
h
Carvalho (personal communication, 2006), his Eq. (16) (average of his Eqs. (1) and (2)).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1258 P.L. Wiberg, C.R. Sherwood / Computers & Geosciences 34 (2008) 1243–1262

direct methods, and compared their speed and accuracy [nt,nf] ¼ size(s);
over a practical range of water depths (1–340 m) and % T ¼ 1 ./f;
wave periods (2–30 s). The results, summarized in w ¼ 2*pi*f;
Table A1, are not surprising. All of the direct methods % Determine kh usingSoulsby (2006)
are faster than the Newton–Raphson method when method (seeAppendix E)
requiring that precision in kh be better than 106, but kh ¼ qkhfs(w,h);
their accuracy varies. The venerable fifth-order method w ¼ repmat(w,nt,1);
of Hunt (1979) offers a good combination of speed and fm ¼ repmat(f,nt,1);
accuracy. The new Carvalho formulae are the most kh ¼ repmat(kh,nt,1);
accurate direct methods but are slower and less if(exist(‘df’)),
accurate than Soulsby’s Newton–Raphson formulation
if(length(df) ¼ ¼ 1),
with three iterations. This method (Soulsby, 2006) is
df ¼ df*ones(nt,nf);
recommended for its speed, accuracy, and simplicity. In
elseif(length(df) ¼ ¼ nf);
this context, it is worth noting that the value of g itself,
df ¼ repmat(df,nt,1);
which is usually taken as constant (exactly 9.80665
end
m/s2), in reality changes as a function of latitude,
else
elevation, and local geology. Variation associated
fi ¼ f(1)-(f(2)-f(1));
with latitude and variations in centrifugal force can fe ¼ f(end)+(f(end)-f(end-1));
cause changes in g of 70.23% between the equator
dfb ¼ diff([fi f(:)’]);
and the poles.
dff ¼ diff([f(:)’ fe]);
df ¼ mean([dfb;dff]);
df ¼ repmat(df,nt,1);
Appendix B. MATLAB function for calculating end
bottom orbital velocity from measured spectra
Su ¼ ((w.^2)./((sinh(kh)).^2)).*s;
%Eq. 5
function ubr ¼ sqrt(2.*sum((Su.*df)’)’ ); %Eq. 6
[ubr,Tbr] ¼ ubspecdat(h,s,f,df) fr ¼ (sum((Su.*fm.*df)’)’) ./
% UBSPECDAT—Calculate ubr and Tbr (sum((Su.*df)’)’); %Eq. 9
from measured spectra Tbr ¼ 1./fr;
% [ubr,Tbr] ¼ ubspecdat(h,s,f,df) fz ¼ sqrt((sum((Su.*fm.^2.*df)’)’)
% ./ (sum((Su.*df)’)’));
% Input: Tbz ¼ 1./fz;
% h ¼ water depth (m)—scalar or col.
vector with length
% s(nf) or s(nt,nf) ¼ array of spec-
Appendix C. Rescaling the general wave spectrum
tral densities normalized so that
(Eq. (13)) in terms of Hs
% Hs ¼ 4*sum(s,2)*df
% f ¼ row vector with central fre-
Most wave spectral equations were developed to
quencies (Hz)
predict Hs for given wind conditions, U. If instead
% df ¼ (optional) scalar or row vec-
Hs is known but U is not, it is useful to rescale the
tor with freq. bandwidths (Hz)
general spectra equation (Eq. (13)) in terms of Hs
% Returns:
rather than a. This has been done for several specific
% ubr ¼ representative bottom orbi-
spectral forms by Chakrabarti (1986) and Soulsby
tal velocity (m/s)
(1987). To accomplish this for the general spectral
% Tbr ¼ representative bottom wave
equation, we first change the independent variable
period (s)
in Eq. (13) to f* ¼ f/fp
% The alternative bottom period,
Tbz, is also calculated (see text). A f nx  
SZ ðf n Þ ¼ 6 n5
exp bf n4
% Chris Sherwood, USGS fpf
% Last revised March 8, 2006 1Þ2 =ð2s2 Þ
gexp½ðf
n

g ¼ 9.81; (19)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P.L. Wiberg, C.R. Sherwood / Computers & Geosciences 34 (2008) 1243–1262 1259

