SHOREFACE CASE - Revision history

Jcwarner at 21:46, 3 February 2009

2009-02-03T21:46:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:46, 3 February 2009
Line 14:		Line 14:
	Results are shown after the model reaches steady state.		Results are shown after the model reaches steady state.

	'''Output Files:''' [[media:SHOREFACE_hishis.nc \| history file (~~ocean_his~~.nc) ]].		'''Output Files:''' [[media:SHOREFACE_hishis.nc \| history file (shoreface_ocean_his.nc) ]].

Jcwarner at 21:46, 3 February 2009

2009-02-03T21:46:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:46, 3 February 2009
Line 13:		Line 13:

	Results are shown after the model reaches steady state.		Results are shown after the model reaches steady state.

			'''Output Files:''' [[media:SHOREFACE_hishis.nc \| history file (ocean_his.nc) ]].



	[[Image:shoreface_fig1.jpg\|thumb\|850px\|none\|<center><b>Figure 1:</b> Plane beach test case results showing cross-shore variation of: (a) significant wave height (dashed) and bathymetry (solid); (b) wave setup; (c) depth-integrated cross shore currents; and (d) depth-integrated longshore currents. SHORECIRC results are solid lines, ROMS results are dashed lines (for panels b, c, and d). </center>]]		[[Image:shoreface_fig1.jpg\|thumb\|850px\|none\|<center><b>Figure 1:</b> Plane beach test case results showing cross-shore variation of: (a) significant wave height (dashed) and bathymetry (solid); (b) wave setup; (c) depth-integrated cross shore currents; and (d) depth-integrated longshore currents. SHORECIRC results are solid lines, ROMS results are dashed lines (for panels b, c, and d). </center>]]

Jcwarner at 21:44, 3 February 2009

2009-02-03T21:44:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:44, 3 February 2009
Line 21:		Line 21:

	The cross-shore profiles of water depth and SWAN computed wave height are shown in Fig. 1a.		The cross-shore profiles of water depth and SWAN computed wave height are shown in Fig. 1a.
	The waves begin to decrease near x = 600 m due to wave breaking dissipation. The wave fields computed from SWAN are used in each circulation model to compute the radiation stress forcing. The depth-averaged forcing as computed by each circulation model is identical, and ~~is also identical~~		The waves begin to decrease near x = 600 m due to wave breaking dissipation. The wave fields computed from SWAN are used in each circulation model to compute the radiation stress forcing. The depth-averaged forcing as computed by each circulation model is identical and the resulting wave setup (Fig. 1b) is very similar for the two models. Similarly the depth averaged undertow and longshore currents (Fig. 1c and d) match for the two models, except near the shoreline due to different treatments of that lateral BC.
	~~to the forcing as computed from SWAN (not shown). Because the depth average forcing is the same,~~ the resulting wave setup (Fig. 1b) is very similar for the two models. Similarly the depth
	averaged undertow and longshore currents (Fig. 1c and d) match for the two models, except near the shoreline due to different treatments of that lateral BC.

	However, the depth varying radiation stress components computed in each circulation model are different. The vertical structure of the longshore and cross-shore currents is shown in Fig. 2. Both models produce the classical undertow profile ~~(e.g. Svendsen 2006, chapter 12)~~ inside the surf zone ~~(x > 700 m) with strong return flow in the lower part of the water column and weaker flow in the upper part of the water column~~. Outside the surf zone (x < 600 m), SC is producing		However, the depth varying radiation stress components computed in each circulation model are different. The vertical structure of the longshore and cross-shore currents is shown in Fig. 2. Both models produce the classical undertow profile inside the surf zone. Outside the surf zone (x < 600 m), SHORECICRC is producing undertow with fairly depth uniform or a slightly increased flow near the surface in accordance with Putrevu and Svendsen (1993), whereas, ROMS is producing undertow which is still stronger in the lower part of the water column, albeit with much less curvature than inside the surf zone.
	undertow with fairly depth uniform or a slightly increased flow near the surface in accordance with Putrevu and Svendsen (1993), whereas, ROMS is producing undertow which is still stronger
	in the lower part of the water column, albeit with much less curvature than inside the surf zone. Both models predict longshore current profiles inside the surf zone which are stronger near the surface than near the bottom, although with less curvature than for the undertow as expected. The curvature for the results from ROMS is a bit larger than the results from SC.

