Characteristics of turbulent boundary layers over a rough bed under saw-tooth

waves and its application to sediment transport

by
SUNTOYO*
Department of Ocean Engineering, Faculty of Marine Technology,
Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (ITS), Surabaya 60111, Indonesia
* Corresponding author: Department of Civil Engineering, Tohoku University
6-6-06 Aoba, Sendai 980-8579, Japan, e-mail: suntoyo@kasen1.civil.tohoku.ac.jp
Hitoshi TANAKA
Department of Civil Engineering, Tohoku University
6-6-06 Aoba, Sendai 980-8579, Japan, e-mail: tanaka@tsunami2.civil.tohoku.ac.jp
Ahmad SANA
Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Sultan Qaboos University
P.O. Box 33, AL-KHOD 123, Sultanate of Oman, e-mail: sana@squ.edu.om

Abstract
A large number of studies have been done dealing with sinusoidal wave boundary layers in the past.
However, ocean waves often have a strong asymmetric shape especially in shallow water, and net of
sediment movement occurs. It is envisaged that bottom shear stress and sediment transport behaviors
influenced by the effect of asymmetry are different from those in sinusoidal waves. Characteristics of the
turbulent boundary layer under breaking waves (saw-tooth) are investigated and described through both
laboratory and numerical experiments. A new calculation method for bottom shear stress based on
velocity and acceleration terms, theoretical phase difference, and the acceleration coefficient, ac
expressing the wave skew-ness effect for saw-tooth waves is proposed. The acceleration coefficient was
determined empirically from both experimental and baseline k- model results. The new calculation has
shown better agreement with the experimental data along a wave cycle for all saw-tooth wave cases
compared by other existing methods. It was further applied into sediment transport rate calculation
induced by skew waves. Sediment transport rate was formulated by using the existing sheet flow
sediment transport rate data under skew waves by Watanabe and Sato (2004). Moreover, the
characteristics of the net sediment transport were also examined and a good agreement between the
proposed method and experimental data has been found.
Keywords: Turbulent boundary layers, sheet flow, sediment transport, skew waves, saw-tooth waves.

1.

Introduction

Many researchers have studied turbulent boundary layers and bottom friction through laboratory
experiments and numerical models. The experimental studies have contributed significantly towards
understanding of turbulent behavior of sinusoidal oscillatory boundary layers over smooth and rough bed
(e.g., Jonsson and Carlsen, 1976; Tanaka et al., 1983; Sleath, 1987, Jensen et al, 1989). These studies
explained how the turbulence is generated in the near-bed region either through the shear layer instability
or turbulence bursting phenomenon. Such studies included measurement of the velocity profiles, bottom
shear stress and some included turbulence intensity. An extensive series of measurements and analysis for
the smooth bed boundary layer under sinusoidal waves has been presented by Hino et al. (1983). Jensen et
al. (1989) carried out a detailed experimental study on turbulent oscillatory boundary layers over smooth
as well as rough bed under sinusoidal waves. Moreover, Sana and Tanaka (2000) and Sana and Shuy
(2002) have compared the direct numerical simulation (DNS) data for sinusoidal oscillatory boundary
layer on smooth bed with various two-equation turbulence models and, a quantitative comparison has
been made to choose the best model for specific purpose. However, these models were not applied to
predict the turbulent properties for asymmetric waves over rough beds.
Many studies on wave boundary layer and bottom friction associated with sediment movement
induced by sinusoidal wave motion have been done (e.g., Fredse and Deigaard, 1992). These studies
have shown that the net sediment transport over a complete wave cycle is zero. In reality, however ocean
waves often have a strongly non-linear shape with respect to horizontal axes. Therefore it is envisaged
that turbulent structure, bottom shear stress and sediment transport behaviors are different from those in
sinusoidal waves due to the effect of acceleration caused by the skew-ness of the wave.
Tanaka (1988) estimated the bottom shear stress under non-linear wave by modified stream
function theory and proposed formula to predict bed load transport except near the surf zone in which the
acceleration effect plays an important role. Schffer and Svendsen (1986) presented the saw-tooth wave
as a wave profile expressing wave-breaking situation. Moreover, Nielsen (1992) proposed a bottom shear
stress formula incorporating both velocity and acceleration terms for calculating sediment transport rate
based on the Kings (1991) saw-tooth wave experiments with the phase difference of 45o. Recently,
Nielsen (2002), Nielsen and Callaghan (2003) and Nielsen (2006) applied a modified version of the
formula proposed by Nielsen (1992) and applied it to predict sediment transport rate with various

experimental data. They have shown that the phase difference between free stream velocity and bottom
shear stress used to evaluate the sediment transport is from 40o up to 51o. Whereas, many researchers e.g.
Fredse and Deigaard (1992), Jonsson and Carlsen (1976), Tanaka and Thu (1994) have shown that the
phase difference for laminar flow is 45o and drops from 45o to about 10o in the turbulent flow condition.
However, Sleath (1987) and Dick and Sleath (1991) observed that the phase difference and shear stress
were depended on the cross-stream distance from the bed, z for the mobile roughness bed. It is envisaged
that the phase difference calculated at base of sheet flow layer may be very close to 90o, while the phase
difference just above undisturbed level may only 10 20o and the phase difference about 51o as the best
fit value obtained by Nielsen (2006) may be occurred at some depth below the undisturbed level.
More recently, Gonzalez-Rodriguez and Madsen (2007) presented a simple conceptual model to
compute bottom shear stress under asymmetric and skewed waves. The model used a time-varying
friction factor and a time-varying phase difference assumed to be the linear interpolation in time between
the values calculated at the crest and trough. However, this model does not parameterize the fluid
acceleration effect or the horizontal pressure gradients acting on the sediment particle. Moreover, this
model under predicted most of Watanabe and Satos (2004) experimental data induced by skew waves or
acceleration-asymmetric waves.
Hsu and Hanes (2004) examined in detail the effects of wave profile on sediment transport using
a two-phase model. They have shown that the sheet flow response to flow forcing typical of asymmetric
and skewed waves indicates a net sediment transport in the direction of wave propagation. However, for a
predictive near-shore morphological model, a more efficient approach to calculate the bottom shear stress
is needed for practical applications. Moreover, investigation of a more reliable calculation method to
estimate the time-variation of bottom shear stress and that of turbulent boundary layer under saw-tooth
wave over rough bed have not been done as yet. Bottom shear stress estimation is the most important step,
which is required as an input to the practical sediment transport models. Therefore, the estimation of
bottom shear stress from a sinusoidal wave is of limited value in connection with the sediment transport
estimation unless the acceleration effect is incorporated therein.
In the present study, the characteristics of turbulent boundary layers under saw-tooth waves are
investigated experimentally and numerically. Laboratory experiments were conducted in an oscillating
tunnel over rough bed with air as the working fluid and smoke particles as tracers. The velocity

