Coastal Engineering 48 (2003) 171 188

www.elsevier.com/locate/coastaleng

A simple model of unsteady sheet-flow sediment transport

J. Malarkey a,*, A.G. Davies a, Z. Li b
a

School of Ocean Sciences, University of Wales Bangor, Menai Bridge, Anglesey, LL59 5AB, UK
b
Ocean Applications, The Met Office, London Road, Bracknell, RG12 2SZ, UK
Received 30 July 2002; accepted 17 February 2003

Abstract
A simple, quasi-steady, one-dimensional, vertical (1DV) model of unsteady sheet flow is presented. The central aim is to
provide greater realism in the near-bed, high-concentration layer, than is possible using models based on the classical referenceconcentration approach. This is achieved by tracking erosion and deposition at the bottom of the mobile sediment layer in
relation to the amount of sediment present in the sheet-flow and suspension layers. The model relies on empirical assumptions
for the time-varying sheet-flow layer thickness (d) and time-varying equivalent bed roughness (ks). The formulations adopted
yield realistic instantaneous vertical profiles of velocity and sediment concentration from the stationary bed, through the highconcentration sheet-flow layer up into the outer suspension layer. The suspension layer itself is modelled using a standard k e
turbulence-closure scheme, together with the sediment continuity equation. Matching conditions are applied at the interface
between the sheet-flow and suspension layers. Preliminary results presented here include initial validation comparisons with the
data set of Horikawa et al. [Horikawa, K., Watanabe, A., Katori, S., 1982. Sediment transport under sheet flow conditions.
Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Cape Town. ASCE, Reston VA, USA, 1335 1352.].
Further comparisons with the experiments of Dohmen-Janssen et al. [J. Geophys. Res. 106 (2001) 27103] cover a wide range of
wave current conditions and sand grain sizes. The results are satisfactory with respect to the measured velocity and
concentration profiles, apart from cases involving fine sand for which the effects of flow unsteadiness are not accounted for in
the formulation. In addition, the new model provides satisfactory predictions of sand transport rates.
D 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Sediment; Concentration; Sheet flow; Modelling; Waves; Currents

1. Introduction
The sheet-flow layer is the thin layer of high
sediment concentration that occurs above plane, noncohesive, sediment beds in intense wave and current
flow conditions. Sheet flow contributes significantly to
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1248-382853; fax: +441248-382884.
E-mail address: j.malarkey@bangor.ac.uk (J. Malarkey).

net sediment transport beneath large waves, and its

understanding is therefore crucially important for predictive purposes. The importance of grain collisions in
the sheet-flow layer requires modelling approaches that
are different from the standard diffusion concepts that
are applied in the outer, low-concentration, suspension
layer. Bagnold (1956) developed the concept of a
dispersive stress in the sheet-flow layer, which
absorbs the difference between the fluid stress applied
at the top of the layer and the critical threshold stress for

0378-3839/03/$ - see front matter D 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0378-3839(03)00025-5

172

J. Malarkey et al. / Coastal Engineering 48 (2003) 171188

sediment movement, which may be inferred to exist at

the bottom of the layer. A complete modelling description of the sheet-flow layer requires, in principle, the
use of a two-phase flow model in which the full
collisional nature of the sediment transport process is
taken into account (e.g. Asano, 1990; Li and Sawamoto, 1995; Villaret et al., 2000; Dong and Zhang,
2002). However, models of such complexity are not
suitable for practical sediment transport prediction. In
fact, most research models in this field do not attempt
to represent the sheet-flow layer in detail, instead
relying upon some form of parameterisation of the
bed-load transport (Davies et al., 1997). In contrast,
the suspended load is often represented in considerable
detail in such models, for example, by use of numerical
turbulence-closure schemes coupled to the turbulent
diffusion of sediment.
Wilson (1989) and, more recently, Sumer et al.
(1996) related empirically the properties of a steady
sheet-flow layer to the applied bed shear stress. In
particular, the thickness of the sheet-flow layer (d)
was related to the Shields parameter (h). Similarly, the
effective roughness (ks) of the sheet-flow layer, and
the vertical offset defining the level from which this
roughness was measured, were related to h by fitting
logarithmic profiles to velocity measurements in the
outer layer. Sayed and Savage (1983) produced an
analytical description of the velocity and concentration profiles in a steady sheet-flow layer based on
experiments down inclined chutes. This approach
relied on splitting the stress in the sheet-flow layer
into viscous and plastic stresses.
Oscillatory, wave tunnel, sheet-flow experiments
have been undertaken by Horikawa et al. (1982),
Ribberink and Al-Salem (1995), Dohmen-Janssen et
al. (2001) and McLean et al. (2001), among others.
Bakker and van Kesteren (1986) developed a simple
analytical model based on an extension of Bagnolds
(1956) concepts to explain the behaviour of the concentration profile in sinusoidally oscillating sheet flow.
They assumed that the mean dispersive force is balanced by the weight of the supported grains, while the
second harmonic of the dispersive force is balanced by
the vertical drag on the grains. This results in a mean
concentration profile that is convex upwards. By analogy with steady flow, Dohmen-Janssen et al. (2001)
used the peak stress in the wave cycle to characterise
the sheet-flow layer thickness in oscillatory flow.

Kaczmarek (1991) adapted the steady sheet-flow

description of Sayed and Savage (1983), applying the
instantaneous stress at the top of the layer, and
connected it to a diffusive model of the suspension
layer in which Fredses (1984) model was adopted
for the hydrodynamics. Kaczmareks (1991) approach
made use of Engelund and Fredses (1976) reference
concentration as the bottom boundary condition for
the suspension layer. More recently, Kaczmarek and
Ostrowski (2002) included a third contact layer
between the sheet-flow layer and suspension layer,
where both collisions between sediment grains and
turbulent diffusion of sediment are important.
The model of Kaczmarek (1991), as well as many
of the classical reference-concentration models
described by Davies et al. (1997), is quasi-steady
in that the characteristics of the sheet-flow layer are
defined strictly in terms of the instantaneous bed
shear stress. For oscillatory flow, Sleath (1994) quantified the importance of local acceleration in the flow
by means of the parameter, S, given by:
S

xU0
gs  1

where U0 is the near-bed velocity amplitude, x is the

angular frequency of the wave (equal to 2p/T, where T
is the wave period), s is the relative density of the
sediment (equal to qs/q, where qs is the sediment
density and q is the fluid density) and g is the
acceleration due to gravity. Sleath (1994) demonstrated empirically that for S < 0.2, local acceleration
could be neglected, and that a quasi-steady approach
should thus be valid. In practice, for sands, where
s = 2.65, this condition is almost always satisfied.
However, Dohmen-Janssen et al. (2002) found that,
even for such modest values of S, in some experiments, phase effects appeared to be important in the
sheet-flow layer. They developed a more stringent
condition specifically for sand based on the phase-lag
parameter, P, given by:
P

xd
ws

where d is the sheet-flow layer thickness, which is

proportional to the peak shear stress in the wave cycle,
and ws is the settling velocity of the sand, such that for

