JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 104, NO.

C4, PAGES 7649-7666, APRIL 15, 1999

A third-generation wave model for coastal regions

1. Model description and validation
N. Booij, R. C. Ris,• and L. H. Holthuijsen
Faculty of Civil Engineering,Delft University of Technology,Delft, Netherlands

Abstract. A third-generationnumericalwave model to computerandom, short-crested

wavesin coastalregionswith shallowwater and ambientcurrents(SimulatingWaves
Nearshore(SWAN)) hasbeen developed,implemented,and validated.The model is
basedon a Eulerian formulationof the discretespectralbalanceof actiondensitythat
accountsfor refractivepropagationover arbitrary bathymetryand current fields. It is
drivenby boundaryconditionsand local winds.As in other third-generationwave models,
the processesof wind generation,whitecapping,quadrupletwave-waveinteractions,and
bottom dissipationare representedexplicitly.In SWAN, triad wave-waveinteractionsand
depth-inducedwave breakingare added. In contrastto other third-generationwave
models,the numericalpropagationschemeis implicit,whichimpliesthat the computations
are more economicin shallowwater. The model resultsagreewell with analytical
solutions,laboratoryobservations,
and (generalized)field observations.

1. Introduction friction and depth-inducedwave breaking can be added, but

wave generation by wind is absent in these models, which is
Wavesat the surfaceof the deepoceancanbe well predicted unacceptablefor many applicationsin coastalregionswhere
with third-generationwavemodelsthat are drivenby predicted storm conditionsare often of particular interest (e.g., wave
wind fields [e.g., WAMDI Group, 1988; Komen et al., 1994]. generationbehind shoalsor barrier islands).Moreover, the
These are all basedon the energyor actionbalanceequation, spaceand time resolutionsthat are required for thesemodels
sometimesextendedto shelf seasby adding the finite-depth are of the order of a small fraction of the wave length and
effects of shoaling,refraction and bottom friction [e.g., Tol- period. This limits the practicalapplicationof thesemodelsto
man, 1991]. These models cannot be realisticallyapplied to regionswith dimensionsthat are smaller than about a dozen
coastalregionswith horizontal scaleslessthan 20-30 km and wavelengths (1 km x 1 km, say).
water depth less than 20-30 m (with estuaries,tidal inlets, For applicationson a larger scale,phase-averagedmodels
barrierislands,tidal flats,channels,etc.),because(1) the shal- need to be used.These are either of a Lagrangiannature or of
low-water effects of depth-inducedwave breaking and triad a Eulerian nature. In Lagrangianmodelsthe wavesare prop-
wave-waveinteractionare not includedand (2) the numerical agatedfrom deepwater to the shoreby transportingthe wave
techniquesthat are used are prohibitivelyexpensivewhen ap- energyalongwave rays [Collins,1972; Cavaleriand Malanotte-
plied to suchsmall-scale,shallow-waterregions.It is the pur- Rizzoli, 1981].Adding the effectsof wave generationand dis-
poseof the presentstudyto developan effectiveand efficient sipationis possible,but theseLagrangianmodelsare numeri-
wave model for these regions based on state-of-the-art cally inefficientwhen nonlineareffectssuchas wave breaking
formulations. or wave-wave interactions are to be accounted for. It is more

Two alternativesseemto be available:(1) extendthe above
(phaseaveraged)approachof the energyor action balance
equationby addingthe requiredphysicalprocesses usingother
numericaltechniquesor (2) exploitthe alternativeapproachof
phase-resolving modelsbasedon massand momentumbalance
equations.Such phase-resolving modelsare usuallybased on
Hamiltonian equations [e.g., Miles, 1981; Radder, 1992],
Boussinesq equations[e.g.,Peregrine,1966;Freilichand Guza,
1984;Madsenand SOrensen, 1992],or on the mild-slopeequa-
tion (e.g.,Berkhoff[1972]or its parabolicversion,e.g.,Radder
[1979] and Kirby [1986]). For a recentreview,seeDingemans
[1997]. These models reconstructthe sea surfaceelevation in
spaceand time while accountingfor sucheffectsas refraction,
diffraction, and, in some models, also triad and quadruplet
wave-waveinteractions.Dissipationprocessessuchas bottom
•Nowat WL/Delft Hydraulics,
Delft, Netherlands.
Copyright1999 by the American GeophysicalUnion.
Paper number 98JC02622.
0148-0227/99/98JC-02622509.00
efficientto use the Eulerian approach,in which the wave evo-
lution is formulatedon a grid. This is essentiallythe technique
that has been used for deep-oceanor shelf-seawave models
suchas the Wave Model (WAM) [WAMDI Group,1988].All
relevant processesare then readily included as sourcesand
sinks in the basic equation. Drawbacksof this approachin
coastal waters are the absence of diffraction and the use of
linear wave theory for wave propagation.The first drawback
impliesthat the area of interestshouldbe a few wave lengths
awayfrom obstacleswith (near)verticalwalls (dependingon
the short-crestedness of the waves[Booijet al., 1992]).This is
often the casealongfairly open coastswith an occasionalsmall
island or breakwater in the far field, as opposedto confined
situationssuchas in a harbor or directlybehind breakwaters.
The seconddrawbackimpliesthat, for the model to be appli-
cable,nonlinearcorrectionsto linear wavepropagationshould
either be sufficientlywell representedby triad and quadruplet
wave-waveinteractionsor that they be dominatedby the gen-
erationor dissipationof the waves(theseprocesses can all be
includedin a phase-averaged model). The latter is often the
case, even in the absenceof wind, when waves break in shallow

7649
7650 BOOIJ ET AL.: A THIRD-GENERATION COASTAL WAVE MODEL, 1

water. Since these limitations seem to be acceptablein many prototypicalthird-generationmodel that was developedon the
real field situationson a scaleof 20-30 km with a water depth basis of these formulations is the WAM model of the WAMDI
lessthan 20-30 m, the model to be developedin the present Group [1988] (also see Kamen et al. [1994]). Other third-
studyis a phase-averaged, Eulerian model (seeBattjes[1994] generationmodelsare the WAVEWATCH model of Talinart
for a reviewof similar considerations). [1991], the model of Li and Maa [1992], the Program for
Eulerian, phase-averagedmodelshave been used for waves Hindcastingof Wavesin Deep, Intermediate and ShallowWa-
in the deep oceanand in water of intermediatedepthsincethe ter (PHIDIAS) model of Van Vledderet al. [1994], and the
pioneeringwork of Gelci et al. [1956], and extensivework has Telemac Based Operational Model AddressingWave Action
been done with these models [e.g., Cardone et al., 1976; Computation(TOMAWAC) modelof Benoitet al. [1996].For
WAMDI Group, 1988;Kamen et al., 1994]. The propagationof shallowwater the formulations for the deepwater processes
wavesin thesemodelsis readily extendedto finite-depthwater need to be adapted and extended.This has been achieved,to
by introducing a depth-dependentpropagation speed and a someextent,in the abovethird-generationmodelswith (1) the
Eulerian representationof refraction[Piest,1965;Hasselmann useof the shallow-waterphasespeedin the expressions of wind
et al., 1973]. However, these modelsdo not computeall rele- input, (2) a depth-dependent scalingof the quadrupletwave-
vant physicalprocessesfor finite-depthwater, in particularly, waveinteractions,(3) a reformulationof the whitecappingin
not depth-inducedwave breaking and triad wave-waveinter- termsof wave numberrather than frequency,and (4) adding
actions,which, for coastal regions, can be rather important. bottom dissipation.All this will be also used in the SWAN
Moreover, all these models are based on explicit numerical model and supplementedwith formulationsfor (5) depth-
schemesfor propagationwhich are subject to the Courant inducedwave breakingand (6) triad wave-waveinteractions
criterion for numerical stability.For oceanicconditionsthis is that havebeen developedspecificallyfor SWAN (and similar
not a problem, but for coastalapplicationsit is unacceptable, models)by Eldeberkyand Battjes[1995] andEldeberky[1996].
as it leadsto very small time stepsin the computations(the As for implicit propagation schemes,one type of implicit
spatialstepin oceanmodelsis of the order of 100 km, and the propagationschemeis piecewisewave ray propagationfrom
correspondingtime step is typically30 min; in coastalmodels, one mesh of a computationalgrid to another [e.g., Young,
in 10-m water depth, the numbersare typically100 m and 10 s, 1988; Yamaguchi,1990;Benoit et al., 1996]. However, spatial
respectively).The situation is aggravatedby the fact that variationsin the driving fields (wind, bottom, and currents)
coastalmodelstypicallycontain 2-5 times as many geographic over a distanceof caAt are ignoredduringthe integration
grid points as ocean models. The application of explicit alongthesecharacteristics
(cgistheenergypropagationspeed,
schemesin coastalsituationswould therefore require about 2 and At is the integrationtime step). Sincethe grid is usually
orders of magnitudemore computationaleffort than in deep chosen
to properlyresolve
thesevariations,
cgAtshouldstillbe
water. The solutionto this problem is to useimplicit numerical smallerthan the meshkize.This is equivalentto the Courant
schemeswhich are unconditionally stable and therefore not criterion for explicit schemes(now for reasonsof accuracy
subjectto the Courant criterium.These two problems,of add- rather than stability), and this approachis therefore not a
ing depth-inducedbreaking and triad wave-waveinteractions reasonable alternative. The alternative that has been devel-
and of usingimplicit numericalschemes,will be addressedin oped for SWAN is an implicit propagationschemebased on
detail for the developmentof the model of the present study finite differences.
(SimulatingWavesNearshore(SWAN)). To validate both the propagationcharacteristicsand the
State-of-the-art formulations of the processesof wave gen- physicalprocessesof generation and dissipationin SWAN,
eration, dissipation, and wave-wave interactions in phase- computationalresultsare comparedwith (1) analyticalsolu-
averaged models are presently third generation. In first- tionsin academiccases,(2) laboratoryobservations, and (3)
generation models these physicalprocessesare not properly (generalized)field observations.The verificationof SWAN
represented.Generation is simulatedwith simple empirical with real field casesis describedin a sequelpaper [Riset al.,
expressions, and dissipation(whitecapping)is simulatedwith this issue].The paper is organizedas follows.The basicfor-
an assumeduniversalupper limit of the spectraldensities.The mulationsof the model are given in section2. The numerical
absenceof quadrupletwave-waveinteractionsis compensated implementationand the relatedvalidationsof the propagation
by enhancingthe wave growth [e.g., Ewing, 1971]. Second- schemesand of the sourceterm integrationare presentedin
generationmodelstry to remedythis for the localwind seaby section3. A discussion with conclusionsis given in section4.
parameterizingtheseinteractions[e.g.,Young,1988] or by us-
ing a sea-state-andwind-dependentupper limit of the spectral 2. Model Formulation
densities[e.g.,Halthuijsenand De Boer, 1988] or by reducing
2.1. Introduction
the wavedescriptionto a few integralspectralparameters[e.g.,
Hasselmannet al., 1976]. Such models are usually supple- In SWAN the waves are described with the two-dimensional
mented with freely propagatingswell. In a third-generation wave action densityspectrum,even when nonlinearphenom-
model all relevantprocessesare representedexplicitlywithout ena dominate(e.g., in the surf zone). The rationalefor using
a priori restrictionson the evolutionof the spectrum.For the the spectrumin suchhighly nonlinear conditionsis that, even
developmentof thesemodels,Hasselmannet al. [1985]formu- in suchconditions,it seemspossibleto predictwith reasonable
lated the discreteinteractionapproximation(DIA) of the qua- accuracythisspectraldistributionof the second-ordermoment
druplet wave-waveinteractions.This first-principleapproach of the waves(althoughit maynot be sufficientto fully describe
of the quadrupletwave-waveinteractionspermitsthe genera- thewavesstatistically). The actiondensityspectrum N(rr, 0 ) is
tion of wavesby wind to be formulated on the basisof theo- considered rather than the energydensityspectrumE (rr, 0)
reticalwork of Miles [1957] and the empiricalwork of Snyderet since in the presenceof ambient currents, action density is
al. [1981]. For deep water the problemwas finally closedwith conserved whereasenergydensityis not [e.g.,Whitham,1974].
the formulation of whitecappingby Kamen et al. [1984]. The The independentvariablesare the relative frequencyrr (as
 BOOIJ ET AL.' A THIRD-GENERATION COASTAL WAVE MODEL, 1 7651

Table 1. Options of Third-GenerationSourceTerms in the SimulatingWaves NearshoreModel

SWAN

Source Term Reference Added WAM 3 WAM 4

Linear wind growth Cavaleriand Malanatte-Rizzali[1981] x

Exponentialwind growth Kamen et al. [1984]
Janssen[1991a]
Whitecapping Kamen et al. [1984]
Janssen[1991a] and Kamen et al. [1994]
Quadrupletwave-waveinteractions Hasselmannet al. [1985]
Bottom friction Hasselmannet al. [1973]
Collins[1972] x
Madsenet al. [1988] x
Depth-inducedbreaking Battjesand Janssen[1978] xx
Triad wave-wave interactions Eldeberky[1996] xx