distributions were measured by means of Laser Doppler Velocimeter (LDV). The baseline (BSL) k-
model proposed by Menter (1994) was also employed to and the experimental data was used for model
verification. Moreover, a quantitative comparison between turbulence model and experimental data was
made. A new calculation method for bottom shear stress is proposed incorporating both velocity and
acceleration terms. In this method a new acceleration coefficient, ac and a phase difference empirical
formula were proposed to express the effect of wave skew-ness on the bottom shear stress under sawtooth waves. The proposed ac constant was determined empirically from both experimental and the BSL
k- model results. The new calculation method of bottom shear stress under saw-tooth wave was further
applied to calculate sediment transport rate induced by skew or saw-tooth waves. Sediment transport rate
was formulated by using the existing sheet flow sediment transport rate data under skew waves by
Watanabe and Sato (2004). Moreover, the acceleration effect on both the bottom shear stress and
sediment transport under skew waves were examined.
2.
2.1.

Experimental Study
Turbulent Boundary Layer Experiments

Turbulent boundary layer flow experiments under saw-tooth waves were carried out in an oscillating
tunnel using air as the working fluid. The experimental system consists of the oscillatory flow generation
unit and a flow-measuring unit. The saw-tooth wave profile used is as presented by Schffer and
Svendsen (1986) by smoothing the sharp crest and trough parts. The definition sketch for saw-tooth wave
after smoothing is shown in Fig. 1. Here, Umax is the velocity at wave crest, T is wave period, tp is time
interval measured from the zero-up cross point to wave crest in the time variation of free stream velocity,
t is time and is the wave skew-ness parameter. The smaller indicate more wave skew-ness, while the
sinusoidal wave (without skew-ness) would have = 0.50.
The oscillatory flow generation unit comprises of signal control and processing components and
piston mechanism. The piston displacement signal is fed into the instrument through a PC. Input digital
signal is then converted to corresponding analog data through a digital-analog (DA) converter. A
servomotor, connected through a servomotor driver, is driven by the analog signal. The piston mechanism
has been mounted on a screw bar, which is connected to the servomotor. The feed-back on piston
displacement, from one instant to the next, has been obtained through a potentiometer that compared the
position of the piston at every instant to the input signal, and subsequently adjusted the servomotor driver

for position at the next instant. The measured flow velocity record was collected by means of an A/D
converter at 10 millisecond intervals, and the mean velocity profile variation was obtained by averaging
over 50 wave cycles. According to Sleath (1987) at least 50 wave cycles are needed to successfully
compute statistical quantities for turbulent condition. A schematic diagram of the experimental set-up is
shown in Fig. 2.
The flow-measuring unit comprises of a wind tunnel and one component Laser Doppler
Velocimeter (LDV) for flow measurement. Velocity measurements were carried out at 20 points in the
vertical direction at the central part of the wind tunnel. The wind tunnel has a length of 5 m and the height
and width of the cross-section are 20 cm and 10 cm, respectively (Fig. 2). These dimensions of the crosssection of wind tunnel were selected in order to minimize the effect of sidewalls on flow velocity. The
triangular roughness having a height of 5 mm (a roughness height, Hr = 5 mm) and 10 mm width was
pasted over the bottom surface of the wind tunnel at a spacing of 12 mm along the wind tunnel, as shown
in Fig. 3. Moreover, it was confirmed that the velocity measurement at the center of the roughness and at
the flaking off region around the roughness has shown a similar flow distribution as shown in Jonsson
and Carlsen (1976).
These roughness elements protrude out of the viscous sub-layer at high Reynolds numbers. This
causes a wake behind each roughness element, and the shear stress is transmitted to the bottom by the
pressure drag on the roughness elements. Viscosity becomes irrelevant for determining either the velocity
distribution or the overall drag on the surface. And the velocity distribution near a rough bed for steady
flow is logarithmic. Therefore the usual log-law can be used to estimate the time variation of bottom
shear stress (t) over rough bed as shown by previous studies e.g., Jonsson and Carlsen (1976), Hino et al.
(1983), Jensen et. al (1989), Fredse and Deigaard (1992) and Fredse et. al (1999). Moreover, some
previous studies (e.g., Jonsson and Carlsen (1976), Hino et al. (1983), and Sana et al. (2006)) also have
shown that the values of bottom shear stress computed from the usual log-law and the momentum integral
methods gave a quite similar, especially by virtue of the phase difference in crest and trough values of the
shear stress. Nevertheless, this usual log-law may be under estimated by as much as 20% up to 60% in
accelerating flow and overestimated by as much as 20% up to 80% in decelerating flow, respectively, for
unsteady flow as shown by Soulsby and Dyer (1981). The usual log-law should be modified by

incorporating velocity and acceleration terms to estimate the bed shear stress for unsteady flow, as given
by Soulsby and Dyer (1981).
Experiments have been carried out for four cases under saw-tooth waves. The experimental
conditions of present study are given in Table 1. The maximum velocity was kept almost 400 cm/s for all
the cases. The Reynolds number magnitude defined for each case has sufficed to locate these cases in the
rough turbulent regime. Here, v is the kinematics viscosity, am/ks is the roughness parameter, ks,
Nikuradses equivalent roughness defined as ks=30zo in which zo is the roughness height, am=Umax/, the
orbital amplitude of fluid just above the boundary layer, where, Umax, the velocity at wave crest, , the
angular frequency, T, wave period, S (= Uo/(zh)), the reciprocal of the Strouhal number, zh, the distance
from the wall to the axis of symmetry of the measurement section.
2.2.

Sediment Transport Experiment

The experimental data from Watanabe and Sato (2004) for oscillatory sheet flow sediment transport under
skew waves motion were used in the present study. The flow velocity wave profile was the acceleration
asymmetric or skew wave profile obtained from the time variations of acceleration of first-order cnoidal
wave theory by integration with respect to time. These experiments consist of 33 cases. Three values of
the wave skew-ness () were used; 0.453, 0.400 and 0.320. Moreover, the maximum flow velocity at free
stream, Umax ranges from 0.72 to 1.45 m/s. The sediment median diameters are d50 =0.20 mm and
d50=0.74 mm and the wave periods are T=3.0s and T=5.0s.
3.