J. Malarkey et al. / Coastal Engineering 48 (2003) 171188

P < 0.5, phase-lag effects in the sheet-flow layer can be

neglected.
Here, a simple, quasi-steady, 1DV, model of oscillatory sheet flow is proposed, similar to that of Kaczmarek (1991). The central aim of the model is to
provide greater realism in the near-bed, high-concentration layer, than is achieved by classical models based
on the reference-concentration approach. This is
achieved by tracking erosion and deposition of the
bottom sediment layer in relation to the amount of
sediment present in the sheet-flow and suspension
layers. The prescriptions used to represent the sheetflow layer are based on Wilsons (1989) and Sumer et
al.s (1996) steady-flow concepts. Although the new
model relies on a number of empirical assumptions
(e.g. for the sheet-flow layer thickness and equivalent
bed roughness), it has the advantage of yielding continuous, instantaneous, vertical profiles of velocity and
sediment concentration from the stationary bed,
through the high-concentration sheet-flow layer, up
into the outer suspension layer. Conditions in the
suspension layer are modelled using a standard k e
turbulence-closure scheme, together with the sediment
continuity equation, subject to matching conditions at
the interface between the sheet-flow and suspension
layers.
Following a description of the formulation, the
results are presented, starting with an initial validation
case involving the data set of Horikawa et al. (1982)
obtained in an oscillating tunnel with medium sand
(grain diameter, D = 0.2 mm). The resulting model is
then compared with experiments conducted by Dohmen-Janssen et al. (2001) over a wider range of wave
and current conditions and for a range of grain sizes
(D = 0.13, 0.21 and 0.32 mm). In addition, predictions
of the net sediment transport rate are compared with
experimental results. Here, the new model allows a
more rational distinction between the bed-load and
suspended-load components of the transport than is
possible using classical modelling approaches. Finally,
the limitations of the formulation are discussed.

2. Model description
Above the sheet-flow layer, the hydrodynamic
formulation is based on a one-dimensional vertical
(1DV) k e turbulence closure, and the sediment

173

concentration is governed by the sediment continuity

equation (e.g. Davies and Li, 1997). The k e turbulence closure has been adopted because this has
proved successful in modelling wave current sediment transport over plane beds (see, for example,
Savioli and Justesen, 1997). In the classical modelling
approach, the stationary bed level is assumed to be
fixed, and the sediment concentration is specified at a
fixed reference level above this, the reference concentration being defined in relation to the instantaneous
stress on the bed. Since most reference-concentration
formulas have been obtained for steady flow, modelling approaches for unsteady flow have usually been
quasi-steady in this respect.
The present model differs from the classical
approach in the following ways:


the roughness, ks, felt by the flow in the suspension

layer and also the sheet-flow layer thickness, d, are
prescribed in terms of the instantaneous shear
stress using the steady-flow concepts of Wilson
(1989);
 in unsteady flows, the stationary bed level is
adjusted at each model time step in order to
conserve the integrated sediment concentration
between the lowest level attained by the stationary
bed and the upper boundary of the model;
 the velocity and sediment concentration profiles
are prescribed in the sheet-flow layer;
 a grid transformation is introduced which allows
the model grid to change depending upon both the
position of the stationary bed level and also the
value of the roughness.
2.1. The sheet-flow layer
It is assumed that the initial undisturbed bed level
is at z = 0, below which the stationary bed concentration is c0. The upper boundary of the flow domain
above this is at z = h, where h is the water depth. As a
result of erosion by the time-varying flow, the instantaneous stationary bed level is located at z =  f(t).
The top of the sheet-flow layer, of time-varying
thickness d(t), is thus at z = d  f, and conservation
of sediment in the vertical direction requires that:
Z 0
Z df
Z h
c0 dz
cdz
cdz
3
f

f

df

174

J. Malarkey et al. / Coastal Engineering 48 (2003) 171188

where c is the volumetric sediment concentration and

the first and second integrals on the right-hand side of
Eq. (3) represent the sediment in the sheet-flow and
suspension layers, respectively.
The sheet-flow layer is defined here by the range
of concentrations cd V c V c0, where cd = 8% and
c0 = 52% by volume. The value of 8% to define the
upper boundary of the sheet-flow layer, where the
effect of grain collisions is no longer important, was
used by Dohmen-Janssen (1999) and corresponds to
individual grains being separated by approximately
one grain diameter. The value of 52% defining the
lower boundary of the sheet-flow layer is a representative value for the concentration of a stationary
bed, and is comparable with the assumption of
c0 = 51% made by Bakker and van Kesteren (1986)
and of c0 = 53% made by Sayed and Savage (1983).
Within the sheet-flow layer, the concentration, c, and
velocity, u, are assumed to have the following height
variation:


zf 2
c c0  c0  cd
fVzVd  f 4
d


zf
u ud
 fVzVd  f
5
d
where ud is the instantaneous velocity predicted by the
numerical k e model at the upper boundary of the
sheet-flow layer (see Fig. 1). Here, unlike in a twophase flow model, e.g. Dong and Zhang (2002), there is
no distinction between the fluid and sediment velocity.
Also, the velocity and concentration profiles, which are
depicted in Fig. 1, are based on experimental and
theoretical evidence rather than derived from equations
governing their mutual interdependence. The quadratic
variation in concentration and linear variation in veloc-

ity have been adopted on the basis of the experimental

measurements made by Horikawa et al. (1982). Moreover, the quadratic variation in concentration is convex
upwards (cf. Bakker and van Kesteren, 1986). For
unsteady flows, this appears to be more realistic than
the linear profile of Wilson (1989) which is applicable
in steady flow. The linear velocity profile is also quite
close in behaviour to the variation suggested by Sumer
et al. (1996), i.e. proportional to (z + f)0.75 for steady
sheet flows. The concentration prescription allows the
instantaneous depth of erosion f beneath the initial bed
level to be expressed as:


Z h
1 1
d2c0 cd
f
cdz
6
c0 3
df
The instantaneous sheet-flow layer thickness d is
defined as follows:
dt
6h 10
D

where t is time, D is the grain diameter and h (u*2/

(s  1)gD) is the instantaneous Shields parameter in
which u* is the friction velocity. This prescription
may be compared with that of Wilson (1989), namely,
d/D = 10h, and also that of Sumer et al. (1996),
namely, d/D = 7h (see Fig. 2(a)). It can be seen that
the present choice for d has been made on the basis of
the data of Horikawa et al. (1982) with a Shields
parameter in the range [0.5, 2.5] for sand having
D = 0.2 mm. The present formula results in a sheetflow layer with a minimum thickness of 10D, unlike
the other formulas which were not intended for h < 1,
and a thickness of 25D at h = 2.5, which equals that
from Wilsons (1989) formula. The dependence of d
on the grain diameter D implies further that the

Fig. 1. Definition sketch of the vertical profiles of velocity and concentration.

