Journal of Coastal Research SI 81 14–21 Coconut Creek, Florida 2018

Determination of Nearshore Wave Climate using a Transformation

Matrix from Offshore Wave Data
Nguyen Thi Hai Ly†* and Nguyen Thanh Hoan††

† ††Haskoning Vietnam
National University of Civil Engineering Ltd., a company of Royal Haskoning
www.cerf-jcr.org
Dong Tam Ward, Hai Ba Trung District Lang Thuong Ward, Dong Da District
Hanoi, Vietnam Hanoi,Vietnam

ABSTRACT

Ly, N.T.H. and Hoan N.T., 2018. Determination of nearshore wave climate using a transformation matrix from
offshore wave data. In: Almar, R.; Almeida, L.P.; Viet, N.T., and Sall, M. (eds.), Tropical Coastal and Estuarine
Dynamics. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 81, pp. 14–21. Coconut Creek (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208.

www.JCRonline.org
Nearshore wave climate is important for the assessment of coastal process and morphological changes. For port
engineers, nearshore wave climate is crucial for the determination of operational conditions and downtime analysis.
The nearshore wave climate is often derived by translation of the 10 to 30-year offshore time series to nearshore.
Direct transformation of such large amount of observations is not feasible, since it requires an extremely long
computational time. This paper describes an advanced technique to quickly derive nearshore wave conditions from
offshore wave data. First, determination of matrix of boundary conditions in which matrix nodes are chosen to cover
wave conditions at offshore boundary. Then, simulations of wave for each condition as described in the selected
matrix of offshore conditions. The results are used to determine the matrix of wave conditions for any given
nearshore location. This matrix consists of factors that specify the relation between the offshore (model forcing) and
nearshore (model results) wave parameters. With this matrix, offshore wave observations can be translated to any
nearshore location. With this technique, a 30-year long time series of offshore wave measurement can be rapidly
(less than 2 days) translated to nearshore wave conditions. This paper discusses in detail the working principles of the
technique, as well important aspects such as the optimization of boundary conditions matrix.

ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS: Wave study, wave transformation, wave climate, transformation matrix.