Turbulence Model

For the 1-D incompressible unsteady flow, the equation of motion within the boundary layer can be
expressed as

u
1 p 1
=
+
t
x z

(1)

At the axis of symmetry or outside boundary layer u = U, therefore

u U 1
=
+
t
t z

(2)

For turbulent flow,

u
=
u ' v'

(3)

The Reynolds stress u 'v' may be expressed as u ' v' = vt (u / z ) , where t is the eddy viscosity.
And equation (3) became,

u
= ( + t )

(4)

For practical computations, turbulent flows are commonly computed by the Navier-Stokes equation in
averaged form. However, the averaging process gives rise to the new unknown term representing the
transport of mean momentum and heat flux by fluctuating quantities. In order to determine these
quantities, turbulence models are required. Two-equation turbulence models are complete turbulence
models that fall in the class of eddy viscosity models (models which are based on a turbulent eddy
viscosity are called as eddy viscosity models). Two transport equations are derived describing transport of
two scalars, for example the turbulent kinetic energy k and its dissipation . The Reynolds stress tensor is
then computed using an assumption, which relates the Reynolds stress tensor to the velocity gradients and
an eddy viscosity. While in one-equation turbulence models (incomplete turbulence model), the transport
equation is solved for a turbulent quantity (i.e. the turbulent kinetic energy, k) and a second turbulent
quantity is obtained from algebraic expression. In the present paper the base line (BSL) k- model was
used to evaluate the turbulent properties to compare with the experimental data.
The baseline (BSL) model is one of the two-equation turbulence models proposed by Menter
(1994). The basic idea of the BSL k- model is to retain the robust and accurate formulation of the
Wilcox k- model in the near wall region, and to take advantage of the free stream independence of the k-

model in the outer part of boundary layer. It means that this model is designed to give results similar to
those of the original k- model of Wilcox, but without its strong dependency on arbitrary free stream of
values. Therefore, the BSL k- model gives results similar to the k- model of Wilcox (1988) in the inner
part of boundary layer but changes gradually to the k- model of Jones-Launder (1972) towards to the
outer boundary layer and the free stream velocity. In order to be able to perform the computations within
one set of equations, the Jones-Launder model was first transformed into the k- formulation. The
blending between the two regions is done by a blending function F1 changing gradually from one to zero
in the desired region. The governing equations of the transport equation for turbulent kinetic energy k and
the dissipation of the turbulent kinetic energy from the BSL model as mentioned before are,

k

k
u
*
=
(v + vt k ) + vt k
t z
z
z

(5)

1 k
u
2
=
+ 2 (1 F1 ) 2
(v + v t )
+
z z
t
z
z
z

(6)

From k and , the eddy viscosity can be calculated as

t =

(7)

where, the values of the model constants are given as k = 0.5, * = 0.09, =0.5, = 0.553 and =
0.075 respectively, and F1 is a blending function, given as:

( )

F1 = arg14

(8)

k
500v 4 2 k
arg1 = min max
;
;

0.09z 2
2

z
CD
z

(9)

where,

here, z is the distance to the next surface and CDk is the positive portion of the cross-diffusion term of Eq.
(6) defined as

1 k 20

CDk = max 2 2
,10

z z

(10)

Thus, Eqs. (2), (5) and (6) were solved simultaneously after normalizing by using the free stream velocity,
U, angular frequency, kinematics viscosity, and zh.
3.1. Boundary conditions
Non slip boundary conditions were used for velocity and turbulent kinetic energy on the wall (u = k =0)
and at the axis of symmetry of the oscillating tunnel, the gradients of velocity, turbulent kinetic energy
and specific dissipation rate were equated to zero, (at z = zh, u/z = k/z = /z = 0). The k- model
provides a natural way to incorporate the effects of surface roughness through the surface boundary
condition. The effect of roughness was introduced through the wall boundary condition of Wilcox (1988),
in which this equation was originally recognized by Saffman (1970), given as follow,

w = U * S R /

(11)

where w is the surface boundary condition of the specific dissipation at the wall in which the turbulent
kinetic energy k reduces to 0, U * = o / is friction velocity and the parameter SR is related to the
grain-roughness Reynolds number, ks+ = ks(U*/v),
2

100
+
+
50
S R = for ks < 25 and SR = + for ks 25
+
k
ks
s

(12)

The instantaneous bottom shear stress can be determined using Eq. (4), in which the eddy
viscosity was obtained by solving the transport equation for turbulent kinetic energy k and the dissipation
of the turbulent kinetic energy in Eq. (7). While, the instantaneous value of u (z,t) and vt can be
obtained numerically from Eqs. (1) (7) with the proper boundary conditions.

3.2. Numerical Method

A Crank-Nicolson type implicit finite-difference scheme was used to solve the dimensionless non-linear
governing equations. In order to achieve better accuracy near the wall, the grid spacing was allowed to
increase exponentially in the cross-stream direction to get fine resolution near the wall. The first grid
point was placed at a distance of z1 = (r-1) zh/(rn-1), where r is the ratio between two consecutive grid
spaces and n is total number of grid points. The value of r was selected such that z1 should be
sufficiently small in order to maintain fine resolution near the wall. In this study, the value of

z1 is

given equal to 0.0042 cm from the wall which correspond to z+ = zU*/v = 0.01. It may be noted that in k-
model where wall function method is used to describe roughness the first grid point should be lie in the
logarithmic region and corresponding boundary conditions should be applied for k and . In the k-
model, as explained before the effect of roughness can be simply incorporated using Eq. (9). In space 100
and in time 7200 steps per wave cycle were used. The convergence was achieved through two stages; the
first stage of convergence was based on the dimensionless values of u, k and at every time instant
during a wave cycle. Second stage of convergence was based on the maximum wall shear stress in a wave
cycle. The convergence limit was set to 1 x 10-6 for both the stages.

