Modelo de Transporte

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLA on 09/13/15. Copyright ASCE.
For personal use only; all rights reserved.
A Model of Sediment Transport in the Bottom Boundary Layer
Tomoya Shibayama~and loan Nistor2
Abstract
The paper deals with a mathematical and numerical model for simulating the
sediment transport within bottom boundary layer. The mathematical model uses
Reynolds equations for the hydrodynamic model and the two-dimensional
convection-diffusion equation for the sediment transport model. Results of the
numerical model are compared with laboratory data of Ribberink et al. (1994) and
Katopodi et al. (1994). Based on the analysis of comparisons, the validity of the
model is discussed.
Introduction
The flow field and sediment transport within the bottom boundary layer (BBL)
has been a long time research subject for coastal engineers who work in the field
of sediment transport. Scientists understood that the sediment entrainment
mechanism is strongly related to the flow field in the area close to the bed and that
flow field calculation is a key in the sediment transport phenomena.
Another major problem facing the researchers dealing with the boundary
layers flow field and sediment transport modelling is the scarcity of experimental,
both field and laboratory. The problem is mainly due to: (1) the limitations of the
present measuring equipment and techniques used to sample the data in the highly
turbulent flow regime and (2) the high concentrations of moving sediment
particles which prevents accurate measurements in the area close to the bottom.
~Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Yokohama National University, 79-5

Tokiwadai, Hodogaya-ku, Yokohama 240-8501, JAPAN.
2Lecturer Dr., Faculty of Hydrotechnics, Technical University "Gh. Asachi" Iasi,
B-dul D. Mangeron nb. 63-65, Iasi-6000, ROMANIA.
134
Coastal Engineering 2000

COASTALENGINEERING2000 135
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLA on 09/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The present paper is presenting the results of a numerical model capable of

computing the time-history of sediment flux inside the BBL. Reliable laboratory
data are used to verify the numerical results and the validity of the model is
discussed.
Sediment Transport Model
Velocity and sand transport characteristics in the area very close to the bed,
known as the bottom boundary layer, are still under analysis. The reasons are both
the lack of accurate, reliable laboratory data that are difficult to obtain and the
theoretical problems involved by the formulation of the numerical models. The
bottom boundary layer has a major role in the whole sand transport process:
entrainment, suspension, deposition and resuspension of particles are largely
dependent upon the correct description of the processes occurring here.
The general layout of the proposed model is outlined in Figure 1.
Sediment Transport Model

Hydrodynamic Model [
Upper layer
Duy & Shi~ayama (1997)
u
Free stream velocity,(Uo,Wo)
TIME-DEPENDENT
SEDIMENT FLUX
~(z,t) = u(z,t )xc(z,t )
Figure 1. Calculation of the time-dependent sediment

flux inside the bottom boundary layer.

136 COASTALENGINEERING2000
The numerical model for investigating the flow field and sediment transport inside
the turbulent bottom boundary layer is based on the 2-DV Navier-Stokes

equations in the Reynolds averaged form and the turbulent convection-diffusion
equation.
The model consists of two elements: (1) the Hydrodynamic Model and (2)
the Sediment Concentration Model. The later is a combined convection-
diffusion model that has the potential of improving the modelling of sand motion
including aspects that could not possibly be accounted for by pure gradient
diffusion. Finally, the values of the time-dependent sand fluxes can be computed.
Hydrodynamic Model
For the case of the flow field inside the bottom boundary layer,
considering the two-dimensional vertical (2-DV) case in a (x,z)-plane, the scalar
form of the equations governing the flow field can be written as
bu bw
--+--=0 (1)
~x 3z
bu ~u Ou lOr~_~u o Ouo
-~+U~x+WOz p Oz ~t ~u~ C2)
where u and w: the horizontal and respectively vertical components of the
Reynolds averaged velocity vector inside the bottom boundary layer, "r= : the
Reynolds shear stress, p : the water density, and u o : the horizontal free stream
velocity at the upper edge of the bottom boundary layer. The system of
coordinates is chosen so that x is positive in the direction of the wave
propagation and z is positive upward from the bottom,
The right hand side of Equation (2) represents the "forcing factor" of the
outer flow, that is, the oscillatory fluid motion outside of the boundary layer.
Since the Reynolds stresses are dominating in the uniform turbulent flow near a
hydrodynamically rough boundary, the viscous forces are thus neglected in the
present formulation.
The hydrodynamic model for the bottom boundary layer is interconnected
with the upper layer flow. A complex model (Duy and Shibayama, 1997) is used
to compute the time-series of the free stream velocities at the upper edge of the
boundary layer.
The Navier-Stokes equations in their Reynolds averaged form are employed
for the upper layer hydrodynamic model. The time-series of the free stream
velocities at the upper edge of the bottom boundary layer are then used as
boundary condition for the hydrodynamic layer, as it will be shown later. Further
references on the governing equations for the upper layer can be referred in the
listed references (Duy and Shibayama, 1997).