Options indicatedas Wave Model (WAM) 3 and WAM 4 are the formulationsalso used in WAM cycle 3 and WAM cycle 4 models,
respectively.
Optionsthat are availablein SWAN are indicatedby x. Preferredoptionsin SWAN (default) are indicatedby xx.

observedin a frame of reference moving with the current
velocity)and the wavedirection0 (the directionnormalto the
wavecrestof eachspectralcomponent).The actiondensityis
equal to the energydensitydividedby this relative frequency,
N(•, 0) = •(•, 0)/•.
2.2. Action Balance Equation
The evolution of the wave spectrumis describedby the
spectralactionbalanceequation,which, for Cartesiancoordi-
nates,is [e.g.,Hasselmanne! al., 1973]
O O O O O s
and direction.The expressionfor the term.4 is due to Cavaleri
and Malanotte-Rizzoli[1981] with a filter to avoid growth at
frequencieslower than the Piersonand Moskowitz[1964] fre-
quency[Tolman, 1992a].Two optionalexpressions for the co-
efficientB are usedin SWAN. The first is taken from an early
versionof the WAM model (knownasWAM cycle3 [W.4MDI
Group,1988]).It is dueto Snyderet al. [1981],rescaledin terms
of friction velocityU, by Komenet al. [1984]. The drag coef-
ficientto relate U, to the drivingwind speedat 10 m elevation
U•o is taken from Wu [1982]. The secondexpressionfor B in
SWAN is taken from the most recent version of the WAM

o-7N + •xx CxN + •yy CyN + •-•coN + •-•coN =• (1) model (knownasWAM cycle4 [Komenet al., 1994]).It is due
to Janssen[1991a],and it accountsexplicitlyfor the interaction
The first term on the left-handsideof (1) representsthe local between the wind and the wavesby consideringatmospheric
rate of changeof actiondensityin time, the.secondand third boundary layer effects and the roughnesslength of the sea
term representpropagationof action in geographicalspace surface.The corresponding setof equationsis solved(as in the
(withpropagation velocitiescx andCyinx andy space, respec- WAM model) with the iterative procedureof Mastenbroeket
tively). The fourth term representsshiftingof the relative fre- al. [1993].
quencydue to variationsin depthsand currents(with propa-
2.4. Dissipation
gationvelocityc• in crspace).The fifth term representsdepth-
induced and current-inducedrefraction (with propagation The dissipationterm of wave energyis representedby the
velocityco in 0 space).The expressions for thesepropagation summation of three different contributions: whitecapping
speedsare takenfrom linearwavetheory[e.g.,Whirham,1974; Sas,w(O-, 0), bottomfrictionSas,t,(o', 0), anddepth-induced
Dingemans,1997].The term $ [= S(cr, 0)] at the right-hand breakingSds,t,r(o-, 0). Whitecapping isprimarilycontrolledby
sideof the actionbalanceequationis the sourceterm in terms the steepnessof the waves.In SWAN, as in other presently
of energydensity,representingthe effectsof generation,dis- operatingthird-generationwavemodels,the whitecappingfor-
sipation,and nonlinearwave-waveinteractions.A brief sum- mulation is based on the pulse-basedmodel of Hasselmann
mary of the formulationsthat are used for the various pro- [1974], as adaptedby the WAMDI Group [1988]:
cessesin SWAN is given next, with an overviewin Table 1. k
Details of the relatively new formulationsfor depth-induced Sds,w(O',O)•---I-'•'•E(o-,0) (3)
breaking and triad wave-waveinteractionsare given in the
appendix.The more establishedformulationsfor the other where F is a steepnessdependentcoefficient,k is wave num-
processesare well describedin the followi.ngreferences. ber, and • and k denote a mean frequencyand a mean wave
number, respectively[cf. WAMDI Group, 1988]. Komen et al.
2.3. Wind Input [1984]estimatedthevalueof F by closingthe energybalanceof
Transferof wind energyto the wavesis describedin SWAN the wavesin fully developedconditions.This impliesthat this
with the resonancemechanismof Phillips[1957] and the feed- value dependson the wind input formulation that is used.
back mechanismof Miles [1957]. The correspondingsource Since two expressionsare used for the wind input in SWAN,
term for thesemechanismsis commonlydescribedas the sum two values for F are also used. The first is due to Komen et al.
of linear and exponentialgrowth: [1984](as in cycle3 of the WAM model). It is usedin SWAN
when the wind input coefficientB of Komen et al. [1984] is
Sin(O',O)=A -3-BE(o', O) (2) used.The secondexpressionis an adaptationof this expression
in whichA and B dependon wavefrequencyand directionand basedonJanssen[1991a](as in cycle4 of the WAM model [see
wind speed and direction. The effects of currents are ac- Janssen,1991b;Gantheret al., 1992]).It is usedwhenthe wind
countedfor in SWAN by usingthe apparentlocal wind speed input term B of Janssen[1991a] is used. Youngand Banner
7652 BOOIJ ET AL.: A THIRD-GENERATION COASTAL WAVE MODEL, 1

[1992] and Bannerand Young[1994] have shownthat the re-

sults of closingthe energy balance in this manner depend , 0)-- Sds'br'tøt
Sds,br(0- EtotE(0-,
0) (5)
critically on the choice of a high-frequencycutoff frequency,
abovewhich a diagnosticspectraltail is used. In SWAN this in whichEtot is the totalwaveenergyandSds,br,tot
is the rate
cutoff frequencyis different from the one used in the WAM of dissipationof E tot due to depth-inducedwave breaking
model. Differences in the growth rates between the WAM accordingto Battjesand Janssen[1978]. Adding a quadratic
model and SWAN are therefore to be expected.This problem dependencyon frequency as suggestedby Mase and Kirby
is addressed in section 3.3.2. [1992] (supportedby Elgar et al. [1997]) had no noticeable
Bottom-induceddissipationmay be causedby bottom fric- effect on the computed spectraof the present study. This
tion, bottom motion, percolation,or backscattering on bottom agrees with the findingsof Chen et al. [1997], who inferred
irregularities[Shemdinet al., 1978].For continentalshelfseas from observationsand simulationswith a Boussinesqmodel
with sandybottoms,the dominant mechanismappearsto be that the high-frequency levelsare insensitiveto suchfrequency
bottom friction [e.g., Bertottiand Cavaleri,1994], which can dependency because an increased dissipationat high frequen-
generallybe representedas ciesis compensated approximately by increased nonlinearen-
ergytransfer(but theydid find the frequencydependency to be
0-2
relevantin time domain).The valueof Sds,br,tot
depends
crit-
Sds,b(0-
, O)----Cbottom
•]2sinh
2(kd)E(0-,
0) (4) icallyon the breakingparameter3/ = Hmax/d(in whichHmax
in whichCbottom is a bottom friction coefficient.Hasselmannet is the maximum possibleindividualwave height in the local
al. [1973](JONSWAP) usedan empiricallyobtainedconstant. water depthd). In SWAN a constantvalue3/- 0.73 (the mean
It seemsto perform well in many different conditionsas long valueof the data setof Battjesand Stive[1985])and a variable
as a suitablevalue is chosen(typicallydifferent for swelland value dependingon the bottom slope[Nelson,1987, 1994]are
wind sea [Bouwsand Komen,1983]).A nonlinearformulation used.The appendixprovidesmore detailsabout this dissipa-
tion model.
basedon drag has been proposedby Hasselmannand Collins
[1968],whichwaslater simplifiedby Collins[1972].More com-
2.5. Nonlinear Wave-Wave Interactions
plicated, eddy viscositymodelshave been developedby Mad-
senet al. [1988](seeWeber[1991a])and Weber[1989,1991a,b]. In deepwater, quadrupletwave-waveinteractionsdominate
Considering the large variations in bottom conditions in the evolutionof the spectrum.They transferwaveenergyfrom
coastalareas(bottom material, bottom roughnesslength,rip- the spectralpeak to lower frequencies(thusmovingthe peak
ple height,etc.), there is no field data evidenceto giveprefer- frequencyto lower values)and to higher frequencies(where
ence to a particularfriction model [Luo and Monbaliu, 1994]. the energy is dissipatedby whitecapping).In very shallow
For this reason,the simplestof each of thesetypesof friction water,triad wave-waveinteractionstransferenergyfrom lower
modelshas been implementedin SWAN: the empiricalJoint frequenciesto higher frequencies,often resultingin higher
North SeaWave Project(JONSWAP) modelof Hasselmann et harmonics[Bejiand Battjes,1993] (low-frequencyenergygen-
al. [1973](withCbottor n -- 0.038m2s-3 forswellconditions and erationby triadwave-wave interactions is not consideredhere).
Cbottom = 0.067m2 s-3 forwindseaconditions), thedraglaw A full computationof the quadrupletwave-waveinteractions
modelof Collins[1972](withCbottom = CflJUrms withbottom is extremelytime consumingand not convenientin any oper-
frictioncoefficient C/., gravitational acceleration #, and rms ationalwave model.A numberof techniques,basedon para-
wave-inducedorbital velocity at the bottom Urms),and the metric methodsor other typesof approximations,have been
eddy-viscosity model of Madsenet al. [1988] (with Cbottom= proposedto improvecomputationalspeed(seeYoungand Van
f,•7U•ms/V'• andf,• takenfromJonsson [1966,1980]andJon- Vledder[1993]for a review).In SWAN the computationsare
ssonand Carlsen[1976]). The effect of a mean currenton the carriedout with the discreteinteractionapproximationof Has-
waveenergydissipationdue to bottomfrictionis not taken into selmannet al. [1985].This DIA hasbeenfoundquitesuccessful
accountin SWAN. The reasonsfor this are given by Tolman in describing the essentialfeaturesof a developingwavespec-
[1992b],who arguesthat state-of-the-artexpressions vary too trum [Komenet al., 1994].For unidirectionalwaves(suchas
widelyin their effectsto be acceptable.He foundthat the error used in some of the validation tests of SWAN; see section
in finding a correct estimate of the bottom roughnesslength 3.3.2) this approximationis not valid. In fact, the quadruplet
scalehas a much larger impact on the energydissipationrate interactioncoefficientfor thesewavesis nearlyzero (G. P. Van
than the effect of a mean current. Vledder, personalcommunication,1996).For finite-depthap-
The processof depth-inducedwave breakingis still poorly plications,Hasselmannand Hasselmann[1981] have shown
understoodand little is known about its spectralmodeling.In that for a JONSWAP-typespectrumthe quadrupletwave-wave
contrastto this, the total dissipation(i.e., integratedover the interactionscan be scaledwith a simpleexpression(it is used
spectrum)due to this type of wavebreakingcan be well mod- in SWAN).
eled with the dissipationof a bore applied to the breaking A first attempt to describetriad wave-waveinteractionsin
wavesin a random field [Battiesand Janssen,1978; Thornton termsof a spectralenergysourceterm wasmadebyAbreuet al.
and Guza, 1983]. Laboratory observations[e.g., Battjesand [1992].However,their expression is restrictedto nondisper-
Beji, 1992;Vincentet al., 1994;Arcilia et al., 1994;Eldeberkyand sive,shallow-water wavesand is thereforenot suitablein many
Battjes,1996] showthat the shapeof initially unimodalspectra practical applicationsof wind waves.A breakthroughcame
propagatingacrosssimple (barred) beachprofilesis fairly in- with the work of EldeberkyandBatties[1995]to provideSWAN
sensitiveto depth-inducedbreaking.This hasled Eldeberkyand with an economicallyfeasibleformulation of the triad wave-
Battjes[1995] to formulate a spectralversionof the bore model waveinteractions.They transformedthe amplitudepart of the
of Battjesand Janssen[1978], which conservesthe spectral Boussinesq model of Madsenand SOrensen [1993]into an en-
shape. Expanding their expressionto include directions,the ergy densityformulation,and they parameterizedthe biphase
expressionthat is used in SWAN is of the waveson the basisof laboratoryobservations[Battjes
 BOOIJ ET AL.: A THIRD-GENERATION
and Beji, 1992;Arcilla et al., 1994]. A discretetriad approxi-
mation (DTA) for collinearwaveswas subsequently obtained
by consideringonly the dominant self-selfinteractions.Their
formulationhas been verifiedwith flume observationsof long-
crested,random waves breaking over a submergedbar [Beji
andBattjes,1993]and over a barredbeach[Arcillaet al., 1994].
The formulation appearedto be fairly successful in describing
the essentialfeaturesof the energytransfer from the primary
peak of the spectrumto the superharmonics. A slightlydiffer-
ent version(the lumpedtriad approximation (LTA)) waslater
derived by Eldeberky[1996]. Details on this LTA as used in
SWAN are providedin the appendix.
3. Model Implementation and Validation
3.1. Introduction
The integration of the action balance equation has been
implementedin SWAN with finite difference schemesin all
five dimensions(time, geographicspace,and spectralspace).
These are first describedand validatedfor the propagationof
the waveswithout sourceterms. Then the implementationof
the source terms is described and validated.
In SWAN, time is discretizedwith a simple constanttime
step At for the simultaneousintegrationof the propagation
and the sourceterms.This is different from the time discreti-.
zation in the WAM model or the WAVEWATCH model,
where the time stepfor propagationis different from the time
stepfor the sourceterms.Geographicspaceis discretizedwith
a rectangulargrid with constantresolutionsAx and Ay in the
x and y direction, respectively.The spectrumin SWAN is
discretized with a constant directional resolution A0 and a
constantrelative frequencyresolutionAo-/o-(logarithmicfre-
quencydistribution). For reasonsof economyan optionis avail-
ableto computeonlywavecomponents travelingin a predefined
directionalsector(0min ( 0 ( 0max, e.g.,thosecomponents that
travelshoreward withina limiteddirectionalsector).The discrete
frequenciesare defined between a fixed low-frequencycutoff
and a fixed high-frequencycutoff (the prognosticpart of the
spectrum).For thesefrequenciesthe spectraldensityis uncon-
strained.Belowthe low-frequency cutoff(typically,fmin = 0.04
Hz for field conditions)the spectraldensitiesare assumedto
be zero. Above the high-frequency cutoff (typically,1 Hz for
fieldconditions)a diagnosticf-mtail is added(thistail is used
to computenonlinearwave-waveinteractionsat high frequen-
ciesandto computeintegralwaveparameters).The reasonfor
usinga fixed high-frequencycutoff rather than a dynamiccut-
off frequencythat dependson the wind speedor on the mean
frequency,as in the WAM model, is that in coastalregions,
mixedseastateswith rather different characteristicfrequencies
may occur. For instance, a local wind may generate a very
youngseabehindan island,totallyunrelatedto (but superim-
posedon) a simultaneously occurringswell.In suchcasesa
dynamiccutoff frequencymay be too low to properlyaccount
for the locally generated sea state. On the basis of physical
arguments,the valueof m (the powerin the aboveexpression
of the spectraltail) shouldbe between4 and 5 [e.g.,Phillips,
1985].In SWAN, m - 4 if the wind inputformulationof Komen
et al. [1984] is used (WAM cycle3) and m = 5 if the wind
input formulationof Janssen[1991a]is used(WAM cycle4).
3.2. Propagation
3.2.1. Implementation of propagation. The numerical
propagationschemesin SWAN are implicit schemesthat have
not beenusedbeforein otherwavemodels(althougha simple
COASTAL WAVE MODEL, 1 7653
versionwas used in the second-generationHindcasting Shal-
low Water Waves (HISWA) wave model of Holthuijsenet al.
[1989]. They have been chosen on the basis of robustness,
accuracy,and economy.
Sincethe nature of the actionbalanceequationis suchthat
the state in a grid point is determined by the state in the
upwavegrid points, the most robustschemewould be an im-
plicit upwindscheme(in both geographicand spectralspace).
The adjective"implicit" is usedhere to indicatethat all deriv-
ativesof actiondensity(in t, x, or y) are formulatedat one
computational
level,it, ix, or iy, exceptthe derivativein the
integration dimensionfor which also the previousor upwave
level is used (time and x or y, dependingon the directionof
propagation).For sucha schemethe valuesof the time and
space steps At, Ax, and Ay are mutually independent.An
implicit schemeis also economicalin the sensethat such a
scheme is unconditionallystable. It permits relatively large
time stepsin the computations(much larger than for explicit
schemesin shallowwater). Severalyearsof experiencein using
the HISWA model have shownthat for coastalregionsa first-
order upwind differenceschemein geographicspaceis usually
accurateenough.However, this experience,togetherwith test
computationswith SWAN, has also shown that in spectral
space a higher accuracythan that of a first-order upwind
schemeis required. This has been achievedby supplementing
the schemewith a second-ordercentralapproximation(more
economicthan a second-orderupwind scheme).For SWAN
therefore implicit upwind schemesin both geographic and
spectralspacehave been chosen,supplementedwith an im-
plicit central approximationin spectralspace.
The fact that in geographicspacethe state in a grid point is
determinedby the statein the upwavegrid points(as defined
by the directionof propagation)permits a decompositionof
the spectralspaceinto four quadrants(eight octantswould be
an alternative).In eachof the quadrantsthe computations can
be carried out independentlyfrom the other quadrants,except
for the interactions between them due to refraction and non-
linear sourceterms (correspondingto boundaryconditions
betweenthe quadrants).The wavecomponentsin SWAN are
correspondingly propagatedin geographicspacewith the first-
order upwind schemein a sequenceof four forward marching
sweeps(one per quadrant). To properly account for the
boundaryconditionsbetweenthe four quadrants,the compu-
tations are carried out iteratively at each time step. The inte-
gration in time is a simple backwardfinite difference, so that
the discretizationof the actionbalanceequationis (for positive
propagationspeeds,includingthe computationof the source
termsbut ignoringtheir discretization)
N ..... N 't-• [cxN],x- [cxN],•_•
+
At
tx,ty,t
•,t o
Ax
iy,i•,to
+ ZXy ix
....
io
(1 - v)[Co•N],•+•
+ 2V[Co•N],•-(1 + •)[Co•N],•-•
+
2Ao'
tx,ty,tO
+ (1--T})[CoN]io+
1q- -- +n)[coN],o_
2T}[CoN]t
2A0 0 1.... tx,iy,ia
= (6)
tx,ty,imto
7654 BOOIJ ET AL.: A THIRD-GENERATION COASTAL WAVE MODEL, 1