4. Mean Velocity Distributions

Mean velocity profiles in a rough turbulent boundary layer under saw-tooth waves at selected phases were
compared with the BSL k- model for the cases SK2 and SK4 presented in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively.
The solid line showed the turbulence model prediction while open and closed circles showed the
experimental data for mean velocity profile distribution. The experimental data and the turbulence model
show that the velocity overshoot is much influenced by the effect of acceleration and the velocity
magnitude. The difference of the acceleration between the crest and trough phases is significant. The
velocity overshooting is higher in the crest phase than the trough as shown at phase B and F for Case SK2
( = 0.363). As expected this difference is not visible for symmetric case (Case SK4) ( = 0.500).
Moreover, the asymmetry of the flow velocity can be observed in phase A and E. Due to the higher
acceleration at phase A the velocity overshooting is more distinguished in the wall vicinity.
The BSL k- model could predict the mean velocity very well in the whole wave cycle of
asymmetric case. Moreover, it predicted the velocity overshooting satisfactorily (Fig. 4). For symmetrc
case (Case SK4) as well the model prediction is excellent. A similar result was obtained by Sana and
Shuy (2002) using DNS data for model verification.

5. Prediction of Turbulence Intensity

The fluctuating velocity in x-direction u can be approximated using equation (13) that is a relationship
derived from experimental data for steady flow by Nezu (1977),

u ' = 1.052 k

(13)

where k is the turbulent kinetic energy obtained in the turbulence model.

Comparison made on the basis of approximation to calculate the fluctuating velocity by Nezu
(1977) may not be applicable in the whole range of cross-stream dimension since it is based on the
assumption of isotropic turbulence. This assumption may be valid far from the wall, where the flow is
practically isotropic, whereas the flow in the region near the wall is essentially non-isotropic. The BSL k-

model can predict very well the turbulent intensity across the depth almost all at phases, but, near the
wall underestimates at phases A, C, D and E (Case SK2) and at phases A, C, D, E and H (Case SK3) as
shown in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively. However, the model qualitatively reproduces the turbulence
generation and mixing-processes very well.

10

6. Bottom Shear Stress

6.1. Experimental Results

Bottom shear stress is estimated by using the logarithmic velocity distribution given in equation (14),

u=

U* z
ln
z 0

where, u is the flow velocity in the boundary layer,

(14)

is the von Karmans constant (=0.4), z is the cross-

stream distance from theoretical bed level (z = y + z) (Fig. 3). For a smooth bottom zo=0, but for rough
bottom, the elevation of theoretical bed level is not a single value above the actual bed surface. The value
of zo for the fully rough turbulent flow is obtained by extrapolation of the logarithmic velocity distribution
above the bed to the value of z = zo where u vanishes. The temporal variations of z and zo are obtained
from the extrapolation results of the logarithmic velocity distribution on the fitting a straight line of the
logarithmic distribution through a set of velocity profile data at the selected phases angle for each case.
These obtained values of z and zo are then averaged to get zo = 0.05 cm for all cases and z = 0.015 cm,

z = 0.012 cm, z = 0.023 cm and z = 0.011 cm, for Case SK1, Case SK2, Case SK3 and Case SK4,
respectively. The bottom roughness, ks can be obtained by applying the Nikuradses equivalent roughness
in which zo = ks/30. By plotting u against ln(z/z0), a straight line is drawn through the experimental data,
the value of friction velocity, U* can be obtained from the slope of this line and bottom shear stress, o
can then be obtained. The obtained value of z and zo as the above mentioned has a sufficient accuracy
for application of logarithmic law in a wide range of velocity profiles near the bottom. Suzuki et al.
(2002) have given the details of this method and found good accuracy.
Fig. 8 shows the time-variation of bottom shear stress under saw-tooth waves with the variation
in the wave skew-ness parameter . It can be seen that the bottom shear stress under saw-tooth waves has
an asymmetric shape during crest and trough phases. The asymmetry of bottom shear stress is caused by
wave skew-ness effect corresponding with acceleration effect. The increase in wave skew-ness causes an
increase the asymmetry of bottom shear stress. The wave without skew-ness shows a symmetric shape, as
seen in Case SK4 for = 0.500 (Fig. 8).
6.2. Calculation Methods of Bottom Shear Stress

11

6.2.1.Existing Methods
There are two existing calculation methods of bottom shear stress for non-linear wave boundary layers.
The maximum bottom shear stress within a basic harmonic wave-cycle modified by the phase difference
is proposed by Tanaka and Samad (2006), as follows:

o t

1
= f wU (t )U (t )
2

(15)

Here o(t), the instantaneous bottom shear stress, t, time, , the angular frequency, U(t) is the time history
of free stream velocity, is phase difference between bottom shear stress and free stream velocity and fw
is the wave friction factor. This method is referred as Method 1 in the present study.
Nielsen (2002) proposed a method for the instantaneous wave friction velocity, U*(t)
incorporating the acceleration effect, as follows:

U * (t ) =

fw
sin U (t )
cos U (t ) +

o (t ) = U * (t )U * (t )

(16)

(17)

This method is based on the assumption that the steady flow component is weak (e.g. in a strong
undertow, in a surf zone, etc.). This method is termed as Method 2 here. It seems reasonable to derive the

(t) from u(t) by means of a simple transfer function based on the knowledge from simple harmonic
boundary layer flows as has been done by Nielsen (1992).
6.2.2. Proposed Method
The new calculation method of bottom shear stress under saw-tooth waves (Method 3) is based on
incorporating velocity and acceleration terms provided through the instantaneous wave friction velocity,
U*(t) as given in Eq. (18). Both velocity and acceleration terms are adopted from the calculation method
proposed by Nielsen (1992, 2002) (Eq. 16). The phase difference was determined from an empirical
formula for practical purposes. In the new calculation method a new acceleration coefficient, ac is used
expressing the wave skew-ness effect on the bottom shear stress under saw-tooth waves, that is
determined empirically from both experimental and BSL k- model results. The instantaneous friction
velocity, can be expressed as:

U * (t ) =

a U (t )
f w / 2 U t + + c

(18)

12

Here, the value of acceleration coefficient ac is obtained from the average value of ac(t) calculated from
experimental result as well as the BSL k- model results of bottom shear stress using following
relationship:

f w 2U t +

2 U (t )

U * (t )
a c (t ) =

fw

(19)

Fig. 9 shows an example of the temporal variation of the acceleration coefficient ac(t) for =
0.300 based on the numerical computations. The results of averaged value of acceleration coefficient ac
from both experimental and numerical model results as function of the wave skew-ness parameter, are
plotted in Fig. 10. Hereafter, an equation based on regression line to estimate the acceleration coefficient
ac as a function of is proposed as:

a c = 0.36 ln ( ) 0.249

(20)

