COASTAL

ENGINEERING
ELSEVIER Coastal Engineering 27 ( 1996) I-20

Wave energy transformation on natural profiles

T.C. Lippmann, A.H. Brookins ‘, E.B. Thornton
Departmeni of Oceanography, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey. CA, USA

Received 17 June 1994; accepted 2 November 1995

Abstract

A wave energy transformation model, which includes wave breaking within the surf zone
described by surface rollers, is developed for randomly varying waves over arbitrary bathymetry.
The model includes roller energy gradients in the energy flux balance, and further specifies the
dissipation function based on roller theory following Svendsen. Root-mean-square wave heights,
H rms, are found across the surf zone by numerical iteration, and compare well with field data
acquired on both barred and near-planar beaches. The model has two free parameters, CT,the mean
angle to vertical of the wave/roller interface roughly representing the type of breaker, and y, a
measure of breaking wave saturation equal to the ratio of Hms to local depth. Optimal values of
both parameters are chosen by model fitting, and show the model to be insensitive to o. Although
the model is sensitive to the choice of y, values are consistent with field data. The surface roller
model behaves similarly to the bore dissipation model of Thornton and Guza for a particular
parameter choice, and is used to decrease model dependence to one input parameter, y.

1. Introduction

As surface gravity waves approaching a coast propagate into intermediate depths of

the shelf, wave energy flux is approximately conserved. However, as waves move into
very shallow water they become unstable and break, and organized wave energy is
converted to turbulent water motion and dissipated. Turbulence generated at the surface
boundary layer by wave breaking is the primary dissipative mechanism in the surf zone
(dissipation at the bottom boundary layer is small). Thus, to model wave transformation
across the surf zone, the wave breaking dissipative mechanism must be specified.
Currently, there is a (growing) wide body of literature aimed at parameterizing the
breaking process in order to predict the transformation of wave heights all the way to the
shoreline (Battjes and Janssen, 1978; Mase and Iwagaki, 1982; Thornton and Guza,

’ Present address: Naval Atlantic Meteorology and Oceanography Center, Virginia Beach, VA, USA.

037%3839/96/$15.00 0 1996 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved

SSDI 0378.3839(95)00036-4
1983; Dally et al., 1985; and many others). The goal of these models is to make accurate
surf zone predictions knowing the bottom profile and a limited number of offshore wave
parameters, such as wave period, height, and direction. Models in the literature generally
require extensive empirical formulation and/or the specification of free unconstrained
parameters, thus limiting their general application. These free parameters are needed
since so little is understood about the detailed breaking processes.
Quantitative approaches have relied on the relationship between wave height, isI, and
water depth, h, inside the surf zone (where the vast majority of incident wave energy is
expended). The earliest monochromatic models describe H inside the surf zone as a
linear function of h
H= Kh (1)
where K is an empirical coefficient of O( 1). Galvin and Eagleson (1965) found
K = 0.8-1.2 for monochromatic laboratory waves. These early models worked well in
the lab, but are limited in their application to natural situations where waves are never
truly monochromatic. In stochastic models, wave heights are described statistically (e.g.,
Battjes and Janssen, 1978; Thornton and Guza, 1983). and are often described by
H m1s= yh (2)
Thornton and Guza (1982) show that y _ 0.4 for field measurements on near-planar
beaches. Using field data acquired from five beaches (including barred profiles),
Sallenger and Holman (1985) found
y = 3.2tan p f 0.30 (3)
where ,!j is the beach slope and y is independent of wave steepness. Dally (1990), based
on Weggel’s (1972) criterion for incipient breaking, employs a more complicated
empirical relationship for the decay of individual waves which depend on beach slope
but not necessarily wave saturation. The dependence on wave saturation is produced by
a wave-by-wave analysis across arbitrary topography. For an unsaturated wave field
(i.e., not all waves are depth limited), (2) and (3) do not fully define wave heights
everywhere in the surf zone, and more sophisticated models must be used to describe
wave transformation.
The most common approach has been to govern wave transformation by the energy
flux balance and a physically based dissipation function,

;( Ec,cosa) = --6

where E is linear wave energy, c, is the group velocity, CYis the incident wave angle.
and E is the dissipation function commonly modeled with simple periodic bores (after
LeMehaute. 1962). In Thornton and Guza ( 19831, E is found following Stoker (1957)
and Battjes and Janssen (1978) by applying conservation of mass and momentum at
regions of flow upstream and downstream of a fully developed bore-like wave approxi-
mated by an hydraulic jump

where p is density of water, g is gravity, and f is the frequency of the wave. B is an