INTRODUCTION Look-up Table Method

Nearshore wave climate is often characterized based on a time
series of wave parameters for a sufficient long period of time
(e.g., 10 to 30 years). Typically, the time series of nearshore
wave data are derived by transforming offshore hindcast wave
data to the nearshore. Spectral wave models such as SWAN or
MIKE 21 SW are often used to compute wave transformation.
Running a 30-year, 3-hourly dataset on a wave model means
processing over 8x365x30 = 87,600 offshore boundary cases of
significant wave height, peak wave period, wave direction, wind
speed and wind direction. Direct transformation of such large
amount of offshore wave conditions to the nearshore is not
feasible as the required simulation time is extremely long. If a
standard 3-hour simulation takes 5 minutes (real world time), it
would require 10 months for one desktop workstation to
transform 30-year offshore wave conditions to the nearshore.
Indirect transformation can therefore be used to quickly translate
the long-term offshore time series to nearshore. Typically, a
reduction of factor 100 can be obtained without losing the
accuracy (i.e. it would require 3 to 4 days to transform the whole
30-year time series from offshore to nearshore). Two methods
that can be used to indirectly transform the offshore time-series
data set to nearshore are discussed in the following section.
____________________
DOI: 10.2112/SI81-003.1 received 31 September 2017; accepted in
revision 21 November 2017.
*Corresponding author: haily@dongchay.com
©
Coastal Education and Research Foundation, Inc. 2018
With this method, the offshore time series is analyzed to find
which combinations of wave height, peak period, mean
direction, wind speed and wind direction exist for the considered
data set. This is done by allocating to each parameter a set of
“bins” that cover the data range. The offshore time series is
analyzed to find which of these possible combinations of
parameters occur, and using the bin mid-point as the
representative value. For example, when analyzing a 30-year
time series of the NOAA hindcast data at 130 N, 1100 E (off the
coast of Bai Goc, Phu Yen Province, Vietnam, from 1/1/1979 to
1/1/2009), there are 190 events where the conditions fall within
the bins presented in Table 1. Instead of modelling the 190
individual wave and wind conditions, only one set is modelled,
presented by the mid-points of the bins. The set of unique wave
and wind events derived from the offshore time series is called
the look-up table or matrix.
Table 1. Example of bins used in the look-up table method.
Hm0 (m) Tp (s) Dir (° N) Uw (m/s) Wdir (° N)
1 – 1.5 6-8 45 - 75 4-6 45 - 75
Once the look-up table has been determined, all considered
conditions (wave and wind parameters) are transformed to
nearshore by means of wave modelling (e.g., using SWAN
model). This results in a nearshore look-up table for any
 Transformation Matrix to Derive Nearshore Wave Climate
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
nearshore location. For example, when the set of conditions
presented in Table 1 is modelled, the resulting nearshore wave
parameters (e.g., wave height, wave period, wave direction) are
assigned to all original offshore conditions that fall within the
bins listed (i.e. 190 events for this example). The method has
been used by Fockert and Luijendijk (2011), Gunaratna (2012),
Ruggiero et al. (2006), and was extensively validated by
Leonard-Williams and Francis (2013).
Matrix Interpolation Method
With this method, one needs to determine a matrix of
boundary conditions in which matrix nodes are chosen to cover
wave and wind conditions at offshore boundary. Simulations for
each case are performed and the results are used to determine
the matrix of wave conditions for any given point in the
nearshore. This matrix consists of factors that specify the
relation between the offshore (model forcing) and nearshore
(model results) wave parameters. With this matrix, a wave
condition offshore can be translated to any nearshore location by
means of interpolation. The method has been used in Hoan
(2016, 2017), Hoan and Lansen (2016), and Ly (2015).
Both methods limit the number of boundary conditions
applied to a stationary spectral wave model. However, the look-
up table method doesn’t preserve the uniqueness of the offshore
conditions (all conditions fall within the considered bins are
assigned the bin mid-point values). On the contrary, the matrix
interpolation method keeps the offshore data unchanged. The
nearshore wave parameters are interpolated using the predefined
offshore matrix nodes and the derived nearshore matrix nodes
(for a given point). Therefore, the resulting wave is better
correlated to the offshore conditions as it should be. Figure 1 is
used to further explain the differences of the two methods.
Assume that two bins for the offshore wave height are
considered, [0.0 m to 0.5 m] and [0.5 m to 1.0 m]. The bin mid-
points are 0.25 m and 0.75 m, respectively. This two wave
conditions are transformed to nearshore, resulting in a wave
height of 0.12 m and 0.40 m at a given point A. Find Hm0 at
point A if the offshore wave height Hm0 is of 0.40 m (assume
that other parameters such as wave periods and directions are
unchanged). As Hm0 = 0.40 m falls in the first bin [0.0 m-0.5
m], the representative value of this bin (0.25 m) is used,
resulting in Hm0 = 0.12 m at point A. If the matrix interpolation
method is used, the wave height at point A would be 0.204 m (as
a result of interpolation).
Figure 1. Illustration of the look-up table method.
To get a better understanding of the differences between the
two methods, let’s consider another situation. If the offshore
wave height Hm0 = 0.49 m and 0.51 m, using the look-up table
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 81, 2018
15
method will result in Hm0 of 0.12 m and 0.40 m at point A,
respectively. This is certainly not realistic as the offshore wave
heights are almost the same but the nearshore wave heights are
too different. Using the matrix interpolation method, the