The increase in the wave skew-ness (or decreasing the value of ) brings about an increase in the
value of acceleration coefficient, ac. For the symmetric wave where = 0.500, the value of ac is equal to
zero. In others words the acceleration term is not significant for calculating the bottom shear stress under
symmetric wave. Therefore, for sinusoidal wave Method 3 yields the same result as Method 1.
6.2.3. Wave Friction Factor and Phase Difference
The wave friction coefficient proposed by Tanaka and Thu (1994) was used in all the calculation methods
in the present study as follows:

f w = exp 7.53 + 8.07 m

zo

s = 42.4C 0.153

for smooth:

C=

0.100

1 + 0.00279C 0.357
1 + 0.127C 0.563

0.111
;
fw

Re
2

= 2 s (degree)

for rough:

(21)

(degree)

(22)

C=

(23)

f w am
2 z0
(24)

13

Where, s is phase difference between free stream velocity and bottom shear stress proposed by Tanaka
and Thu (1994) based on sinusoidal wave study and C defined by equation (23).
Fig. 11 shows the phase difference obtained from measured data under saw-tooth waves, as well
as from theory proposed by Tanaka and Thu (1994) in Eq. (22) for sinusoidal wave. The wave skew-ness
effect under saw-tooth waves was included using Eq. (24). A value of = 0.500 in Eq. (24) yields the
same result as Eq. (22). As seen in Fig. 14 the phase difference at crest, trough and average between crest
and trough for Case SK4 with = 0.500 is about 19.1o, this value agrees well with the result obtained
from Eq. (22) as well as Eq. (24) for = 0.500. The increase in the wave skew-ness or decreasing
causes the average value of phase difference in experimental results to gradually decrease as shown in Fig.
11.
6.3. Comparison for Bottom Shear Stress
In the previous section it has been shown that the bottom shear stress under saw-tooth waves has an
asymmetric shape in both wave crest and trough phases. The increase in wave skew-ness causes an
increase in the asymmetry of bottom shear stress under saw-tooth waves. Figs. 12, 13, 14 and 15 show a
comparison among the BSL k- model, three calculation methods and experimental results of bottom
shear stress under saw-tooth waves, for Case SK1, Case SK2, Case SK3 and Case 4, respectively.
Method 3 has shown the best agreement with the experimental results along a wave cycle for all
saw-tooth wave cases. Method 2 slightly underestimated the bottom shear stress during acceleration phase
for the higher wave skew-ness (Case SK1) as shown in Fig. 12. While, it overestimated the same in the
crest phase for Case SK2 and SK3 as shown in Figs. 13 and 14, and in the trough phase for Case SK4 as
shown in Fig. 15.
As expected, Method 1 yielded a symmetric value of the bottom shear stress at the crest and
trough part for all the cases of saw-tooth waves. Moreover, the BSL k- model results showed close
agreement with the experimental data and Method 3 results. Therefore, Method 3 can be considered as a
reliable calculation method of bottom shear stress under saw-tooth waves for all cases.
It can be concluded that the proposed method (Method 3) for calculating the instantaneous
bottom shear stress under saw-tooth waves has a sufficient accuracy.

14

7. Application to The Net Sediment Transport Induced by Skew Waves

7.1. Sediment Transport Rate Formulation
The proposed calculation method of bottom shear stress is further applied to formulate the sheet-flow
sediment transport rate under skew wave using the experimental data by Watanabe and Sato (2004). At
first, the instantaneous sheet flow sediment transport rate q(t) is expressed as a function of the Shields
number *(t) as given below:

q(t )

(t ) =

( s / 1)gd 50

= A sign{ * (t )} * (t )

0.5

{ * (t ) *cr }

(25)

Here, (t) is the instantaneous dimensionless sediment transport rate, s is density of the sediment, g is
gravitational acceleration, d50 is median diameter of sediment, A is a coefficient, *(t) is the Shields
parameter defined by ((t)/(((s/)-1)gd50)) in which (t) is the instantaneous bottom shear stress
calculated from both Method 1 and Method 3. While *cr is the critical Shields number for the initiation
of sediment movement (Tanaka and To (1995)).

)}

*
cr
= 0.055 1 exp 0.09 S *0.58 + 0.09 S *0.72

(26)

Where, S* is dimensionless particle size defined as:

S* =

( s / 1)gd 50 3

(27)

The net sediment transport rate, qnet, which is averaged over one-period is expressed in the following
expression according to equation (25).

q net

= AF =

( s / 1)gd 50
F=

1 T
0 .5
sign{ * (t )} * (t ) { * (t ) *cr } dt
T 0

(28)

(29)

Here, is the dimensionless net sediment transport rate, F is a function of Shields parameter and qnet is
the net sediment transport rate in volume per unit time and width. Moreover, the integration of equation
(29) is assumed to be done only in the phase |*(t)|> *cr and during the phase |*(t)|< *cr the function of
integration is assumed to be 0.

15

Sheet-flow condition occurs when the tractive force exceeds a certain limit, sand ripples
disappear, replaced by a thin moving layer of sand in high concentration. Many researchers have shown
that the characteristic of Nikuradses roughness equivalent (ks) may be defined to be proportional to a
characteristic grain size for evaluating the friction factor. For sheet-flow sediment transport ks=2.5 d50 as
shown by Swart (1974), Nielsen (2002) and Nielsen and Callaghan (2003). Therefore, in the present study
the same relationship is used to formulate the sheet-flow sediment transport rate under skew wave.
First of all, the wave velocity profile, U(t) which was obtained from the time variation of
acceleration of first order cnoidal wave theory by integrating with respect to time as in the experiment by
Watanabe and Sato (2004). The bottom shear stress calculated from Method 1 was substituted into Eq.
(29) and the result is shown in Fig. 16 by open symbols. As expected that Method 1 yields a net sediment
transport rate to be zero, because the integral value of F for a complete wave cycle is zero. In other word,
it can be concluded that (Method 1) is not suitable for calculating the net sediment transport rate under
skew waves.
Furthermore, the relation between F and the dimensionless net sediment transport rate ()
obtained by the proposed method (Method 3) is shown in Fig. 16 by closed symbols. Since of the
acceleration effect has been included in this calculation method (Eq. (18)), which causes the bottom shear
stress at crest differ from that at trough, and therefore yields a net positive or negative value of F from Eq.
(29). A linear regression curve is also shown in with the value of A = 11 (Eq. 28).
7.3. Net Sediment Transport by Skew Waves
The characteristics of the net sediment transport induced by skew waves are studied using the present
calculation method for bottom shear stress (Method 3) and the experimental data for the sheet flow
sediment transport rate from Watanabe and Sato (2004). Fig. 17 shows a comparison between the
experimental data and calculations based on Method 3 for the net sediment transport rates, qnet and
maximum velocity, Umax for the wave period T = 3s and the median diameter of sediment particle d50 =
0.20 mm along with the wave skew-ness parameter (). It is clear that an increase in the wave skew-ness
and the maximum velocity produces an increase in the net sediment transport rate depicted in both
experimental data and calculation results. The proposed method shows very good agreement with the data
with minor differences. However, the present model has a limitation that does not simulate the sediment