Figure 2 presents schematically the coordinates system for the upper layer and
bottom boundary layer.
Figure 2. Definition of the system of coordinates for the surf zone.
For the hydrodynamic module of present bottom boundary layer, the eddy
viscosity model was introduced by expressing the Reynolds shear stress in the
following form
"rz_~= c)u (3)
P vT ~z
where Vr: the eddy viscosity within the bottom boundary layer. Based on a
simple approach (Kajiura, 1968), the eddy viscosity is considered time-invariant
but space dependent in vertical direction throughout the thickness of the bottom
boundary layer.
v r = tcu.z (4)
where tr : the Karman constant with a value of 0.4, u. : the friction velocity and
z: the vertical elevation taken from the solid bottom. The friction velocity is
assumed to be proportional to the free stream velocity, the roughness
characteristics of the bed and the fluid particle excursion amplitude. It is given as
I
(u,)~ = (5)
where fw: the friction factor and (Uo).~ x : the maximum horizontal free stream
velocity. The friction factor is based on the momentum integral method for the
case of rough beds (FredsCe and Deigaard, 1992),

I
fw =0-04(ab 1-~ when ab > 50 (6)

(kN) kN
For the case when ab/k N has small values, the proposed friction factor is
approximated (Kamphuis, 1975) as
fw =0"4(ab ]~TS when a h < 5 0 (7)
where ab'. the free stream particle amplitude and ku: the bed roughness which
was taken to be equal to mean sand grain diameters times two. At the same time,
the thickness of the bottom boundary layer was assumed constant in the direction
of the wave propagation and equal to
=2 (8)
O)
Sediment Concentration Model

Within the bottom boundary layer, intense concentrations of moving sand have
been observed during laboratory and field experiments. For this area, the
characteristics of the sand transport are strongly influenced by the turbulence
induced by the flow field.
Based on the time-dependent flow field already computed using the
hydrodynamic model, the evaluation of the time-dependent sand concentration
field can be now achieved. Finally, the time-dependent sand flux is computed in
the present combined model and numerical values are compared to recent
laboratory data.
Since the practical computation of instantaneous turbulent flows by
numerical methods is still a difficult task to achieve, mainly due to the limited
capacity of the present computers, turbulent flows have been modeled using their
time-averaged or equi-phase averaged values. This procedure is also applicable
for the present sand transport model.
The physical processes related to the sand particle movement in the flow are
described by the turbulent convection-diffusion equation.
-~--~x 'gz- 3z
/
~-~x(eS,~x)+-~z(es,-~z, (9)
where c: the equi-phase mean sand concentration, u, w: the equi-phase mean
velocity components calculated in the hydrodynamic module for the bottom
boundary layer, w : the mean fall velocity of sand, es~ and es~: the turbulent
diffusion coefficients corresponding to the two axis of coordinates. However, for
the present model, it was assumed that the coefficients of turbulent diffusion, esx
and es~ are taken to be equal.

The difference between the two forms of sand transport - suspended sand and
sheet flow layer conditions - was outlined by various researchers. The present
work defines the two forms as separate but assumes a direct interaction between
them in the form of sand transfer between the two layers (bottom boundary layer
and the upper layer).
Both convection and diffusion are assumed to take place inside the boundary layer.
The last two terms of the right hand side of Equation (9) express the diffusion
process of the sand, which is being suspended inside the boundary layer while the
last two terms in the left hand side express the convection phenomenon. The
importance of the two processes is still being argued at present. However, for the
area very close to the bed, both processes, in connection with several other
phenomena such as the interaction between the sediment particles and the high
density of the fluid-sand mixture, seem important as proved by experimental work
performed in the last few years.
The boundary conditions for the both the hydrodynamic and sand
concentration model are given in Figure 3.
0 c = 0 at i = N , j = l , ,M /---I Upper limit of ]

