ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 42

4 Model Validation
Numerical models are validated by comparing model calculations to data
and analytical solutions to determine the reliability of a model’s individual
or combined features. Data for model validation come from laboratory and
field measurements, whereas analytical solutions are available in the
literature and engineering manuals. Validation tests are essential
benchmarks for evaluating both general features and the unique
capabilities of numerical models.

This chapter describes and discusses nine examples, or cases, and four
depth-limited breaking wave formulas. The CMS-Wave validation is
shown for eight data sets from laboratory and field studies, two sets of
analytical solutions, and two sets of semi-empirical calculations. The
laboratory data are from experiments that have been conducted for
idealized inlets, plain sloping beaches, and jetties. These data are
examined for validation of wave breaking formulas, wave-current
interaction, wave runup, and overall model performance at inlets and
nearshore. Theoretical solutions for wave diffraction at a semi-infinite
breakwater, a single gap, and multiple gaps in breakwaters are examined
to evaluate the reliability of CMS-Wave calculations for simulating wave-
structure interaction problems. The wind-wave growth capability of CMS-
Wave is validated with semi-empirical relations given in the U.S Army
Corps of Engineers Shore Protection Manual (1984) and Coastal
Engineering Manual (Headquarters (HQ), USACE 2002).

The wave reflection capability of CMS-Wave was tested based on a

laboratory experiment conducted for an idealized inlet protected by dual
jetties (Seabergh et al. 2005). Both fully reflected and absorbing jetties
were tested in the experiment. Details of the experiment, data, and CMS-
Wave predictions and comparisons were summarized in (Lin et al. 2006b).
This Technical Note also includes additional tests comparing CMS-Wave
results to data for wave diffraction around and behind a shore-parallel
breakwater and wave diffraction measurements by Seabergh et al. (2002)
at the bay side of an inlet.

Case 1: Wave shoaling and breaking around an idealized inlet

Smith et al. (1998) conducted a laboratory study to investigate the wave-
current interaction and the associated wave breaking in an idealized
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 43

entrance with dual jetties. Figure 10 shows the bathymetry (depth in cm)
of a relatively steep beach, and the arrangement of wave and current
meters. The parallel contours were determined by the equilibrium profile
equation from Dean (1977) with the scale factor of 0.24 cm1/3. The slope in
the model extended to 18.2 cm mean low water depth and was then
linearly transitioned to the basin floor at a depth of 30.4 cm. Two parallel
jetties have a spacing of 3.7 m and extend 5.5 m offshore to protect the
entrance channel where the depth varied from 9 to 12.8 cm. The inlet
throat converged to a depth of 15.2 cm.

Figure 10. Idealized inlet and instrument locations.

ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 44

Twelve conditions, Runs 1 through 12, were conducted for a wide range of
values of wave and current parameters. In the experiment, Runs 1 to 4
were without a tidal current, and Runs 5 to 8 had a moderate steady-state
ebb current of approximately 11 cm/sec at the inlet entrance. Runs 9 to 12
had a strong steady-state ebb current of approximately 22 cm/sec at the
entrance. All waves were generated in the basin perpendicular to the
shoreline by a unidirectional plunge-type generator driven by a TMA
spectral shape with gamma (spectral peak enhancement parameter) of 3.3.
In Runs 5 to 12, the wave-current interaction was created between incident
waves that encountered the ebb tidal current. Table 5 presents the incident
wave parameters (significant height Hs defined as 4 times the total energy
density, spectral peak period Tp, and spectral peak frequency fp), and ebb
current condition (speed U). Wave data were collected along one transect
line seaward of the wave maker and three shore-normal transect lines in
the entrance channel (Figure 10).

Table 5. Incident wave parameters and current conditions.

Run Hs (cm)a Tp (sec)a fp (Hz)b U (cm/sec)c
1 5.59 1.41 0.71 0
2 3.70 1.41 0.71 0
3 5.15 0.71 1.41 0
4 3.71 0.71 1.41 0
5 5.77 1.41 0.71 11.5
6 4.08 1.41 0.71 11.7
7 5.30 0.71 1.41 11.4
8 3.92 0.71 1.41 11.1
9 5.97 1.41 0.71 21.9
10 4.61 1.41 0.71 21.8
11 5.51 0.71 1.41 21.9
12 4.16 0.71 1.41 21.5
a. Data averaged over gauges in front of wave generator.
b. fp = 1/Tp.
c. Averaged over current meters in the entrance channel.
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 45