where A ¼ ag2/(2p)4. If we define the integral given in Table 1, to solve for f̄ p ¼ f p U=g for a
R R
ðf 6p =AÞ f n S Z ðf n Þ df n ¼ 1=w, then ðwf 6p =AÞ f n S Z ðf n Þ specific spectral form, from which the consistent
df n ¼ 1; the value of w depends on b, g, and s, values of g and s can be determined. For example,
which are either constant or vary with f* or f̄ p ¼ for the Donelan spectrum, f̄ p ¼ ½m0 f 4p wð2pÞ4 =
f p U 10 =g depending on the formulation (Table 1). ð0:0165g2 Þ1=0:55 . Alternatively, Young (1992) com-
R R bined expressions for dimensionless variance e ¼
Recalling Eq. (4), m0 ¼ f S Z ðf Þ df ¼ f 2p f n S Z ðf n Þ
m0g2/U4 and dimensionless peak frequency f̄ p with
df n ¼ ðA=f 6p Þ=ðf 2p =wÞ giving A ¼ m0 f 4p w. Thus we Donelan et al.’s (1985) empirical expression for
3:3
can rewrite Eq. (13) as dimensionless variance  ¼ 6:365  106 f̄ p to get
2 4 6 2 1=0:7
!x !4 3 f̄ p ¼ ½m0 f p =ð6:365  10 g Þ , which is indepen-
m0 f 4p w f f dent of w. Several iterations through Eq. (20) with
SZ ðf Þ ¼ exp4b 5gexp½ðf f p Þ2 =ð2s2 f 2p Þ
f5 fp fp these expressions for f̄ p and the relationships for g and
s in Table 1 for a given Hs and Tp should converge to
(20)
a consistent set of spectral parameters in Eq. (20).
which is equivalent to Eq. (14). Values of w for the Lack of convergence suggests that the spectral form is
JONSWAP and Donelan spectra are plotted in not consistent with the specified values of Hs and Tp.
Fig. 2c. We can also use the two relationships for A MATLAB function that implements these calcula-
A above to solve for a and, using the relationships tions is provided in Appendix D.

Appendix D. MATLAB function for calculating bottom orbital velocity using a parametric spectrum

function [ubr,Tbr,iter] ¼ ubspecpar(hs,tp,h,specform)

% UBSPECPAR—Caclulate ubr and Tbr from hs and tp using parametric spectrum
% [ubr,Tbr,iter] ¼ ubspecform(hs,tp,h,specform)
%
% Input:
% hs—Significant wave height (m)
% tp—Peak period (s)
% h—Water depth (m)
% specform—spectral formulation to use
% specform ¼ ‘D’ for Donelan spectrum (default)
% specform ¼ ‘J’ for JONSWAP spectrum
% Returns:
% ubr ¼ representative bottom orbital velocity (m/s)
% Tbr ¼ representative bottom wave period (s)
% iter ¼ number of iterations if Donelan spectrum is chosen
% If iter45 the calculation did not converge
% iter ¼ 0 for the JONSWAP spectrum
%
% Patricia Wiberg, UVa
% Last modified 9 Mar 2007
if (exist(‘specform’,’var’)),
specform ¼ ‘D’;
end;
g ¼ 9.81; dffp ¼ 0.01;
ffp ¼ 0.2:dffp:5; %nb ¼ length(ffp);
nt ¼ length(tp);
iter ¼ zeros(nt,1);
ubr ¼ zeros(nt,1); Tbr ¼ ubr; Tbz ¼ Tbr;
for i ¼ 1:nt,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1260 P.L. Wiberg, C.R. Sherwood / Computers & Geosciences 34 (2008) 1243–1262