wherei t is the time levelindex;ix, iy, irr, and io are grid needstherefore to be solvediteratively until some break-off
counters;and At, zLr, Ay, Ao-, and A0 are the incrementsin criteria are met.
time, geographicspace,and spectralspace,respectively.The In the field casesof the presentstudy(thispaperandRis et
iterative nature of the computationis indicatedwith the iter- al., this issue],the break-offcriteria are as follows'in more
ation index n (the iteration index for the sourcetermsn* is than 97% of the submergedgrid pointsthe changein signifi-
equalto n or n- 1, dependingon the sourceterm; seebelow). cantwaveheight [Hs = 4X/-•o,wherem,•= ,• o-'•E(o-) do-]
Becauseof theseiterations,the schemeis also approximately from one iteration to the next is less than 3% or 0.03 m and,
implicitfor the sourceterms (seesection3.3.1). For negative also,the changein the mean relativewave period (Tmo1 --
propagationspeeds,appropriateplus and minus signsare re- 2rrmo/m•) is lessthan 3% or 0.3 s. For laboratorycases,
quired in (6). stricter criteria are used.
The coefficientsv and r• determinethe degreeto which the The numberof iterationsfor caseswith wave generationby
schemein spectralspaceis upwind or central.They thus con- wind is typically5-15 in the presentstudy(stationarycasesin
trol the numericaldiffusionin frequencyanddirectionalspace, whichthe iterationsstartfrom totallycalm sea).For the aca-
respectively.A value of v = 0 or r• = 0 corresponds to central demic cases,stricter criteria were used to verify the conver-
schemeswhich have the largestaccuracy(numericaldiffu- genceto the proper analyticalsolutions(e.g., the break-off
sion •- 0). A value of v = 1 or r• = 1 corresponds to upwind criterion for the significantwave height was 0.1%) and the
schemes, which are somewhat more diffusive and therefore number of iterationswas typically30-40. For all thesecom-
lessaccuratebut more robust.In the presentstudyall compu- putationsthe convergence wasmonotonic,althoughextending
tations are carried out with v - r• = 1/2. If large gradientsof the computationsbeyond the break-off criteria showedthat
the actiondensityin frequencyspaceor directionalspaceare occasionally, the solutioncontinuedwith fluctuationsthat were
present,numericaloscillations
can arise(especially
with the somewhat smaller than the break-off criterion. To reduce the
centraldifferenceschemes),resultingin negativevaluesof the numberof iterationsin stationarymodewith wind generation,
actiondensity.In eachsweepsuchnegativevaluesare removed thecomputations thatareshownin thispaperandin the sequel
from the two-dimensionalspectrumby setting these values paper [Riset al., thisissue]startwith a reasonablefirstguessof
equal to zero and rescalingthe remainingpositivevaluessuch the wavefield (a "quickstart"basedon the second-generation
that the frequency-integrated actiondensityper spectraldirec- sourceterms of Holthuijsenand De Boer [1988], adaptedfor
tion is conserved.The depth derivativesand currentderivatives shallowwater). It reducesthe numberof iterationsmentioned
in the expressions of c• and c 0 are calculatedwith a first-order abovetypically
bya factorof 2 (i.e.,threeto seveniterations).
upwind scheme. In nonstationary mode a reasonablefirst guessper time stepis
For stationaryconditions,SWAN can be run in stationary availablefrom the previoustime stepand the numberof iter-
mode. Time is then removedas a variable,but the integration ationsis expectedto be small(lessthan 4). If no iterationsare
(in geographicspace)is still carriedout iteratively.The prop- usedin nonstationarymode (as in mostother phase-avetaged
agation schemeis still implicit, as the derivativesof action wave models),the computationsof propagationare still im-
density(inx ory) at thecomputational
level(ix or iy, respec- plicit and thereforestill unconditionallystable.
tively) are formulated at that level, exceptin the integration The boundaryconditionsin SWAN, both in geographic
dimension(x ory, dependingon the directionof propagation), spaceand spectralspace,are fully absorbingfor waveenergy
where the upwavelevel is alsoused.The valuesof Ax and Ay that is leavingthe computationaldomain or crossinga coast-
are therefore still mutually independent. line.The incomingwaveenergyalongopengeographic bound-
To explainthe abovenumericalsolutiontechniquein terms aries needsto be prescribedby the user. For coastalregions
of matrix solutions,first ignore the decompositionin quad- suchincomingenergyis usuallyprovidedonlyalongthe deep-
rants. The propagationof the wavesin both geographicand water boundaryand not along the lateral geographicbound-
spectralspacewould then be describedwith one large basic aries(that is, the spectraldensitiesare assumedto be zero).
matrix that canbe solvedin severalways.Removingrefraction, This impliesthat sucherroneouslateral boundaryconditions
frequencyshifting,and nonlinear sourceterms from this basic are propagatedinto the computationalarea. The affectedar-
matrixpermitsa matrixsolutionwith a Gauss-Seidel technique easare typicallytriangularregionswith the apexat the corners
[e.g.,Goluband vanLoan, 1986]in whichthe matrixis decom- betweenthe deepwaterboundaryand the lateral boundaries,
posedin four sections(the abovefour directionalquadrants), spreadingtowardshoreat an angleof 30øto 45ø (for wind sea
whichare eachsolvedin one step(superconvergence). Restor- conditions)on eithersideof the deepwatermeanWavedirec-
ing refractionand frequencyshiftingto the matrixrequiresthe tion(lessforswellconditiohs;
thisangleisessentially
halfthe
solutionof a submatrixfor each geographicgrid point. If no totalwidth of the directionaldistributionof the incomingwave
currentsare presentand the depth is stationary,this is readily spectrum).For this reason,the lateral boundariesshouldbe
done with a Thomasalgorithm[e.g.,Abbottand Basco,1989] sufficientlyfar away from the area of interest to avoid the
(ca = 0 and the submatrixis a simpletridiagonalmatrix). If propagationof this error into the area of interest.
currentsare presentor the depthis not stationary,the subma- 3.2.2. Tests of propagation. Ideally, the propagation
trix is a band matrix. It is solvedwith an iterative Incomplete scheme in SWAN should be free of numerical diffusion. How-
Lower and Upper Triangular Matrix Decomposition-Bi- ever,for longpropagationdistances (oceanicscales)the diffu-
Conjugate Gradient Stabilized (ILU-BiCGSTAB) method sion for the first-order implicit schemesof SWAN is fairly
[Vuik, 1993; Van der Vorst, 1992]. Restoringrefraction and large;but, sinceSWAN is primarilya coastalwavemodelwith
frequencyshiftingalso introducescoefficientsin each matrix shortpropagationdistances,the integrativeeffect of the diffu-
section(directionalquadrant)that causedependencybetween sionseemsto be acceptable.A full analysisof the diffusionin
the matrix sections.The samehappenswhen nonlinearsource both geographicand spectralspaceis fairly complicatedand
terms are added to the matrix. The basic matrix as a whole beyondthe scopeof this study(the diffusioncoefficientsin-
 BOOIJ ET AL.: A THIRD-GENERATION COASTAL WAVE MODEL, 1 7655

volvecombinationsof propagationspeedsand incrementsizes

in the five dimensions,t, x, y, 0-, and 0).
For the stationarymode of SWAN a rough theoreticalesti-
mate of the diffusionis readily made in geographicspacefor
constantdepth and no currents[e.g.,Roache,1972]. The co-
efficientfor diffusionin the y directionis
ß, • / / .
ß