10z ) p/ I boundary layer I
u=u" l at i = N , j = I , . . , M ~ 1
w--w~ I _~ r/ - - [ level'--"'--"--~prior
Static bed
wavacti
e~ to
,cc_at CG'
'u-O............................................................................
atl 1 1 M '''''~ ~'" Bonombc forconcentrationl' .......................
"&{"" ~ i .......
w- 0 ' = ' j = "" field = non-movable bed I
Figure 3. Boundary conditions for the sand transport BBL model.
The bottom boundary condition assumes that sand concentration at the sea bed is
equal to the maximum concentration of immobile, immersed sand.
C=Cm~, for Z = 0 (10)
The reference level is assumed to be the level, experimentally observed, below
which there is no sand particle movement. This level is located beneath the initial,

undisturbed bed level, as measured before the inception of fluid motion. As

expected, the reference level for sand concentration is not yet clearly established
through some sort of a clear mathematical formulation. However, such a condition
is assumed to be a first step in describing closer to reality the inception of sand
transport inside the bottom boundary layer.
As seen in Figure 3, at the upper edge of the bottom boundary layer, the
concentration gradient is assumed to be negligible, when compared to the middle
and lower part of the same area.
0c
--=0 (11)
0z
The location of the bottom boundary conditions for the hydrodynamic and sand
transport modules is not the same since the convection-diffusionequation requires
values of the vertical and horizontal velocities. Therefore, as noticed in Figure 3,
the location of the bottom boundary condition for the sand concentration model is
located one vertical interval grid, Az, upward with reference to the location of the
bottom boundary condition for the hydrodynamic model. Also, one major
hypothesis for the presented model is that the diffusion coefficient is assumed to
be equal to the eddy viscosity.
esx = esz = e s = v r (12)
With the computed values of the time-dependent velocity flow and time-
dependent concentration field, the time-dependent sand flux, r is calculated
as
t#(Z,t ) = u(z,t )c(z,t )/ p, (13)
where p, : the sand density, u(z,t): equi-phase mean values of horizontal velocity
and c(z,t): equi-phase mean values of sand concentration.
A fully implicit scheme used in the present model allows the determination of the
values of velocity and concentration at the same grid points. The Finite Difference
Method is employed and the node equations are written depending on their
location in the numerical grid.
The determination of the equi-phase mean values of the velocity and sand
concentration fields is made within the common domain and then, the time-
dependent sand flux is computed. In order to ensure model stability, the time- step
should be small enough (At = T/150...T/IO0) where T is the wave period. The
model requires around 4 wave periods to obtain a stable solution.

Verification of the Theoretical Model
Laboratory Data of Ribberink et al. (1994)
Most hydrodynamic models calculate fluid velocity without considering the

presence of sediment. However, the majority of them assume as a simplification
that the sand particle has the same velocity as the fluid particle. For the case of
suspended sand the assumption might hold a better degree. For the case of the
high sediment concentration in the region near the bed (bottom boundary layer),
due to sustained sand particle interaction and high viscosity of sand-fluid mixture,
assuming same values for water and sand particles might be unrealistic. The
present comparison tries to estimate the validity of such a hypothesis.
Ribberink et al. (1994) have investigated the full-scale reproduction of the wave
flow in the Large Oscillating Water Tunnel (LOWT) of Delft Hydraulics, Holland.
The test section was 14 m long, 1.1 m high and 0.3 m wide. A 30 cm thick sand
bed was arranged into the test section, leaving 0.8 m height for the oscillatory
flow above the bed.
The results of the measurements included also time-series of intra-wave
measurements of sand grain velocities in sheet flow regime using special
measuring techniques and equipment. The grain velocities in the thin sheet flow
layer were measured using detailed High-Speed Video recordings (HSV),
covering a depth range between - 8 mm and + 28 mm with respect to the initial
bed level. In their experiment, the sand grain velocity data were collected and
analyzed so that their equi-phase mean values were finally obtained. For the
analyzed case, termed as El, the oscillation period was T = 7 . 2 s e c while the
mean sand diameter was Dso = 0.21 mm. Maximum horizontal velocity recorded
at 20 cm above the initial bed level was ~ = 1.60 m/s. In Fig. 4, the measured
values of the sediment grain horizontal velocities are shown.
1.2-(ern)
1.o: . . . .
0.8 - + - - A - - t/T=0.55 '
0.6-
\\i
9 x.*
f /" 7
=
'
.
0,- \\ I/(./ /
0.2-~ '
0.0-
-0.2-
-30-25-20-15-10-5 O 5 10 15 2 0 25 3 0 35 4 0 4 5 5 0 5 5
Velocity (cm/s)
Figure 4. Measured horizontal grain velocities (HSV) inside bottom
boundary layer, case E1 (Ribberink et al., 1994).