J. Malarkey et al. / Coastal Engineering 48 (2003) 171188

175

Fig. 2. Comparison of various sheet-flow layer thickness d (a) and equivalent roughness ks (b) formulas. The estimates of d are taken from the
data of Horikawa et al. (1982), where D = 0.2 mm, to the nearest measurement height assuming that h is the value given by the present model
(see Fig. 4).

absolute layer thickness will become rather small if

Eq. (7) is used for fine sands. After presenting results
based on Eq. (7), the range of validity of Eq. (7) is
therefore discussed, and suggestions are made as to
how a more generally applicable formula for d might
be developed.

scribed, ud is obtained on the basis of the assumption

that the sheet-flow layer has an equivalent roughness
(ks) given by:
8
2
hV1
ks t <

8
:
D
2 3:7h  1 h > 1

2.2. The suspension layer

The prescribed sheet-flow layer lies below the
suspension layer, which is treated here using standard
modelling concepts. The two layers are matched at
level z = d  f, the sheet-flow layer thickness d(t) itself
being determined by the instantaneous Shields parameter (h) obtained from the outer-flow hydrodynamic
formulation. At the matching level, the model demands
continuity of horizontal velocity u (where u = ud) and
concentration c (where c = cd = 8%). While cd is pre-

Eq. (8) represents a simplified (constant + linear) formulation for ks that approximates the expressions for ks
given (i) by Yalin (1992), namely, ks/D = 2 (if h V 1)
and 5h+(h  4)2(0.043h3  0.289h2  0.203h + 0.125)
(if 1 < h V 4), which is a mathematical fit to the data
of Wilson (1988, 1989) and Wilson and Nnadi
(1990); and (ii) by Sumer et al. (1996), namely, ks/D =
2 + 0.6h2.5, for their non suspension case, in the
approximate range 1 V h V 2.5 (see Fig. 2(b)). Sumer
et al. (1996) developed a complementary expression

176

J. Malarkey et al. / Coastal Engineering 48 (2003) 171188

f o r t h e s u s p e n s i o n c a s e , n a m e l y, k s /
D = 4.5 + 0.125h2.5 exp(0.6w* 4 ) where w* = w s /
[ g(s  1)D]0.5, which is valid when the suspension
criterion is satisfied (ws/u*< 0.8 1). While this criterion is satisfied at certain instances in the wave cycle
for oscillatory sheet flow, it is not always satisfied
and, since the two expressions of Sumer et al. (1996)
do not connect smoothly to one another, only the non
suspension expression has been represented approximately here. The expression is approximated by the
simplified formulation because small changes in h
near the peak in the wave cycle can, for hpeak c 2.5,
result in unrealistically large changes in ks.
In the sheet-flow regime (h z 1), Eq. (8) implies
that ks increases from its minimum value of 2D to a
thickness of several grain diameters in active conditions. Again, however, it should be noted that the use
of Eq. (8) with fine sands implies that the roughness

may decrease to small, possibly unrealistic, values.

This point is discussed later.
An example of the time variation in the sheet-flow
layer thickness (d) and roughness felt by the outer flow
(ks), for the wave-only settings of Horikawa et al.
(1982) case (1-1), is shown in Fig. 3(a). Here, the peak
value of Shields parameter during the wave cycle is 2.5.
Both d and ks vary in phase with the magnitude of the
instantaneous Shields parameter h which, in turn, leads
the velocity in the free-stream flow by about 18j. In
Fig. 3(b), the layer thickness d is replotted on an
absolute height scale, on which z = 0 corresponds to
the initial undisturbed bed level. The instantaneous
location of the stationary bed (z =  f(t)) is also represented in this figure, together with the top of the sheetflow layer (z = d  f).
In addition, Fig. 3(b) shows the origin of the
numerical grid used to compute the suspension layer

Fig. 3. Example of time variation in non dimensional sheet-flow layer characteristics in response to a wave with a free-stream velocity of
U0sin xt where U0 = 1.27 m/s, T = 3.6 s and D = 0.2 mm. (a) The variation in the thickness, d (), and roughness, ks (- - -) (: : :: : : marks
phases of maximum/minimum free-stream velocity). (b) The variation in the vertical extent of the sheet-flow layer and position of the bottom
of the numerical grid, relative to the undisturbed bed level (z/D = 0).

J. Malarkey et al. / Coastal Engineering 48 (2003) 171188

(h is also calculated at this level from the numerical

model). This is located within the sheet-flow layer at
height z = D  f, or y = 0 where y is given by
y = z  (D  f). Here, following Wilson (1989), the
offset D(t) has been taken as:
Dt

3
dt;
4

which is consistent with the steady-flow results of

Sumer et al. (1996) who found that d/2 V D V d. The
consequence of this choice is that the origin of y
remains at an approximately constant level during the
wave cycle, just below the initial undisturbed bed level.
The instantaneous level of no motion, corresponding
to the bottom of the numerical grid, is defined in
relation to the origin of the y axis by a roughness length
scale y0 (ks/30), such that the numerical grid occupies
the height interval y0 V y V h  (D  f). At each time
step, the model computes the horizontal velocity
throughout this height interval. However, for purposes
of obtaining the physical output from the model, those
values of velocity corresponding to heights within the
sheet-flow layer ( y0 V y V d  (D  f)) are replaced
using Eq. (5). (Similarly, concentrations computed in
the sheet-flow layer are replaced using Eq. (4).) The
physical output from the model is represented schematically by the full lines in Fig. 1. The numerical
scheme for the suspension layer proceeds, time step by
time step, with reference only to notional, computed
velocity profiles, such as shown by the dashed line in
Fig. 1.
2.3. Formulation
In order to account for the temporal variation in the
thickness of the sheet-flow layer, which results in
variation in the height of level y = 0 at the bottom of
the numerical grid, the following coordinate transformation has been introduced:
v

y  y0
H

10

where H = h  (D  f)  y0, such that v = 0 corresponds

to the bottom of the numerical grid ( y = y0) and v = 1
corresponds to the top of the grid ( y = h  (D  f) =
H + y0). Since high resolution is required near the
bottom of the numerical grid, a further vertical coordinate transformation has been implemented (cf. Li and

177

Johns, 1998), in which v {=[0,1]} is replaced by a new

variable g {=[0,gH]} defined by:


g2
vg v1 exp g  1  v1
11
 v1
2gH
where gH = 2log(1 + 1/v1)/(1 + v1) and in which the
choice of parameter v1 determines the vertical resolution. A suitable resolution may be obtained by choosing
v1 = D/(15h). In addition to finer resolution at the base
of the grid, as in simpler exponential or linear log
transformations, Eq. (11) also has finer resolution at the
top of the grid which facilitates implementation of the
concentration upper boundary condition. The g and v
grids are fixed temporally.
The equations governing the hydrodynamic and
sediment concentration fields in the outer suspension
layer are, respectively, a standard k e turbulenceclosure model and the sediment continuity equation.
These equations are summarised in Appendix A.
Subject to the above coordinate transformation (Eq.
(11)), and assuming that the vertical velocity associated with the vertical movement of the stationary bed
level is negligible (Bv/Bt = 0), the momentum equation for colinear wave current flow, with no vertical
wave velocities (Eq. (A.1)), is given by:


Bu
1 Bp
1 B vt Bu

2
12
Bt
q Bx H c Bg c Bg
where c = Bv/Bg and Bp/Bx = B < p>/Bx  qBul/Bt,
< p> is the mean fluid pressure (associated with any
steady current present) and ul is the free-stream wave
velocity. Likewise, the equation (Eq. (A.2)) for turbulent kinetic energy, k, is given by:
Bk
1 B
2
Bt
H c Bg

vt Bk
rk c Bg

vt
2 2
H c

Bu
Bg

2
e

13

and the equation (Eq. (A.3)) for turbulent kinetic

energy dissipation rate, e, is given by:


 2
Be
1 B
vt Be
Ce1 e
Bu
e2
2
Ce2
2 2 vt
Bt
H c Bg re c Bg
Bg
H c k
k
14
where vt is the eddy viscosity (Clk2/e) and Cl, Ce1,
Ce2, re and rk are constants given by Rodi (1984) (see
Appendix A).

178

J. Malarkey et al. / Coastal Engineering 48 (2003) 171188

Eq. (12) is subject to the no-slip boundary condition at the bottom, u(0,t) = 0, and a no-shear condition at the top, Bu(gH,t)/Bg = 0. At the bottom, since
u(g,t) ! j 1u*ln[Hv(g)/y0 + 1] as g ! 0, where j is
the von Karman constant (0.4), the conditions associated with Eqs. (13) and (14) are e(0,t) = u*3/jy0 and
k(0,t) = u*2/Cl0.5 (see Rodi, 1984). Finally, at the upper
boundary, Bk(gH,t)/Bg = 0 and Be(gH,t)/Bg = 0 in Eqs.
(13) and (14). The equations above are solved in
0 V g V gH, subject to the boundary conditions stated,
even though the region defined by 0 V g V gd, where
gd is the value of g corresponding to the top of the
sheet-flow layer in the numerical solution, is ignored
as explained earlier.
Finally, the continuity equation (Eq. (A.4)) governing the suspended sediment concentration is given by:


Bc
ws Bc
1 B vs Bc

2
gd VgVgH
Bt
Hc Bg H c Bg c Bg
15
where vs (bvt) is the sediment diffusivity, which is
assumed here to equal the eddy viscosity (b = 1). In
the height range 0 V g V gd, corresponding to the
sheet-flow layer, the numerical solution is replaced,
for purposes of model output, by the analytical
solution (Eq. (4)) which becomes:

c c0  c0  cd

Hvg D y0
d

2
g0 VgVgd
16

This provides, in practice, the bottom boundary condition c(gd) = cd for the diffusion equation. At the top
of the grid, g = gH, a zero flux condition Hcwsc + vsBc/
Bg = 0 is implemented.
While the numerical part of the present model
could, in principle, contain the effects of turbulence
damping and hindered settling (see Li and Davies,
2001), these were neglected in the present formulation
in order to keep it as simple as possible. This is
because the primary interest is in the sheet-flow
layers effect on the suspension layer rather than any
secondary suspension layer effects.
For the results presented in Section 3, the height
range 0 V g V gH is defined by 130 equally spaced
grid cells. Because of the temporal variation in the
grid, it has been necessary to use a comparatively

large number of time steps per wave cycle; in practice,

480 steps per cycle has been found to be sufficient.

3. Model results
3.1. Velocity and concentration profiles
In order to validate sheet-flow models, it is necessary to compare them, if possible, with profiles
obtained simultaneously for both velocity and concentration. Such data sets are scarce, particularly
where unsteady flows are concerned. The most
detailed available data set that comprises simultaneous
measurements of both time-varying velocity and concentration is that of Horikawa et al. (1982). Here,
concentrations were obtained nonintrusively using a
camera mounted outside the wave tunnel. This data is
used initially to validate the model.
The experiment of Horikawa et al. (1982) (case 11) was carried out in an oscillatory water tunnel with
symmetrical waves alone. The free-steam velocity,
ul, was given by U0sin xt, with U0 = 1.27 m/s and
T = 3.6 s, and the sand grain size was D = 0.2 mm
(ws = 26 mm/s). In Fig. 4, the model results are
compared with vertical profiles of sediment concentration (c), horizontal velocity (u) and sediment flux
(uc), at 30j phase intervals through one wave halfcycle. The model solution represents the main features
of the data quite accurately. While the conditions in
the sheet-flow layer are prescribed, they are dependent
upon the instantaneous bottom shear stress computed
for the outer layer. Comparison of the concentration
profiles indicates that the thickness and nature of the
sheet-flow layer are quite well represented for most
phase angles. In contrast, the velocity profiles, while
showing broad agreement with the data, exhibit systematic discrepancies for certain phase angles, and, in
addition, a discontinuity in the slope of the curves is
evident at certain phase angles. Most important,
however, is the fact that the flux profiles represent
the data rather convincingly, in relation to both the
breadth and magnitude of the main peak in the flux.
The beginning of the suspension layer is marked
by the dotted lines, corresponding to concentration
c = 0.08 (c/c0 = 0.154). Evidently, the suspension layer
(c < 0.08) occurs slightly above the initial undisturbed
bed level (z/D = 0) for all phase angles, and conditions

J. Malarkey et al. / Coastal Engineering 48 (2003) 171188

179

Fig. 4. Comparison between the present model () and the Horikawa et al. (1982) wave-only tunnel data (case 1-1) (*) for normalised
concentration, c, velocity, u, and sediment flux, uc, at 30j intervals in the wave half-cycle, c0 = 52%, U0 = 1.27 m/s, T = 3.6 s and D = 0.2 mm.
The dotted line corresponds to the lower concentration limit of the sheet-flow layer (cd).