CMS-Wave simulations were run in the laboratory scale. The grid domain
coveed the same rectangular area as the experiment basin. It consisted of
188 cross-shore and 401 along-shore square cells, each 10 cm ×10 cm. The
incident wave input at the seaward boundary was a TMA-type
unidirectional spectrum consisting of 30 frequency bins (0.5 to 3 Hz at
0.085-Hz increment) and 35 direction bins (covering a half-plane with 5-
deg spacing). The 2D background input current fields for Runs 5-8 and 9-
12 were prepared using the CMS-Flow, drives by different water levels
specified at the inlet throat and sea boundaries. A water level difference of
3 cm was specified in the CMS-Flow to simulate a weak current field for
Runs 5-8. A water level difference of 5 cm was specified in the CMS-Flow
to generate a stronger current field for Runs 9-12. Figure 11 shows
calculated ebb current fields in the steady-state condition. Both depth
contours and current vector fields are symmetric with respect to the inlet
channel center line in the model. Figures 12 and 13 show the measured
and calculated current speeds along the inlet channel centerline. To test
each of four wave breaking formulas described in Chapter 2, CMS-Wave
was run in the basic mode (iwet = 0, ibf = 0, iark = 0, iarkr = 0, and
akap = 1). For each run, the wave data collected in front of the wave
generator was averaged and input as the incident wave condition.

Figures 14 to 16 compare measured and calculated wave heights along the

entrance channel centerline for the null ebb current, moderate ebb
current, and strong ebb current, respectively. For the null ebb current
(Runs 1-4), the calculated wave height agrees well with measurements for
all four wave breaking formulas. The extended Goda formula appears to
agree slightly better with the measurements than the other three formulas;
this is especially true for larger incident wave height (Runs 1 and 3) in the
null tidal current condition. The performance of individual breaking
formulas becomes different for shorter incident wave period irrespective of
the incident wave height in these runs. This is evident in Figures 14 to 16
(Runs 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, and 12).
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 46

Figure 11. Input current fields for (a) Runs 5-8, (b) Runs 9-12, and save stations (square).

Figure 12. Measured and calculated current speeds along channel centerline, Runs 5-8.
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 47

Figure 13. Measured and calculated current speeds along channel centerline, Runs 9-12.

Figure 14. Measured and calculated wave heights along channel centerline, Runs 1-4.
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 48

Figure 15. Measured and calculated wave heights along channel centerline, Runs 5-8.

Figure 16. Measured and calculated wave heights along channel centerline, Runs 9-12.
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 49

With an ebb current present (Runs 5-12), the calculated wave height
overall agrees better with the measurements for the incident wave of
longer period (1.41 sec). This observation holds true regardless of large or
small wave height and current magnitude, as shown in the upper panel in
Figures 15 and 16 (Runs 5, 6, 9 and 10). For the shorter wave period (0.71
sec), the breaking formula by Battjes and Janssen (1978) and the Extended
Miche formula (Battjes 1972; Mase et al. 2005b) tend to overestimate the
wave height, whereas the formula by Chawla and Kirby (2002) and the
Extended Goda formula (Sakai et al. 1989) compare better for wave height.
The overall performance of these breaking formulas revealed that wave
height estimates based on the Extended Goda formula, with or without the
wave-current interaction, were consistently better than estimates obtained
with the other formulas.

Case 2: Waves breaking on plane beach

Visser (1991) conducted eight laboratory experiments, labeled as Exp. 1 to
Exp. 8, with monochromatic incident waves that broke on a planar beach
and generated a longshore current. A large data set of wave, current, and
water level was collected for a number of incident wave conditions tested
for two beach slopes (1:10 and 1:20) and two different bottom
roughnesses. In this report, Visser Exps. 4 to 7 were selected for model
validation because these have the same bottom composite slopes and the
most complete measurements. The beach had a 1:10 slope for the first
seaward 1-m distance, 1:20 slope for the next 5-m distance, and a flat
bottom for the next 5.9 m to the wave generator. Exps. 4 through 6 were
performed on a concrete bed, where the bottom friction is expected to be
small and, therefore, neglected in the wave numerical simulation. For Exp.
7, the 1:20 slope bottom was roughened by a thin layer (0.5-1.0 cm) of
gravel grouted on the concrete floor. Table 6 presents the incident wave
conditions.

Table 6. Incident wave conditions.

Exp. Hs (cm)a Tp (sec)a fp (Hz)b (deg)c
4 7.8 1.02 0.98 15.4
5 7.1 1.85 0.54 15.4
6 6.9 0.70 1.43 15.4
7 7.8 1.02 0.98 15.4
a. Monochromatic wave.
b. fp=1/Tp.
c. Wave direction relative to shore-normal.
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 50

CMS-Wave was run at the laboratory scale. The model grid consisted of 90
cross-shore and 243 alongshore square cells, each 10 cm × 10 cm, to cover
the entire basin in these experiments. The spectral transformation was
computed in CMS-Wave on 11 frequency bins (covering the range of
+/- 0.05 Hz of the incident monochromatic wave frequency at 0.01-Hz
increment) and 35 direction bins (covering a half-plane with 5-deg
spacing). The incident monochromatic, unidirectional wave spectrum was
specified in a single frequency and direction bin at the seaward boundary.
The input current and water level fields were interpolated across shore and
averaged alongshore from the data. For Exp. 7 with the gravel floor, a
constant bottom friction coefficient cf of 0.01 was specified in CMS-Wave
and was found to produce good wave estimates.