16

suspension. As mentioned previously higher wave skew-ness produces a higher bottom shear stress and
consequently yields a higher net sediment transport rate (Fig. 17).
Onshore and offshore sediment transport rate is shown in Fig. (18) along with the net sediment
transport. In this figure the values of Umax, T and d50 are fixed and only has been changed. As obvious
for a wave profile without skew-ness ( = 0.500) the amount of onshore sediment transport is equal to
that in offshore direction, therefore the net sediment transport rate is zero. The difference between the
onshore and the offshore sediment transport becomes more prominent due to an increase in the wave
skew-ness and thus causing in a significant increase the net sediment transport.
A similar comparison is made for another of experimental condition for T = 5s and d50 = 0.20
mm in Fig. 19.
Recently, Nielsen (2006) applied an extension of the domain filter method developed by Nielsen
(1992) to evaluate the effect of acceleration skewness on the net sediment transport based on the data of
Watanabe and Sato (2004). A good agreement between calculated and experimental data of the net
sediment transport was found using = 51o, a value much different from the usual notion that the phase
difference is of the order of 10o for rough turbulent wave boundary layers.
Figs. 20 and 21 show the correlation of the net sediment transport experimental data from
Watanabe and Sato (2004) and the net sediment transport calculated by Nielsens model (2006) and by
the present model, respectively. The present method shows a slightly better correlation than Nielsens
model (2006) with a reasonable value of the phase difference ( ranges from 9.6 o to 16.5 o). The model
performance is indicated by the coefficient of determination. The present model shows the coefficient of
determination (R2=0.655), which higher than that for Nielsens model as (R2=0.557). Although the present
model is marginally better than the Nielsens model (2006), the present model used a more realistic value
of the phase difference obtained from well-established formula.

8. Conclusions
The characteristics of the turbulent boundary layer under saw-tooth waves were studied using
experiments and the BSL k- turbulence model. The mean velocity distributions under saw-tooth waves
show different characteristics from those under sinusoidal waves. The velocity overshooting is much
influenced by the effect of acceleration and the velocity magnitude. The velocity overshooting has

17

different appearance in the crest and trough phases caused by the difference of acceleration. The BSL k-
model shows a good agreement with all the experimental data for saw-tooth wave boundary layer by
virtue of velocity and turbulence kinetics energy (T.K.E). The model prediction far from the bed is
generally good, while near the bed some discrepancies were found for all the cases.
A new calculation method for calculating bottom shear stress under saw-tooth waves has been
proposed based on velocity and acceleration terms where the effect of wave skewness is incorporated
using a factor ac, which is determined empirically from experimental data and the BSL k- model results.
The new method has shown the best agreement with the experimental data along a wave cycle for all sawtooth wave cases in comparison with the existing calculation methods.
The new calculation method of bottom shear stress (Method 3) was applied to the net sediment
transport experimental data under sheet flow condition by Watanabe and Sato (2004) and a good
agreement was found.
The inclusion of the acceleration effect in the calculation of bottom shear stress has significantly
improved the net sediment transport calculation under skew waves. It is envisaged that the new
calculation method may be used to calculate the net sediment transport rate under rapid acceleration in
surf zone in practical applications, thus improving the accuracy of morphological models in real situations.

Acknowledgments
The first author is grateful for the support provided by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS),
Tohoku University, Japan and Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (ITS), Surabaya, Indonesia for
completing this study. This research was partially supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from
JSPS (No. 18006393).

References
Dick, J.E. and Sleath, J.F.A. 1991. Velocities and concentrations in oscillatory flow over beds of sediment.
Journal of Fluids Mechanics, 233, 165-196.
Fredse, J. and Deigaard, R., 1992. Mechanics of coastal sediment transport. Advanced Series on Ocean
Engineering, vol. 3. World Scientific Publication.

18

Fredse, J., Andersen, K. H.. and Sumer, B. M. 1999. Wave plus current over a ripple-covered bed.
Coastal Engineering, 38, 177-221.
Hino, M., Kashiwayanag, M., Nakayama, A. and Nara, T., 1983. Experiments on the turbulence statistics
and the structure of a reciprocating oscillatory flow. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 131, 363-400.
Hsu, T. J. and Hanes, D. M., 2004. Effects of wave shape on sheet flow sediment transport. Journal of
Geophysical Research 109, (C05025), doi:10.1029 /2003JC002075.
Jensen, B. L., Sumer, B. M. and Fredse, J., 1989. Turbulent oscillatory boundary layers at high Reynolds
numbers. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 206, 265-297.
Jones, W. P. and Launder, B. E., 1972. The prediction of laminarization with a two-equation model of
turbulence. Int. Journal of Heat Mass Transfer 15, 301-314.
Jonsson, I. G. and Carlsen, N.A., 1976. Experimental and theoretical investigations in an oscillatory
turbulent boundary layer. Journal of Hyd. Research, 14 (1), 45-60.
King, D.B., 1991. Studies in oscillatory flow bed load sediment transport. PhD Thesis, University of
California, San Diego, USA.
Menter, F. R., 1994. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA
Journal, 32 (8), 1598-1605.
Nezu, I., 1977. Turbulent structure in open channel flow. Ph.D Dissertation, Kyoto University, Japan.
Nielsen, P., 1992. Coastal bottom boundary layers and sediment transport. Advanced Series on Ocean
Engineering, vol. 4. World Scientific Publication.
Nielsen, P., 2002. Shear stress and sediment transport calculations for swash zone modeling. Coastal
Engineering 45, 53-60.
Nielsen, P. and Callaghan, D. P., 2003. Shear stress and sediment transport calculations for sheet flow
under waves. Coastal Engineering 47, 347-354.
Nielsen, P., 2006. Sheet flow sediment transport under waves with acceleration skewness and boundary
layer streaming. Coastal Engineering 53, 749-758.
Saffman, P. G., 1970. Dependence on Reynolds Number of High-Order Moments of Velocity Derivatives
in Isotropic Turbulence. Physics Fluids 13, 21922193.
Sana, A. and Tanaka, H., 2000. Review of k- model to analyze oscillatory boundary layers. Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering 126(9), 701-710.

