On the use of spectral wave

models in practice:
potential and limitations

Jaak Monbaliu, K.U.Leuven

Hydraulics Laboratory
 what do we know
wave conditions: buoy measurements
(approx. 30 years for the Belgian coast) at
a few locations; satellite observations; ship
observations
other conditions:
water level
wind
...
 what do we want to know
design or operational conditions at a
coastal (defense) structure, an offshore
platform, ..
distinction between different type of
structures (sea dike, breakwater, quay
wall, oil-platform, ...)
 approach philosophy
as good and reliable as possible:
methodology must be scientifically sound
pragmatic:
limit the number of computer programs
efficient: you need to be able to do the
calculations and/or lab tests
risks versus cost
 measurements
hindcasts

estimate
extreme / climate

wave
transformation

estimate
extreme / climate
boundary hydraulic conditions
Design of a
condition
structure
structure other conditions
failure
mechanism

Function / cost
benefit
 structure
how does structure react to waves
which wave information is needed to
estimate the impact of waves on structure
condition of a structure? as built, during
event (e.g. erosion..), consecutive events
(fatigue), after many years, ..
maintenance, monitoring
 boundary condition structure
also dependent on:
function: platform, ship, breakwater, dike, ...
cost/benefit: economic/human loss in case of
failure (e.g. impact on choice return period)
failure mechanism: stability cover layer,
damage toe, slamming, fatigue, overtopping,
..
...
 failure mechanism
damage to cover layer of structure
damage to toe of a structure
fatigue
overtopping
slamming
....
Governing equation and boundary
conditions for wave motion
(see, e.g., Whitham, 1974)

= 0
2

1
+ ( ) + gz = 0 at z = ( x, y, t )
2

t 2

+ + =0 at z = ( x, y, t )
t x x y y z

=0 at z = h
z
Linear theory Airys wave theory
(see, e.g., Whitham, 1974)
2 = 0 Nonlinear term are
1 neglected in the
+ ( ) + gz = 0 at z = ( x, y, t )
2
hypothesis
t 2 of infinitesimally small
amplitude waves
+ + =0 at z = ( x, y, t )
t x x y y z

=0 at z = h
z
= Y ( z ) cos ( kx t + ) Generic solution of the velocity potential

(x, t ) = cos(kx t );
Solution of the linearized
ag cosh (k ( z + h ))
( x, z , t ) = sinh (kx t ).
boundary value problem
cosh (kh )
 (t ) =

a
n =0
n cos( n t n )

from Massel figure 1.3

 analytical expressions
PIERSON-MOSKOWITZ SPECTRUM
4
5 2 g
S ( ) = g 2 5 exp PM = 0.13
4 PM u10

JONSWAP SPECTRUM

5
4
( p )2
S ( ) = g exp
2 5
= exp 2 2
4 PM 2 p
JONSWAP
experiment
PHASE AVERAGED MODELS
The action density N is conserved in water with
slowly varying depth h and current U

N N & N
+ x& + k = Si
t x k i

r r r r
N (k , x , t ) = E (k , x , t ) /
 more usual form of the equation
(here as in WAMC4)

F F
+ ( Cx F ) + ( C y F ) + ( C F ) + C = STOT
t x y

F = f ( , ; x, t ) = + kU
C x = (c g + u )
STOT = Sin+Snl+Sds+Sbf + ...
C y = (c g + v )
Sin = Wind input
1 h u
Snl = Wave-wave interaction C = +k
k h m m
Sds = Whitecapping
h u
Sbf = Bottom friction C = + u h c k
h t g s

= other source terms
h : the water depth
 PROCESSES
after Battjes (1994)
Process Oceans Shelf seas Nearshore Harbours

diffraction
depth refr./shoaling
current refraction
quadruplets
triads
wind input
whitecapping
depth breaking
bottom friction

legend dominant
significant
minor importance
negligible
 wind input
WAM Cycle 3

a u*a
Sin ( , ) = max{0,0.25 (28 cos( ) 1)} F ( , )
w c

WAM Cycle 4
2
a u*a
Sin ( , ) = max{0,1.2 c cos( ) ln 4
} F ( , )
w

WAVEWATCH III

Tolman & Chalikov (JPO, 1996)

 whitecap dissipation
WAM Cycle 3
m

n

S ds ( , ) = Cds F ( , )
PM

WAM Cycle 4

S ds ( , ) = Cds ( )2 k k 2
k Etot (1 cdx ) + cdx ( ) F ( , )
2

k k

WAVEWATCH III

Tolman & Chalikov (JPO, 1996)