Figure 17 shows an example of input current and water level fields to CMS-
Wave for the Exp. 4. Figure 18 compares the measured and calculated
across shore wave heights for Exp. 4 through 7. The calculated wave height
agrees well with the measurements for four different depth-limiting
breaking formulas implemented in CMS-Wave.

Case 3: Wave runup on impermeable uniform slope

Wave runup on a uniform slope calculated by CMS-Wave was compared to
two laboratory experiments, one experiment conducted by Ahrens and
Titus (1981) the other by Mase and Iwagaki (1984). Incident random
waves were generated in both experiments in a wave flume consisting of a
flat bottom connected to a slope. The experiments by Ahrens and Titus
included 275 wave conditions (Ahrens and Heimbaugh 1988), with the
significant wave heights ranging from 4 to 20 cm and spectral peak
periods from 1.1 to 4.5 sec, on six different uniform slopes at 1:1, 2:3, 1:2,
2:5, 1:3, and 1:4. The experiments by Mase and Iwagaki tested 120 wave
conditions (Mase 1989), with significant wave heights ranging from 2.7 to
11 cm and spectral peak periods from 0.8 to 2.5 sec, on four uniform slopes
at 1:5, 1:10, 1:20, and 1:30.
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 51

Figure 17. Input current and wave setup fields with save stations (dot) for Exp. 4.
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 52

Figure 18. Measured and calculated wave heights, Exp. 4-7.

CMS-Wave was run at the laboratory scale. The model grid consisted of
1,750 cross-shore and 100 alongshore square cells, each 2 cm × 2 cm, to
cover a 10-m-long flat bottom and a 25-m-long slope section. The spectral
transformation was computed in CMS-Wave on 30 frequency bins (from
0.1 to 1.26 Hz at 0.04-Hz increment for the Ahrens and Titus experiments,
and from 0.02 to 2.05 Hz at 0.07-Hz increment for the Mase and Iwagaki
experiments) and 35 direction bins (covering a half-plane with 5-deg
spacing). Bottom friction was neglected (cf = 0) in the numerical
simulations.

Figure 19 shows the measured and calculated 2% exceedance wave runup

(R2) for all experiments conducted by Ahrens and Titus (1981) and by
Mase and Iwagaki (1984). Table 7 presents the mean bias (mean of
calculated minus measured) and correlation coefficients (equivalent to
normalized root-mean-square errors) between the measured and
calculated 2% exceedance wave runups. The CMS-Wave calculated 2 %
exceedance wave runups correlate well with the measured values for all
test slopes, especially for more gentle slopes (1:5 to 1:30). The mean bias of
calculated runups is generally small in all cases except for the steepest
slope (1:1) condition in which CMS-Wave tends to overestimate the runup
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 53

(open-circles in Figure 19). For steeper slopes, more wave reflection with
less wave energy loss on the slope can affect the wave runup calculations.
Testing of the wave reflection effect on wave runup for a steep slope is
underway.

Figure 19. Measured and calculated 2% exceedence wave runup.

Table 7. Statistics of measured and calculated wave runup.

Mean of Mean of Mean Correlation
Slope
Calculated R2 (m) Measured R2 Bias (m) Coefficient
1:1 0.40 0.29 0.11 0.74
2:3 0.41 0.39 0.02 0.86
1:2 0.44 0.43 0.01 0.90
2:5 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.88
1:3 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.79
1:4 0.29 0.28 0.01 0.72
1:5 - 1:30 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.91
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 54

Case 4: Wave diffraction at breakwater and breakwater gap

The wave diffraction calculated by CMS-Wave was compared to diffraction
diagrams in the Shore Protection Manual (1984) and Coastal Engineering
Manual (HQUSACE 2002) based on the Sommerfeld solution for a flat
bottom. These diagrams were originally compiled by Wiegel (1962) for a
straight semi-infinite long breakwater and by Johnson (1952) for a
breakwater gap for monochromatic incident waves impinging on these
structures from different directions. The computational domain was a
square grid consisting of 101 101 cells with cell size of 20 m 20 m. The
breakwater was specified as dry cells in a column aligned with the seaward
boundary. A uniform water depth of 1,000 m was specified to present
deepwater waves. The incident wave height was 1 m, and wave period was
8 sec (0.125 Hz). This incident wave corresponds to a wavelength of 100
m. The wave diffraction was simulated in CMS-Wave on 10 frequency bins
(from 0.06 Hz to 0.15 Hz with 0.01-Hz increment) and 35 direction bins
(covering a half-plane with 5-deg spacing).