	Additional description is provided in the Haas and Warner (2009) paper.		Additional description is provided in the Haas and Warner (2009) paper.

Jcwarner at 21:40, 3 February 2009

2009-02-03T21:40:59Z

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
-The cross-shore profiles of water depth and SWAN computed
+The cross-shore profiles of water depth and SWAN computed wave height are shown in Fig. 1a.
-wave height are shown in Fig. 1a. The waves shoal as they enter
+The waves begin to decrease near x = 600 m due to wave breaking dissipation. The wave fields computed from SWAN are used in each circulation model to compute the radiation stress forcing. The depth-averaged forcing as computed by each circulation model is identical, and is also identical
-the domain, although this is somewhat counteracted by dissipation
+to the forcing as computed from SWAN (not shown). Because the depth average forcing is the same, the resulting wave setup (Fig. 1b) is very similar for the two models. Similarly the depth
-due to bottom stress making the shoaling difficult to visualize from
+averaged undertow and longshore currents (Fig. 1c and d) match for the two models, except near the shoreline due to different treatments of that lateral BC.
-However, the depth varying radiation stress components computed
+However, the depth varying radiation stress components computed in each circulation model are different. The vertical structure of the longshore and cross-shore currents is shown in Fig. 2. Both models produce the classical undertow profile (e.g. Svendsen 2006, chapter 12) inside the surf zone (x > 700 m) with strong return flow in the lower part of the water column and weaker flow in the upper part of the water column. Outside the surf zone (x < 600 m), SC is producing
-in each circulation model are different. The vertical structure
+undertow with fairly depth uniform or a slightly increased flow near the surface in accordance with Putrevu and Svendsen (1993), whereas, ROMS is producing undertow which is still stronger
-of the longshore and cross-shore currents is shown in Fig. 2. Both
+in the lower part of the water column, albeit with much less curvature than inside the surf zone. Both models predict longshore current profiles inside the surf zone which are stronger near the surface than near the bottom, although with less curvature than for the undertow as expected. The curvature for the results from ROMS is a bit larger than the results from SC.
-near the bottom, although with less curvature than for the undertow
+Additional description is provided in the Haas and Warner (2009) paper.

Jcwarner at 21:36, 3 February 2009

2009-02-03T21:36:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:36, 3 February 2009
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Haas and Warner (2009). Comparing a quasi-3D to a full 3D nearshore circulation model: SHORECIRC and ROMS, Ocean Modelling, 26, 91-103.		Haas and Warner (2009). Comparing a quasi-3D to a full 3D nearshore circulation model: SHORECIRC and ROMS, Ocean Modelling, 26, 91-103.

	The case consists of spectral waves approaching a mild sloping (1/80) plane beach with an oblique angle of incidence. The wave forcing is obtained by first running SWAN separately by specifying a JONSWAP spectrum for 2 m offshore wave height with a peak period of 10 s at an angle of 10 degrees for the incoming wave field. SWAN was configured to use 90 directional bins and 30 frequency bins between 0.04 and 0.5 Hz~~. Additional parameters are listed in the table below~~.		The case consists of spectral waves approaching a mild sloping (1/80) plane beach with an oblique angle of incidence. The wave forcing is obtained by first running SWAN separately by specifying a JONSWAP spectrum for 2 m offshore wave height with a peak period of 10 s at an angle of 10 degrees for the incoming wave field. SWAN was configured to use 90 directional bins and 30 frequency bins between 0.04 and 0.5 Hz.