 T.C. Lippmann et al./CoastaI Engineering 27 (1996) I-20 3

empirical coefficient of O(l), representing the fraction of foam on the face of the wave,
and loosely accounts for various breaker types. The model is integrated through the
Rayleigh distribution, weighted by an empirical function describing the distribution of
broken waves. Although the Thornton and Guza (1983) model results agreed with field
observations within 9% error, average best fits gave B > 1, suggesting that the simple
bore function (5) underestimated the actual dissipation.
In general, the random wave models have been successful at describing Hms
transformation in both lab and field situations. However, they do not adequately describe
the spatial characteristics of the dissipation in order to predict, for example, the
longshore current profile, particularly on barred profiles (Roelvink and Stive, 1989;
Church and Thornton, 1993; Smith et al., 1994). This deficiency has promoted much
interest in mixing mechanisms within the surf zone (e.g., Church and Thornton, 1993,
and references therein), but also a reexamination of the validity of the bore dissipation
model. One mechanism which has received considerable attention in recent years is
surface roller theory, initially investigated in the lab by Duncan (1981) and first applied
to the surf zone by Svendsen (1984a,b).
The objective of this paper is to develop an improved model framework for wave
energy transformation in the surf zone by reducing and constraining with data the
number of free parameters required. The principal difference from previous work is the
inclusion of surface roller energy gradients in the energy flux balance, and further
specifying the dissipation through the shear stress at the wave/roller interface. The
wave field is considered random with waves having irregular amplitude, and approach-
ing from angles over arbitrary bottom profiles with straight and parallel contours. For
the purpose of this paper, we will only be concerned with prediction of cross-shore
energy transformation, and not on the behavior of rollers advected out of their
immediate generation region (i.e., the dissipation and advection terms will be described
by the same probability weightin, 0 function). In doing so we will have assumed, that
once formed, the roller has no affect on wave height distributions. Thus all energy losses
from the wave/roller system will determine only the wave height transformation, and
not necessarily accurately describe the spatial distribution of surface generated turbu-
lence. The spatial characteristics of rollers and associated shear stresses is investigated in
Lippmamr and Thornton (1996).
The surface roller model is presented in the next section. Field measurements from a
naturally barred beach during the Delilah nearshore processes experiment (Duck, NC,
19901, and on near-planar beaches from the National Sediment Transport Study (NSTS;
Torrey Pines Beach, San Diego, 1980 and Leadbetter Beach, Santa Barbara, 1978) are
then described, and roller model generated H,, compared with observations. Results
are discussed in terms of the sensitivity of the model to y and (T, the angle of the
wave/roller interface, and comparisons are made to the bore dissipation model of
Thornton and Guza (1983; henceforth TG83).

2. Model

As waves break, turbulence is generated in a volume of water which rushes down the
front face of the wave. This volume of water has been modeled by Duncan (1981) and
 T.C. Lippmann et ~l./Coastal Engineering 27 (1996) I-20

x
7/////////////////////,,,,, *

Fig. 1. Roller definition diagram taken with slight modification from Fredsoe and Deigaard (1992). The normal
force acting on the roller at the wave/roller interface is denoted f,. Other variables are described in the text.

Svendsen (1984a,b) as a detached body of fluid separated from the wave form and
perched on the wave face. This body of detached turbulent, aerated water is defined as
the surface wave roller. The surface roller is believed to play an important role in surf
zone dynamics including the generation of setup and wave driven currents (Svendsen,
1984a,b; Roelvink and Stive, 1989; Nairn et al., 1990; Fredsoe and Deigaard, 1992;
Smith et al., 1994). Svendsen envisioned a mass of turbulent water pushed forward by
the wave front with horizontal velocity equal to the wave phase speed (Fig. 1). The
shear layer at the interface between the turbulent roller and the organized wave motion
results in the local dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) out of the roller.
Because the surface roller propagates with the phase speed of the wave, roller turbulence
has been thought to be a potential source of TKE in the inner surf zone region (Basco,
1985; Roelvink and Stive, 1989).
As with bore dissipation models, the roller model is approached through the energy
flux balance (4). We assume stationary wave conditions, straight and parallel bottom
contours, and random waves, which are narrow-banded in both frequency and direction
(i.e., the wave field can be described by a single frequency, 7, and mean deep water
wave direction, z). Wave energy is considered to be contained in two terms representing
contributions from the wave, E,, and the roller, E,,
E=E, +E, (6)
Thus (4) becomes
a
E, c,cosE) + z ( E,ccosz) = - E

Because the roller is associated with depth-limited breaking, the energy of the roller
travels at the phase speed, c, of the waves.
The first term on the 1.h.s. of (7) is the energy flux gradient used by TG83, and is
formulated using linear theory
1
E, = ~~,vgff~

where p, is the density of sea water, and the group velocity, cg, is described by
1 kh
cg = c (9)
5+---- sinh2 kh
where k is the wavenumber associated with 3 Wave propagation direction for narrow-
 T.C. Lippmann et d/Coastal Engineering 27 (1996) l-20 5

banded linear waves over straight and parallel contours is approximated by Snell’s law
for wave refraction
c
o= sin-’ -since, (10)
( c, 1
where cr, and c, are the initial (offshore) wave angle and phase speed.
The second term on the 1.h.s. of (7) is the gradient in energy flux due to tbe presence
of wave rollers. Following the work of Svendsen (1984a,b), surface roller energy density
is derived from the kinetic energy density of the roller volume with unit crest length,
KE = mu2/2 L where u is a velocity. In the roller it is assumed that u = c, so that

E,= ;P,cl; (11)

where A is area of the roller, L is the wavelength of the wave, and pr is the density of
the roller. The density of the roller will generally be less than that of the undisturbed sea
water owing to entrainment of air by turbulent vortices generated at the wave surface at
the time of breaking. Longuet-Higgins and Turner (1974) estimated the maximum
percent air entrained to be at most 15-20%, in qualitative agreement with laboratory
results of Hwung et al. (1993). Thus, the density difference between the aerated region
of the breaker and the undis~rbed water will not always be negligible. However, having
P, = pW= p is equivalent to keeping the mass of the roller constant by balancing the
increase in p by a corresponding decrease in A, a good approximation since it is the
mass of the roller which is the important quantity to accurately describe.
The mass of the roller can be estimated using the analogy of a hydraulic jump.
Engelund (1981) shows that under the assumption of fully developed rollers (i.e., the
roller covers the entire face of the wave), A is approximated by