Figure 20 shows calculated wave height normalized by the incident height,

(dash-dot line) and the wave diffraction diagram (solid line) for the semi-
infinite long breakwater. The incident wave is perpendicular to the
breakwater. In the numerical simulation, the incident wave was provided
in a single frequency and direction bin. The diffraction intensity value was
set to 4 to simulate the maximum diffraction allowed in CMS-Wave, and
the bottom friction loss is neglected in the calculation.

The normalized wave height under wave diffraction is designated as the

diffraction coefficient, K . The graph coordinates are normalized by the
wavelength, and plots are in units of wavelength, L, such that the
diffraction diagram can represent the deep-water wave as well as shallow
to intermediate water conditions. Calculated wave diffraction coefficients
agree well with the diffraction diagram. In practical applications, the
direction of diffracted waves is as important as the wave height. Figures 21
to 23 show wave vector (height and direction) plots for the semi-infinite
long breakwater for incident waves approaching from -45, 0, and 45 deg,
respectively. As can be seen from these figures, calculated waves are
diffracted well into the shadow region behind the breakwater.
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 55

Figure 20. Wave diffraction diagram and calculated K (dash-dot) for a breakwater.

Figure 21. Calculated wave vectors and K , 0 deg incident wave.

ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 56

Figure 22. Calculated wave vectors and K , -45 deg incident wave.

Figure 23. Calculated wave vectors and K , 45 deg incident wave.

ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 57

Figures 24 and 25 show wave diffraction diagrams (Shore Protection

Manual 1984; HQUSACE 2002) and calculated wave heights for the
breakwater gap width, B = L, and B = 2L, (e.g. equal to one and two
wavelengths) respectively. The incident wave direction is normal to the
breakwater. The diffraction intensity value is set to 2 for the gap width
B = L and 3 for the B = 2L. Bottom friction was 0. Calculated wave
diffraction coefficients agree well with the diffraction diagram in these
breakwater gap simulations. Figures 26 to 28 show examples of wave
vector plots for the breakwater gap B = 2L with the wave approaching
angle from -45, 0, and 45 deg, respectively. Calculated wave height and
directions from incident angles of -45 and 45 deg are symmetric about the
center line. Calculated wave directions clearly show diffraction through the
gap behind the breakwater.

Figure 24. Wave diffraction diagram and calculated K (dash-dot) for a gap, B = 2L.
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 58

Figure 25. Wave diffraction diagram and calculated K (dash-dot) for a gap, B = L.

Figure 26. Calculated wave vectors and K for gap B = 2L, 0 deg incident wave.
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 59

Figure 27. Calculated wave vectors and K for gap B = 2L, -45 deg incident wave.

Figure 28. Calculated wave vectors and K for gap B = 2L, 45 deg incident wave.
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 60

Case 5: Wave generation in fetch-limited condition

For wind wave predictions, the Sverdrup-Munk-Bretschneider (SMB)
method was developed in the 1950s for deep water conditions. In shallow
water applications, the SMB method was modified for constant depth by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and it has been widely used in
engineering projects. Additional information about the SMB method can
be found in the Shore Protection Manual (1984). Wind wave
generation/growth capability implemented in CMS-Wave is validated by
comparison to the modified SMB curves.

Numerical simulations were conducted for a flat bottom seabed of 20-m

constant depth. Constant wind speeds of 10, 20, and 35 m/sec were
applied to a computational domain consisting of 10 100 cells with cell
size 200 m 200 m. The wind blew along the 20-km-long axis of the grid.
The wave energy input at the upwind boundary of modeling area was set
to 0, and the wave generation was calculated on a spectral grid of 30
frequency bins (0.12 to 0.35 Hz with 0.008-Hz increment) and 35
direction bins (covering a half-plane with 5-deg spacing).

Figure 29 compares the calculated wave height and wave period with
results from the Shore Protection Manual. Calculated wave height values
agree well in these simulations for fetch greater than 5 km. For a fetch less
than 5 km and at greater wind speeds, CMS-Wave predicts lower wave
height than the Shore Protection Manual method. Over short fetches,
wave height calculated by CMS-Wave increases more linearly with the
length of fetch, compared to the Shore Protection Manual method.
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 61

Figure 29. Comparison of calculated wave generation and SMB curves.

Case 6: Wave generation in bays

Wave data collected at Rich Passage, WA, and in southern Chesapeake
Bay, VA, were analyzed for validation of wave generation and growth in
bays by CMS-Wave. Rich Passage is a tidal strait separating Bainbridge
Island south shore and Kitsap Peninsula in western Puget Sound. A wave
gauge (LT14) was installed near the southeast shore of Bainbridge Island
(Osborne and MacDonald 2005). Figure 30 shows the location of Rich
Passage and the wave gauge (47º35’28”N, 122º33’56”W). Strong tidal
currents prevailing in the vicinity of the gauge are the main concerns to
navigation, and these currents can interact with the local wave generation.
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 62

Figure 30. Modeling grid domain for Rich Passage and wave gauge location (LT14).