=5 aY+ -Cy ax (7) ,

l//z
/1. ////
, ,• ////

To verify that SWAN properlyreproducesthis theoretically

estimateddiffusion,the model is used(without sourceterms)
., •.•//'- Hs(m)
in stationarymode for a harmonic,long-crestedwave propa-
gatingin deepwaterthrough
a 150(2)•/2
mwidegapat anangle
of 45øwith the positivex axis(Figure1). The (significant)wave
height in the gap is 1 m, and the frequencyis 0.1 Hz. The
b x
analyticalestimateof the diffusivespreadingin the y direction
(spatial
standard
deviation
% = (2Dyr)•/2)isshown
in Fig- Oy(m) SWAN
ure 1. In the SWAN computationthis harmonicwave is sim- 1500 analytical (b)
ulatedwith a Gaussian-shaped frequencyspectrumwith peak
1000
frequency0.1 Hz, standarddeviation0.01 Hz, and a resolution
of 3% of the frequency(diffusionin frequencyspacedoesnot 500
occurasca - 0 in this case,and the frequencyresolutionmay
therefore be somewhatcoarse).The long crestedness in this
(c)
computation
issimulated
witha cos
5øø(0) directional
distribu- 20b0 40b0 60b0 80b0x (m)
tion (the directionalwidth 0-0= 2.5ø,where 0-0is the standard
Figure 1. Numerical diffusionin geographicalspace.(top)
deviationof the directionaldistribution,definedby Kuik et al.
Computationalarea (10 km x 10 kin), isolinesof the signifi-
[1988],averagedoverall frequencies weightedwith the spectral
cantwaveheightH x with interval0.05m. Vectorsrepresentthe
densities).The resolutionsfix and Ay are both 100 m, and the
mean directionand magnitudeof energytransport.(bottom)
directionalresolutionis0.5ø. The spreading
of thesewaves(which
Spreading of the wave field expressedas the width of the
arenotperfectly
longcrested)is% = [2Dyr+ (2xtan0-0)2]1/2. spatialdistributionin the y direction.Lines representanalyti-
The agreementbetweenthis solutionand the computational cal solutionsfor long-crestedwaves,with numerical diffusion
isshownin Figure1 (errorin 0-ylessthan0.5%).Note (labeleda), withnumerical
results diffusion
andcos5øø(0) directional
that the wave directionremainsconstantsincein deepwater, distribution(labeledb), and no diffusion(labeledc). Crosses
c 0 = 0 and no diffusionoccursin 0 space. representthe SimulatingWaves Nearshore(SWAN) model
To test the propagationschemein the presenceof an am- results
(onlywithnumerical
diffusion
andcossøø(0) directional
distribution).
bient current, considerthe same wavespropagatingin deep
water from a uniform upwave boundary over a distance of
4000 m in a followingcurrentor an opposingcurrent of which
the speedU increases
from 0 to 2 m s-• in the downwave
direction (current direction 0ø or 180ø relative to the wave
/sin
(2
H =H,•s•-• 0,)
(20) (10)
direction). The analyticalsolution for this case is given by
Phillips[1977] and Jonsson[1993]
H2 c•
O=arccos
(to- Uk,cos
(O,)
)2 gk,
cos
(0,)] (11)

This analyticalsolution is also shown in Figure 2 with the

= c(c+ (8)
c, 2 +5 1+4 (9)
in which H and c are the wave height and group velocity,
respectively,and the subscripti denotesthe incident value.
Note that the wave directionremainsconstantsincec o - 0
(no refraction).This solutionis shownin Figure 2, where the
computationalresultsare alsoshownin termsof (significant)
wave height (same resolutionsand long crestedness as in the
abovediffusiontest, exceptthat the resolutionin x directionis
40 m and the frequencyresolutionis 1%). Current-induced
refraction(deepwater) is readilytestedby turningthe ambient
currentdirectionover90ø(eachvectorin the currentfield, not
the field as a whole) and the incidentwavesover 30ø (positive
or negative).The analyticalsolutionfor sucha caseis [e.g.,
Hedges,1987;Jonsson,1993]
resultsof the SWAN computationsin terms of (significant)
wave height (sameresolutionsand long crestedness as in the
abovepropagationtest). For all four of thesepropagationtests
with ambientcurrents,the computational errorsare small(less
than 0.5% for the significantwaveheightand lessthan 0.1øfor
the wave direction).
To test the propagationschemein shallowwater with vary-
ing depth (depth-inducedshoalingand refractionwithout cur-
rents),considerthe samewavespropagatingovera distanceof
4000 m toward a plane beachfrom 20-m water depth (slope
1:200). Shoalingis readily testedby propagatingthe waves
perpendicularlyto the shore. Depth-induced refraction is
readily added by turning the incidentwave direction over 30ø.
The analyticalsolutionof linear wave theory in terms of wave
height is given by
H2 c, cos(0,)
H,2= •-cos
(0• (12)
7656 BOOIJ ET AL.: A THIRD-GENERATION COASTAL WAVE MODEL, 1

Ys(m) O (o)
+ + SWAN 30
- - analytical
1.25
25

ß• 20

(o)
-30
0.75
-35

0.50 , , -40

0 1000 2000 3000 x (m) 0 1000 2000 3000 x (m)

Figure 2. Current-inducedshoalingandrefractionfor monochromatic, long-crestedwaves.(left) Significant

waveheightHs. (right)Meanwavedirection0. Linesrepresentanalyticalsolutions for wavestravelingagainst
an opposingcurrent(no refraction)(labeleda), with a followingcurrent(no refraction)(labeledb), (c) across
a slantingcurrent with incidentwave direction 0o = 30ø (labeled c), and acrossa slantingcurrentwith
incident
wavedirection
•o = -30ø (labeledd). Crosses
represent
theSWANresults.

where the wave direction is calculated with Snell's law. This other spectralcomponents.Sincetheseare only knownat the
analyticalsolutionis shownin Figure 3, wherethe resultsof the previousiteration leveln - 1, the coefficient4>is determinedat
SWAN computationsare also shownin termsof (significant) that iterationlevel:4>= qbn-•
waveheight(sameresolutionsand long crestedness as in the For positivesourceterms (wind input and the triad and
abovepropagationtest). The agreementwith linear theory is quadrupletwave-waveinteractionsif positive)the integration
again good.The errors are lessthan 0.1% in significantwave is generallymore stableif an explicitformulationis used(i.e.,
heightand lessthan 0.25ø in direction(for depthslarger than thesource
termdepends
onE n- • andnotonE •) ratherthan
0.05 m). an implicitformulation(i.e., the sourceterm dependsalsoon
E•). The explicitformulationfor thesesourcetermsin SWAN
3.3. Generation, Wave-Wave Interactions, and Dissipation is therefore
3.3.1. Implementation of source terms. The numerical
estimationsof the sourceterms in SWAN are essentiallyim- Sn• qbn-lE
•-1 (13)
plicit. This is achievedwith explicitor implicit approximations For reasonsof economythis explicitapproximationis alsoused
of the sourceterms,which in the limit of a large number of for the formulationof the quadrupletwave-waveinteractionsif
iterations(seesection3.2.1) are alwaysimplicit.In actualcom- negative.This is consideredreasonablesinceTolman [1992a]
putations,final convergenceis obviouslynever achievedand has shownthat usingan explicitformulationin combination
the estimationsof the source terms are therefore, strictly with a limiter (see below) givesresultssimilar to those of a
speaking,only approximatelyimplicit. In the following the more expensiveimplicit scheme(this implicit formulationis
adjectives"explicit"and "implicit"refer to the approximations also optionallyavailablein SWAN; in the WAM model it is
of the source terms within each iteration. indicatedas the semi-implicitscheme[W.4MDI Group, 1988;
The linear growth term .4 is independentof integralwave Komenet al., 1994]).
parametersand the energydensityand canthereforebe readily For negativesourcetermsthe integrationis generallymore
computed.All other sourceterms depend on energydensity, stableif. an implicit schemeis used.The stronglynonlinear,
and they canbe describedasa (quasi-)linearterm: S = qbE,in negativesourceterm of depth-inducedwave breakingat iter-
which 4>is a coefficientthat dependson (integral)wave pa- ationleveln is accordingly estimatedwith a linear approxima-
rameters(e.g., Etot, 0', k, o-, k, etc.) and action densitiesof tion:

Hs(m) + + SWAN
analytical
] 0(ø) 30
3

20

0 , , , -10
0 1000 2000 3000 x (m) 0 1000 2000 3000 x (m)

Figure3. Depth-induced shoaling

andrefractionfor monochromatic,
long-cre_sted
waveson a planebeach
(slope1:200).(left) Significant
wave_height
Hs. (right) Mean wavedirection0. Linesrepresentanalytical
solutions
for incident wavedirection0o = 0ø (labeleda) andincident
wavedirection•o = 30ø(labeledb).
Crossesrepresentthe SWAN results.
 BOOIJ ET AL.: A THIRD-GENERATION COASTAL WAVE MODEL, 1 7657

103
K&C
] SWAN
(WAM
3+)
..........
Wilson
•_;
.;;:.;;:';Z""'•..••
,r,-1I 'x"•',
'Z.....
10 1 . +++P&M
"/111"
'"': i•o "l -t,• • ,.,..,•

10 -1

ß .,

10-3 [:2',.I i i i i i l 10-3[ , , , , , ,

1
10 103 105 107 X* 101 103 105 107
Figure 4. Deepwaterfetch-limitedgrowthof (left) nondimensional
energyE* and (right) nondimensional
peakfrequency
fp asa function
of nondimensional
fetchX*. Analytical
expression
of KahmaandCalkoen
[1992](K&C), envelopeof observations
of Wilson[1965],and limit valuesof Piersonand Moskowitz[1964]
(P&M) are included.DashedlinesrepresentSWAN resultswith WAM cycle3 formulations,indicatedas
SWAN (WAM 3), andwith the addedlineargrowthterm,indicatedasSWAN (WAM 3+). The windspeed
isU•0 = 20ms -•.

where o/pM--- 0.0081 is the Phillips' "constant"of the Pierson

Sn'•tJi)n-lE
n-1q- •-• (En- E"-•). OS) (14) and Moskowitz[1964] spectrum.To retain the very rapid but
realisticdecreaseof wave energynear the shoredue to depth-
However, to achieveeven more stable computationsfor this inducedwavebreaking,this limiter is not appliedif the waves
sourceterm,the term rb'•- •E '•- • in thisformulationhasbeen actually break (in SWAN, Hmax/Hrm s > 0.5, with Hrms =
replaced
byrb'•- •E'• (makingtheformulation
somewhat
more (8Etot)1/2,whichimpliesa fractionofbreakers
Qt, > 0.00001;
implicitand thusmore robust;note that in the limit the solu- see the appendix).
tion is the same). Since this processof depth-inducedwave 3.3.2. Tests of sourceterms. In the following the source
breakinghas been formulatedsuchthat S - aStot and E - termsare testedby comparingcomputationalresultswith (gen-
aEtot (wherea isidenticalin bothexpressions;
seethe appendix), eralized) observations.
Sinceusuallymore than one formula-
the derivativeOS/OE is analyticallydeterminedas OStot/OEtot tion is available in SWAN for each sourceterm, these testswill
(wherethe total energyE tot and the total sourceStot are thebe usedto selectthe formulationthat providesthe best agree-
integralsover all frequenciesand directionsof E(cr, 0) and ment with theseobservations.The flexibilityof SWAN in this
Sds,br(cr,
0), respectively).For the other(mildlynonlinear) respectis thereforeusedhere to find the optimumchoiceof
negativesourceterms,i.e., whitecapping,bottom friction, and sourceterm formulation (within the scope of the available
negativetriad wave-waveinteractions,a similar accuracyof options).
estimatingS'• can be achievedwith the followingsimplerand To test the deepwatergenerationof the wavesin SWAN,
therefore
moreeconomical approximation inwhich(OS/OE)n-1of consideran idealizedcaseof a constantwind blowingperpen-
(14) hasbeenreplaced by (S/E)n-• dicularlyoff a long and straightcoastline.The dimensionless
total waveenergyE* = [72Etot/U*4 and dimensionless
peak
Sn• tJi)n-lEn-1
q- (En -- En-1). (15) frequencyfp = U,fp/# (wherefp isthepeakfrequency)asa
functionof dimensionless
fetchX* - #X/U.2 (whereX is the
With S = thE, this reducesto fetch)aregivenin Figure4 for windspeedU10= 20 m s-1
computedwith the WAM cycle3 formulations,with and with-
Sn• tJi)n-lEn. (16) out lineargrowthadded.A scalingwith the frictionvelocityU.
has been chosen here because the WAM formulations should
Theseapproximations for the sourcetermsare addedto the
elementsof the matrix for propagation.To suppressthe de- scalewith U.. The expression of Wu [1982]for convertingU1o
velopment of numerical instabilities, the maximum total into U. has been used wherever relevant. The expressionof
changeof action densityper iteration at each discretewave Kahmaand Calkoen[1992]and the limit valueof Piersonand
componentis limitedto a fractionof 10% of thePhillips[1957] Moskowitz[1964](asconvertedbyKomenet al. [1984]in terms
equilibriumlevel (reformulatedin termsof actiondensityand of U. insteadof the original U19.s) are alsogiven.To extend
wavenumberto be applicablein shallowwater, asin the WAM the observationalinformationto very short fetches(for wind
model and in the WAVEWATCH model [Tolman,1992a]: generationbehind barrier islands),the envelopeof the data
compiledby Wilson[1965,Figure 15] is added(for the conver-
o. 10/pM'IT sionof his dimensionlessparametersan averagewind speedin
I/x/(rr,
0)lmax-
2z'o-
k3½g (17) his observations
of U1o = 15 m s-1 is assumed).
Figure4
'7658 BOOIJ ET AL.: A THIRD-GENERATION COASTAL WAVE MODEL, 1

lO 3

lO -1
10 1 -

10-2_
10-1_

10-3 ! i 10-• ' i i i ! ! !