Hb’
A=:-
4htan u (12)
where CTis the angle of the wave/roller stress vector, rs (Fig. I), and H, is the height
of the wave at breaking. The value of o is a function of breaker type and is believed to
vary from a maximum value when breaking is initiated to a minimum value within the
inner surf zone or at the cessation of breaking @chaffer et al., 1993). In the development
of (12), Engelund has assumed that the roller is a stationary volume of water, and so in
our application the roller must be instantaneously generated at breaking and the
transition distance and time from unbroken wave to newly formed roller is ignored. For
rapidly forming rollers of a given size ~dete~ined initially by the largest vortex
produced at breaking) relative to the phase speed of the wave form, this is probably a
good approximation. Using (12) and c = $!,, (11) becomes
1 Hb’
ET= -p$-
htan c
(13)
The largest region of energy loss from the wave/roller system occurs at the
wave/roller interface (Fredsoe and Deigaard, 19921, so that E = E,. Dissipation due to
6 T.C. Lippmunn et al./Coustul Engineering 27 (1996) I-20

bottom friction is assumed negligible (a good approximation in the field shown by

TG83). E, is found by consideration of the work done by the roller through the shear
stress between the roller bottom boundary and the wave surface boundary
7sc
,y=-
r (14)
L

If we assume the wave/roller interface is linear, then

rs = pgAsina (15)
as shown in Fig. 1. Using (15) and (121, (14) becomes

1 Mb’
E, = -pgf-cosa
4 h
( 16)

2.1. Ensemble averaging

For random waves, TG83 and Whitford (1988) show that wave heights both inside
and outside the surf zone can be reasonably described by the Rayleigh distribution,
p(H),
2H
p(H) = _..&“/“d’
(17)
Other distributions (e.g., Goda, 1975; Battjes and Janssen, 1978; Klopman and Stive,
1989; Roelvink, 1993) or a wave-by-wave transformation (Dally, 1992) could also be
used as adequate descriptors of the wave field. Since the Rayleigh distribution has
worked well for field data (TG83; Whitford, 1988; Church and Thornton, 1993; and
others), it will be the only distribution considered. In a random wave field, the ensemble
averaged wave energy, (E,), is found by integrating (8) through the Rayleigh distribu-
tion

(18)
The generation of turbulence and energy dissipation only apply to breaking waves,
identified by integrating through a breaking wave distribution, as in TG83. The average
rate of energy dissipation, ( F~), (as well as the average roller energy flux, (E,>> is
calculated by multiplying the dissipation for a single broken wave of height H by the
probability of wave breaking at each height, ( pb( H)) and integrating over all H. The
probability that a wave is breaking is found by weighting the Rayleigh function for all
waves, breaking and non-breaking, by an empirical weighting function, W(H), that
determines statistically how many waves in the ensemble are breaking,

Pb(H) = W(H)P(H) (19)

The area under the distribution p,,(H) is equal to the percent of breaking waves. The
choice of W(H) is based on field data acquired by TG83 and Whitford (1988). The
 T.C. Lippmann et al./Coastal Engineering 27 (1996) I-20 7

weighting functions were developed by visually identifying breaking waves in time

series of sea surface elevation, and have the form

W( H) = M( 1 - e-(H/yh)*)
(20)
where

in TG83 (21)
or

M= 1 + tanh[8( 3 - l)] inWhitford(1988) (22)

For a true weighting function in nature, W(H) I 1. However, W(H) in TG83 and
Whitford (1988) both slightly exceed one at saturation, indicating that the model predicts
more than 100% of the waves to be breaking, a consequence of (5) underestimating the
dissipation. Nevertheless, the wave height probability density functions observed are
well approximated by either (21) and (22) for the respective data sets (see TG83 and
Whitford, 1988, for details).
To find the total roller energy flux gradient and dissipation, the roller terms in (7)
must be integrated through the breaking wave distribution. All variables in the roller
terms (13 and 16) are assumed independent of H, thus the integration is simply

(23)

Assuming v is independent of x, the ensemble averaged energy flux balance is

(24)

There are two free parameters in (24): y, the (constant) ratio of H,.,,,$ to local depth
defined by (21, and (T, the angle of the wave/roller interface (Fig. 1). For simplicity,
and for lack of either theoretical or experimental guidance, u is assumed a constant for
all breaking waves (i.e., independent of H and x>. The effect of the two forms for the
weighting parameter M, (21) and (22), will be evaluated in section 4.
A simple forward stepping numerical scheme is sufficiently accurate (TG83) to solve
(24)

(J5,CpJ2 +(&c,), = (dAx+ (KvCg.), + (Qr), (25)

where the subscripts 1 and 2 indicate grid points in the cross-shore direction, with 1
8 T.C. Lippmann et d/Coastal Engineering 27 (1996) I-20

Table 1
Wave and beach conditions
H,, Cm) fr (Hz) CY,,(“) P (fore) i,, p (off) tide breaker type

Santa Barbara 4 Feb 80 0.52 0.070 19 0.040 1.o 0.011 high plunge
Santa Barbara 5 Feb 80 0.41 0.078 19 0.052 1.3 0.011 high plunge/spill
Torrey Pines 4 Nov 78 0.35 0.063 0 0.037 1.2 0.016 high spill
Torrey Pines 10 Nov 78 0.56 0.055 0 0.029 1.1 0.013 high spill
Delilah 0723 lOOct90 0.77 0.093 38 0.080 1.2 0.054 low plunge/spill
Delilah 0954 100ct90 0.83 0.103 40 0.080 1.1 0.054 high plunge/spill
Delilah 1305 11 Ott 90 1.07 0.113 ‘IO 0.113 1.2 0.054 mid plunge/spill
Delilah 1750 12 act 90 1.65 0.074 16 0.113 1.5 0.054 mid plunge/spill
Delilah 1330 14Oct90 0.80 0.103 22 0.107 1.4 0.054 mid plunge/spill

&, defined by (261, is calculated using the foreshore slope, p (fore). Ho is the deep water rms wave height.
LYEdetermined as the angle of the peak frequency, &, in 9 m depth for Santa Barbara and 8 m depth for
Delilah.

being further offshore than 2, and Ax is the spacing between grid points. Due to the
nonlinear nature of (25), (Hrm,12 is solved iteratively.