 quadruplets

r r r r
k1 + k 2 = k3 + k 4
1 + 2 = 3 + 4

DIA EDIA EXACT

 PROCESSES
after Battjes (1994)
Process Oceans Shelf seas Nearshore Harbours

diffraction
depth refr./shoaling
current refraction
quadruplets
triads
wind input
whitecapping
depth breaking
bottom friction

legend dominant
significant
minor importance
negligible
satellite measurements
JONSWAP
experiment
 PROCESSES
(after Battjes, 1994)
Process Oceans Shelf seas Nearshore Harbours

diffraction
depth refr./shoaling
current refraction
quadruplets
triads
wind input
whitecapping
depth breaking
bottom friction

legend dominant
significant
minor importance
negligible
 bottom friction
Cfk
Sbf ( k ) = 2 F (k )
g sinh 2kh
JONSWAP model Collins model

1
C fJ = = 0.0039 ms 1 C fC = 2c U 2 2
g

Madsens model Webers model

Ceddy = f (k N )
8 1/ 2
C fM = f w [k N ] 2 U 2
3
depth induced breaking

1
Sbr ( , ) = br k Qb H max F ( , )
2

two tuning parameters:

br : some tuning constant (~1)
Hmax = h
distribrution over frequency space ?
non-linear interactions
triads
r r r
k1 k 2 = k3
1 2 = 3

main problem current implementation:

harmonics created but not released
 Illustration
wave damping due to
sandbanks
 MONITORING BROERSBANK: modelling in progress
48 N 62 N
MODELLING OPTOS_CSM12 W 13 E C_24 47.8333 N - 71.1667 N
12.25 W - 12.25 E
(COHERENS) ~7.8x4.6 km (WAM)
CONCEPT B.C.
~47x28km
B.C.
48.5 N 57 N Water level and 48.5 N 57 N
OPTOS_NOS 4 W 9 E current velocities N1_24 4W9E
(COHERENS) ~7.8x4.6km (WAM) ~7.8x4.6km

B.C. B.C.
51N-51.9N Water level and
~0.8x0.5km
current velocities
OPTOS_BCZ 2E-4.13E
BCZ (SWAN)
(COHERENS)~0.8x0.5km
62 80

CSMgrid
60 70
B.C.
58 60
latitude [deg]

56 50

54
7.8
40

x
52 30
4.6
50
BCZgrid
20
Coastal 0.25x0.25km
NOSgrid km Grid
48 10
10 5 0 5 10
longitude [deg]
(SWAN)

BCZ
0.8 x 0.5 km
MONITORING BROERSBANK: modelling in progress

TELEMAC2D -MODELLERING
Giardino (2008) North Sea -
Broersbank
V5.5 V7.0
UKMO winds ERA-Interim winds
47.8333 N - 71.1667 N Idem
12.25 W - 12.25 E
# of nodes: 24851 # of nodes: 12760(*)

(*) to be detailed further in the Broersbank zone

(currently O(2km) => O(250m) zoals in SWAN
 Some limitations
1. stand alone applications in coastal
areas
2. non-linear effects: from spectrum to
wave height distribution?
SWAN MODEL IMPLEMENTATION
Belgian coast

39 km

126 km
 SWAN/buoy output spectrum E(f) WHI for 20-Jan-1998 02:00:00
40

VaDens [m.s]
SWAN Data
Buoy Data
30
Hs = 5.20 m
20

10

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
buoy output spectrum E(f) BVH for 20-Jan-1998 02:00:00
SWAN Data
VaDens [m.s]

6 Buoy Data
Hs = 2.61 m
4

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
buoy output spectrum Dir(f) WHI for 20-Jan-1998 02:00:00

300
Dir []

200 Buoy Data

100

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
SWAN-run uni20011998
 E(f) at Westhinder 20-Jan-1998 02:00:00

VaDens [m.s]
40
SWAN Data
30 Buoy Data
Hs = 5.20 m
20

10

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
E(f) at Bol van Heist 20-Jan-1998 02:00:00
VaDens [m.s]

6 SWAN Data
Hs = 2.61 m Buoy Data
4

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Dir(f) at Westhinder 20-Jan-1998 02:00:00

300
Dir []

200 Buoy Data

100

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
MONITORING BROERSBANK: modelling in progress
 MONITORING BROERSBANK: modelling in progress