19

Sana, A. and Shuy, E. B., 2002. Two-equation turbulence models for smooth oscillatory boundary layers.
Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering 128 (1), 38-45.
Sana, A., Tanaka, H., Yamaji, H. and Kawamura, I., 2006. Hydrodynamic behavior of asymmetric
oscillatory boundary layers at low Reynolds Numbers. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 132 (10),
1086-1096.
Schffer, A. H. and Svendsen, I. A., 1986. Boundary layer flow under skew waves. Inst. Hydrodynamics
and Hydraulic Engineering, Tech. Univ. Denmark, Prog. Report 64, 13 33.
Sleath, J.F. A., 1987. Turbulent oscillatory flow over rough beds. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 182, 369409.
Soulsby, R. L. and Dyer, K.R., 1981. The form of the near-bed velocity profile in a tidally accelerating
flow. Journal of Geophysical Research 86 (C9), 8067-8074.
Suzuki, T., Tanaka, H. and Yamaji, H., 2002. Investigation of rough bottom boundary layer under
irregular waves. Annual Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 46, 869-874.(in Japanese)
Swart, D.H., 1974. Offshore Sediment Transport and Equilibrium Beach Profile. Delft Hydraulics
Laboratory Publication, No. 131.
Tanaka, H., Chian, C. S. and Shuto, N., 1983. Experiments on an oscillatory flow accompanied with a
unidirectional motion. Coastal Engineering in Japan 26, 19-37.
Tanaka, H., 1988. Bed load transport due to non-linear wave motion. Proceedings of 21st International
Conference on Coastal Engineering, ASCE, Malaga, Spain, pp. 1803-1817.
Tanaka, H. and Thu, A., 1994. Full-range equation of friction coefficient and phase difference in a wavecurrent boundary layer. Coastal Engineering 22, 237-254.
Tanaka, H. and To, D.V., 1995. Initial motion of sediment under waves and wave-current combined
motions. Coastal Engineering 25, 153-163.
Tanaka, H. and Samad, M.A., 2006. Prediction of instantaneous bottom shear stress for turbulent plane
bed condition under irregular wave. Journal of Hydraulic Research, 44 (1), 94-106.
Watanabe, A. and Sato, S., 2004. A sheet-flow transport rate formula for asymmetric, forward-leaning
waves and currents. Proc. of 29th ICCE, ASCE, pp. 1703-1714.
Wilcox, D.C., 1988. Reassessment of the scale-determining equation for advanced turbulent models.
AIAA Journal 26 (11), 1299-1310.

20

Figure Captions

Fig. 1. Definition sketch for saw-tooth wave

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of experimental set-up
Fig.3 Definition sketch for roughness
Fig. 4. Mean velocity distribution for Case SK2 with = 0.363
Fig. 5. Mean velocity distribution for Case SK4 with = 0.500
Fig. 6. Turbulent intensity comparison between BSL k- model prediction and experimental data for Case
SK2
Fig. 7. Turbulent intensity comparison between BSL k- model prediction and experimental data for Case
SK3
Fig. 8. The time-variation of bottom shear stress under saw-tooth waves
Fig. 9. Calculation example of acceleration coefficient, ac for sawtooth wave
Fig. 10. Acceleration coefficient ac as function of
Fig. 11. Phase difference between the bottom shear stress and the free stream velocity
Fig. 12. Comparison among the BSL k- model, calculation methods and experimental results of bottom
shear stress, for Case SK1
Fig. 13. Comparison among the BSL k- model, calculation methods and experimental results of bottom
shear stress, for Case SK2
Fig. 14. Comparison among the BSL k- model, calculation methods and experimental results of bottom
shear stress, for Case SK3
Fig. 15. Comparison among the BSL k- model, calculation methods and experimental results of bottom
shear stress, for Case SK4
Fig. 16. Formulation of sediment transport rate under skew waves
Fig. 17. The relation between the net sediment transport rates and Umax in variation of for T=3s and
d50=0.20mm
Fig. 18. Change in amount of sediment transport rate according to an increasing
Fig. 19. Comparison of experimental and calculation result of the net sediment transport rates in variation
of maximum velocity Umax and the wave skewness for d50 = 0.20 mm and T = 5s.
Fig. 20.

Correlation of the net sediment transport experimental data from Watanabe and Sato (2004) and

the net sediment transport calculated by the present model.

Fig. 21.

Correlation of the net sediment transport experimental data from Watanabe and Sato (2004) and

the net sediment transport calculated by Nielsens model (2006)

21

U max
t
T/2

tp

Fig. 1. Definition sketch for saw-tooth wave

Input Signal
through
a PC

DA
Converter
Potentiometer
Signal
Controller
Servo
Motor
Driver

90

SectionA-A
(Dim. in cm)
(Unit:cm)

to Wind
Tunnel
Measuring
Section A

20
10

Piston

Servo
Motor

Wind
Tunnel

5.0
m

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of experimental set-up

22

y=0
z=0

5.0mm

10mm

z0

12mm

U(cm/s)

Fig.3 Definition sketch for roughness

400
200
0
-200
-400

SK 2
H
G

F
D

A
0

Time (s)

10

A
D

F
E

z/zh

10-1
5

10-2
Hr

10-3

BSLk- Model

Exp.

-1

-0.5

0.5

u/U
Fig. 4. Mean velocity distribution for Case SK2 with = 0.363

23

U(cm/s)

400
200
0
-200
-400

C
A

SK 4
H
G

Time (s)

10

A
D

F
E

z/zh

10-1
5

10-2
Hr

10-3

BSLk- Model

E xp.