3. Field data

The surface roller model is evaluated by comparing with data acquired from three
field experiments conducted on two near-planar beaches of different slope (NSTS) and a
barred beach (Delilah). The experiments used extensive cross-shore arrays of bi-direc-
tional current meters and wave sensors to estimate H,,,,, = @, where s* is the
variance of sea surface elevation (estimated from currents and pressures using linear
depth corrections) for the incident wave portion of the spectra, 0.05 Hz <f< 0.33 Hz.
Days for data comparison are chosen from each experiment based on model assumptions
of straight and parallel contours, steady state conditions, and narrow-bandedness in wave
frequency and direction. Table 1 summarizes offshore wave and beach conditions for the
days analyzed. See Guza and Thornton (1980) for details of the NSTS field sites, and
Thornton and Kim (1993) for a more complete discussion of Delilah.
The first NSTS experiment was held in November, 1978 at Torrey Pines Beach,
located just north of San Diego, California. Cross-shore beach profiles are shown in Fig.
2a with the location of instruments used in the analysis. The beach slope was
approximately constant, varying between 1 : 50 in the surf zone to 1 : 25 in the swash
region. Foreshore topography was generally concave-up and bottom contours were
approximately uniform in the alongshore direction. A cross-shore array of 11 bi-direc-
tional current meters, 4 pressure transducers, and 4 wave staffs were used to measure
waves across the surf zone. A variety of wave and weather conditions were encountered
during the Torrey Pines experiment. Offshore rms wave heights, Ho, varied between
0.35 and 1.2 m. The waves were narrow banded with average y= 0.07 Hz at the peak of
the spectra, and mean incident wave angles in 10 m depth were limited to less than 15”
due to offshore island shadowing and refraction. Data are examined from two days, 4
November and 10 November, with approximately stationary wave and beach conditions.
 T.C. Lippmann et cd./ Coastal Engineering 27 (1996) I-20 9