*
10] 103 105 107 X lO1 lO3 lO5 lO7 X*
Figure 5. Same as Figure 4, exceptwith WAM cycle4 formulationsused.Lines representthe computations
with the original coefficientof Janssen[1991b](Cds = 4.5), indicatedas SWAN (WAM 4) and with the
retunedcoefficient(Cds = 3.0), indicatedas SWAN (WAM 4*).

showsthat the agreementis good between the SWAN results increasesonly 5% when the WAM cycle 3 formulationsare
on the one hand and the expressions of Kahma and Calkoen used.This is consistentwith the findingsof Tolman[1992a].To
[1992]and the limit valuesof Piersonand Moskowitz[1964]on achieve a better agreement with the Piersonand Moskowitz
theother.However, forveryshortfetches (X* < 104,say)the [1964] limit values,the coefficientCdissin the expressionfor
model with linear growthadded overestimatesthe total energy whitecappingof Janssen[1991b] (Cdiss-- 4.5, Janssen's nota-
and, correspondingly, underestimatesthe peak frequencyas tion) wasretunedwith the resultsthat Cdiss-- 3.0 (remarkably
comparedwith the data of Wilson[1965].This overestimation, closeto the value of 2.6 as initially usedby Janssen[1991a]).
respectively,underestimation,at very smallfetchesis ascribed The requiredPiersonand Moskowitz[1964] limit valueswere
to the linear growthterm A becauseat very short fetchesthe thusobtained(seeFigure 5), but (1) the total energyis signif-
low frequenciesshowrelativelyhigh levelsof energy(incom- icantlyoverestimatedat very shortfetchesand underestimated
patible with the shape of the JONSWAP spectrum[Hassel- at larger fetches,(2) the peak frequencyis correspondingly
mann et al., 1973]).A possiblereasonis that the expressionof significantlyunderestimatedat short fetches(but not at very
Cavaleriand Malanotte-Rizzoli[1981] is usedfor all spectral large fetches),and (3) spuriousoscillationsare introducedat
components (above the Pierson and Moskowitz [1964] (very)largefetches.In view of thisratherpoor agreement,only
frequency),whereasit is strictlyvalid only near the resonance the WAM cycle3 formulationsare used in the following.
frequencies(varyingwith spectraldirection). Removingthis Figure 6 showssomeof the spectracomputedwith SWAN in
linear growth improves the agreement over a much larger the abovecasewith WAM cycle3 formulations.The overshoot
range of fetches, as shown in Figure 4. For this reason, the is not as pronouncedas in observations(e.g., during JON-
linear growthis omitted in the following(but not in the first- SWAP [Hasselmann et al., 1973]) or computedwith exactcom-
guessstart of the stationarymode of SWAN; in the nonsta- putationsof the quadrupletwave-waveinteractions[Hassel-
tionary mode a low initial sea state is assumed). mann and Hasselmann,1981; SWAMP Group, 1985]. This
As noted earlier, the results of Youngand Banner [1992] result is similar to that of the WAM model with its cycle 3
suggestthat some effectsare to be expectedof usinga fixed formulations[seeKomenet al., 1984].
cutoff frequencyin SWAN rather than a dynamiccutoff fre- To test the implementationof the triad wave-waveinterac-
quencyas in the WAM model. However,the aboveagreement tions (the LTA formulationof Eldeberky[1996]), considera
with the observations suggestsno suchsensitivity in SWAN (at one-dimensional casein whichthe wavespropagatefrom deep
least not for the WAM cycle3 formulations).A possibleex- water over a submergedbar without breaking but with the
planationis that Youngand Banner[1992] usedother approx- generationof a significant,secondaryhigh-frequency peak in
imationsfor the wind input and for computingthe quadruplet the spectrum.This situationhasbeen observedBeji and Battjes
wave-wave interactions (Yah [1987] and Resio and Petrie [1993] in a flume (Figure 7). In the SWAN computationsthe
[1991], respectively). observedspectrumis imposedat the first wavegauge1 (i.e., a
The deepwatergrowth curvesof SWAN as computedwith JONSWAP spectrumwith a significantwave height of H s =
the WAM cycle 4 formulations (without the linear growth 0.02 m and a peakfrequency of fp = 0.50 Hz). The long-
in Figure crestedness
term)for a windspeedof U1o= 20 m s-1 areshown issimulated
asbeforewitha cos
søø(0) directional
5. In contrastto the resultswith the WAM cycle3 formula- distribution,and the computationsare carried out without
tions, these results do not agree well with the generalized quadrupletwave-waveinteractions(see section2.5). It was
observations. Again, this may be due to the useof a fixedcutoff verified that the computationalresultsare insensitiveto bot-
frequencyrather than a dynamic cutoff frequency.One indi- tom friction and depth-inducedbreakingin the computations.
cationof thisis that changingthe cutofffrequencyin the WAM The computationalresultsshownin Figure 8 agreewell with
cycle4 formulationsfrom 1 to 1.5 Hz increasesthe significant the observations.However, the evolution of the secondary
waveheightin the fully developedsituationby 16%, whereasit peak is fairly insensitivefor the value of the proportionality
 BOOIJ ET AL.' A THIRD-GENERATION COASTAL WAVE MODEL, 1 7659

E (m2/I•)

, -.................
4.1x105 5
............ 9.1x10
6
............ 2.0x10
75 - 6
............ 4.8x10
6
6.8x10

50 -

I
25 -
l
/
I

0
d,J
!
.,/•
.... ! -oø !

o.o 0.1 0.2 f (Hz)

Figure 6. Deepwaterwave spectraat variousdimensionless

fetchescomputedby SWAN with WAM cycle
3 formulations.
Thewindspeedis 20 m s-•.

coefficientO/EBin the expressionof Eldeberky[1996] (see the observationsand the computedresultsis good for both
(A7)), whichwasvariedbetween0.125and0.5 (seeFigure8). formulationswith nearly identicalresults.The constantvalue
Thisisprobablydueto the factthatthe shape'of the observed of 3' = 0.73 is usedin the following.
spectraover the bar is practicallyan equilibriumshapefor To test bottom friction, considerthe generationof wavesin
triad wave-waveinteractionsin the expressionof Eldeberky an idealized situation in shallow water. The situation is the
[1996](the interactionsin the LTA formulationare zerowhen sameas the aboveidealizeddeepwaterwind generationsitua-
the spectrallevel at the base frequencyis twice the spectral tion, exceptthat the water depthd is limited and constant.The
levelof its secondharmonic).On the otherhand,the evolution computationscan be comparedwith the expressionsof the
of the primary peak is sensitiveto variationsin O/EBand the CoastalEngineering ResearchCenter(CERC) [1973]and Young
resultssuggestthat, in this respect,a compromiseis obtained and Verhagen[1996a] and the envelopeof observationsre-
with aEB = 0.25. This value is therefore used in all following viewedby Holthuijsen[1980];seeFigure 10, where the dimen-
computations. sionless
parameters
are• = g2Etot/Ulo
4 , •p = fpUlo/gand
To testthe implementationof depth-inducedbreaking,con- • = #d/U•o.Theexpression
forthepeakfrequency of CERC
sider a one-dimensionalcasein which the wavespropagate [1973] is obtainedhere by assumingthat the peak period is
from deep water into shallowwater to the beach acrossa equalto the significantperiodasusedin the CERC expression
bar-troughprofile with violent wave breaking.This situation (thisseemsproperasthe spectrumis ratherpeakedin shallow
has been observedby Battjesand Janssen[1978] in another water[Youngand Verhagen, 1996b]).The SWAN computations
flume (Figure 9). The incidentwavespectrumin this experi- in these idealized conditions are carried out with the formula-
ment is a JONSWAP spectrumwith significantwave height tionsof WAM cycle3 adaptedfor shallowwaterwith either(1)
0.20 m and a peak frequency0.53 Hz. The long crestedness is the JONSWAP bottom friction coefficient(Hasselmannet al.
simulated
asbeforewitha cos
søø(0) directional
distribution, [1973]withShottom
-- 0.067m2 s-3 asproposed
byBouwsand
andfor the samereasonasabove,the computationsare carried Komen[1983]for wind seaconditions)or (2) the Collins[1972]
out withoutquadrupletwave-waveinteractions(but with triad model(withCf = 0.015 assuggested
byCollins[1972]or the
wave-waveinteractions).Again,bottomfrictionwasverifiedto Madsenet al. [1988] model with the bottom roughnesslength
be insignificant.The resultsof the computationsare given in scaleKN in the expressionfor the friction factorf,• of Jonsson
Figure9 for the constantbreakerparameter3,= 0.73 of Battjes [1980];KN = 0.05 m as proposedby Tolman [1991]). The
and Stive[1985] and the (clipped)variablebreakerparameter computationalresultsare shownin Figure 10. Theseresultsare
3,of Nelson[1987, 1994] (also (A5)). The agreementbetween very similar for all three bottom friction models, and they

waves 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 stations
. • I I I I I } I

Figure 7. Experimentalsetupof the Beji andBattjes[1993]laboratoryexperimentwith the locationsof the

sevenwavegauges.All lengthsare expressedin meters.
7660 BOOIJ ET AL.: A THIRD-GENERATION COASTAL WAVE MODEL, 1

1.5 station 2 station 3

)
0.5

0.0

station 4 station 5

1.0

0.5

0.0

station 6 Beji& Battjes station

7
........ aEB--0.125
1.0 ....... aœB=0.25
...........ttEB= 0.5
0.5

0.0
0.5 1. 1.5 2. 0. 0.5 1. 1.5 2.

f (Hz) f (Hz)

Figure 8. The spectralevolutionof randomwavespropagating overthe submerged bar at the locations

of
the wavegaugesin the flumeexperimentof Beji and Battjes[1993].Solidlinesrepresentobservedspectra.
Dashedlinesrepresentspectracalculatedby SWAN for proportionalitycoefficient
aEB= 0.125,aEB= 0.25,
and aEB = 0.5, where EB denotesthe expression
of Eldeberky[1996].