m0 ¼ hs(i).^2./16;
fp ¼ 1./tp(i);
f ¼ ffp.*fp; df ¼ dffp.*fp;
kh ¼ qkhfs(2*pi*f,h); %(seeAppendix E)
if specform ¼ ¼ ‘D’,
xi ¼ 1; tol ¼ 1e-3; m0sfD ¼ 0.;
while abs((m0-m0sfD)/m0 4tol),
fpbar ¼ (m0*fp^4/(g^2*6.635e-6))^(1/.7);
gam ¼ 1.7;
if fpbar4 ¼ 0.05,
% alpha ¼ 0.0165.*fpbar.^0.55;
if fpbar40.159, gam ¼ 6.5+2.606*log(fpbar); end;
sig ¼ 0.08+0.0013.*(fpbar).^-3;
else,
% alpha ¼ 0.0165.*0.05.^0.55;
sig ¼ 0.08+0.0013.*(0.05).^-3;
end;
eterm ¼ -((ffp-1).^2)./(2.*sig.^2);
ee ¼ exp(eterm); t2 ¼ gam.^ee;
t1 ¼ -(ffp).^-4;
sffpn ¼ (ffp.^xi./ffp.^5).*exp(t1).*t2; %dimensionless spectrum
XD ¼ 1./sum(sffpn.*dffp); %chi
sf ¼ m0.*XD*fp.^4.*1./(f.^4*fp).*exp(t1).*t2; %Eq. 20
m0sfD ¼ sum(sf.*df);
iter(i) ¼ iter(i)+1;
if iter(i)45, break; end;
end;
%m1sfD ¼ sum(f.*sf.*df);
%m2sfD ¼ sum(f.^2.*sf.*df);
%fmD ¼ m1sfD./m0sfD; TmD ¼ 1./fmD;
%fzD ¼ sqrt(m2sfD./m0sfD); TzD ¼ 1./fzD;
su ¼ (2*pi.*f./sinh(kh)).^2.*sf; %Eq. 5
ubrD ¼ sqrt(2.*sum(su*df)); %Eq.6
frD ¼ sum(su.*f.*df)./sum(su.*df); %Eq. 9
fzD ¼ sqrt(sum(f.^2.*su.*df)./sum(su.*df));
TbrD ¼ 1./frD; TbzD ¼ 1./fzD;
ubr(i) ¼ ubrD; Tbr(i) ¼ TbrD;
end;
if specform ¼ ¼ ‘J’,
gam ¼ 3.3; xi ¼ 0; %XJ ¼ 3.283; %The value of gam can be changed
jn ¼ find(ffp41);
sig ¼ 0.07*ones(size(ffp)); sig(jn) ¼ 0.09;
eterm ¼ -((ffp-1).^2)./(2.*sig.^2);
ee ¼ exp(eterm); t2 ¼ gam.^ee;
t1 ¼ -1.25.*(ffp).^-4;
sffpn ¼ (ffp.^xi./ffp.^5).*exp(t1).*t2; %dimensionless spectrum
XJ ¼ 1./sum(sffpn.*dffp); %chi
sf ¼ m0.*fp.^4.*XJ./f.^5.*exp(t1).*t2; %Eq. 20
%m0sfJ ¼ sum(sf.*df);
%m1sfJ ¼ sum(f.*sf.*df);
%m2sfJ ¼ sum(f.^2.*sf.*df);
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P.L. Wiberg, C.R. Sherwood / Computers & Geosciences 34 (2008) 1243–1262 1261

%fmJ ¼ m1sfJ./m0sfJ; TmJ ¼ 1./fmJ;

%fzJ ¼ sqrt(m2sfJ./m0sfJ); TzJ ¼ 1./fzJ;
su ¼ (2*pi.*f./sinh(kh)).^2.*sf; %Eq. 5
ubrJ ¼ sqrt(2.*sum(su*df)); %Eq. 6
frJ ¼ sum(f.*su.*df)./sum(su.*df); %Eq. 9
fzJ ¼ sqrt(sum(f.^2.*su.*df)./sum(su.*df));
TbrJ ¼ 1./frJ; TbzJ ¼ 1./fzJ;
ubr(i) ¼ ubrJ; Tbr(i) ¼ TbrJ;
end;
end;