The computational domain for Rich Passage is a rectangular area that

includes 160 350 square cells of cell size 50 m 50 m. CMS-Wave
simulations were performed for two relatively strong wave conditions,
coexisting with a persistent southeast wind observed on 29 March 2005.
The input for each simulation includes a pre-calculated tidal current field
and constant wind speed. The wave generation and interaction with a
current present were computed on a spectral grid of 30 frequency bins
(0.04 to 0.33 Hz with 0.01-Hz increment) and 35 direction bins with 5-deg
spacing of a half-plane.

Figure 31 shows the input current field and calculated wave field for a
typical maximum flood condition and input wind speed of 8 m/sec,
blowing from 220 deg, at 00:40 GMT, 29 March 2005. Figure 32 shows
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 63

the input current field and calculated wave field for a strong ebb condition
and wind speed of 11 m/sec, blowing from 220 deg, at 19:20 GMT of the
same day. Table 8 presents the measured and calculated wave heights at
the wave gauge location of LT14. In both simulations, the calculated wave
height is in good agreement with the measurements.

Figure 31. (a) Input current, and (b) calculated wave fields at 00:40 GMT, 29 March 2005.
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 64

Figure 32. (a) Input current, and (b) calculated wave fields at 19:20 GMT, 29 March 2005.

Table 8. Comparison of measured and calculated wave height at wave Gauge LT14.
Time Wind Speed Wind Direction Measured Calculated
Date (GMT) (m/sec) (deg) Hs (m) Hs (m)
29 March 2005 00:40 8 220 0.19 0.18
29 March 2005 19:20 11 220 0.28 0.27
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 65

The bathymetric grid for the Chesapeake Bay region is 295 km long
(northing) and 100 km wide (easting) and has a horizontal resolution of
500 m. A CMS-Wave simulation was performed for a strong northeasterly
wind that occurred on 27 February 1993. Wave data are available in the
lower bay at the Thimble Shoal Light (TSL) gauge from 1988 to 1995 for
model validation ([Link]
[Link]). The coordinates of the TSL gauge are 37º2.4’N,
76º11.9’W, and the nominal water depth is 5.5 m. Wind data are available
in the middle of the narrow upper bay at a NOAA C-MAN sta TPLM2
(38º53.5’N, 76º26.1’W) ([Link]
Chesapeake_Bay.shtml). Demirbilek et al. (2007) and Lin et al. (2006a)
discuss storm surge modeling resulting from hurricanes and northeasters
in Chesapeake Bay and the vicinity.

Figure 33 shows the model bathymetric domain and calculated wave field
under a steady northerly wind (15 m/sec wind speed blowing from north)
at 12:00 GMT, 27 February 1993. Figure 34 compares measured and
calculated directional wave spectra (wave energy density distribution
shown as contours in m2 sec/radian) at sta TSL. The corresponding
significant wave height is four times the square root of the total wave
energy, an integrated quantity of wave energy density over the frequency
and direction domains. The measured and calculated wave heights are
1.00 m and 1.01 m, respectively. The magnitude and direction of the
calculated wave spectrum agree well with the measurements. Because the
nonlinearity of energy transfer amongst spectral components is not
included in this simulation, the calculated spectrum is skewed more to
higher frequency (Demirbilek et al. 2007; Lin et al. 2006a).
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 66

Figure 33. (a) Model domain and (b) calculated wave field at 12:00 GMT, 27 February 1993.

Figure 34. (a) Measured, and (b) calculated spectra at TSL, 12:00 GMT, 27 February 1993.
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 67

Case 7: Large waves at Mouth of Columbia River

The Mouth of Columbia River (MCR) is a shared estuary between the
States of Oregon and Washington. The numerical grid covers a rectangular
domain 22.7 km long (northing) and 25.8 km wide (easting) with a fine
horizontal resolution of 20.7 m. Directional wave measurements were
collected between the north and south jetties from 1 August to 9
September 2005, at five monitoring stations by the U.S. Army Engineer
District, Portland (Demirbilek et al. 2008). Table 9 presents coordinates
and nominal depth, relative to mean tide level (mtl), of these monitoring
stations. The incident wave spectrum is based on offshore Buoy 46029
(46º7’N, 124º30.6’W), maintained by the National Data Buoy Center
(NDBC) since 1984 ([Link] Figure 35 shows the
model bathymetric domain and wave gauge stations.

Table 9. Coordinates of wave monitoring stations at MCR (August-September 2005).