resulting wave height Hm0 at point A would be 0.254 m and
0.266 m, respectively.
In the look-up table method, the coarser the bin size, larger
errors are expected. According to Leonard-Williams and Francis
(2013), the method works well for wave height which remains
accurate even when coarse discretization parameters are used.
However, wave period values are not generally well reproduced.
By nature, interpolating result is less dependent on the
coarseness of the matrix nodes (than in the look-up table). The
robustness of the matrix interpolation method will be further
verified in this study.
The above discussion suggests that the matrix interpolation
method is considered more robust and less dependent on the
choice of the matrix nodes (than the look-up table method) and
therefore was chosen for further analysis in the present work.
METHODS
In this paper, the working principles of the technique of the
matrix interpolation method are discussed in detail. In order to
validate the technique, nearshore time series of wave parameters
determined by the direct and matrix (indirect) transformations
are compared. The wave model settings are identical for both
direct and indirect transformations. SWAN model was used in
stationary mode. The schematic of the two methods are shown
in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Schematic approach for direct and indirect (matrix)
transformations.
The nearshore wave conditions derived based on direct
transformation, referred here as “baseline” conditions, were used
to validate the results obtained by matrix transformation method.
Below the followed steps are described:
• Transformation of the full offshore time series to
nearshore using SWAN model to obtain the “baseline”
nearshore conditions.
16 Ly and Hoan
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
• Analysis of the offshore wave data to determine a matrix
of boundary conditions in which matrix nodes are chosen
to cover wave conditions at offshore boundary.
• SWAN simulations of the nearshore wave conditions
based on the matrix of offshore wave conditions.
• Creation of the transformation matrices from the matrix
of wave transformation calculations for various
nearshore locations.
• Translation of the time series of offshore waves to
nearshore using the transformation matrices.
• Comparison of “baseline” and “matrix derived”
nearshore wave data.
For this study, the 31-year time series of the NOAA hindcast
data at 13° N, 110° E (from 1/1/1979 to 1/1/2010) was chosen as
the offshore wave data, due to the large range of wave height
(up to 9.5 m), wave period (up to 20 s) and wave direction. The
wave roses are shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Wave roses at 13° N, 110° E (NOAA hindcast).
Figure 4. Spatial variation of bottom level (m to MSL).
The offshore waves are transformed to nearshore by means of
SWAN modelling (in stationary mode). Initially a 2D model was
setup for this purpose. A straight coastline with uniform cross-
shore profile is assumed. A cross-shore profile at Bai Goc is
used as a representative profile. The model domain and
bathymetry are presented in Figure 4. The offshore waves are
imposed at the eastern boundary where the water depth is about
60 m below mean sea level (MSL). For simplicity, wind forcing
was excluded, which is the case for simulation of swell waves.
A uniform water level of 0.0 m was used for all simulations.
The SWAN settings that were used for this study are as
below: third-generation mode; breaking α=1.0 (proportionality
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 81, 2018
coefficient of the rate of dissipation), γ=0.73 (the breaker index);
bottom friction JONSWAP CFJON = 0.038 m2s−3; white
capping activated; triads activated and quadruplets deactivated
(no wind forcing). A regular computational grid with a mesh
size of 50 m (for both x- and y-coordinate) was used. Apart from
the spatial grids, the user must specify the spectral grid.
In this study, the directional resolution was set to 100. The
lowest and highest frequencies of 0.03 Hz and 1 Hz were used
respectively. The number of frequencies was determined
automatically by SWAN using an increment factor of 1.1
between two consecutive frequencies.
Initial test runs indicated that simulation time for a typical
wave transformation takes about 13 minutes. This duration
makes the use of the 2D model impracticable in the present
study. Given that the coastline is straight and the cross-shore
profile is uniform, the 1D model is expected to provide similar
results. In addition to this, the less demanding computational
effort required by the 1D model allow to perform a large number
of simulations.
A 1D SWAN model was setup using the same model settings
as for the 2D model. To compare 1D and 2D model results, a
number of offshore wave conditions are simulated:
• Run 1: Hm0 = 2.0 m, Tp = 8 s; MWD = 45° N;
• Run 2: Hm0 = 2.0 m, Tp = 8 s; MWD = 60° N;
• Run 3: Hm0 = 2.0 m, Tp = 8 s; MWD = 900 N.
Figure 5 shows the development of significant wave height
(Hm0), mean wave period (Tm01) and mean wave direction
(MWD) along the middle cross-section (located at Y = 50 km in
Figure 4) of the 2D model and those obtained from the 1D
model. The horizontal axis in Figure 5 shows the distance from
the shoreline (where X = 0) towards the sea (pointing East).
It can be observed that the results are almost identical for the
1D and 2D models regardless of incoming wave directions.
Therefore, the 1D model can be used for this study without
affecting the model results and findings. However, it should be
noted that in practice where the coastline is not straight and the
cross-shore profiles are not uniform, the use of 2D model is a
mandatory. To transform the 31-year offshore time series to
nearshore, 90520 simulations were performed using the 1D
model.
Figure 5. Comparison of 1D (red) and 2D (blue) model results
for run 1 (top), 2 (middle) and 3 (bottom).
 Transformation Matrix to Derive Nearshore Wave Climate 17
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