180

J. Malarkey et al. / Coastal Engineering 48 (2003) 171188

in this layer are modelled satisfactorily, particularly

with respect to the suspended sediment flux. Fig. 4
highlights the general point that, in sheet-flow conditions with a medium-sized sand (D = 0.2 mm), the
bulk of the instantaneous transport occurs within the
sheet-flow layer, despite the relatively small thickness
of this layer (of order of only a few millimeters). In
symmetric-wave cases of the present kind, this large
instantaneous flux does not, of course, result in any
net sediment transport. However, the presence of any
wave asymmetry gives rise potentially to large net
transport rates.
The prescription of the sheet-flow layer thickness
(d), bed roughness (ks) and vertical offset of the
numerical grid (D), in Eqs. (7) (9), respectively,
was made initially with principal reference to the data
of Horikawa et al. (1982). It is instructive therefore to
examine the general validity of this prescription with
reference to other data sets. The model has next been
compared with the wave current tunnel data of Dohmen-Janssen et al. (2001) for three different grain
sizes (D = 0.13, 0.21 and 0.32 mm, tests H6, E2 and
I1) with corresponding settling velocities ws = 11.4, 26
and 42.9 mm/s. The conditions in the respective
experiments were U0 = 1.47 m/s and T = 7.2 s, with
the current at 10 cm above the bed being < u> = 0.24
m/s. In Fig. 5, comparisons are shown between the
present model (referred to hereafter as the sheet-flow
model) and measured vertical profiles of cycle-mean
velocity and concentration. The agreement between
the predicted and observed mean concentration profiles is rather good in the sheet-flow layer itself, at
least for the two larger grain sizes. (The fine sand case
is discussed later.) In the suspension layer, the agreement is less good in an absolute sense and, although
the shape of the concentration profiles is not unreasonable, there is some evidence that the ratio (b) of
sediment diffusivity (es) to eddy viscosity (vt) is
dependent upon the grain size (cf. Dohmen-Janssen
et al., 2001). In contrast, the predicted mean velocity
profiles, which have been matched in each case near
the central height of the measurements, show generally better agreement with the data for the fine than for
the coarser sediment.
Also shown in Fig. 5 are the results from a classical
sand transport formulation with no hindered settling
or turbulence damping. In this k e turbulence-closure
scheme, the bed roughness ks = 2.5D and the refer-

ence-concentration formula of Engelund and Fredse

(1976) are applied quasi-steadily at the fixed level
z = 2D. The mean velocity profiles (dashed lines) now
continue (logarithmically) down to the level of no
motion, and so do not exhibit the kink, corresponding
to entry into the sheet-flow layer, seen in the sheetflow model. However, in the height range in which
velocity measurements were made, the agreement
between the k e and sheet-flow models is very close.
In terms of sediment concentration, the k e model
does not attempt to model the profile in the highconcentration zone just above the stationary bed level.
However, in the suspension layer, the general performance of the k e model is at least as good as that
of the new sheet-flow model. It may be added that
both models perform rather better, with respect to
mean velocity and concentration profiles, than the
various (generally simpler) models that were intercompared with wave current tunnel data by Davies et
al. (1997). Based on this and also on previous studies
(e.g. Justesen, 1991), it is probably true to say that a
standard k e model produces more realistic predictions of quantities such as the oscillatory boundary
layer thickness than both one-equation turbulenceclosure models and also simple eddy-viscosity formulations. This is illustrated in Fig. 6 in which the
mean current profile from the k-closure model of
Davies and Li (1997), which was included in the
intercomparison of Davies et al. (1997), is compared
with corresponding profiles from the sheet flow and
also k e turbulence closure models. The comparison
made here is with Dohmen-Janssen et al.s (2001) test
E2 for the medium grain size (D = 0.21 mm), with the
velocity matched with the measurements at a height of
75 mm. Evidently, the slope of the profile is less well
predicted by the k-model than by the other two
models.
The predicted thickness (d) of the time-varying
sheet-flow layer in wave current flow is compared
with that estimated from Dohmen-Janssen et al.s
(2001) measured concentration time series for the
medium-sized sand (test E2) in Fig. 7. The stationary
bed level (dashed line corresponding to c = c0) is
predicted rather well, indicating that the model is
estimating correctly the total amount of sediment in
the two layers above. However, the thickness (d) of
the sheet-flow layer itself, as indicated by the full line
corresponding to c = cd, appears to be underpredicted

J. Malarkey et al. / Coastal Engineering 48 (2003) 171188

181

Fig. 5. Comparison between the present sheet-flow model () and the wave-current data of Dohmen-Janssen (1999) (large dots) for three
different grain sizes, D = 0.13, 0.21 and 0.32 mm, on the basis of mean sediment concentration and velocity profiles. The dashed line represents
the traditional k e diffusive approach using Engelund and Fredse (1976) and the dotted line again corresponds to the lower concentration limit
of the sheet-flow layer (212 g/l u 8%).

182

J. Malarkey et al. / Coastal Engineering 48 (2003) 171188

isations Eqs. (7) (9) may be too specific to the data of

Horikawa et al. (1982). This point is discussed further
later.
3.2. Sediment transport rate

Fig. 6. Comparison between the current profiles predicted by the

sheet-flow model (), the k q model (- - -), the k model (: : :: : :)
and the data of Dohmen-Janssen (1999) (+) for wave-current test E2
(D = 0.21 mm).

by as much as 40 50% at certain phase instants

during the wave cycle. This underprediction is further
illustrated in Fig. 8(a) where concentration time series
at two heights are compared between model and data
within the sheet-flow layer. Fig. 8(b) shows that the
reverse is true for heights in the suspension layer,
where concentrations are overpredicted by the model
as seen in Fig. 5. The presence in Fig. 8(a) and (b) of
secondary peaks at flow reversal (t/T c 0.5 and 1) in
the time series of both the model and data will be
discussed later. It may be inferred from the mean
concentration profiles in Fig. 5 that the underestimation of d is greater for the fine than for the medium
sand and, therefore, that the sheet-flow parameter-

In classical sand transport models, the distinction

between the bed-load and suspended-load transport,
while not necessarily being soundly based physically,
is easily made computationally. One advantage of the
present sheet-flow model is that a more rational distinction can be made between the two modes of transport during the wave cycle than can be made using the
reference-concentration approach. At any phase instant
during the wave cycle, height zd = d(t)  f(t) corresponds to a concentration of cd = 0.08, above which
transport is as suspended load and below which it is as
bed load. Computation of the two modes of transport,
of course, has to take account of the fact that height zd
varies with phase during the wave cycle. In the present
notation, the instantaneous sediment flux calculated
from the stationary bed level at z =  f(t) to the top of
the model at z = h is given by:
Qt Qb Qs

df

f

ucdz

ucdz

17

df

where the respective terms indicate the bed- and

suspended-load contributions to the instantaneous total
load Qt (per width of the flow). A typical example of the
results is shown in Fig. 9 for Dohmen-Janssen et al.s

Fig. 7. Comparison between the sheet-flow model (lines) and the wave-current data (test E2) of Dohmen-Janssen (1999) for D = 0.21 mm
(symbols) on the basis of the time-varying position of the top of the sheet-flow layer (c = cd) ( and *) and stationary bed level (c = c0)
(- - - and o).

J. Malarkey et al. / Coastal Engineering 48 (2003) 171188

183

Fig. 8. Comparison of concentration time series between the sheet-flow model (lines) and the data (dots) for two different heights relative to the
undisturbed bed level: (a) in the sheet-flow layer and (b) in the suspension layer (numbers on the curves represent the heights (z) in mm).

(2001) wave current test E2 with medium sand

(D = 0.21 mm). The predominance of bed load over
suspended load is apparent in this example, and the
asymmetry between the wave + current and wave
 current portions of the cycle gives an impression

of the net sediment transport. After integration

through the wave cycle (denoted hereafter by angle
brackets h i), the total net transport rate in the present
case is h Qt i = 101.8 mm2/s of which h Qb i = 67.9
mm2/s and h Qs i = 33.9 mm2/s. According to Doh-

Fig. 9. Time series of bed-load and suspended-load contributions to the total sediment flux for test E2 from the sheet-flow model, Qb (), Qs
(- - -) and Qt (: : :: : :).