Station Coordinates Depth, mtl (m)
1 46o16’16”N, 124o03’23”W 9.7
2 46o15’47”N, 124o03’29”W 12.9
3 46o15’27”N, 124o03’13”W 21.7
4 46o15’04”N, 124o03’46”W 14.2
5 46o14’24”N, 124o03’58”W 10.4

Strong tidal and river currents are observed at the MCR with a typical
average current magnitude of 2 m/sec. To investigate model performance
for waves only, three large incident waves during slack tide from the data
collection period were selected for the simulation. These large wave events
occurred at 10:00 GMT on 7 August, at 00:00 GMT on 30 August, and at
18:00 GMT on 9 September 2005. Figure 36 shows sample time-series of
wind and wave data collected from Buoy 46029 and sta 4 and 5 at the
MCR. The effects of waves interacting with tidal current at sta 4 and 5 are
clearly seen in the data as strong daily fluctuations of wave height, period
and direction. Wind forcing was taken from the buoy measurements and
adjusted to a 10-m elevation based on the 1/7 power law (Shore Protection
Manual 1984; HQUSACE 2002).
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 68

Pacific Ocean

1
2
3
4

5
Wave model domain

Offshore NDBC buoy

46029

Figure 35. Wave model domain and directional wave data-collection stations.

Figure 36. Wave and wind data collected at Buoy 46029, sta 4 and 5.
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 69

In the simulation at 10:00 GMT on 7 August 2005, the input wave

condition parameters at the model grid seaward boundary were 2.0 m,
8.3 sec, and 300 deg (WNW). Buoy 46029 reported a moderate and steady
wind of 7.7 m/sec from 344 deg (NNW). In the simulation of 00:00 GMT
on 30 August 2005, the model seaward boundary input was a wave of
2.2 m, 11.1 sec, and 284 deg (NWW). A weak wind of 3.3 m/sec from
235 deg (SW) was observed at the buoy. At 18:00 GMT on 9 September,
the incident wave condition was a wave of 4.0 m, 10 sec, and 307 deg
(NW). The corresponding buoy wind was 7.6 m/sec from 311 deg (NW).
Directional wave spectra from Buoy 46029 served as input, discretized in
30 frequency bins (0.04 to 0.33 Hz with 0.01-Hz increment) and 35
direction bins (covering a half-plane with 5-deg spacing), at the seaward
boundary.

Figures 37 and 38 show calculated wave fields, with and without wind
input, at 10:00 GMT on 7 August, and 18:00 GMT on 9 September,
respectively. These simulations show greater calculated waves
approaching the MCR with wind input than without wind input. At 18:00
GMT on 9 September 2005, the wave growth with wind input was
significant because the wind direction was practically the same as the
mean wave direction. Figures 39 to 43 show measured and calculated
directional spectra (in m2 sec/radian) at 10:00 GMT on 7 August 2005, at
five monitoring stations, respectively. Figures 44 to 48, respectively, show
measured and calculated directional spectra (in m2 sec/radian) at
00:00 GMT on 30 August 2005 at five monitoring stations. Wind forcing
was included in these wave-spectrum calculations.

At 18:00 GMT on 9 September 2005, directional wave data were only

available at sta 4 and 5. Figures 49 and 50 compare measured and
calculated directional spectra for these two stations. The magnitude and
direction of the calculated spectra compare well to the measurements.
Because the nonlinear wave-wave interaction is not calculated in the
model and the effect can be strong in shallow water, the calculated spectra
are narrower in direction and wider in frequency compared with the
measured spectra.
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 70

Figure 37. Calculated waves with and without wind input, 10:00 GMT, 7 August 2005.

Figure 38. Calculated waves with and without wind input, 18:00 GMT, 9 September 2005.

Figure 39. (a) Measured and (b) calculated spectra at sta 1, 10:00 GMT, 7 August 2005.
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 71

Figure 40. (a) Measured and (b) calculated spectra at sta 2, 10:00 GMT, 7 August 2005.

Figure 41. (a) Measured and (b) calculated spectra at sta 3, 10:00 GMT, 7 August 2005.

Figure 42. (a) Measured and (b) calculated spectra at sta 4, 10:00 GMT, 7 August 2005.
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 72

Figure 43. (a) Measured and (b) calculated spectra at sta 5, 10:00 GMT, 7 August 2005.

Figure 44. (a) Measured and (b) calculated spectra at sta 1, 00:00 GMT, 30 August 2005.

Figure 45. (a) Measured and (b) calculated spectra at sta 2, 00:00 GMT, 30 August 2005.
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 73

Figure 46. (a) Measured and (b) calculated spectra at sta 3, 00:00 GMT, 30 August 2005.

Figure 47. (a) Measured and (b) calculated spectra at sta 4, 00:00 GMT, 30 August 2005.

Figure 48. (a) Measured and (b) calculated spectra at sta 5, 00:00 GMT, 30 August 2005.
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 74

Figure 49. (a) Measured and (b) calculated spectra at sta 2, 18:00 GMT, 9 September 2005.

Figure 50. (a) Measured and (b) calculated spectra at sta 3, 18:00 GMT, 9 September 2005.