Appendix E. MATLAB function for calculating kh (wavenumber * depth) for linear wave theory using the
Soulsby (2006) Newton–Raphson method

function kh ¼ qkhfs( w, h )
% QKHFS—Quick iterative calculation of kh in dispersion relationship
% kh ¼ qkhfs( w, h )
%
% Input:
% w ¼ Angular wave frequency ¼ 2*pi/T where T ¼ wave period [1/s]
% h ¼ Water depth [m]
% Returns:
% kh ¼ wavenumber * depth [ ]
%
% Either w or h can be a vector, but not both.
% Hard-wired for MKS units.
% Orbital velocities from kh are accurate to 3e-12 !
%
% RLSoulsby (2006)‘‘Simplified calculation of wave orbital velocities’’
% HR Wallingford Report TR 155, February 2006, Eqns. 12a–14
% csherwood@usgs.gov
% Sept 10, 2006
g ¼ 9.81;
x ¼ w.^2*h./g;
y ¼ sqrt(x) .* (xo1)+x.* (x4 ¼ 1);
%this appalling bit of code is about 25% faster than a for loop
t ¼ tanh( y );
y ¼ y-( (y.*t -x)./(t+y.*(1-t.^2)));
t ¼ tanh( y );
y ¼ y-( (y.*t -x)./(t+y.*(1-t.^2)));
t ¼ tanh( y );
y ¼ y-( (y.*t -x)./(t+y.*(1-t.^2)));
kh ¼ y;
return;