agreereasonably wellwith the expressions

of CERC [1973]and Taylorand Lee [1984], as proposedby Youngand Verhagen
Youngand Verhagen[1996a]andthe datacompiledbyHolthuij- [1996a]. (It obviouslydoes not resolvethe anomalouswave
sen[1980].However,thistestis inconclusiveasto a preference observations.) Owingto seasonalvariationsand wind effects,
for one of these three models becausein very shallowwater variationsin water depth were observed,which, in turn, af-
(• < 0.1, say),themodelsof ttasselmann et al. [1973]and fected considerablythe location of the upwind (northern)
Collins[1972]seemto perform slightlybetter than the model shore. To avoid this uncertainty in the fetch, the upwave
of Madsenet al. [1988],whereasthe reverseis true for deeper boundaryfor the wave model is chosento be a straightline,
water. Additionalcomputationsare thereforecarriedout for throughstation1, and normal to the wind direction.In the
fetch-limited,shallow-watersituationsin Lake George (near computations the incidentwave conditionalongthis upwave
Canberra,Australia),whereYoungand Verhagen [1996a,b, c]
carried out observations in nearly ideal conditions. Lake
Georgeis a fairly shallowlake with a smooth,nearlyflat bot- •(m)
tom of fine clay(no ripples,depthabout2 m; seeFigure11). . . . Battjes & Janssen
0.20
It is approximately20 km long and 10 km wide. A seriesof •.. y con•tant
•. .............. y variable
eight observationstationswas situatedalongthe north-south
axis of the lake. At station 6 the wind velocity Uho and the
0.15 •t",,,,,
•t
directionalwavespectrumweremeasured.From the extensive
0.10
datasetthreetypicalcaseswere selected,i.e.,with a lowwind
speedof Uho= 6.4 m s-h, a mediumwindspeedof Uho= 0.05
10.8 m s-h, anda highwindspeedof U1o= 15.2 m s-h from
northerlydirections(within 20øfrom the alignmentof stations
1 through6). Figure 12 showsthe observedsignificant wave 1 2I 34
I I [5•617; 19Poll [ 13
1 12 I Stations
heightH s andpeakfrequency
fp at the eightstations
for the Waves
three cases.Note that the observationsdo not alwaysshow a
monotonicbehaviorof the waves,suggesting unresolvedvari-
ationsin the wind field (e.g.,betweenstations6 and 8 in the
0.75
low-wind-speed caseand at station7 of the high-wind-speed
case).YoungandVerhagen [1996a]alsofounda variationin the Figure 9. Depth-inducedwave breakingas observedin the
wind speed along the north-southaxis of the lake. It was flumeexperimentof BattjesandJanssen [1978]andcalculated
systematic,and it is ascribedto the developmentof an atmo- with SWAN with the breakingparameterconstant[Battjesand
sphericboundarylayer from the upwindcoast.This variation Stive,1995](•, = 0.73,solidline) andvariable(modifiedNelson
hasbeen calculatedin the presentstudywith the expression of [1987,1994],•, = analyticalexpression,
dashedline).
 BOOIJ ET AL.: A THIRD-GENERATION COASTAL WAVE MODEL, 1 7661

fp * ß ß Hasselmann
etal.
10-3_
SWAN•
.o .o Madsen
Collinset al.

10-4
lO0
10-5

10-6 '• .......... Young&Verhagen

......... CERC
• Holthuijsen
10-7 10_
1 I '•....•.
10-2 10-1 100 d 10-2 10-1 100 d
Figure10. Shallow-water
limit(infinitefetch)of (left)nondimensional
totalenergy• and(right)nondi-
mensional
peakfrequency
fp asa functionof nondimensional depthd. Dashedlinesrepresent
the analytical
expressionsof CoastalEngineering
ResearchCenter(CERC) [1973] and Youngand Vethagen[1996a]. Lines
representthe envelopeof observations
reviewedby Holthuijsen[1980].SWAN resultsare computedwith the
bottomfrictionformulationsof Hasselmann
etal. [1973](withCbottom = 0.067m2 s-3), Collins[1972](with
bottomfrictioncoefficient
Cf = 0.015), andMadsen etal. [1988](withbottomroughness lengthscaleK•v=
0.05 m).

boundaryis taken to be the observedfrequencyspectrumat

stationi with an assumed
cos2 (0) directionaldistribution
around the wind direction.
The computationshave been carried out with the sameval-
uesof the frictioncoefficientsasabove,exceptthat the value of
bottom roughnessK•v was 0.001 m to accountfor the smooth
characterof the bottom of Lake George. The computational
,2 resultsfor all three bottom dissipationmodelsagreewell with
the observations(except at the above indicated anomalous
,3 observations).The rms error is less than 10% for both the
significantwave height and the peak frequency(ignoringthe
anomalousobservationat station8 in the low-windcase).The
JONSWAP formulationof Hasselmannet al. [1973]performed
,5 best,with an rms error of 7% (for both significantwave height
and meanwaveperiod). The resultsobtainedwith this formu-
,6 lation are shownin Figure 12.
As the inclusionof depth-inducedbreakingand triad wave-
wave interactionsin modelsfor shallow-waterwave growth is
not conventional,the computationsfor the idealized shallow-
water caseshave been repeated with either one or the other
deactivated(usingthe JONSWAP bottomfrictionformulation
,7 withCbottom
: 0.067m2 s-3). It appears
thatthe triadwave-
wave interactionshave practicallyno effect on the significant
waveheightor on the peak frequency(not visibleon the scale
of Figure 13). The effect of deactivatingthe depth-induced
breakingis shownin Figure 13, where it is evidentthat only the
significantwaveheightis slightlyaffectedin very shallowwater.
The effect is generallylessthan that of changingthe formula-
tion of friction formulation(comparewith Figure 10).

• 50Om
ad 0.Sm 4. Discussion and Conclusions
A third-generation wave model, called Simulating Waves
Figure 11. Bathymetryof Lake George (Australia) and lo- Nearshore(SWAN), has been developedfor wave computa-
cationsof the eight observationstations(stars). tionsin coastalregions(shallowwaterwith ambientcurrents).
7662 BOOIJ ET AL.: A THIRD-GENERATION COASTAL WAVE MODEL, 1

Hs(m) f•Otz) , observations

0.3 - UIO-6.4m/s
+ SWAN
0.75

0.2 -
0.50

0.1 -
0.25

0.0

Hs(m)
UlO- 10.4m/s
0.75
0.4 -

0.3 - 0.50

0.2 -
0.25 -
0.1 -

Hs(m) f•Otz)
UlO- 15.2m/s
0.6 - 0.75 -
+

0.4 - 0.50 -

0.2 - 0.25 -

0.0 ..... , , , 0.0 , , , , , , , , '

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
stations stations

Figure12. Observed
andcomputed
(left)significant
waveheight
Hsand(right)peakfrequencyfp
in nearly
idealgeneration
conditions
at the eightstations
in LakeGeorgefor threeselected
cases(U•o = 6.4, 10.4,
and15.2m s-• fromnortherly
directions).
SWANresults,
shown
at allstations,
arein some
cases
(nearly)
identical to the observations.

"*"'-'- fP * withB&J
10-3_ o without

10.4

10-5

10-6 gert
........ CERC I
10'7 I •,, [0-1 I I
10 -2 10-i 100 d 10-2 10-1 100 d
Figure 13. SameasFigure10,but for computations with the JointNorthSeaWaveProject(JONSWAP)
bottomfrictionformulationof Hasselmann et al. [1973],with bottom-induced
breaking(spectral
versionof
BattjesandJanssen[1978])activatedand deactivated in the SWAN computations.
 BOOIJ ET AL.: A THIRD-GENERATION COASTAL WAVE MODEL, 1 '7663