	The output from SWAN was made into the ROMS forcing file:		The output from SWAN was made into the ROMS forcing file:

Jcwarner at 21:35, 3 February 2009

2009-02-03T21:35:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:35, 3 February 2009
Line 6:		Line 6:

	The case consists of spectral waves approaching a mild sloping (1/80) plane beach with an oblique angle of incidence. The wave forcing is obtained by first running SWAN separately by specifying a JONSWAP spectrum for 2 m offshore wave height with a peak period of 10 s at an angle of 10 degrees for the incoming wave field. SWAN was configured to use 90 directional bins and 30 frequency bins between 0.04 and 0.5 Hz. Additional parameters are listed in the table below.		The case consists of spectral waves approaching a mild sloping (1/80) plane beach with an oblique angle of incidence. The wave forcing is obtained by first running SWAN separately by specifying a JONSWAP spectrum for 2 m offshore wave height with a peak period of 10 s at an angle of 10 degrees for the incoming wave field. SWAN was configured to use 90 directional bins and 30 frequency bins between 0.04 and 0.5 Hz. Additional parameters are listed in the table below.

			The output from SWAN was made into the ROMS forcing file:
			Data/ROMS/Forcing/swan_shoreface_angle_forc.nc

	The circulation model computes the radiation stress forcing based on the SWAN wave output. For this application there is not a feedback of the currents to the wave model. Also we neglect the contribution from the roller model. The circulation model uses a quadratic bottom stress formulation using the depth average currents.		The circulation model computes the radiation stress forcing based on the SWAN wave output. For this application there is not a feedback of the currents to the wave model. Also we neglect the contribution from the roller model. The circulation model uses a quadratic bottom stress formulation using the depth average currents.

Jcwarner at 21:33, 3 February 2009

2009-02-03T21:33:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:33, 3 February 2009
Line 11:		Line 11:
	Results are shown after the model reaches steady state.		Results are shown after the model reaches steady state.

			[[Image:shoreface_fig1.jpg\|thumb\|850px\|none\|<center><b>Figure 1:</b> Plane beach test case results showing cross-shore variation of: (a) significant wave height (dashed) and bathymetry (solid); (b) wave setup; (c) depth-integrated cross shore currents; and (d) depth-integrated longshore currents. SHORECIRC results are solid lines, ROMS results are dashed lines (for panels b, c, and d). </center>]]

	~~[[Image:shoreface_fig1.jpg\|thumb\|850px\|none\|<center><b>Figure 1:</b> ROMS output of free surface and barotropic currents at t=0.5 days.</center>]]~~

			[[Image:shoreface_fig2.jpg\|thumb\|850px\|none\|<center><b>Figure 1:</b> Plane beach test case results comparing cross-shore variations of the vertical profiles of currents of: (top) cross-shore velocities; and (bottom) longshore velocities. SHORECIRC results are solid lines, ROMS results are dashed lines.</center>]]

Jcwarner at 21:31, 3 February 2009

2009-02-03T21:31:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:31, 3 February 2009
Line 12:		Line 12:


	[[Image:~~Inlet_test_zeta_day0~~.~~5.png~~\|thumb\|850px\|none\|<center><b>Figure 1:</b> ROMS output of free surface and barotropic currents at t=0.5 days.</center>]]		[[Image:shoreface_fig1.jpg\|thumb\|850px\|none\|<center><b>Figure 1:</b> ROMS output of free surface and barotropic currents at t=0.5 days.</center>]]

Jcwarner at 21:23, 3 February 2009

2009-02-03T21:23:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:23, 3 February 2009
Line 11:		Line 11:
	Results are shown after the model reaches steady state.		Results are shown after the model reaches steady state.

	[[Image:~~Example~~.~~jpg~~]]
			[[Image:Inlet_test_zeta_day0.5.png\|thumb\|850px\|none\|<center><b>Figure 1:</b> ROMS output of free surface and barotropic currents at t=0.5 days.</center>]]

Jcwarner at 21:07, 3 February 2009

2009-02-03T21:07:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:07, 3 February 2009
Line 11:		Line 11:
	Results are shown after the model reaches steady state.		Results are shown after the model reaches steady state.

			[[Image:Example.jpg]]