184

J. Malarkey et al. / Coastal Engineering 48 (2003) 171188

Table 1
Table showing comparisons of net sediment transport rates predicted by the present sheet-flow model (subscript p) and the k e model (subscript
k) and obtained from the data of Dohmen-Janssen (1999) (no subscript), where hui is given at 10 cm above the bed and T = 7.2 s in each case
Case
()
(1)

D
(mm)
(2)

U0
(m/s)
(3)

hui
(m/s)
(4)

hQti
(mm2/s)
(5)

hQbi
(mm2/s)
(6)

hQtip
(mm2/s)
(7)

hQbip
(mm2/s)
(8)

hQtik
(mm2/s)
(9)

hQbik
(mm2/s)
(10)

H6
E2
I1
E1
E3
E4

0.13
0.21
0.32
0.21
0.21
0.21

1.47
1.47
1.47
1.60
1.10
0.90

0.24
0.24
0.24
0.15
0.30
0.40

65.5
111.8
94.0
107.2
80.8
84.4

55.2
102.0
77.6

401.7
101.8
141.4
94.4
91.1
123.0

69.7
67.9
104.7
63.6
62.0
83.9

338.7
105.9
115.8
94.1
94.6
111.5

40.7
38.1
54.9
35.0
33.4
39.1

men-Janssen (1999), the respective transport rates

based upon the data are 111.8, 102.0 and 9.8 mm2/s.
While the total transport rate h Qt i is rather well
predicted, the bed-load transport component h Qb i is
underestimated by the model as expected from Fig. 7.
A wider set of transport rate comparisons between
the new sheet-flow model and data is given in Table 1.
In this table, the equivalent results for transport rate
given by the classical k e model, with bed-load
transport calculated using the formula of Meyer-Peter
and Muller (1948), are also included. The accuracy of
the predictions of the two models in relation to the
measured values is rather similar (at least if test H6 is
excluded); both models agree to within a factor of 1.5
of the data. (Such agreement was found also by
Kaczmarek and Ostrowski (2002), who excluded test
H6 from their comparison on the grounds that P c 1,
where P is the phase-lag parameter, see Eq. (2).) In
fact, this is not surprising since it is well known that
even relatively simple research models can yield quite
accurate predictions for transport rates measured in
controlled laboratory conditions (Davies et al., 1997).
It is sufficient to note that the new sheet-flow model
provides predictions that are at least as accurate as
those from previous models. What is gained by the
new model is greater realism in the details of the nearbed velocity and concentration fields, leading potentially to improved modelling of, for example, sediment size gradation effects.

4. Discussion
The new sheet-flow model formulation was validated initially with reference to the wave-only data of

Horikawa et al. (1982), on the basis of time-varying

velocity and concentration profiles in the sheet-flow
layer. It should be noted that there are other similarly
detailed data sets, such as the wave current data set
of McLean et al. (2001), which could be used to
further test and validate the model. The Horikawa et
al. (1982) validation resulted in parameterisations
being adopted for the sheet-flow layer thickness (d)
and bed roughness (ks) based on concepts developed
for steady flow. When compared with tunnel data
obtained for three different grain sizes in wave
current flow, it was found that the model tended to
underpredict d, especially for cases involving fine
sand. This is not surprising, partly because the
assumption of quasi-steadiness probably breaks down
in high frequency flows (for which the DohmenJanssen et al.s (2002) parameter P is greater than
0.5) and partly because fine sand will not have time to
settle to a truly stationary bed in these circumstances. Some allowance has been made for this by
the choice of a quadratic (rather than a linear) function
to describe the concentration profile in the sheet-flow
layer. However, the new model is probably oversimplistic, particularly for fine sands. Possibly, some
form of (inverse) grain size dependence in Eq. (7) for
d would improve the predictive ability of the model.
The present prescription for ks and d is actually rather
particular, and may be too limiting.
A further related, complicating factor in the case of
fine sands in unsteady flow is the existence of
turbulent ejection events which produce peaks of high
sediment concentration in the near-bed layer at flow
reversal. The cause of these peaks is not yet entirely
understood, but what is well established is that they
occur predominantly for fine sand in sheet-flow con-

J. Malarkey et al. / Coastal Engineering 48 (2003) 171188

ditions (h > 1). For medium sands, concentration

peaks also occur, but they tend to be rather shortlived, and therefore have little effect on the net sand
transport rate. For finer sands, this is often not the case
since the memory of the high concentration peak
often extending well into the next wave half-cycle,
strongly affecting the wave-related component of the
transport (Murray et al., 1991). In connection with the
present study, the memory effect may help to explain
the occurrence of sheet-flow layers which, in a timeaveraged sense, appear to be unduly thick (e.g. Fig. 5
for fine sand); in other words, it may be sediment
settling from above following a flow-reversal peak in
concentration, rather than the true dynamic sheetflow layer thickness, which is reflected in such mean
concentration profiles. Guizien et al. (2001) have
introduced into a classical reference-concentration
formulation a flow-reversal prescription, similar to
that used by Savioli and Justesen (1997), in a k x
model, to successfully reproduce the much thicker
sheet-flow layer seen in the fine-grained case. However, the arguments used by these investigators remain
rather ad hoc because they rely on modifying either
the bottom stress or the reference concentration to
take advantage of the peak that occurs in the eddy
viscosity at flow reversal. It can be seen in Fig. 8(b)
that the sheet-flow model produces this effect in the
suspension layer without any modification to the
formulation. This is because the concentration boundary condition at the bottom of the suspension layer is
always 8%, which is not as limiting as a reference
concentration (linked to the bed shear stress) at times
of flow reversal. However, the process is still not fully
represented by the sheet-flow model because no peaks
occur in the sheet-flow layer and, in addition, no
peaks are found in the fine-grained case.
One of the central features of the sheet-flow model
is that the stationary bed level rises and falls during
the wave cycle, roughly in phase with the bed shear
stress. Accompanying this is the assumption that the
bed roughness (ks) also varies during the wave cycle
(Eq. (8)). It might be argued that this latter assumption is a rather unnecessary refinement to a model
that is already rather complex and that, in the absence
of data proving the need for this device, an enhanced,
time-invariant value of ks might be adequate for
practical purposes. To test this supposition, one of
the earlier model runs, test E2, has been repeated