-1

-0.5

0.5

u/U
Fig. 5. Mean velocity distribution for Case SK4 with = 0.500

24

BSL k- Model

z/z h

10

10

-1

10

-2

10

-3

Hr

10

10

-1

10

-2

10

-3

z/z h

Exp.(SK2)

Hr

20 40 60 0

20 40 60 0

20 40 60 0

20 40 60

u'(cm/s)

u'(cm/s)

u'(cm/s)

u'(cm/s)

Fig. 6. Turbulent intensity comparison between BSL k- model prediction and experimental data for Case
SK2

25

BSL k-

z/z h

10

Exp.(SK3)

10

-1

10

-2

10

-3

Hr

10

10

-1

10

-2

10

-3

z/z h

Model

Hr

20 40 60 0

20 40 60 0

20 40 60 0

20 40 60

u'(cm/s)

u'(cm/s)

u'(cm/s)

u'(cm/s)

Fig. 7. Turbulent intensity comparison between BSL k- model prediction and experimental data for Case
SK3

Case SK1 ( =0.314)

Case SK2 ( =0.363)
Case SK3 ( =0.406)
Case SK4 ( =0.500)

2 2

o(t)/ (cm /s )

2000

-2000
0

Time (s)
Fig. 8. The time-variation of bottom shear stress under saw-tooth waves

26

U(t) (cm/s)

400
200
0
-200
-400

= 0.300

Umax = 400 cm/s

ac

0.4
0.2
average = 0.194

0
-0.2

Time (s)
Fig. 9. Calculation example of acceleration coefficient, ac for sawtooth wave

0.3
ac = -0.36ln( )-0.249

ac

0.2

0.1
BSL k- Model
Exp.
0

0.2

0.4

Wave skewness parameter ( )

Fig. 10. Acceleration coefficient ac as function of

27

40
Eq.(22)
Eq.(24), =0.406
Eq.(24), =0.363
Eq.(24), =0.314

Eq.(24), =0.500

(degree)

30

20

10

0 0
10

Crest (Exp.)
Trough (Exp.)
Average (Exp.)
10 1

10 2

103

am/ks
Fig. 11. Phase difference between the bottom shear stress and the free stream velocity

28

U(t) (cm/s)

U max = 398 cm/s

= 0.314

Case SK1

1500

o (t)/ (cm /s )

400
200
0
-200
-400

Method 1
Exp.
Case SK1

1500

o (t)/ (cm /s )

-1500

Method 2
Exp.

Case SK1

1500

o(t)/ (cm /s )

-1500

Method 3
Exp.

Case SK1

1500

o(t)/ (cm /s )

-1500

BSL k-
Exp.

-1500

Model

Time (s)
Fig. 12. Comparison among the BSL k- model, calculation methods and experimental results of bottom
shear stress, for Case SK1

29

U(t) (cm/s)

U max = 399 cm/s

= 0.363

Case SK2

1500

o (t)/ (cm /s )

400
200
0
-200
-400

Method 1
Exp.
Case SK2

1500

o (t)/ (cm /s )

-1500

Method 2
Exp.

Case SK2

1500

o(t)/ (cm /s )

-1500

Method 3
Exp.

Case SK2

1500

o(t)/ (cm /s )

-1500

BSL k-
Exp.

-1500

Model

Time (s)
Fig. 13. Comparison among the BSL k- model, calculation methods and experimental results of bottom
shear stress, for Case SK2

30

U(t) (cm/s)

U max = 400 cm/s

= 0.406

Case SK3

1500

o (t)/ (cm /s )

400
200
0
-200
-400

Method 1
Exp.
Case SK3

1500

o (t)/ (cm /s )

-1500

Method 2
Exp.

Case SK3

1500

o(t)/ (cm /s )

-1500

Method 3
Exp.

Case SK3

1500

o(t)/ (cm /s )

-1500

BSL k-
Exp.

-1500

Model

Time (s)
Fig. 14. Comparison among the BSL k- model, calculation methods and experimental results of bottom
shear stress, for Case SK3

31

U(t) (cm/s)

U max = 400 cm/s

= 0.500

Case SK4

1500

o (t)/ (cm /s )

400
200
0
-200
-400

Method 1
Exp.
Case SK4

1500

o (t)/ (cm /s )

-1500

Method 2
Exp.

Case SK4

1500

o(t)/ (cm /s )

-1500

Method 3
Exp.

Case SK4

1500

o(t)/ (cm /s )

-1500

BSL k-
Exp.

-1500

Model

Time (s)
Fig. 15. Comparison among the BSL k- model, calculation methods and experimental results of bottom
shear stress, for Case SK4

32

Method
15

= 11 F

d50

0.20mm, 3s
0.74mm, 3s
10

0.20mm, 5s

0
0

0.5

1.5

F
Fig. 16. Formulation of sediment transport rate under skew waves

exp.
=0.320
=0.400
=0.453

1.5
2

qnet(cm /s)

cal.

T=3s
d 50 =0.20mm
0.5

50

100

150

U max(cm/s)
Fig. 17. The relation between the net sediment transport rates and Umax in variation of for T=3s and
d50=0.20mm

33

U max = 108 cm /s

qnet(cm2/s)

-2

q on
q off
q net

T = 3s
d 50 = 0.20 m m

-4
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

Fig. 18. Change in amount of sediment transport rate according to an increasing

exp.
=0.320
=0.400
=0.453

1.5
2

qnet(cm /s)

cal.

T=5s
d 50 =0.20mm

0.5

0
0

50

100

150

U max(cm/s)
Fig. 19. Comparison of experimental and calculation result of the net sediment transport rates in variation
of maximum velocity Umax and the wave skewness for d50 = 0.20 mm and T = 5s.

34

Experimental q net

(cm /s)

Present model

R =0.655

0
0

Calculated q net
Fig. 20.

(cm /s)

Correlation of the net sediment transport experimental data from Watanabe and Sato (2004) and

Nielsen's model (2006)

Experimental q net

(cm /s)

the net sediment transport calculated by the present model.

R =0.557

0
0

Calculated q net
Fig. 21.

(cm /s)

Correlation of the net sediment transport experimental data from Watanabe and Sato (2004) and
the net sediment transport calculated by Nielsens model (2006)

35

Tables
Table 1 Experimental conditions for saw-tooth waves

Table 1
Experimental conditions for saw-tooth waves

Case

T
(s)

SK1

4.0

398

SK2

4.0

SK3
SK4

Umax
(cm2/s)
(cm/s)

am/ks

Re

0.145

0.314

168.9

6.96x105

25.3

0.15

399

0.147

0.363

169.3

6.89 x105

25.4

0.15

4.0

400

0.147

0.406

169.8

6.93 x105

25.5

0.15

4.0

400

0.151

0.500

169.8

6.75x105

25.5

0.15

ks/zh

36