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

~~~~ _,

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Cross-shore Distance (m)

Fig. 2. Beach profiles from three experiments examined: (a) Torrey Pines, NSTS, 1978, (b) Santa Barbara,
NSTS, 1980, and (c) Duck, NC, Delilah, 1990. Cross-shore locations of wave measuring instrumentation are
shown by the crosses.

The second NSTS experiment was conducted at Leadbetter Beach in Santa Barbara,
California over a one month period in February of 1980. Bottom contours inside 6 m
depth were nearly straight and parallel. Beach profiles from the days analyzed are shown
in Fig. 2b. The beach face was concave, with mean nearshore slope varying between
1 : 33 at low tide to 1 : 16 at high tide. A cross-shore array of 16 current meters and 6
pressure sensors measured the cross-shore wave transformation properties. Two wave
slope arrays offshore measured incident wave spectra. To reach Santa Barbara, the
open-ocean North Pacific swell must pass between Point Conception and the Channel
Islands, a narrow window of f9”, making the wave field approximately unidirectional.
Data are examined on two narrow-banded, stationary wave days (4-5 February).
The third data set was acquired on a barred beach during the Delilah nearshore
processes experiment held in October 1990 at the US Army Corps of Engineer’s Field
Research Facility at Duck, North Carolina. Beach profiles are shown in Fig. 2c. Both bar
location and foreshore slope, which varied between 1 : 10 and 1 : 15, responded to a wide
variety of wave conditions including two storms which had substantial effects on the
bathymetry. The mean offshore slope of 1 : 150 was not substantially modified by the
wave climate. Directional wave spectra were obtained from an alongshore array of
bottom mounted pressure sensors in 8 m depth. A cross-shore array of 9 pressure sensors
was located from 4.5 m depth to the shoreline. Four days (Oct. 10, 11, 12, and 14) are
chosen for model comparison when waves were relatively narrow-banded, 7= 0.113-
10 T.C. Lippmunn et d./Cou.stal Engineering 27 (1996) I-20

0.074 Hz, Ho = 0.77-1.65 m, and arriving at angles between 16 and 40” from normal to
the beach.

4. Results

Example model results for each experiment are presented in Figs. 3-5. As in
Roelvink (1993), isolines of percent error between model and data are shown for the
expected parameter range. Results are shown for the roller model (Eq. 24) and TG83 for
W(H) given by both (21) and (22). Free parameters plotted against y are B for TG83
and CT for the roller model. Results show similar behavior for all data runs, although the
exact parameter range may vary. The roller model is found to be insensitive to V, with
isolines of constant error approximately flat across a range of a> 5-10”. The model
also is insensitive to the choice of M. The model is, however, sensitive to y, allowing
only a narrow range of values which give errors less than about 10%. Best fit
parameters, discussed below, are given in Table 2.
On the other hand, although B and y can be chosen to give excellent fit to the data
(with errors comparable to the roller model), the TG83 model is sensitive to the choice
of both y and B, in which a wide range of y-B pairs yield similar results. In order to

Torrev Pines 10 Nov 78

Roller Model * TG83 W(H):

Q. (21)

Fig. 3. lsolines of percent errors between H,, model predictions and observations for 10 November during
the Torrey Pines experiment. The left hand panels are from the roller model (Eq. 24) and the right hand panels
are from the bore model of TG83. The panels on the top are model runs with W(H) given by M from Eq.
(211, and on the bottom for M given by (22). The ordinate is y in all plots. The abscissa is B for the TG83
model, and (T (in “) for the roller model.
 T.C. Lippmann et al./Coastal Engineering 27 (1996) I-20 11

Santa Barbara 4 Feb 80

Roller Model TGS3 W(H):

Eq. (21)

Eq. (22)

Fig. 4. Same as Fig. 3 for 4 February during the Santa Barbara experiment.

choose a reasonable value of y for the TG83 model which is comparable with the roller
model, we force B to unity so that the entire face of the wave is conceived to be covered
with foam, consistent with Engelund’s (1981) derivation of the roller area in which the
roller covers the entire face of the wave. With B = 1, y is then chosen uniquely to yield
minimum percent error. In this way we forcibly reduce the sensitivity of the TG83
model to one parameter.
H rms predictions as a function of cross-shore distance from the TG83 and roller
models are shown for best fits to the data in Figs. 6-8. Results are shown for W(H)
with M given by (21) and (22). The roller model well predicts the transformation of
H rms for both the near planar NSTS data and the barred Delilah profile. The TG83 bore
model also fits the data well. Since we have chosen y in TG83 by fixing B, and since
the roller model is insensitive to CT, the behavior of the transformation profile depends
on y and W( H >. The results show that (21) and (22) do about an equally good job in the
surf zone, suggesting that both models are generally insensitive to the choice of M (it is
noted that Whitford, 1988, found that (22) has better properties than (21) in intermediate
water depth). Thus the transformation of Hms in the surf zone can be adequately
approximated using either (21) or (221, as long as y is known.
The models are sensitive to y, with percent errors ranging 30% over the expected
range predicted by (3): y = 0.3-0.6 for tan p = 0.01-0.10. A plot of H,.,,,, versus h is
12 T.C. Lippmann et d/Coastal Engineering 27 (1996) I-20

DEL.ILAH 0723 10 Ott 90

Roller Model TG83 W(H):

Eq. (21)

Eq. (22)

Fig. 5. Same as Fig. 3 for 10 October, at 0723 hrs, during the Delilah experiment.

shown in Fig. 9 for the NSTS near-planar beaches examined earlier (the Delilah data are
not included since the beach profiles are not monotonic). Also plotted are the range of y
values (Table 2) found by fitting model H,, to the data. Each model yields y values

Table 2
Model parameter results
Model: TG83 Roller

Weighting function: Eq. 21 Eq. 22 Eq. 21 Eq. 22

B Y %err y %err (T (“1 y %err y %err

Santa Barbara 4 Feb 80 1.0 0.35 6.2 0.35 6.9 12.5 0.32 6.5 0.32 7.8
Santa Barbara 5 Feb 80 1.0 0.32 5.6 0.34 4.4 10.5 0.30 6.2 0.3 1 5.2
Torrey Pines 4 Nov 78 I.0 0.24 6.5 0.25 6.3 26.5 0.22 8.1 0.24 7.7
Torrey Pines 10 Nov 78 1.0 0.28 6.0 0.29 5.6 17.5 0.26 6.5 0.26 5.6
Delilah 0723 lOOct90 1.0 0.39 4.3 0.38 5.4 10.5 0.33 4.9 0.35 3.2