185

using a constant value of ks corresponding to the

cycle-mean value of k s from the original run
(ks = 4.47D for the run in question). The overall effect
on the model results is quite modest; the sheet-flow
layer thickness is only reduced by up to 13% during
the wave cycle, due to the reduction in the predicted
peak bed shear stress, and the net sediment transport
rate is reduced by 5%. However, it is unclear how to
predict at the outset the constant value of ks required.
Resolution of this question requires time-varying
velocity measurements above the sheet-flow layer
that allow extrapolation to obtain a roughness length
within the layer.
Related to the nature of the time-varying/constant
roughness is the prescription of the vertical offset D.
The most obvious choice is to set D = f which would
make the model consistent with other more classical
models (e.g. Davies and Li, 1997). Indeed, this was
found to be approximately true for the example shown
in Fig. 3 and also for the medium and coarse sand
cases, tests E2 and I1. However, equating the two
quantities relies on the assumption that the sheet-flow
layer thickness is always greater than the depth of the
instantaneous stationary bed level (d > f), which was
not true for the fine sand case (test H6).
It has been assumed throughout that the sediment
diffusivity (es) is equal to the eddy viscosity (vt); that
is, that the constant of proportionality (b) between
these two quantities is equal to unity. DohmenJanssen et al. (2001) optimised a friction velocity to
the cycle-mean, current profile and a classical powerlaw to the cycle-mean, concentration profile, for the
three grain size cases. A value of b can be inferred in
each case by fitting the slopes independently. Their
data shows that for fine, medium and coarse sand,
b c 0.5, 1 and 3, respectively. This would seem to be
consistent with the over-, well- and underpredicted
nature of the concentration by the models in Fig. 5
for the fine, medium and coarse sand, respectively.
One might expect that the turbulence in the outer
flow would be suppressed by the presence of the
sheet-flow layer, but the implication, in the finegrained case, is that the sheet-flow layer actually
suppresses es more than vt.
The sheet-flow model has proved quite successful
in wave current cases for a single grain size. The
obvious extension would be to consider a number of
individual grain fractions since some interesting and

186

J. Malarkey et al. / Coastal Engineering 48 (2003) 171188

challenging results have been obtained recently with

graded sediments in oscillating sheet-flow conditions
(see Hassan et al., 1999).

5. Conclusions
A simplified, quasi-steady, 1DV model of oscillatory sheet flow has been presented. The central aim of
the model has been to provide greater realism in the
near-bed, high-concentration layer than is achieved by
classical models based on the reference-concentration
approach. This is achieved by tracking erosion and
deposition of the bottom sediment layer in relation to
the amount of sediment present in the sheet-flow and
suspension layers. While the new model still relies on
a number of empirical assumptions (e.g. for the sheetflow layer thickness and equivalent bed roughness), it
yields quite realistic instantaneous vertical profiles of
velocity and sediment concentration from the stationary bed, through the high-concentration sheet-flow
layer, up into the outer suspension layer. Conditions
in the suspension layer are modelled using a standard
k e turbulence-closure scheme, together with the
sediment continuity equation. Matching conditions
are applied at the interface between the sheet-flow
and suspension layers.
The preliminary results of the new model have
been presented here. The model was validated initially using the data set of Horikawa et al. (1982),
obtained in an oscillating tunnel with medium sand
(D = 0.2 mm). Here, it has also been compared with
experiments conducted by Dohmen-Janssen et al.
(2001) over a wider range of wave and current
conditions and for a range of grain sizes (D = 0.13,
0.21 and 0.32 mm). The results are generally satisfactory with respect to the measured velocity and
concentration profiles, at least for the medium and
coarse sand sizes (D = 0.21 and 0.32 mm). However,
for fine sand, due to the effects of flow unsteadiness,
and of other factors not properly accounted for in the
formulation (e.g. concentration peaks at flow reversal), the results are less convincing and suggest that
more general prescriptions are needed for the (timevarying) sheet-flow layer thickness and (time-varying) bed roughness.
As far as the prediction of sand transport rates is
concerned, the new model allows a more rational

distinction to be made between the bed-load and

suspended-load components of the transport, than is
possible using classical modelling approaches. Furthermore, the predictive capability of the new model
appears to be satisfactory. In summary, despite some
shortcomings, the present approach offers a potentially
useful, physically sound alternative to the use of the
classical reference-concentration approach for sand
transport prediction in combined wave and current
flows.

Acknowledgements
This study was supported financially by both the
U.K. Engineering and Physical Science Research
Council under contract number GR/R235589/01, and
also the European Union as part of the MAST III
SEDMOC project, number MAS3-CT97-0115.

Appendix A . Basic k q and sediment continuity

equations
The momentum equation, for colinear wave current flow with no vertical wave velocities, is given by:


Bu
1 Bp
B
Bu


vt
A:1
Bt
q Bx Bz
Bz
where z is the fixed vertical coordinate and Bp/Bx is
the horizontal pressure gradient. Likewise, the equation for turbulent kinetic energy, k, neglecting turbulence damping is given by:


 2
Bk
B vt Bk
Bu

e
vt
Bt
Bz rk Bz
Bz

A:2

and the equation for turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate, e, is given by:


 
Be
B vt Be
evt Bu 2
e2

Ce2
Ce1
Bt Bz re Bz
k Bz
k

A:3

where vt is the eddy viscosity (Clk2/e) and the values

of the constants Cl, Ce1, Ce2, re and rk are as given by
Rodi (1984), namely, 0.09, 1.44, 1.92, 1.00 and 1.3.
Finally, the continuity equation governing the sus-

J. Malarkey et al. / Coastal Engineering 48 (2003) 171188

pended sediment concentration, neglecting hindered

settling, is given by:


Bc
Bc
B
Bc
ws

vs
Bt
Bz Bz
Bz

A:4

where vs (bvt) is the sediment diffusivity.

Appendix B . Notation

C1
Ce1
Ce2
D
H
P
Qt
Qb
Qs
S
T
U0
c
cd
c0
g
h
k
ks
p
h pi
s
t
u
u*
ud
ul
ws
w*
x
y
y0
z
zd
D
b
c
d
e
f
g
gH

k e closure constant
k e closure constant
k e closure constant
grain diameter
h + f  D  y0
phase-lag parameter (xd/ws)
total transport
bed-load (sheet-flow layer) transport
suspended-load transport
Sleath parameter [xU0/g(s  1)]
wave period
free-stream velocity amplitude
volumetric sediment concentration
sediment concentration at top of sheet-flow layer
sediment concentration of stationary bed
acceleration due to gravity
water depth
turbulent kinetic energy
equivalent roughness
non hydrostatic pressure
mean non hydrostatic pressure
ratio of sediment to fluid density (qs/q)
time
horizontal velocity
shear velocity
velocity at top of sheet-flow layer (z = zd)
free-stream velocity
sediment settling velocity
ws/[ g(s  1)D]0.5
horizontal Cartesian coordinate
numerical grid coordinate
level of no-motion in numerical grid (ks/30)
vertical Cartesian coordinate
df
position of numerical grid origin
ratio of sediment diffusivity to eddy viscosity
Bv/Bg
sheet-flow layer thickness
turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate
position of stationary bed below undisturbed bed level
regular normalised vertical coordinate for numerical grid
value of g corresponding to y = H + y0

187

Appendix B (continued)
gd
h
j
p
q
qs
rk
re
vt
vs
v
v1
x
hi

value of g corresponding to y = d + f  D
Shields parameter
von Karman constant
3.1415927
fluid density
sediment density
k e closure constant
k e closure constant
eddy viscosity
sediment diffusivity (bvt)
normalised vertical coordinate for numerical grid
vertical resolution parameter (D/15h)
wave angular frequency (2p/T)
denotes a time average