Case 8: Wave transformation in fast mode and variable-rectangular-

cell grid
CMS-Wave can run more efficiently on a grid with variable rectangular
cells than with constant spacing cells, especially for a large computational
domain such as in the previous case of wave transformation at the Mouth
of Columbia River (Figure 35). For quick applications, CMS-Wave can also
be run in a fast mode to reduce the runtime. The efficiency of CMS-Wave
in the fast mode and variable-rectangular-cell grid is compared to the
standard mode and constant-rectangular-cell grid for two extreme winter
storms observed offshore of the MCR. Wind forcing is not considered in
the comparison. Table 10 lists the two storm waves recorded offshore at
Buoy 46029 (Demirbilek et al. 2008). The first storm occurred on
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 75

14 December 2001 with a 10.1 m significant wave height directed from the
northwest. The second storm occurred from the southwest on 4 February
2006 with a 13.8 m significant wave height. Storms do not occur often, but
can be harmful to the MCR jetties and adjacent beaches.

Table 10. Waves in two extreme storms observed offshore of MCR at Buoy 46029.
Time Wave Height Wave Period Wave
Date (GMT) (m) (sec) Direction (deg)
14 December 2001 12:00 10.1 14.3 297
4 February 2006 13:00 13.8 16.7 230

Both the variable-cell grid and constant-cell grid cover the same
computational domain (22.7 km 25.8 km). The cell dimension is 20.7 m
20.7 m in the constant-cell grid. For the variable-cell grid, the cell
dimension increases transitionally from 20.7 m 20.7 m at the entrance
area to 103.3 m 103.3 m toward the corner areas of the model domain.
There are a total of 1,100 1,250 cells in the constant-cell grid, but only
405 411 cells in the variable-cell grid. The CMS-Wave is more efficient
for the variable-cell grid because the total number of cells in the
computation is less than in the variable-cell grid than in the constant-cell
grid. Figure 51 shows the variable-cell grid. Directional wave spectra from
Buoy 46029 served as input, discretized in 30 frequency bins (0.04 to
0.33 Hz with 0.01-Hz increment) and 35 direction bins (covering a half-
plane with 5-deg spacing), at the seaward boundary.

Figure 52 shows calculated wave fields of the 14 December 2001 storm for
the constant-cell grid and variable-cell grid in standard mode. Similar to
Figure 52, Figure 53 shows calculated wave fields for the same simulations
in the fast mode. Figure 54 shows calculated wave fields of the 4 February
2006 event for the constant-cell grid and the variable-cell grid in the fast
mode. The difference in calculated wave fields is apparent, but small
between simulations from a constant-cell grid to a variable-cell grid and
from a standard mode to a fast mode.
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 76

Figure 51. CMS-Wave variable-cell grid and five monitoring stations at MCR.

(a) Constant-cell grid (b) Variable-cell grid

Figure 52. Calculated wave fields in standard mode, 12:00 GMT, 14 December 2001.
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 77

(a) Constant-cell grid (b) Variable-cell grid

Figure 53. Calculated wave fields in fast mode, 12:00 GMT, 14 December 2001.

(a) Constant-cell grid (b) Variable-cell grid

Figure 54. Calculated wave fields in fast mode, 13:00 GMT, 4 February 2006.

Tables 11 to 13 compare the total computer runtimes and calculated

significant wave heights and spectral mean directions for the two extreme
wave events at five monitoring stations (Table 9), respectively. The wave
simulation on the variable-cell grid is approximately four times faster than
the constant-cell grid. The computer run time for the fast mode is
approximately 1/8 of the standard mode. The difference in calculated wave
height at the five monitoring stations is small between the constant-cell
grid and variable-cell grid, but it is relatively large between the standard
mode and fast mode. The difference in calculated wave direction at five
monitoring stations is small overall.
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 78

Table 11. Total computer runtime for two storm wave events at MCR.
Grid Run Mode Total Run Time
Constant-cell Standard 17 min
Constant-cell Fast 2 min
Variable-cell Standard 4 min
Variable-cell Fast 35 sec

Table 12. Calculated wave height (m) and direction (deg), 12:00 GMT, 14 December 2001.
Constant-cell Variable-cell Constant-cell Variable-cell
Sta Standard mode Standard mode Fast Mode Fast mode
1 4.9 5.1 4.4 4.7
(239) (239) (234) (234)
2 3.5 3.8 3.8 4.0
(237) (237) (239) (239)
3 3.6 3.7 4.0 4.3
(264) (264) (259) (259)
4 6.3 6.5 5.7 6.0
(280) (280) (272) (272)
5 7.1 7.1 6.3 6.8
(276) (273) (279) (278)
NOTE: Wave direction is shown in parentheses.