This has been achievedby (1) extendingthe formulationsof [Youngand Perhagen,1996a]showeda slightpreferencefor the
the WAM wavemodelfor deepwater and intermediate-depth JONSWAP formulation of Hasselmannet al. [1973].
water [WAMDI Group, 1988;Komenet al., 1994] by adding SWAN seemsto representfairly well the state of the art in
formulationsfor depth-inducedwavebreakingand triad wave- coastal wave modeling (within the class of linear, phase-
wave interactionsand (2) by usingunconditionallystablenu- averagedmodelswith nonlinearsourcesand sinksbut without
mericaltechniquesthat are particularlysuitedfor small-scale, diffraction).In the aboveacademiccasesthe model performs
shallow-water,high-resolutioncomputations.SWAN thus ac- well, indicatinga proper numericalimplementation.However,
countsfor the propagationof waveenergy(linear wave theory these tests are rather limited in their parameter range, and
for nonstationarywater depthsand currents),while the pro- further academic testing is still necessary.More important,
cessesof generationand dissipationare accountedfor with perhaps,are testsin real field conditions.A first seriesof such
third-generationformulations(windgeneration,whitecapping, field testsis describedin a sequelpaper [Riset al., this issue].
triad and quadrupletwave-waveinteractions,bottom friction, Since SWAN is a third-generationmodel in which all pro-
and depth-induced wavebreaking).The formulationfor triad cessesof generation,propagation,and dissipationare explicitly
wave-waveinteractionsand depth-induced wavebreaking[El- modeled, it offers the opportunityto absorbfuture basic de-
deberky,1996;EMeberkyand Battjes,1995]are new for thistype velopmentsin the understandingof thesephysicalprocesses.
of wave model. SWAN does not account for diffraction. The model is well suited for this sinceit is strictlyand logically
The numerical schemes that are used in SWAN are also new modular (e.g., each sourceterm in its own subroutine).To
for thistypeof model.They are implicitrather than explicitas encourageits use for suchdevelopmentsand for operational
in other wave models such as the WAM model. The basic purposes,SWAN hasbeenreleasedin the publicdomain(see
reasonfor this choiceis that implicitschemespermit relatively acknowledgments).
large time steps(limited only by accuracy).This is advanta-
geousin high-resolution situationswhere the time stepwould
otherwise(for explicitschemes)be 1 or 2 orderssmaller(and Appendix
require correspondingly more computationaleffort). In sta- The completeexpressions for depth-induceddissipationand
tionarymode,time is removedfrom the model as an indepen- the triad wave-wave interactions that are used in SWAN are
dent variable, allowing even more economic computations. given herein.
The propagationschemein SWAN is fairly diffusive,but since
the model is intendedto be usedon smallscalesonly (coastal A1. Depth-Induced Wave Breaking
regionswith horizontalscalesof lessthan25 km), the effectsof
this are deemed to be acceptable. To model the energy dissipationin random wavesdue to
Propagationtestswith shoalingand refractionin deep and depth-inducedbreaking,the bore-basedmodel of Battjesand
shallow water with and without ambient currents show excel- Janssen[1978]is used.The meanrate of energydissipationper
lent agreementwith analyticalsolutions.In idealizeddeepwa- unit horizontalarea due to wave breakingSds,br,to t is ex-
ter wind generationconditions,the computationalresultsof pressedas
SWAN with the WAM cycle 3 formulationsfor wind input,
quadrupletwave-waveinteractions,and whitecappingagree Sds,br,
tot
-- --• OI
BjQ
b• H}, (A1)
very well with the expressions of Kahtnaand Calkoen[1992],
the data compiledby Wilson[1965], and the limit values of in which O/Bj-- 1 in SWAN and Q b is the fractionof breaking
Piersonand Moskowitz[1964]. This is not the case for the wavesdeterminedby
resultswith the WAM cycle 4 formulations[Komenet al.,
1 - Qb Etot
1994].This is possiblydue to the differentchoiceof frequency
that separatesthe prognosticpart of the spectrumfrom the lnQ• =-8 Hm2, (A2)
high-frequency diagnosticpart. A testfor the triad wave-wave in whichHm is the maximumwave height that can existat the
interactionsshowsgoodagreementwith the laboratoryobser- givendepth and 6-is a mean frequencydefinedas
vations of Befi and Batties [1993]. However, this test is not
totallyconclusive in the sensethat the modelresultsare fairly
insensitiveto largechangesin the proportionalitycoefficientof •r = Et•• rrE(o-, 0) drr cO. (A3)
the expression of triad wave-waveinteractionsthat was used
[Eldeberky,
1996].Fortunately,the exactvalue of this coeffi-
cient seems to be irrelevant for the wave evolution in the cases Extendingthe expressionof Eldeberkyand Batties[1995] to
considered in this study. A similarly good agreement is include the spectraldirections,the dissipationfor a spectral
achievedin the test for depth-inducedbreaking where the componentper unit time is calculatedwith
computationalresultsare comparedwith laboratoryobserva- Sds,br,
tot
tionsof Battiesand Janssen[1978].This test indicatesa slight O)= - --EtotE(rr,
Sds,br(O', 0) (A4)
preferencefor a constantratio of maximumindividualwave
heightover depth (•, = 0.73). The maximumwave height H m is determinedwith H m --
A bottom friction test, based on generalized fetch- •,d, in which •, is the breakerparameter(the steepness depen-
independent,shallow-waterobservations (dimensionless rep- dencyin the Battjesand Janssen[1978]modelis ignoredhere,
resentation)and with all of the aboveprocesses plus bottom as this steepnesseffect is assumedto be representedby the
friction active in the model, was inconclusive as to the best whitecappingprocess).In the literaturethisbreakerparameter
formulationfor the bottomfrictiondissipation[Hasselmann et •, is often a constantor it is expressedas a functionof bottom
al., 1973;Collins,1972;Madsenet al., 1988].Further testswith slopeor incidentwavesteepness [see,e.g.,Galvin,1972;Batties
fetch-limited, shallow-water observations in Lake George and Janssen,1978;Battjesand Stive,1985;Arcilla and Letnos,
7664 BOOIJ ET AL.: A THIRD-GENERATION
1990; Kaminskyand Kraus, 1993; Nelson, 1987, 1994]. Since
SWAN is locally defined, the dependencyon incident wave
steepness cannotbe used.Instead,the other two options(con-
stantvalue or bottom slopedependent)are usedto determine
the value of the breaker parameter.
Battjes and Janssen[1978], who describe the dissipation
model, use a constantbreaker parameter, based on Miche's
criterion, of 3/= 0.8. Battjesand Stive [1985] reanalyzedwave
data of a number of laboratory and field experimentsand
found values for the breaker parameter varying between 0.6
and 0.83 for differenttypesof bathymetry(plane,bar trough,
and bar), with an averageof 0.73. From a compilationof a
large number of experiments,Kaminsky and Kraus [1993]
found breaker parametersin the range of 0.6 to 1.59, with an
averageof 0.79. Nelson [1987, 1994, 1997] also (re-)analyzed
laboratoryand field wave data and found breaker parameters
in the rangeof 0.55 (for horizontalbottoms)to 1.33 (for very
steep slopes).He suggestedthe followingexpressionfor the
breakerparameterfor a slopingbottom (note that in the work
of Nelson [1994, equation (4)] the constant0.88 is missingin
the expressionof 3/ (R. Nelson, personal communication,
1996):
3/= Hm/d - 0.55 + 0.88 exp [-0.012 cot (/3)], (A5)
in which/3is the localbottom slopein the meanwavedirection.
This expressionis basedon direct observationsof the ratio of
the observed maximum individual wave height over local
depth. However, it does not fit the data that Nelson used
particularlywell for 0.01 </3 < 0.1 [Nelson,1987,Figure 4]. In
SWAN the expression is thereforecut off (clipped)at/3 = 0.01 number97PR02231-00),and the Ministry of Transport,PublicWorks
(maximumvalue for 3/ = 0.81). The bottom slope /3 in this
expressionis estimatedin SWAN in the mean wave direction
with a first-orderupwindscheme.Sinceno informationseems
to be availablefor negativebottom slopes(e.g., behind sand References
bars),the constantvalue of 3/= 0.73 is usedfor suchslopes.In
SWAN both the constantvalue of 3/= 0.73 (the averagevalue Abbott, M. B., and D. R. Basco,ComputationalFluid Dynamics,425
of Battjesand Stive[1985, Table 1]) and the (clipped) slope- Abreu, M., A. Larraza, and E. Thornton, Nonlinear transformation of
dependentexpressionof Nelson [1987] are available.
A2. Triad Wave-Wave Interactions
The lumpedtriad approximation(LTA) of Eldeberky[1966], Arcilla, A. S., J. A. Roelvink, B. A. O'Connor, A. J. H. M. Reniers, and
whichis a slightlyadaptedversionof the discretetriad approx- J. A. Jimenez,The Delta flume '93 experiment,paper presentedat
imation of Eldeberkyand Battjes [1995] is used in SWAN in
each spectraldirection: Banner,M. L., and I. R. Young, Modellingspectraldissipationin the
S,3((r, 0)= S,;)3(o-,
0)+ S,)3(o
-, 0) (A6)
with
S•)3(o
-, 0) = max{0, CrEB2rrCC•J
2 [sin(t)l
ß[E2(rr/2, 0)- 2E(rr/2, O)E(rr, 0)]} (A7)
S•)3(o-,0)--2S•33(2o-, 0) (A8)
in which a•B is a tunable proportionalitycoefficient.The bi-
phase/3 is approximatedwith
/3= - 2-+ 2-tanh •rr (A9)
with Ursell number Ur
!7 Hs•2
Ur=8X/2-rr
2 d2 (A10)
COASTAL WAVE MODEL, 1
with7' = 2rr/6-.Thetriadwave-wave
interactions
areignored
for Ur < 0.1. The interaction coefficient J is taken from
Madsenand SOrensen
[1993]:
k2•/2(gd
+ 2c2•/2)
J= (gd+ -•-2gd3k2o
kod 2rr2d2
.- •- ) (All)
Acknowledgments.We wish to acknowledgethat in termsof basic
concepts,we standon the shouldersof the WAM Group, from whom
we gleanedmany of our ideas.This group is too large to mention all
members(they are listedbyKomenet al. [1994]),but we want to thank
Gerbrand Komen of the Royal Netherlands MeteorologicalInstitute
and Klaus Hasselmannof the Max-Planck-Institutf/Jr Meteorology,
Hamburg,for their inspirationalrole. We alsowant to thankKlausand
Suzanne Hasselmannfor their permissionto use the code of the
discreteinteractionapproximationof the quadrupletwave-waveinter-
actions.It wassomewhatmodifiedby Hendrik Tolman of the National
OceanicandAtmosphericAdministration(United States),who shared
these modifications with us. We thank him for this and also for the
many discussions that we have had with him on the intricaciesof
numerical wave modeling. We were very fortunate to have accessto
the original data of the Lake George experimentof Ian Young and
LouisVerhagen, Universityof New SouthWales, Canberra,Australia,
whom we herebythank for their generosity.JurjenBattjesof the Delft
Universityof Technologygave us the benefit of his enthusiasticsup-
port and his well-foundedsuggestions in the courseof this study.We
thank him for this. We also thank him and Yasser Eldeberky for
sharing their findings on triad wave-waveinteractionsin the early
stagesof their work on this subject.We are grateful to Cees Vuik of
Delft University of Technology, whose source code of the ILU-
CGSTAB solveris usedin SWAN. With the sponsorshipof the Office
of Naval Research(United States),undergrantN00014-97-1-0113(PR
and Water Management(Netherlands),SWAN hasbeen releasedin
the publicdomain(http://swan.ct.tudelft.nl).
pp., JohnWiley, New York, 1989.
directional wave spectra in shallow water, J. Geophys.Res., 97,
15,579-15,589, 1992.
Arcilla, A. S., and C. M. Lemos, Surf-ZoneHydrodynamics, 310 pp.,
Cent. Int. de Mdtodos Numer. en Ing., Barcelona,Spain, 1990.
CoastalDynamicsConference'94, Am. Soc.of Civ. Eng., Barcelona,
Spain, 1994.
evolution of wind waves,I, Assessmentof existingmodel perfor-
mance,J. Phys.Oceanogr.,24, 1550-1571, 1994.
Battjes,J. A., and S. Beji, Breakingwavespropagatingover a shoal,in
Proceedings of 23rd InternationalConferenceon CoastalEngineering,
pp. 42-50, Am. Soc.of Civ. Eng., New York, 1992.
Battjes,J. A., and J.P. F. M. Janssen,Energy lossand set-updue to
breakingof randomwaves,in Proceedings of 16th InternationalCon-
ferenceon CoastalEngineering, pp. 569-587, Am. Soc.of Civ. Eng.,
New York, 1978.
Battjes, J. A., and M. J. F. Stive, Calibration and verification of a
dissipationmodel for random breaking waves,J. Geophys.Res.,
90(C5), 9159-9167, 1985.
Battjes,J. A., M. Isaacson,and M. Quick (Eds.), Shallowwater wave
modelling,in Proceedings of Waves-Physical and NumericalModel-
ling, pp. 1-24, Univ. of B.C., Vancouver,1994.
Beji, S., and J. A. Battjes,Experimentalinvestigationof wave propa-
gation over a bar, CoastalEng., 19, 151-162, 1993.
Benoit, M., F. Marcos, and F. Becq, Development of a third-
generation shallow-waterwave model with unstructuredspatial
meshing,in Proceedings of 25th InternationalConferenceon Coastal
Engineering,pp. 465-478, Am. Soc. of Civ. Eng., New York, 1996.
Berkhoff,J. C. W., Computationof combinedrefraction-diffraction, in
 BOOIJ ET AL.: A THIRD-GENERATION COASTAL WAVE MODEL, 1 7665

Proceedings of 13th InternationalConferenceon CoastalEngineering, transferfor applicationin wavemodels,J. Phys.Oceanogr.,15, 1378-