References
Asano, T., 1990. Two-phase flow model on oscillatory sheet-flow.
Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Coastal
Engineering, Delft. ASCE, Reston, VA, USA, pp. 2372 2384.
Bagnold, R.A., 1956. The flow of cohesionless grains in fluids.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London
A249, 235 297.
Bakker, W.T., van Kesteren, W.G.M., 1986. The dynamics of oscillating sheet-flow. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Taipei. ASCE, Reston, VA,
USA, pp. 940 954.
Davies, A.G., Li, Z., 1997. Modelling sediment transport beneath
regular symmetrical and asymmetrical waves above a plane bed.
Continental Shelf Research 17 (5), 555 582.
Davies, A.G., Ribberink, J.S., Temperville, A., Zyserman, J.A.,
1997. Comparisons between sediment transport models and observations made in wave and current flows above plane beds.
Coastal Engineering 31, 163 198.
Dohmen-Janssen, C.M., 1999. Grain size influence on sediment
transport in oscillatory sheet flow. Phase lag and mobile bed
effects. Doctoral thesis, Delft University of Technology.
Dohmen-Janssen, C.M., Hassan, W.N., Ribberink, J.S., 2001. Mobile-bed effects in oscillatory sheet flow. Journal of Geophysical
Research 106 (C11), 27103 27115.
Dohmen-Janssen, C.M., Kroekenstoel, D.F., Hassan, W.N., Ribberink, J.S., 2002. Phase lags in oscillatory sheet flow: experiments
and bed load modelling. Coastal Engineering 46, 61 87.
Dong, P., Zhang, K., 2002. Intense near-bed sediment motions in
waves and currents. Coastal Engineering 45, 75 87.
Engelund, F., Fredse, J., 1976. A sediment transport model for
straight alluvial channels. Nordic Hydrology 7, 293 306.
Fredse, J., 1984. Turbulent boundary layer wave current motion.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 110 (8), 1103 1120.
Guizien, K., Silva, P., Seabra Santos, F.J., 2001. Mathematical
modelling of sand transport by combined waves and current
in the sheet flow regime using RANS turbulence models: hindering and flow reversal ejections. Paper BD. In: Van Rijn, L.C.,
Davies, A.G., Van de Graff, J., Ribberink, J.S. (Eds.), Sediment

188

J. Malarkey et al. / Coastal Engineering 48 (2003) 171188

Transport Modelling in Marine Coastal Environments. Aqua

Publications, Amsterdam, pp. BD1 BD8.
Hassan, W.N., Kroekenstoel, D.F., Ribberink, J.S., van Rijn, L.C.,
1999. Gradation effects on sand transport under oscillatory
sheet-flow conditions. Data Report Series P, University of
Twente and WL | Delft Hydraulics, Delft, The Netherlands.
Horikawa, K., Watanabe, A., Katori, S., 1982. Sediment transport
under sheet flow conditions. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Cape Town. ASCE,
Reston, VA, USA, pp. 1335 1352.
Justesen, P., 1991. A note on turbulence calculations in the wave
boundary layer. Journal of Hydraulic Research 29 (5), 699 711.
Kaczmarek, L., 1991. Mathematical model for oscillating sheet
flow. In: Soulsby, R.L., Bettess, R. (Eds.), Sand Transport in
Rivers, Estuaries and the Sea. EUROMECH 262, Wallingford, June 1990. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands,
pp. 197 202.
Kaczmarek, L.M., Ostrowski, R., 2002. Modelling intensive nearbed sand transport under wave-current flow versus laboratory
and field data. Coastal Engineering 45, 1 18.
Li, Z., Davies, A.G., 2001. Turbulence closure modelling of sediment transport beneath large waves. Continental Shelf Research
21 (3), 243 262.
Li, Z., Johns, B., 1998. A three-dimensional numerical model of
surface waves in the surf zone and longshore current generation
over a plane beach. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 47 (4),
395 413.
Li, L., Sawamoto, M., 1995. Multi-phase model on sediment transport in sheet-flow regime under oscillatory flow. Coastal Engineering in Japan 38 (2), 157 178.
McLean, S.R., Ribberink, J.S., Dohmen-Janssen, C.M., Hassan,
W.N., 2001. Sand transport in oscillatory sheet flow with mean
current. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering 127 (3), 141 151.
Meyer-Peter, E., Muller, R., 1948. Formulas for bed-load transport.
Proceedings of the 2nd Congress of the International Association of Hydraulic Structures Research, Stockholm, IAHR, Delft,
The Netherlands, pp. 39 64.
Murray, P.B., Davies, A.G., Sousby, R.L., 1991. Sediment pick-up

in wave and current flows. In: Sousby, R.L., Bettess, R. (Eds.),

Sand Transport in Rivers, Estuaries and the Sea. EUROMECH
262, Wallingford, June 1990. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands, pp. 37 43.
Ribberink, J.S., Al-Salem, A.A., 1995. Sheet flow and suspension
of sand in oscillatory boundary layers. Coastal Engineering 25,
205 225.
Rodi, W., 1984. Turbulence Models and Their Application in HydraulicsA State-of-the-Art Review. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Savioli, J., Justesen, P., 1997. Sediment in oscillatory flows over a
plane bed. Journal of Hydraulic Research 35 (2), 177 190.
Sayed, M., Savage, S.B., 1983. Rapid gravity flow of cohesionless
granular materials down inclined chutes. Journal of Applied
Mathematics and Physics (ZAMP) 34 (1), 84 100.
Sleath, J.F.A., 1994. Bed load transport in oscillatory flow. In:
Belorgey, M., Rajaona, R.D., Sleath, J.F.A. (Eds.), Sediment
Transport Mechanisms in Coastal Environments and Rivers.
EUROMECH 310, Le Havre, September 1993. World Scientific, Singapore, pp. 93 106.
Sumer, B.M., Kozakiewicz, A., Fredse, J., Diegaard, R., 1996.
Velocity and concentration profiles in sheet-flow layer of movable bed. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 122 (10), 549 558.
Villaret, C., Davies, A.G., Frey, J.M., 2000. Sand transport rate
predictions using a two-phase flow model. Proceedings of the
27th International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Sydney.
ASCE, Reston, VA, USA, pp. 2561 2574.
Wilson, K.C., 1988. Frictional behaviour of sheet flow. Progress
Report No. 67, Institute of Hydrodynamic and Hydraulic Engineering, Technical University Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark,
11 22.
Wilson, K.C., 1989. Mobile-bed friction at high shear stress. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 115 (6), 825 830.
Wilson, K.C., Nnadi, F.N., 1990. Behaviour of mobile beds at high
shear stress. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference
on Coastal Engineering, Delft. ASCE, Reston, VA, USA, pp.
2536 2541.
Yalin, M.S., 1992. River Mechanics. Pergamon, Tarrytown, NY,
USA.