Appendix F. Supplementary materials

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/
j.cageo.2008.02.010.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1262 P.L. Wiberg, C.R. Sherwood / Computers & Geosciences 34 (2008) 1243–1262
References
Alves, J.H.G.M., Banner, M.L., Young, I.R., 2003. Revisiting the
Pierson–Moskowitz asymptotic limits for fully developed wind
waves. Journal of Physical Oceanography 33, 1301–1323.
Battjes, J.A., Zitman, T.Z., Holthuusen, L.H., 1987. A reanalysis
of the spectra observed in JONSWAP. Journal of Physical
Oceanography 17, 1288–1295.
Brier, G.W., 1950. Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of
probabilities. Monthly Weather Review 78, 1–3.
Cacchione, D.A., Drake, D.E., 1990. Shelf sediment transport: an
overview with applications to the northern California
continental Shelf. In: LeMehaute, B., Hanes, D.M. (Eds.),
The Sea, vol. 9, Part B. Wiley, New York, pp. 729–773.
Chakrabarti, S.K., 1986. Unification of two-parameter energy
spectrum models. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and
Ocean Engineering 112, 173–177.
Dean, R.G., Dalrymple, R.A., 1991. Water Wave Mechanics for
Engineers and Scientists. World Scientific, Singapore, 353pp.
Donelan, M.A., Hamilton, J., Hui, W.H., 1985. Directional
spectra for wind-generated waves. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society of London, A 315L, 509–562.
Earle, M.D., 1996. Nondirectional and directional wave data
analysis procedures. National Data Buoy Center, Technical
Document 96–01, Stennis Space Center, Mississippi, 37pp.
Fenton, J.D., 1990. On calculating the lengths of water waves.
Coastal Engineering 14, 499–513.
Hasselmann, K., Barnett, T.P., Bouws, E., Carlson, H., Cart-
wright, D.E., Enke, K., Ewing, J.A., Gienapp, H., Hassel-
mann, D.E., Kruseman, P., Meerburg, A., Müller, P., Olbers,
D.J., K. Richter, K., Sell, ., Walden, H., 1973. Measurements
of wind-wave growth and swell decay during the Joint North
Sea Wave Project (JONSWAP). Deutsche Hydrographisches
Institut, Hamburg, Suppl. A 8 (12), 95pp.
Hunt, J.N., 1979. Direct solution of wave dispersion equation.
Journal of the Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Division,
American Society of Civil Engineers 105 (WW4), 457–459.
Jensen, B.L., Sumer, B.M., Fredsøe, J., 1989. Turbulent
oscillatory boundary layers at high Reynolds numbers.
Journal of Fluid Mechanics 206, 265–297.
Jonsson, I.G., 1966. Wave boundary layers and friction factors.
In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on
Coastal Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers,
Tokyo, pp. 127–148.
Jonsson, I.G., Carlsen, N.A., 1967. Experimental and theoretical
investigations in an oscillatory turbulent boundary layer.
Journal of Hydraulic Research 14, 45–60.
Lenzi, M.A., Mao, L., Comiti, F., 2006. Effective discharge for
sediment transport in a mountain river: computational
approaches and geomorphic effectiveness. Journal of Hydrol-
ogy 326, 257–276.
Li, M.Z., Amos, C.L., 2001. SEDTRANS96: the upgraded and
better calibrated sediment-transport model for continental
shelves. Computers & Geosciences 27, 619–645.
Longuet-Higgens, M.S., 1952. On the statistical distribution of
the heights of sea waves. Journal of Marine Research 11,
245–266.
Madsen, O.S., 1994. Spectral wave-current bottom boundary
layer flows. In: Coastal Engineering 1994: Proceedings, 24th
International Conference, Coastal Engineering Research
Council. American Society of Civil Engineers, Kobe, Japan,
pp. 384–398.
Massel, S.R., 1996. Ocean Surface Waves: Their Physics and
Prediction. World Scientific, Singapore, 401pp.
Mitsuyasu, H., Tasai, F., Suhara, T., Mizuno, S., Ohkusu, M.,
Honda, T., Rikishi, K., 1980. Observations of the power
spectrum of ocean waves using a cloverleaf buoy. Journal of
Physical Oceanography 10, 286–296.
Ochi, M.K., 1998. Ocean Waves. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 319pp.
O’Donoghue, T., Doucette, J.S., van der Weerf, J.J., Ribberink,
J.S., 2005. Flow tunnel measurements of full-scale ripples in
oscillatory flow. In: Van Rijn, L.C., Soulsby, R.L., Hoekstra,
P., Davies, A.G. (Eds.), SANDPIT: Sand Transport and
Morphology of Offshore Mining Pits. Aqua Publications, The
Netherlands, pp. V1–V10.
Pierson, W.J., Moskowitz, L., 1964. A proposed spectral form for
fully developed wind seas based on the similarity theory of
S.A. Kitaigorodskii. Journal of Geophysical Research 69,
5181–5190.
Press, W.H., Flannery, B.P., Teukolsky, S.A., Vetterling, W.T., 1992.
Numerical Recipes in Fortran; The Art of Scientific Computing,
2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 994pp.
Sherwood, C.R., Butman, B., Cacchione, D.A., Drake, D.E.,
Gross, T.F., Sternberg, R.W., Wiberg, P.L., Williams III,
A.J., 1994. Sediment-transport events on the northern
California continental shelf during the 1990–1991 STRESS
experiment. Continental Shelf Research 14, 1063–1099.
Soulsby, R.L., 1987. Calculating bottom orbital velocity beneath
waves. Coastal Engineering 11, 371–380.
Soulsby, R.L., 1997. Dynamics of Marine Sands. Thomas
Telford, London, 264pp.
Soulsby, R.L., 2006. Simplified Calculation of Wave Orbital
Velocities. TR-155. HR Wallingford Ltd., Wallingford,
12pp.+figures.
Soulsby, R.L., Whitehouse, R.J.S., 2005. Prediction of Ripple
Properties in Shelf Seas. Mark 2 Predictor for Time
Evolution. TR-154. HR Wallingford Ltd., Wallingford, 99pp.
Tolman, H.L., 1999. User manual and system documentation of
WAVEWATCH-III version 1.18. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Centers for Environ-
mental Prediction, Ocean Modeling Branch Contribution
Number 166, Camp Spring, Maryland, 110pp.
van Rijn, L.C., 1993. Principles of Sediment Transport in Rivers,
Estuaries, and Coastal Seas. Aqua Publications, Amsterdam.
Wiberg, P.L., 1995. A theoretical investigation of boundary layer
flow and bottom shear stress for smooth, transitional, and
rough flow under waves. Journal of Geophysical Research
100, 22,667–22,679.
Wiberg, P.L., Drake, D.E., Cacchione, D.A., 1994. Sediment
resuspension and bed armoring during high bottom stress events
on the northern California continental shelf: measurements and
predictions. Continental Shelf Research 14, 1191–1219.
Wiberg, P.L., Drake, D.E., Harris, C.K., Noble, M., 2002.
Sediment transport on the Palos Verdes shelf over seasonal to
decadal time scales. Continental Shelf Research 22, 987–1004.
Wolman, M.G., Miller, J.P., 1960. Magnitude and frequency of
geomorphic processes. Journal of Geology 68, 57–74.
Wright, L.D., Kim, S.-C., Friedrichs, C.T., 1999. Across-shelf
variations in bed roughness, bed stress and sediment suspension
on the northern California shelf. Marine Geology 154, 99–115.
Young, I.R., 1992. The determination of spectral parameters
from significant wave height and peak period. Ocean
Engineering 19, 497–508.