Delilah 0954 lOOct90 1.0 0.41 2.7 0.37 5.8 5.5 0.37 2.5 0.34 2.2
Delilah 1305 11 act 90 1.0 0.42 10.1 0.36 9.0 7.5 0.38 10.0 0.32 8.2
Delilah 1750 12Oct90 1.0 0.43 8.1 0.39 9.7 10.5 0.38 8.8 0.37 6.7
Delilah 1330 14Oct90 1.0 0.42 4.3 0.38 5.4 9.5 0.38 4.9 0.34 3.4

Mean 6.0 6.5 6.5 5.6

y values in the TG83 model are best tits for B = 1.0 in all cases
 T.C. Lippmann et al./ Coastal Engineering 27 (1996) I-20 13

Tomy Pines IO Nov 78

0.75 -
= =. E _
A --_ - _&&Lm eq. 22
8 0.5- * .x - --__

2 */xf
X , .’

60 50 100 150 200 250 300

0.75- *
,,a-= - ----x_ _.
_ _ _~~H))?rcm eq. 21
---____
s’*
g 0.5-

P’
Y
0.25- ,f

I
I
0 ’
0 50 100 150 2w 250 300

-0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Cross-shore Distance (m)

Fig. 6. Model predictions of Hms as a function of cross-shore distance for best fit values to observations (*)
from 10 November during the Torrey Pines expeximent. Results are shown for the roller model (dashed line)
and TG83 (dash-dot line). The middle and upper panels are results using W(H) from Eqs. (21) and (22),
respectively. The beach profile is shown in the lower panel.

which are not inconsistent with the data; however, with the scatter in the data it is not
possible to resolve the differences.

5. Discussion

Dissipation rate and turbulent penetration depth are dictated by breaker characteris-
tics, observed generally as spilling or plunging for the data examined (Table 1). While
plunging wave turbulence can penetrate to the bottom, spilling breaker turbulence is
primarily confined to the surface layer between the crest and trough. One common
parameter which grossly distinguishes between plunging, spilling, and other generic
14 T.C. Lippmmn et al./ Coastal Engineering 27 (1996) l-20

Santa Barbara 04 Feb 80

* fl--*-;__ W(H) from eq. 22

X”/” ~----__

-
100 125 150 175 200

W(H) from eq. 21

-- ---__

+x
0.25 /
I

o- 0 25 50 75
-
100 125 150 175 200

-101
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Cross-shore Distance (m)

Fig. 7. Same as Fig. 6 for 4 February during the Santa Barbara experiment.

classes of breaker types, and which is widely believed to be relevant to nearshore

processes is the Iribarren number,
tan B

5o
= ( Ho/Lo) “2 (26)

where Ho is the deep water wave height, L, is the deep water wave length, and tan /3 is
the beach slope (Bowen et al., 1968; Battjes, 1974). Early conceptual models related
wave breaking to the Iribarren number, which is in general agreement with observations
of wave breaking on natural beaches (Galvin, 1968), and is qualitatively related to the
steepness of the front face of the breaker or bore.
In nature, the breaker steepness would be expected to evolve across the surf zone as
waves propagate shoreward. However, in the derivation of the roller model, we have
assumed that the angle of the wave/roller interface, U, is constant. Thus, we have not
allowed the shape of the breaking wave to evolve across the surf zone. This is probably
not a realistic assumption, particularly for barred beaches where waves are substantially
 T.C. Lippmann et al./Coastal Engineering 27 (1996) I-20 15

DELILAH IO Ott 90 0723 Est

l-

“‘X7 - - --._ - -~---- - W(H)

--- from eq. 22
- _-__
0.75 - *
r’
3
y 0.5.
,-s__ary

0.25 - ;
I

l-

* W(H) from eq. 21

0.75 - , _-_- _* -_-_- = 1 g_ -_-_- z = -_---i > _ _ -__
X’
,I
3 ,I
&”
,c--*-__-1 /
j o’5
0.25- ,’
I
0%
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

100 150 200 250 300

Cross-shore Distance (m)

Fig. 8. Same as Fig. 6 for 10 October, at 0723 hrs, during the Delilah experiment.

A. Santa Barbara 4 Feb 80 B. Torrey Pines 10 Nov 78

l- 1

0.9 0.9
0.6 0.6
y= 0.35
0.7.
E 0 0.7

0.6
0

B 0.5
0

X y=o.30 o
0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
2.5 3 3.5 4 0 1 2 3 4 6 7 6

Depth Cm) Depth k-d

Fig. 9. Plot of Hms VS. h for (A) 4 February, Santa Barbara, and (B) IO November, Torrey Pines. Also shown
are the range of y found from model fitting (Table 2).
16 T.C. Lippmann et al./ Coastal Engineering 27 (1996) I-20

modified in the trough of the bar. The behavior of CT is not currently constrained by
field measurements. The model is insensitive to the choice of IT greater than about
5-lo”, suggesting that although breaker characteristics are not necessarily modeled
correctly, H,, transformation is adequately represented empirically.
In Engelund’s (1981) derivation of the roller area, it is assumed that the horizontal
length of the roller covers the entire front face of the wave. This is equivalent to
choosing B = 1 (as we have done in the previous section) in the bore dissipation
function of LeMehaute (1962). With B constant across the surf zone, the Engelund
model does not consider the possibility of roller length evolution after breaking has been
initiated. The dissipation of roller energy results in a decrease in thickness of the roller
without changing the horizontal length of the roller along the face of the wave, and is
dependent on the breaker height to depth ratio and the choice of W(H). The modifica-
tion to the roller thickness compensates by keeping the length of the roller constant.
Thus, the approximation to the dissipation function of Svendsen (1984a, Svendsen
(1984b), which depends on only the roller area, does not effect the H,, profiles.
As pointed out by Roelvink and Stive (1989) and Nairn et al. (19901, there is a slight
landward transition in dissipation due to the roller gradient term in the energy flux
balance. This distance was referred to by Nairn, et al. as the transition zone width, who
suggest that the transition zone substantially modifies the distribution of longshore
currents and set-up profile. Although we assume instantaneous genesis of the roller
volume at breaking, a transition zone arises in the model because the roller and the
dissipation each depend on the same distribution function, making the roller gradient
non zero where there is dissipation, and forcing the transition zone width to be
dependent on the choice of W( H ). Our results (Table 2) show that roller y values are
slightly less than for the bore model. In effect, smaller y compensates for the transition
region by causing breaking to be initiated further offshore. The transition zone is
necessarily small in the roller model because dissipation occurs very rapidly near the
point of breaking; thus, we have not allowed the rollers to be advected away from their
generation region. This is also the case for Nairn et al. (1990).
Since the distance of the transition zone is small, the distribution of H,, is not