142 COASTAL ENGINEERING2000
Figure 5 presents the computed horizontal equi-phase mean horizontal velocities.

z (cm)
1.2 . , . , . , - , . , . i - , - , . , . , - , . , . , . , . , . , .
I - - ~ I/T--0.14s ~AX&A
,o
~T~TT --e-- t/T=O.27S
--&~ t/T=O.41S
\~l i\ -'e-- trr=O55 s
0.8- x * q --+-- t/T=O.68s
--x-- I/T=O.81s B
0.6- ~ t/T=0.95s
- §
0,4-
0.2- +%
0.0~
-a0-~s-~0-l's'-;o-; "; "1b'1;'2;"215"30"3~5"4;"415'5()"55
Velocity (era/s)
Figure 5. Computed horizontal grain velocities inside bottom , case El.
In the present work, measured grain particle velocity is compared with the
computed fluid particle velocity as seen in Figures 6 and 7.
Z (cm)
1.2 " l ' l ' T ' , ' l ' J ' l ' , ' = ' 1 " , ' l ' l ' J ' , ' l '
1.0-
i \
0,6-
0.4- ~
0.2 -
9 )., --A--Fluid velocity (comput.)
-- Sediment velocity (lab, exper.)
0.0
-0.2 " l ' l ' , ' , ' l " " , , , , ' J ' , ' , ' l ' , ' ~ "
-30-25-20-15-10 -5 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
1~ (era) Velocity (cm/s)
1.0
0.8
0.4 \]. ==n
o.o -/
/I/~' :9 Rt~d~oaty (comet)
-0.2 -- S~liment velocity (lal~ exper.)
-30-25-20-15-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
V e l o c i t y (cm/s)
Figure 6. Comparison between water and sediment particle velocities inside BBL
(laboratory data of Ribberink et al., 1994).

Figure 7. Comparison between water and sediment particle velocities inside BBL
(laboratory data of Ribberink et al., 1994).
The comparisons revealed phase and amplitude differences between the velocities
of water and sand particles during one wave cycle. If at the beginning of the wave
cycle the differences were practically not significant, with an increasing value of
the relative time (t/T), significant phase differences seem to occur. However, by

the end of the wave period, the sand grain velocity seems to "catch u p " with the
water particle velocity.
Measurements of sand flux inside the bottom boundary layer have been rarely
reported in literature. The laboratory data which the authors considered for the
present study were performed by Katopodi et al. (1994) at Delft Hydraulics,
Holland, using a Large Oscillating Water Tunnel with reported dimensions as 15
m • 1.1 m x 0 . 3 m.
Since experiments were carried out in a tunnel, the hydrodynamic
conditions were horizontally uniform and therefore, effects associated with
vertical wave velocities were absent. The measurements were carried out on a
sandy bed with a mean sand particle diameter of ds0 = 0.21 mm. The oscillation
period for the analyzed case was T = 7.2 sec while the thickness of the boundary
layer was found to be ~ = 20 mm. The time-dependent sand flux was calculated
by multiplying the measured sand particle velocity with the sand concentration.
The sand grain velocity was measured using HSV (High Speed Video
recordings) while the time-dependent sand concentration inside the BBL was
measured using a CCM (Conductivity Concentration Meter). The results of the
phase-averaged sand flux (as measured) are presented in Figure 8.
2,5![
25.0 Laboratory
I ..........
data
:-.'-0
~ - - T/8
22,5 ~ - "1"/4
--x-- 3T/8
20.0 4 - - T/2
j ~ - 5T/8
17.5 ~ 3T/4"
12,5
vE
10.0
N
5.0 I
7.5
2.5
0.0 j t
-2.5
-5.0 . J . i , i , , i 9 i , i , i . i ,
-0,20 -0.15 -O.~O -0.05 O.CO 0.O5 O.10 0.t5 0.20 0.25 0.30
Sediment flux (m/s)