MODELLING
WESTHINDER
LOCATIONS
ZOOM

N
Belgi

an
W 0 E
Coast

BRB5DB
aKUST94-dir

BRB3GB
aKUST98

BRB4GB
aKUST97

TRAPEGEER Nieuwport
BRB2DB
aKUST95-dir
BRB1GB
aKUST99
De Panne
MONITORING BROERSBANK: modelling in progress

DECEMBER 2013
MONITORING BROERSBANK: modelling in progress

Hm0 5 buoys 'Broersbank' + WHI and Water Level at Nieuwpoort

6 BRB5DB ; Maximum ( Hm0 ) = 3.4

BRB2DB ; Maximum ( Hm0 ) = 3.1
BRB4GB ; Maximum ( Hm0 ) = 3.2
5
BRB3GB ; Maximum ( Hm0 ) = 3.3
BRB1GB ; Maximum ( Hm0 ) = 2.5
Z in m T A W 4 WHIDW1 ; Maximum ( Hm0 ) = 4.0

depth in
2
m (LAT)
WHI 25.9
BRB5DB 24.5 1
BRB4GB 4.5
BRB3GB 8.0 0
BRB2DB 14.4 LAT ~= TAW - 0.75m
BRB1GB 7.2
05- 12:00 AM 05- 12:00 PM 06- 12:00 AM 06- 12:00 PM 07- 12:00 AM 07- 12:00 PM 08- 12:00 AM
TRG 3.4
day hr in Dec 2013
 MONITORING BROERSBANK: modelling in progress
48 N 62 N
MODELLING OPTOS_CSM12 W 13 E C_24 47.8333 N - 71.1667 N
12.25 W - 12.25 E
(COHERENS) ~7.8x4.6 km (WAM)
CONCEPT B.C.
~47x28km
B.C.
48.5 N 57 N Water level and 48.5 N 57 N
OPTOS_NOS 4 W 9 E current velocities N1_24 4W9E
(COHERENS) ~7.8x4.6km (WAM) ~7.8x4.6km

B.C. B.C.
51N-51.9N Water level and
~0.8x0.5km
current velocities
OPTOS_BCZ 2E-4.13E
BCZ (SWAN)
(COHERENS)~0.8x0.5km
62 80

CSMgrid
60 70
B.C.
58 60
latitude [deg]

56 50

54
7.8
40

x
52 30
4.6
50
BCZgrid
20
Coastal 0.25x0.25km
NOSgrid km Grid
48 10
10 5 0 5 10
longitude [deg]
(SWAN)

BCZ
0.8 x 0.5 km
MONITORING BROERSBANK: modelling in progress
 Tm02 BIAS BROERSBANK:
MONITORING December 2013 modelling in progress
0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2
BCMeas_jon67
BIAS

0
BCWAM_jon67
-0,2 BCMeas_jon38

-0,4

-0,6

-0,8
WHI BRB5 BRB3 BRB4 BRB2 BRB1 TRG
 Individual wave heights
Each spectrum represents an average
wave condition for a certain period of time
Individual waves can be higher or lower
than average conditions
 = 35
= 0

= 90
Second-order theory
Intermediate water depth
 DRAUPNER - 1 january 1995 (from Statoil)

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00
150 210 270 330 390 450
-5.00

-10.00

Numerical simulation ECMWF (WAM-model) Numerical simulation KUL (HOSM)

 extreme wave conditions
offshore
extrapolation of measured
events, expressed in terms of
integral parameters (Hs, Tp, ..)
spectral properties unknown?
for coastal structures:
combination with extreme surge?
extreme off-shore = extreme
nearshore ?
 extreme wave conditions
nearshore
(extrapolation of) calculated events, expressed
in terms of integral parameters (Hs, Tp, ..)
spectral properties unknown?
extreme off-shore = extreme nearshore ?
non-linear effects (translate near shore
conditions to extreme waves for overtopping);
sub- and superharmonics
combination with extreme surge / wind /
bathymetric changes (beach erosion)?
.....
 Summary
wave information from (combination of)
different sources: spectral wave models, buoy
and satellite measurements
specific application:
extract and estimate wave parameter information
needed through manipulation of wave data base;
average for wave climate; extrapolate for extreme
situation
use your wave parameter information to design
your structure, e.g. translate your spectral
information to time series information
 CONCLUSION
many uncertainties
one model cannot do everything and this
will remain so
different models are complementary
link between different components needed
field work remains necessary to confirm /
estimate low frequency waves