Table 13. Calculated wave height (m) and direction (deg), 13:00 GMT, 4 February 2006.
Constant-cell Variable-cell Constant-cell Variable-cell
Sta Standard mode Standard mode Fast Mode Fast mode
1 7.0 7.1 6.2 6.3
(225) (226) (230) (230)
2 6.1 6.3 5.6 5.9
(223) (225) (231) (231)
3 5.9 6.6 5.1 5.5
(248) (249) (250) (249)
4 7.6 8.8 7.5 8.0
(252) (256) (261) (261)
5 4.6 5.3 5.5 5.8
(237) (239) (262) (260)
NOTE: Wave direction is shown in parentheses.
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 79

Case 9: Wave transformation over complicated bathymetry with

strong nearshore current
Laboratory experiments on wave transformation over a complicated
bathymetry were conducted in the Research and Development
Department of the Kansai Electric Power Co. Inc, Japan (Zheng et al.
2008). The physical model was built in a wave basin 20 m long and 38 m
wide. The model to prototype scale was 1:125. Figure 55 shows the
nearshore bathymetry and data-collection locations (circles). A snake-type
wave maker generated incident wave spectra at the offshore boundary.
Wave conditions included directional and unidirectional spectra. The
input significant wave was 7.3 cm and 1.21 sec, simulating a 100-year
return period. The directional spectrum was based on the Mitsuyasu
distribution (Mitsuyasu and Honda 1982) with the spreading of direction
in a standard deviation of 20 deg symmetric to the center angle.

Figure 56 displays measured directional and unidirectional wave height

contours as well as the current induced by breaking waves. The wave-
induced longshore current direction is from north to south in the physical
model. The current can become strong at the concave shoreline (the
maximum current speed reaches 0.25 m/sec in the model or equivalent to
2.7 m/sec in the prototype for unidirectional waves), where the incident
waves converge and break toward the shore. The current outside the surf
zone is overall weak (less than 0.05 m/sec) and opposite the wave
propagation direction.

In this section, four depth-limited wave breaking criteria are examined

with laboratory data.

Numerical simulations were carried out in the laboratory scale. The model
grid domain is the same as the laboratory basin with the grid cell size of
0.2 m 0.2 m. A standard JONSWAP spectrum was generated for the
incident waves, consisting of 10 frequency bins and 36 direction bins. The
current velocity in each cell was interpolated from the measurements. The
variation of water level caused by wave setup was not considered in the
simulations. Bottom friction was set to 0 in the model.
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 80

Figure 55. Bathymetry (left) in meters and locations of wave and current meters (right).

Figure 56. Measured current and normalized wave height contours for directional (left) and
unidirectional (right) incident waves.
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 81

Extended Miche formula

Figures 57 and 58 show calculated wave height contours for directional

and unidirectional incident waves, with and without a current present
using the Extended Miche breaking formula. The numerical result is more
accurate with the background current included in the calculation.

Figure 57. Calculated wave height contours for directional incident waves without current
(left) and with current (right) by the Extended Miche formula with coefficient of 0.14.
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 82

Figure 58. Calculated wave height contours for unidirectional incident waves without current
(left) and with current (right) using the Extended Miche formula with coefficient of 0.14.

Figure 59 compares measured and calculated wave heights, normalized by

the incident wave height (H1/3)0 for directional and unidirectional incident
waves. The calculated wave height is typically within 20 percent of the
measured height. The +/- 20 percent range lines are shown in dash-dotted
lines in Figure 59. The predictions with the breaker coefficient of a = 0.129
are similar to those with a = 0.14. The simulations tend to overestimate
the wave height if the measured normalized height is less than 0.75.
Figures 60 and 61 compare measured and calculated wave heights along
the longitudinal (parallel to y-axis) and transverse (parallel to x-axis)
transects for directional and unidirectional incident waves, respectively.
The simulation with current predicts the wave height enhancement well,
although it tends to slightly over-predict the height in front of the
headland (convex shoreline).
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 83

Figure 59. Measured versus calculated wave heights for directional (left) and unidirectional
(right) incident waves with the Extended Miche formula.

Figure 60. Normalized wave height comparisons of directional waves along longitudinal (left)
and transverse (right) transects with the Extended Miche formula.
ERDC/CHL TR-08-13 84

Figure 61. Normalized wave height comparisons of unidirectional waves along longitudinal
(left) and transverse (right) transects with the Extended Miche formula.

Extended Goda formula

Figures 62 and 63 show wave height contours for directional and

unidirectional incident waves with and without a current calculated with
the Extended Goda formula (Sakai et al. 1989). The model prediction is
more accurate with current than without current. However, the simulation
based on the Extended Goda formula generally overpredicts the wave
height in front of the headland (convex shoreline). Figure 64 compares
normalized wave heights with the measurements. The differences between
measured and calculated heights are typically smaller than 20 percent.
The prediction based on a breaker coefficient of 0.15 is slightly better than
0.17. The simulations tend to overestimate the wave height if the measured
normalized height is less than 0.75. Figures 65 and 66 compare measured
and calculated wave heights along the longitudinal and transverse
transects for directional and unidirectional incident waves, respectively.
The model predicts the wave height well in both longitudinal and
transverse directions with current.