20

15
n (%)

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Significant wave height Hs (m)

Figure 6. The histogram of the Hm0 at 13° N, 110° E.

The offshore wave data was analyzed to determine matrix

nodes of significant wave height (Hm0), peak wave period (Tp),
and wave direction (MWD). The histogram of the significant
wave height and peak wave period is presented in Figure 6, in
which n is the percentage of the total number of occurrences in
the interval 0.25 m for wave height.
The occurrence of wave parameters is important for
optimizing the matrix nodes. In this case, a higher resolution of
the matrix is recommended for wave height ranging from 0.5 m
to 2.0 m. In this study, in order to investigate the impact of the
matrix node resolution on the model results, different
combinations of matrix nodes were considered. In practice,
water level could play an important role on nearshore wave
conditions. In such cases, water level variation must be
considered in the matrix nodes. In this study, a fixed water level
of 0.0 m MSL was used for all simulations to quantify the Figure 7. Wave roses at point B (top), C (middle) and E
performance of the matrix transformation method, quality (bottom).
indices were used to compare the nearshore “baseline” and
“matrix derived” time series:
• RMS error: root mean square error between the
nearshore “baseline” time series and the “matrix
derived” time series;
• Bias error: between the nearshore “baseline” time series
and the “matrix derived” time series and;
• Correlation coefficient (ρ): is the correlation coefficient
between two stochastic variables. The correlation
coefficient reflects the degree to which the variation of
the first is reflected in the variation of the other variable.

Validation of the Matrix Transformation

The “baseline” results are extracted at several output locations
with water depth varying from 2.0 m (A), 3.0 m (B), 4.5 m (C),
6.7 m (D), 8.5 m (E) and 11.0 m (F). The nearshore “baseline”
wave conditions are presented in Figure 7 (wave roses for point Figure 8. Probability of exceedance of Hm0.
B, C and D) and Figure 8 (probability of exceedance of Hm0).
A range of wave conditions, described by a matrix in terms of
For all combinations within the matrix (20 wave height x 19
wave height (Hm0), wave period (Tp), peak wave direction
wave period x 47 wave direction = 17860 combinations),
(Dir) was determined to represent the offshore wave climate.
SWAN calculations were carried out. For each nearshore
Computations were made for all combinations of the following
location, the results of all these simulations were combined in a
parameter values:
transformation matrix which was used for the transformation of
• Hm0 = from 0.1 to 9.5 with steps of 0.5 (in m); the offshore time series to nearshore based on multi-linear
• Tp = from 2 to 20 with steps of 1 (in seconds); interpolation between the values at the nodes of the matrix. The
• Dir = from 0 to 230, with steps of 5 (in relative to the results are referred to as “matrix derived” nearshore time series.
North). Figure 9 shows a comparison of nearshore “baseline” and

Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 81, 2018

18 Ly and Hoan
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
“matrix derived” wave parameters (Hm0, Tp and Dir) at location
B for the year 2009. The quality indices (i.e. Bias, RMS, ρ) were
computed using 31 years of records, from 1/1/1997 to 1/1/2010.
Figure 10 shows a comparison of wave roses based on
“baseline” and “matrix derived” wave data at location C
(location deeper than point B). Offshore wave events with wave
direction larger than 230° N are excluded from the analysis.
The comparison shows that the “baseline” and “matrix
derived” nearshore waves are almost identical. This behavior is
found for all considered points with the water depth ranging
from 2.0 m to 11.0 m (see Table 2). This result suggests that
even for shallow water area, where wave breaking occurs, the
matrix interpolation method is still valid.
The good match between “baseline” and “matrix derived”
nearshore waves confirms the validity of the matrix
transformation method. It should be noted that the applied
matrix nodes have high resolution (i.e. 0.5 m for the wave
height, 1 s for wave period and 50 for wave period), as a result of
a large number of model simulation. In case of 2D modelling,
such a large simulation number is not practical.
In practice, it is important to optimize the matrix nodes such
that the accuracy remains high while simulation time is still
acceptable. As a rule of thumb, the matrix nodes should be
chosen finer where more wave events occur and coarser where
there are less wave events. To investigate the impact of matrix
node choice on the nearshore wave transformation, different
combinations of matrix nodes were considered. This new set of
analysis is discussed in the next section.
Figure 9. Comparison of nearshore “baseline” and “matrix
derived” wave parameters at point B.
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 81, 2018
Figure 10. Wave roses of nearshore “baseline” (left) and “matrix
derived” (right) wave height versus wave direction at point C.
Robustness of Matrix Interpolation Method
In the previous analysis, the matrix nodes of wave direction
were chosen starting from 0° to 230° with grid resolution of 5°.
Different grid resolutions ranging from 10° to 60° were used to
form the matrix. Other parameters such as wave height (Hm0)
and wave period (Tp) are kept unchanged. Wave direction grids
are chosen as follow: Dir = [0:dx:230], where dx is the grid
resolution. For instance, if the grid resolution dx = 30° is chosen,
wave directions considered in the matrix nodes would be 0, 30,
60, 90, 120, 150, 180, 210 degrees. Based on each set of matrix
nodes, different nearshore time series were determined for
location A to F. This time series were compared against the
“baseline” nearshore data to obtain the Bias, RMSE, and ρ. The
analyses were performed for the whole 31-year dataset. The
results of these analyses are presented in Figure 11, showing the
sensitivity of the RMSE on the choice of grid resolution of wave
direction. It can be seen that the nearshore “matrix derived”
wave conditions are quite robust regardless of the choice of grid
resolution of wave direction. Nearshore wave directions are
more sensitive to the choice of grid resolution of wave direction,
but the RMSE range is quite acceptable for wave direction.
In general, the higher grid resolution of the matrix nodes, the
better the nearshore wave results would be (i.e. smaller the
RMSE). However, Figure 11 also shows that the nearshore wave
heights are better predicted for grid resolution of 40° than for
350. This can be explained by the fact that the interpolation
results are also dependent on node values. The node values in
these cases would be:
• dx = 35°: Dir = 0, 35, 70, 105, 140, 175, 210 and 230;
• dx = 40°: Dir = 0, 40, 80, 120, 160, 200 and 230.
As most of offshore wave directions are closer to 40° N than
35° N, the interpolating results for the grid resolution of 40° are
slightly better.
Similar analyses were performed to investigate the impact of
grid resolution of significant wave height (Figure 12) and peak
wave period (Figure 13). The results show that in general the
“matrix derived” nearshore wave periods are unresponsive to the
choice of grid resolution of wave height and wave period.
Nearshore wave directions are more sensitive to grid choices of
both wave height and wave period. But keep in mind that for the
wave direction, a RMSE within a few degrees is generally
acceptable.
 Transformation Matrix to Derive Nearshore Wave Climate 19
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 2. Quality indices quantifying the comparison of 31-year simulation time is still acceptable. The matrix nodes should be
“baseline” and “matrix derived” wave data at various points. defined with high resolution where more wave events occur and
coarser where wave events are less frequent. The results
A B C D E F presented in this study can be used as a rule of thumb for the
selection of matrix nodes.
Bias 0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.01
Sign. wave
height (m)

RMSE 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02

ρ 0.995 0.997 0.999 0.999 0.999 1

Peak wave period

Bias 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

(s)

RMSE 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08

ρ 0.996 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998

Bias 0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3

direction (°N)
Peak wave

RMSE 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.5

ρ 0.987 0.992 0.995 0.995 0.996 0.997

Figure 12. Impact of grid resolution of Hm0 on the “matrix

derived” nearshore wave results.

Figure 11. Impact of grid resolution of wave direction on the

“matrix derived” nearshore wave results.