pp. 471-490, Am. Soc. of Civ. Eng., New York, 1972. 1391, 1985.
Bertotti, L., and L. Cavaleri,Accuracyof wind and wave evaluationin Hedges, T. S., Combination of waves and currents:An introduction,
coastalregions,in Proceedings of 24th International Conferenceon Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng., Part 1, 82, 567-585, 1987.
CoastalEngineering,pp. 57-67, Am. Soc. of Civ. Eng., New York, Holthuijsen,L. H., Methods of wave prediction,I and II (in Dutch),
1994. report Tech. Adv. Comm. Against Inundation, Den Haag, Nether-
Booij, N., L. H. Holthuijsen,and P. H. M. de Lange, The penetration lands, 1980.
of short-crestedwavesthrough a gap, in Proceedings of 23rd Inter- Holthuijsen,L. H., and S. De Boer, Wave forecastingfor movingand
national Conferenceon CoastalEngineering,pp. 1044-1052, Am. stationarytargets,in ComputerModellingin OceanEngineering,ed-
Soc. of Civ. Eng., New York, 1992. ited by B. Y. Schreflerand O. C. Zienkiewicz,pp. 231-234, A. A.
Bouws, E., and G. J. Komen, On the balance between growth and Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1988.
dissipationin an extreme, depth-limited wind-sea in the southern Holthuijsen,L. H., N. Booij, and T. H. C. Herbers, A predictionmodel
North Sea,J. Phys.Oceanogr.,13, 1653-1658, 1983. for stationary, short-crestedwaves in shallow water with ambient
Cardone,V. J., W. J. Pierson,and E.G. Ward, Hindcastingthe direc- currents,CoastalEng., 13, 23-54, 1989.
tional spectra of hurricane-generatedwaves,J. Pet. Technol.,28, Janssen,P. A. E. M., Quasi-linear theory of wind-wave generation
385-394, 1976. applied to wave forecasting,J. Phys. Oceanogr.,21, 1631-1642,
Cavaleri, L., and P. Malanotte-Rizzoli, Wind wave predictionin shal- 1991a.
low water: Theory and applications,J. Geophys.Res., 86(Cll), Janssen,P. A. E. M., Consequencesof the effect of surfacegravity
10,961-10,973, 1981. waveson the meanair flow,paperpresentedat BreakingWaves,Int.
Chen, Y., R. T. Guza, and S. Elgar, Modelling of breaking surface Union of Theor. and Appl. Mech., Sydney,Australia, 1991b.
wavesin shallowwater, J. Geophys.Res.,102(Cll), 25,035-25,046, Jonsson,I. G., Wave boundarylayersand friction factors,in Proceed-
1997. ings of loth InternationalConferenceon CoastalEngineering,pp.
Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC), Shore Protection 127-148, Am. Soc. of Civ. Eng., New York, 1966.
Manual, Tech.Rep. 4, vol. I, U.S. Army Corps of Eng., Fort Belvoir, Jonsson,I. G., A new approachto rough turbulent boundarylayers,
Va., 1973. Ocean Eng., 7, 109-152, 1980.
Collins, J. I., Prediction of shallowwater spectra,J. Geophys.Res., Jonsson,I. G., Wave current interactions,in The Sea, OceanEng. Sci.
77(15), 2693-2707,1972. Set.,vol. 9, part A, edited by B. Le Mehaute and D. M. Hanes, pp.
Dingemans,M. W., WaterWavePropagationOver UnevenBottoms,part 65-70, John Wiley, New York, 1993.
1, Linear WavePropagation,,4dv. Set. OceanEng., vol. 13, 471 pp., Jonsson,I. G., and N. A. Carlsen,Experimentaland theoreticalinves-
World Sci., River Edge, N.J., 1997. tigationsin an oscillatoryturbulentboundarylayer,J. Hydraul.Res.,
Eldeberky,Y., Nonlinear transformationof wave spectrain the near- 14, 45-60, 1976.
shore zone, Ph.D. thesis, Dep. of Eng., Delft Univ. of Technol., Kahma, K. K., and C. J. Calkoen, Reconcilingdiscrepanciesin the
Delft, Netherlands, 1996. observedgrowth of wind-generatedwaves,J. Phys. Oceanogr.,22,
Eldeberky,Y., and J. A. Batties,Parameterizationof triad interactions 1389-1405, 1992.
in wave energymodels,paper presentedat CoastalDynamicsCon- Kaminsky,G. M., and N. C. Kraus,Evaluationof depth-limitedwave
ference '95, Am. Soc. of Civ. Eng., Gdansk,Poland, 1995. breakingcriteria, paper presentedat 2nd InternationalSymposium
Eldeberky,Y., and J. A. Batties,Spectralmodellingof wave breaking: on Ocean Wave Measurement and Analysis,Waterw., Port, Coastal
Application to Boussinesqequations,J. Geophys.Res., 101(C1), and Ocean Div., Am. Soc. of Civ. Eng., New Orleans, La., 1993.
1253-1264, 1996. Kirby, J. T., Higher-order approximationin the parabolic equation
Elgar, S., R. T. Guza, B. Raubenheimer,T. H. C. Herbers, and E. L. methodfor water waves,J. Geophys.Res.,91(C1), 933-952, 1986.
Gallagher,Spectralevolutionof shoalingand breakingwaveson a Komen, G. J., S. Hasselmann, and K. Hasselmann, On the existence of
barred beach,J. Geophys.Res.,102(C7), 15,797-15,805,1997. a fully developedwind-sea spectrum,J. Phys.Oceanogr.,14, 1271-
Ewing, J. A., A numerical wave prediction method for the North 1285, 1984.
Atlantic Ocean,Dtsch.Hydrogr.Z., 24(6), 241-261, 1971. Komen, G. J., L. Cavaleri, M. Donelan, K. Hasselmann, S. Hassel-
Freilich, M. H., and R. T. Guza, Nonlinear effectson shoalingsurface mann, and P. A. E. M. Janssen,Dynamicsand Modellingof Ocean
gravitywaves,Philos. Trans.R. Soc. London, Set..4, .4311, 1-41, Waves,532 pp., CambridgeUniv. Press,New York, 1994.
1984. Kuik, A. J., G. P. van Vledder, and L. H. Holthuijsen, A method for
Galvin, C. J., WaveBreakingin ShallowWater,Waveson Beachesand the routine analysisof pitch-and-rollbuoywave data,J. Phys.Ocean-
ResultingSedimentTransport,pp. 413-455, Academic, San Diego, ogr., 18, 1020-1034, 1988.
Calif., 1972. Li, C. W., and M. Mao, Spectral modelling of typhoon-generated
Gelci, R., H. Cazal•, and J. Vassal, Utilization des diagrammesde wavesin shallowwaters,J. Hydraul. Res., 30, 611-622, 1992.
propagation
hla provision
•nerg•tique
dela houle(inFrench),
Info. Luo, W., and J. Monbaliu, Effects of the bottom friction formulation
Bull. 8(4), pp. 160-197, Com. Cent. d'Oc•anogr.et d'Etudesdes on the energybalancefor gravitywavesin shallowwater,J. Geophys.
C6tes, Paris, 1956. Res.,99(C9), 18,501-18,511,1994.
Golub, G. H., and C. F. van Loan, Matrix Computations,476 pp., Madsen, O. S., Y.-K. Poon, and H. C. Graber, Spectralwave attenu-
Academic, San Diego, Calif., 1986. ation by bottom friction:Theory,in Proceedings
of 21thInternational
Gtinther, H., S. Hasselmann, and P. A. E. M. Janssen, The WAM Conferenceon CoastalEngineering,pp. 492-504, Am. Soc. of Civ.
model cycle 4 (revisedversion), Tech.Rep. 4, Deutsch.Klimatol. Eng., New York, 1988.
Rechenzentrum,Hamburg, Germany, 1992. Madsen, P. A., and O. R. SOrensen,A new form of the Boussinesq
Hasselmann,K., On the spectraldissipationof ocean waves due to equationswith improvedlinear dispersioncharacteristics,
2, A slow-
whitecapping,Bound.-layerMeteor.,6, 1-2, 107-127, 1974. ly-varyingbathymetry,CoastalEng., 18, 183-205, 1992.
Hasselmann,K., and J. I. Collins,Spectraldissipationof finite-depth Madsen, P. A., and O. R. SOrensen, Bound waves and triad interac-
gravitywavesdue to turbulentbottomfriction,J. Mar. Res.,26, 1-12, tions in shallowwater, OceanEng., 20, 359-388, 1993.
1968. Mase, H., and J. T. Kirby, Hybrid frequency-domainKdV equationfor
Hasselmann,S., and K. Hasselmann,A symmetricalmethod of com- random wave transformation, in Proceedingsof 23rd International
puting the non-lineartransferin a gravity-wavespectrum,Geophys. Conferenceon CoastalEngineering,pp. 474-487, Am. Soc. of Civ.
Einzelschr.,Set..4, 52(8), Geophys.Inst., Univ. of Hamburg,Ham- Eng., New York, 1992.
burg, Germany, 1981. Mastenbroek,C., G. Burgers,and P. A. E. M. Janssen,The dynamical
Hasselmann,K., et al., Measurementsof wind-wave growth and swell coupling of a wave model in a storm surge model through the
decayduringthe JointNorth SeaWave Project(JONSWAP),Dtsch. atmosphericboundary layer, J. Phys. Oceanogr.,23, 1856-1866,
Hydrogr.Z. Suppl.,12(A8), 1-95, 1973. 1993.
Hasselmann,K., D. B. Ross,P. Mtiller, and W. Sell, A parametricwave Miles, J. W., On the generationof surfacewavesby shearflows,J. Fluid
predictionmodel, J. Phys.Oceanogr.,6, 200-228, 1976. Mech., 3, 185-204, 1957.
Hasselmann, S., K. Hasselmann, J. H. Allender, and T. P. Barnett, Miles, J. W., Hamiltonian formulationsfor surfacewaves,Appl. Sci.
Computationsandparameterizations of the linear energytransferin Res., 37, 103-110, 1981.
a gravity wave spectrum, II, Parameterizationsof the nonlinear Nelson, R. C., Design wave heightson very mild slopes:An experi-
7666 BOOIJ ET AL.: A THIRD-GENERATION
mental study,Civil. Eng. Trans.29, pp. 157-161, Inst. of Eng. Aust.,
Barton, 1987.
Nelson,R. C., Depth limited wave heightsin very flat regions,Coastal
Eng., 23, 43-59, 1994.
Nelson, R. C., Height limits in top down and bottom up wave envi-
ronments,CoastalEng., 32, 247-254, 1997.
Peregrine,D. H., Long waveson a beach,J. Fluid Mech., 27, 815-827,
1966.
Phillips,O. M., On the generationof wavesby turbulentwind, J. Fluid
Mech., 2, 417-445, 1957.
Phillips,O. M., The Dynamicsof the UpperOcean,336 pp., Cambridge
Univ. Press, New York, 1977.
Phillips,O. M., Spectraland statisticalpropertiesof the equilibrium
rangein wind-generatedgravitywaves,J. Fluid Mech., 156, 505-531,
1985.
Pierson,W. J., and L. Moskowitz,A proposedspectralform for fully
developedwind seasbasedon the similaritytheory of S. A. Kitaig-
orodskii,J. Geophys.Res.,69(24), 5181-5190, 1964.
Piest,J., Seegangsbestimmung und Seegangsrefraktion in einem Meer
mit nichtebenemBoden; eine theoretischeUntersuchung(in Ger-
man), Dtsch.Hydrogr.Z., 18, 67-74, 1965.
Radder, A. C., On the parabolic equation method for water-wave
propagation,J. Fluid Mech., 95, 159-176, 1979.
Radder, A. C., An explicit Hamiltonian formulation of surfacewaves
in water of finite depth, J. Fluid Mech., 237, 435-455, 1992.
Resio,D., and W. Perrie, A numericalstudyof nonlinearenergyfluxes
due to wave-waveinteractions,I, Methodologyand basicresults,J.
Fluid Mech., 223, 609-629, 1991.
Ris, R. C., L. H. Holthuijsen, and N. Booij, A third-generationwave
model for coastalregions,2, Verification,J. Geophys.Res.,this issue.
Roache, P. J., ComputationalFluid Dynamics,446 pp., Hermosa,Al-
buquerque,N.M., 1972.
Shemdin, P., K. Hasselmann, S. V. Hsiao, and K. Herterich, Non-
linear and linear bottom interaction effects in shallow water, in
TurbulentFluxesThroughthe Sea Surface,WaveDynamicsand Pre-
diction,NATO Conf Ser.,vol. V(1), 347-372, 1978.
Snyder, R. L., F. W. Dobson, J. A. Elliott, and R. B. Long, Array
measurementof atmosphericpressurefluctuationsabove surface
gravitywaves,J. Fluid Mech., 102, 1-59, 1981.
SWAMP Group, OceanWaveModelling,256 pp., Plenum,New York,
1985.
Taylor, P. A., and R. J. Lee, Simple guidelinesfor estimatingwind
speedvariationsdue to small-scaletopographicfeatures,Climatol.
Bull., 18, 3-32, 1984.
Thornton, E. B., and R. T. Guza, Transformation of wave height
distribution,J. Geophys.Res.,88(C10), 5925-5938, 1983.
Tolman, H. L., A third-generationmodel for wind waves on slowly
varying,unsteadyand inhomogeneous depthsand currents,J. Phys.
Oceanogr.,21, 782-797, 1991.
Tolman, H. L., Effects of numericson the physicsin a third-generation
wind-wavemodel, J. Phys.Oceanogr.,22, 1095-1111, 1992a.
Tolman, H. L., An evaluation of expressionsfor the wave energy
dissipation due to bottom friction in the presence of currents,
CoastalEng., 16, 165-179, 1992b.
Van der Vorst, H. A., Bi-CGSTAB: A fast and smoothlyconverging
variant of Bi-CG for solutionof non-symmetriclinear systems,SIAM
J. Sci. Star. Cornput.,13, 631-644, 1992.
Van Vledder, G. P., J. G. de Ronde, and M. J. F. Stive, Performance
COASTAL WAVE MODEL, 1
of a spectralwind-wavemodel in shallowwater, in Proceedings of
24th InternationalConferenceon CoastalEngineering,pp. 761-774,
Am. Soc. of Civ. Eng., New York, 1994.
Vincent, C. L., J. M. Smith, and J. Davis, Parameterization of wave
breaking in models, in Proceedingsof International Symposium:
Waves--PhysicalandNumericalModelling,vol. 2, editedby M. Isaac-
son and M. Quick, pp. 753-762, Univ. of B.C., Vancouver,1994.
Vuik, C., Solution of the discretizedincompressibleNavier-Stokes
equationswith the GMRES method,Int. J. Numer. MethodsFluids,
16, 507-523, 1993.
WAMDI Group, The WAM model--A third generationoceanwave
predictionmodel, J. Phys.Oceanogr.,18, 1775-1810, 1988.
Weber, S. L., Surface gravity waves and turbulent bottom friction,
Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands, 1989.
Weber, S. L., Bottom friction for wind sea and swellin extremedepth-
limited situations,J. Phys.Oceanogr.,21, 149-172, 1991a.
Weber, S. L., Eddy-viscosityand drag-law models for random ocean
wave dissipation,J. Fluid Mech., 232, 73-98, 1991b.
Whitham, G. B., Linear and Nonlinear Waves,636 pp., John Wiley,
New York, 1974.
Wilson, B. W., Numerical prediction of ocean waves in the North
Atlantic for December 1959, Dtsch.Hydrogr.Z., 18, 114-130, 1965.
Wu, J., Wind-stress coefficients over sea surface from breeze to hur-
ricane,J. Geophys.Res.,87(C12), 9704-9706, 1982.
Yamaguchi, M., A numerical model for refraction computationof
irregular waves due to time-varyingcurrents and water depth, in
Proceedingsof 22ndInternationalConference on CoastalEngineering,
pp. 205-217, Am. Soc. of Civ. Eng., 1990.
Yan, L., An improved wind input source term for third generation
oceanwave modelling,Sci.Rep. WR 87-8, R. Neth. Meteorol. Inst.,
De Bilt, 1987.
Young, I. R., A shallowwater spectralwave model, J. Geophys.Res.,
93(C5), 5113-5129, 1988.
Young, I. R., and M. L. Banner, Numerical experimentson the evo-
lution of fetch limited waves, paper presented at Int. Union of
Theor. and Appl. Mech. (IUTAM), Sydney,Australia, 1992.
Young, I. R., and G. P. van Vledder, A review of the central role of
nonlinear interactions in wind-wave evolution, Philos. Trans. R. Soc.
London, Ser. A, 342, 505-524, 1993.
Young, I. R., and L. A. Verhagen, The growth of fetch limited waves
in water of finite depth, 1, Total energyand peak frequency,Coastal
Eng., 29, 47-78, 1996a.
Young, I. R., and L. A. Verhagen, The growth of fetch limited waves
in water of finite depth, 2, Spectral evolution, Coastal Eng., 29,
79-99, 1996b.
Young, I. R., and L. A. Verhagen, The growth of fetch limited waves
in water of finite depth, 3, Directional spectra, CoastalEng., 29,
101-121, 1996c.
N. Booij and L. H. Holthuijsen(correspondingauthor), Facultyof
CivilEngineering,Delft Universityof Technology,
Stevinweg1, 2628CN,
Delft, Netherlands.(N.Booij@ct.tudelft.nl;
L. Hølthuijsen@ct'tudelft'nl)
R. C. Ris, WL/Delft Hydraulics, Rotterdamseweg185, 2629 HD,
Delft, Netherlands.(Røeland'Ris@wldelft'nl)
(ReceivedJune 16, 1997;revisedMarch 3, 1998;
acceptedMay 29, 1998.)