significantly effected. Thus, because radiation stress forcing functions are described
through gradients in wave energy flux, the spatial modification to this forcing mecha-
nism should also be small. However, the spatial distribution of the surface shear stresses
induced by rollers, not considered in this work, can be important in the momentum
balance. The role of rollers depends on the horizontal distances that rollers are advected
outside their generation region (i.e., Smith et al., 1994; Southgate and Wallace, 1994;
Lippmann and Thornton, 1996; and others).
In TG83, for the approximately planar Torrey Pines beach, y = 0.42 was determined
from the data by plotting observations of H,, against local depth (as in Fig. 9>, and
then fitting the transformation model to the cross-shore distribution of the data by
adjusting the B parameter. However, the a priori determination of y is not always
generally possible for all beaches, particularly those with substantial longshore bars that
cause breaking to be interrupted in the greater depths of the trough. In the present work,
the roller model is not sensitive to (T, thus y becomes the unknown fitting parameter.
For the near-planar NSTS beaches the (free) model fit for y is consistent with the
 T.C. Lippmann et al./ Coastal Engineering 27 (1996) I-20 17

OB-

0.7.

0.6.
?-
0.5.
a
B 0.4.

E
0.3

0.2

“j A: “j B. “it c. ,
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0 0.002 o.oc4 0.006 0.006 0.01

Iribarren Number Foreshore Slope Wave Steepness

Fig. 10. Plots of model y as a function of (A) [,,, Eq. 26, (B) foreshore beach slope, and (C) deep water wave
steepness, Ho /L,. Data points in the plots are 0 for Santa Barbara, * for Torrey Pines, and x for Delilah.

definition given by Eq. 2 (Fig. 9). Although for planar beaches y can be approximated
by the data in this manner, slight errors in its approximation can lead to substantial
errors in H,,,,, prediction, thus it is important to constrain y as much as possible. The a
priori specification of y requires further investigation of the incipient wave breaking
process.
TG83 conclude that the periodic bore model of Stoker (1957) underestimates
dissipation, for which the B parameter partially compensates. They also conclude that B
and y could be combined into one coefficient, but are left separate for greater physical
insight. Cacina (1989) combined B and y as

B3
B’= 2

(27)
Y

and iterated TG83 over the B’ parameter to improve agreement with NSTS observa-
tions. Cacina (1989) concluded that B’ is correlated with the &, described by (26). Since
we have forced B to unity, it should follow that the roller model’s single sensitive free
parameter, y. should also be a function of I&,. Results of varying y with 6, foreshore
slope, and deep water wave steepness (HO/L,) are shown in Fig. 10.
A plot of y vs. l, does not reveal any significant trends, except to show that y
values (best fits to the models) are slightly larger for the barred Delilah data. The data
(Fig. 10A) are clustered around 5, between 1.O and 1.3. The limited and narrow range
of 5, are inadequate to examine its relation to y, a dependence predicted by Battjes
(1974). Furthermore, in computing 5, we have used the foreshore slope because it is
measurable and well approximated by a linear fit. The validity of using this p to
represent the barred beach profiles (Fig. 2) is not known.
A weaker relationship is found between y and p (Fig. IOB) than found by Sallenger
and Holman (1985; Eq. 3). Sallenger and Holman used y obtained by fitting to plots of
H vs. h, as in Fig. 9. The values from model predictions (Table 2) all are less than
thz’predicted by (31, and have an approximate dependence of p”.4. We have used the
foreshore slope to represent the profile, whereas Sallenger and Holman used a slope fit
18 T.C. Lippmann et al./Coustal Engineering 27 (1996) I-20

to the entire width of the surf zone, generally much less than the steeper beach face.
Additionally, there is a weak dependence of y on deep water wave steepness (Fig. lOC),
the denominator in & (Eq. 1). The similar dependencies of beach slope and wave
steepness combine to limit the range of &, for these data.

6. Conclusions

A wave energy transformation model, with wave breaking described by surface

rollers, is developed for randomly varying waves over an arbitrary bottom profile with
straight and parallel contours. The model includes roller energy gradients in the
cross-shore energy flux balance, and further specifies the dissipation by the shear at the
wave/roller interface following Svendsen (1984a,b). For a narrow-banded wave field
described by a single frequency and wave angle, rms wave height, H,,, is found across
the surf zone by numerical iteration. Predictions are compared with field data acquired
on two near-planar and one naturally barred profile. H,, is well modeled on all
profiles, with percent errors for best fit parameters in the range 3-10%.
The cross-shore variation of the average surface shear stress, which depends on the
evolution of the roller volume, is determined by the spatial distribution of wave
breaking, specified by an empirical weighting function based on field observations
(Thornton and Guza, 1983; Whitford, 1988). The same weighting function is used a
priori to describe roller gradients and the dissipation. Thus, we have assumed that once
formed, the roller has no affect on wave height distribution. As a consequence, rollers
are not allowed to be advected out of their generation region. The spatial characteristics
of advected rollers and the associated production of turbulence at the wave surface is the
subject of ongoing research (Lippmann and Thornton, 1996).
The model depends on the angle of the wave/roller interface, (T, assumed invariant
across the profile, and a constant y, the limiting ratio of Hms to local depth a measure
of wave saturation. The roller model is found to be insensitive to the choice of
inter-facial angle ((T > 5-lo”), but is moderately sensitive to saturation, with a 10%
increase in error for y + 0.1. The model is also found to be not strongly dependent on
the choice of the weighted breaking distribution, with similar model performance for the
two functions examined.
Roller model results are comparable to the bore dissipation model of Thornton and
Guza (1983) with their parameter B constrained to unity, where B is an empirical
parameter roughly representing the extent of the breaker along the front face of the
wave. The inclusion of roller gradients reduces the requirement of two free parameters