The nearshore “matrix derived” wave heights at deeper water

(> 6.5 m deep) are found unresponsive to the grid resolution of
wave height (RMSE of Hm0 < 0.15 m). However, for shallower
locations (water depth smaller than 4.5 m), the RMSEs of Hm0
can be as larger as 0.3 m. The test results suggest that the matrix Figure 13. Impact of grid resolution of Tp on the “matrix
nodes should be optimized such that the accuracy of nearshore derived” nearshore wave results.
“matrix derived” wave parameters remains high while

Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 81, 2018

20 Ly and Hoan
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Application of Matrix Interpolation Method approximation is considered appropriate for this study area as
In practice, the local bathymetry is often so complex that the offshore wind and wave are strongly correlated. A fixed water
use of 2D wave model is mandatory. In addition, other level of 1.5 m above CD was used for all simulations. Total
parameters such as wind speed, wind direction and water level number of simulations was 1890.
should be taken into account. In such cases, the number of It should be noted that all combinations between those
simulations defined by the matrix can become an issue. For parameters in Table 3 are used, although some of them will be
instance, if 3 water levels, 7 wave heights, 6 wave periods, 9 unlikely. In practice, a wave height and wave period scatter plot
wave direction, 5 wind speeds and 12 wind directions are can be used to eliminate those conditions that are not used in the
considered in a matrix, the total number of simulations would be interpolation (because no wave events exist close to that nodes).
68040. Engineering judgement should be made to minimize the In case of sea wave, wave steepness should be used instead of
number of simulations while keeping the accuracy of nearshore wave period (in such case, there is no combination such as wave
wave results acceptable. For instance, if the impact of water height of 8 m and wave period of 2 s).
level variation is expected insignificant (e.g., the output points
of interest are at relatively deep water), a constant water level Table 3. Range of offshore boundary conditions.
can be used without affecting the model results. Similarly, if the
wind and the wave are strongly correlated (i.e. sea waves), the Z (mCD) Hm0 (m) Tp (s) Dir (° N) Uw (m/s)
input wind speed can be chosen in associated with the wave +1.5 0.2 2 20 0
height and the wind direction is assigned with the wave +1.5 1.0 5 35 5
direction. This would reduce the number of simulations +1.5 2.0 8 50 10
significantly. +1.5 3.5 10 65 20
+1.5 5.0 18 85 30
In the following section an example is shown for the Port of +1.5 8.0 26 130 40
Dung Quat, Quang Ngai province, Vietnam. The objective is to
illustrate the use of the matrix interpolation method in practice
and to confirm the validity of the method in 2D model with
complex bathymetry, geometry and model inputs. Figure 14
shows the port of Dung Quat and output location A (-40 m Chart
Datum - CD) and B (-14 m CD) which are used for comparison
of “baseline” and “matrix derived” wave parameters.
To derive the wave conditions at the nearshore area, a
curvilinear SWAN model was used. The grids were developed
within a local coordinate UTM 49N system.

Figure 15. Comparison of “baseline” and “matrix derived” wave

heights at location A (top) and B (bottom).

Figure 14. Indication of the port and output locations.

The grid cell size is roughly 100 m to 500 m at offshore area

and 80 m at the site. The domain and grid resolution of the
model are considered appropriate to properly capture the
characteristics of the study area. The bottom depths at
computational grid points for the computational grid were
interpolated from the survey and C-map data.
The offshore hindcast data were obtained from the NOAA
global wave model for point 15.5° N, 109.5° E. The boundary
conditions that define the matrices are described in terms of
wave height (Hm0), direction (Dir), peak period (Tp) and wind
speed (Uw) as presented in Table 3. The wind direction is Figure 16. Comparison of “baseline” and “matrix derived” wave
assumed equal to the wave direction offshore. This period at location A (top) and B (bottom).

Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 81, 2018

 Transformation Matrix to Derive Nearshore Wave Climate
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
The SWAN model settings are similar to the above tests
except that quadruplets are activated as wind forcing is included.
Besides the “matrix derived” nearshore wave parameters at
location A and B, “baseline” nearshore wave parameters were
obtained by performing direct transformation of the offshore
wave for the period from 6th to 31st October 2015.
Comparisons of “baseline” and “matrix derived” wave
parameters are presented in Figures 15, 16, and 17. In general,
the RMSE are small, indicating good agreements between
“baseline” and “matrix derived” values.
The results show that nearshore wave conditions are similar to
the offshore waves. This was explained by the fact that the
considered points are at relatively deep water and that wind
forcing helped maintaining the wave energy from offshore to
nearshore.
Figure 17. Comparison of “baseline” and “matrix derived” peak
wave direction at location A (top) and B (bottom).
CONCLUSIONS
This paper discusses possible techniques that can be used to
quickly obtain nearshore wave conditions. The two methods that
can be used are (i) the look-up table method and (ii) the matrix
interpolation method. The matrix interpolation method is
recommended due to its robustness and its higher accuracy (than
the look-up table method) in determining nearshore wave
conditions. Following can be concluded from this study:
• The study has shown that the matrix interpolation
method works very well. The quality indices presented in
Table 2 clearly show a perfect match between the
“baseline” and “matrix derived” wave parameters
regardless of the water depths. Even for a very shallow
location (e.g., point A with a water depth of 2 m), the
method still works well.
• The study also confirms that the matrix interpolation
method is robust and less sensitive to the choice of
matrix nodes. To optimize the number of simulations, the
matrix nodes should be chosen finer where more wave
events occur and coarser where there are less wave
events.
• The matrix interpolation method works well for
situations with complex bathymetry, geometry and
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 81, 2018
21
inputs (e.g., considering wind speed, wind direction and
water level) which 2D modelling is required. This is
confirmed by the application at Port of Dung Quat
example.
• Typically, a reduction of factor 100 can be obtained for
the total simulation time (e.g., 10 months to 4 days)
without losing the accuracy (as has been proved in Table
2). This makes it possible to utilize high grid resolution
which otherwise cannot be used if direct transformation
is used. As a result, model accuracy for shallow area or
complex bathymetry can be increased.
Water level variations are important for shallow water area. In
practice, water level variations should be considered and can be
included in the transformation matrices as an independent
variable. It is important to note that for any wave transformation
study, the model results should be validated against
measurements regardless of the method (direct or indirect) used.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank the National University of Civil
Engineering (Vietnam) for the financial support (under the
framework of project 156-2017/KHXD-TĐ). Many thanks go to
Royal Haskoning DHV for providing facilities and software
used to conduct this study.
LITERATURE CITED
Fockert, A.D. and Luijendijk, A., 2011. Wave Look-up Table
Building with Nature. Delft, The Netherlands: Deltares,
Technical Note, Ref: 1002337-002-ZKS-0001, 50p.
Gunaratna, P., 2012. A wave transformation matrix approach for
establishing nearshore wave climate in the Dubai coastal
zone. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on
Coastal and Port Engineering in Developing Countries
(Chennai, India), 11p.
Hoan, N.T., 2016. Kuala Tanjung Wave Modelling Study,
Indonesia. Hano, Vietnam:. Haskoning DHV Vietnam Co.
Ltd., Report VN1038R01D02, 34p.
Hoan, N.T., 2017. Karimun Ferry Terminal Development -
Wave Modelling Study, Indonesia. Hanoi, Vietnam:
Haskoning DHV Vietnam Co. Ltd., Report VN1419R02D01,
39p.
Hoan, N.T. and Lansen, J., 2016. Dung Quat Refinery
Expansion Project - FEED Services for Marine Facilities -
Wave modelling Study, Vietnam. Hanoi, Vietnam:. Haskoning
DHV Vietnam Co. Ltd., Report VN1083REP004D02, 33p.
Leonard-Williams, A. and Francis, A., 2013. Development of a
Methodology Utilising Look-up Tables to Accelerate Spectral
Wave Model Run Times. Met Office - Weather Science,
Technical Report No. 571, 31p.
Ly, N.T.H., 2015. Feasibility Study of Tra Ly Navigation
Channel - Nearshore Wave Modelling Study. Hanoi, Vietnam:
Consultancy Company Limited of University of Civil
Engineering, Report TLY/FS/Vol.09/BD/Modelling, 88p.
Ruggiero, P.; List, J.; Hanes, D., and Eshleman, J., 2006.
Probabilistic shoreline change modelling. Proceedings of the
30th International Conference on Coastal Engineering (San
Diego, USA), pp. 1-14.