in the previous bore model (B and y) to only one (7). Best fit y are consistent with the
observed saturation of energy in the inner surf zone.

Acknowledgements

This research was sponsored by the Office of Naval Research, Coastal Sciences
Program and Naval Ocean Modeling Program, under contracts NO01 14-95AF-0002 and
 T.C. Lippmnnn et cd./ Coastd Engineering 27 (1996) I-20 19

NO01 14-95WR-30021. TCL was supported by a National Academy of Sciences NRC

Postdoctoral Fellowship. Chuck Long of the FRF provided directional spectra informa-
tion for Delilah. The insightful comments of the anonymous i,eviewers greatly improved
the paper. We are indebted to the many people who participated in the collection of the
data for the NSTS and Delilah experiments.

References

Basco, D.R., 1985. A qualitative description of wave breaking. J. Waterw. Port Coastal Ocean Eng. AXE,
1 I l(2): 171-188.
Battjes, J.A., 1974. Surf similarity. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference Coastal Engineering,
Copenhagen. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, Vol. 1, pp. 466-480.
Battjes. J.A. and Janssen, J.P.F.M., 1978. Energy loss and set-up due to breaking of random waves. In:
Proceedings of the 16th International Conference Coastal Engineering, Hamburg. American Society of
Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 569-587.
Bowen, A.J., Inman, D.L. and Simmons, V.P., 1968. Wave set-down and setup. J. Geophys. Res., 73:
2569-2577.
Cacina, N., 1989. Test and evaluation of surf forecasting model. M.Sc. Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School,
Monterey, CA, 41 pp.
Church, C. and Thornton, E.B., 1993. Effects of breaking wave induced turbulence within a longshore current
model. Coastal Eng., 20: l-28.
Dally, W.R., Dean, R.G. and Dakymple, R.A., 1985. Wave height variation across beaches of arbitrary profile.
J. Geophys. Res., 9OfC6): 11,917- 11,927.
Dally, W.R., 1990. Random breaking waves: a closed-form solution for planar beaches. Coastal Eng., 14:
233-263.
Dally, W.R., 1992. Random breaking waves: field verification of a wave-by-wave algorithm for engineering
application. Coastal Eng., 16: 369-397.
Duncan, J.H., 1981. An experimental investigation of breaking waves produced by a towed hydrofoil. In: Proc.
R. Sot. London, A377: 33 l-348.
Engelund, F., 1981. A simple theory of weak hydraulic jumps. Progress Report No. 54, Institute of
Hydrodynamics and Hydraulic Engineering, ISVA, Technical University Denmark, pp. 29-32.
Fredsoe, J. and Deigaard, R., 1992. Mechanics of Coastal Sediment Transport. Advanced Series on Ocean
Engineering, Vol. 3. World Scientific, Singapore, 369 pp.
GaIvin, C.J. and Eagleson, P.S., 1965. Experimental study of longshore currents on a plane beach. Tech.
Memo. 10, U.S. Army Coastal Eng. Res. Center, Fort Belvoir, VA.
GaIvin, C.J., 1968. Breaker type classification in three laboratory beaches. J. Geophys. Res., 73(12):
3651-3659.
Gcda, Y., 1975. Irregular wave deformation in the surf zone. Coastal Eng. Jpn., 18: 13-26.
Guza, R.T. and Thornton, E.B., 1980. Local and shoaled comparisons of sea surface elevation, pressures and
velocities. J. Geophys. Res., 85(C3): 1524-1530.
Hwung, H.H., Chyan, J.M. and Chung, Y.C., 1993. Energy dissipation and air bubbles mixing inside surf
zone. In: Proceedings of the 23nd International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Venice. American
Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 308-321.
Klopman, G. and Stive, M.J.F., 1989. Extreme waves and wave loading in shallow water. Paper presented at
E&P Forum Workshop “Wave and current kinematics and loading”, Paris.
LeMehaute, B., 1962. On non-saturated brealcers and the wave mn-up. In: Proceedings of the 8th International
Conference on Coastal Engineering, Mexico City. American Society of Civil Engineering, New York, pp.
77-92.
Lippmami, T.C. and Thornton, E.B., 1996. The spatial distribution of wave rollers and turbulent kinetic energy
on a barred beach. J. Geophys. Res., in press.
20 T.C. Lippmunn et al./ Cousrd Engineering 27 (1996) I-20

Longuet-Higgins, M.S. and Turner, J.S., 1974. An “entraining plume” model of a spilling breaker. J. Fluid
Mech., 63(l): l-20.
Naim, R.B., Roelvink, J.A. and Southgate, H.N., 1990. Transition zone width and implications for modeling
surf zone hydrodynamics. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Coastal Engineering,
Delft. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 68-8 1.
Mase, H. and Iwagaki, M., 1982. Wave height distributions and wave grouping in the surf zone. In:
Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Cape Town. American Society
of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 58-76.
Roelvink, J.A. and Stive, M.J.F., 1989. Bar-generating cross-shore flow mechanisms on a beach. J. Geophys.
Res., 94(C4): 4,785-4,800.
Roelvink, J.A., 1993. Dissipation in random wave groups incident on a beach. Coastal Eng., 19: 127-150.
Sallenger, A.H. and Holman, R.A., 1985. Wave energy saturation on a natural beach of variable slope. J.
Geophys. Res., 9o(C6): 1 I ,939- 11,944.
Schaffer, H.A., Madsen, P.A. and Deigaard, R., 1993. A Boussinesq model for waves breaking in shallow
water. Coastal Eng., 20: 185-202.
Smith, J.M., Larson, M. and Kraus, N.C., 1994. Longshore current on a barred beach: Field measurements and
calculation. J. Geophys. Res., 98(Cl2). 22,717-22,731.
Southgate, H.N. and Wallace, H.M., 1994. Breaking wave persistence in parametric surf zone models. In:
Proceedings of the Coastal Dynamics ‘94 Conference. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York,
pp. 543-555.
Stoker, J.J., 1957. Water Waves. Interscience, New York.
Svendsen, I.A., 1984a. Wave heights and set-up in a surf zone. Coastal Eng., 8: 303-329.
Svendsen, I.A., 1984b. Mass flux and undertow in a surf zone. Coastal Eng., 8: 347-364.
Thornton, E.B. and Guza, R.T., 1983. Transformation of wave height distribution. J. Geophys. Res., 88( 10):
5925-5938.
Thornton, E.B. and Guza, R.T., 1982. Energy saturation and phase speeds measured on a natural beach. J.
Geophys Res., 87(Cl2): 9499-9508.
Thornton, E.B. and Kim, C.S., 1993. Longshore current and wave height modulation at tidal frequency inside
the surf zone. J. Geophys. Res., 98(C9): 16,509- 15.5 19.
Weggel, J.R., 1972. Maximum breaker height. J. Waterw. Harbors Coastal Eng. Div., 98tWW4): 529-548.
Whitford, D.J., 1988. Wind and wave forcing of longshore currents across a barred beach. Ph.D. Thesis, Naval
Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, 205 pp.