Figure 8. Measured equi-phase-averaged sand flux in BBL
(Katopodi et. al., 1994).
The measurements display a pronounced asymmetry, with larger positive fluxes

corresponding to the second half period (T/2<t<T) then the first half wave period.
Also, the sand flux occurs even below the initial bed level, which is marked with a
continuous line in Figure 8 since after the initiation of the sand movement, the
initial bed level is displaced due to the turbulence inside the boundary layer. The
numerical model assumes that the velocity of the fluid particle and of the sand

COASTAL ENGINEERING2000 145
grain is the same. Therefore, the sand flux (numerically calculated) naturally
presents some differences from measured results. Figures 9 and 10 present the
comparison between the numerical and laboratory results for each of the two
halves of the wave period.
27.5 . ~ .
25.0
4-- 0 (expedmem) I
22.5
Computation
200
- -
I
17.5
15.0
" 125
E 10.0
v
N 73
5.0
2.5
0.0
-2.5
-5.0 , .0115 , _I 9 * - - I 9 i . i . I , I ,
.020 .0 10 4]05 0.00 0.05 0.10 015 0.20 025 0.30
Sediment flux (m/s)

275
.... [ ~__ TI4 (E~edment) i

22.5 - - Computa~on
20.0
175
15.0
12.5
v
E 10.0
N
5.O
, ! , , . , . . , . i . J . i . I .
.0.20 .0_15 .0.10 .0.C6 0.00 0.C6 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Sediment flux (m/s)

27.5
25.0
22.5
20.0
--x--
- -
(ER)edrnenl)
3T/8
Computalion
i
17.5
15.0
12.5
100
7.5
N
5.0
2,5
oo
-25
-5.0 ' I , Z , I , , I 9 ' 9 i . , . i .
.0,30 -0.15 -0.10 .O.O5 0.00 0.O5 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Sediment flux (m/s)
Figure 9. Comparison between computed and laboratory determined

sand flux inside BBL, 0<t<3T/8 (laboratory data from
Katopodi et al., 1994).

27.5
25.0 [ ~--5T/8(ExperimeNt) I
22.5 - - Compulation
20.0
17,5 ~
150
"~ IZ5
E 10.0
N 75
5.0
Z5
0.0 ~ ,
-2.5
. . . ..0.20 ''.0 15 '.0'1o' ~)I~ . 000
. . 0,06
. . . 0.10
. . 0.15
. . .0.2O
. 025 0.30
Sedimentflux (m/s)
272
.... I ~ 3T/4 (E~pedm.t) I

225 -- Compt~a~on
20.0
15.0
~ 125
E i 0.0
N 75
50
22
00
-2s
-0.2O .0.15 .0.10 .0.(~6 000 0.~ 0.10 0.15 0.20 02S 0.30
Sediment flux (m/s)
275
2S.O ~ 71"/8(Experiment) j
225 --
20.0
Computation
I
175
~ 12.5 !
E 100
N 7.5
5.0
2.5
-2 5
-50 " ' " ' " ' " . I . , . , . t . i .
"O.2O .0.15 41.10 .O.O5 000 O.O6 010 0.1S O2O 0.~ O3O
Sedimentflux (m/s)
Figure 10. Comparison between computed and laboratory determined sand flux
inside BBL, T/2<t<7T/8 (laboratory data from Katopodi et al., 1994).
One can observe the evolution of phase differences between the computed sand
flux values and the measured ones. If for the beginning of the wave period there is
good agreement between the computed and measured values, with an increased
value of the relative time (t/T), a larger phase lag occur towards the middle of the

wave period. As seen in the last figure, the phase lag seems to diminish towards
the end of the wave cycle.
Conclusions
Several conclusions can be drawn as a result of the present comparison.

Inertial forces acting on the sand particles are leading to obviously smaller
values of their velocity. The sand grain, due to its mass, experiences a "delay-
time" caused by the inertial force acting on it. Inertial forces are large inside
the BBL due to the strong velocity gradients leading consequently to large
accelerations acting on the sand particles.
Differences between the water and sand grain velocities appear especially
during high gradients of water particle velocity, during the onshore-directed
movement in the wave cycle. For the end of the wave cycle, velocities tend to
have the same magnitude, due to smaller velocity gradients during the second
half of the wave period. Therefore, assuming that fluid particle velocity is
equal to the sand particle velocity may be questionable for the BBL area
where the high regime of sand particles interaction influences the
hydrodynamic field.
For future improvements, a new approach for formulating the eddy viscosity
currently used in the numerical model should be considered, so as to include
the real behavior of the fluid-sand mixture.
References
Duy, N.T. and Shibayama, T., (1997): A convection-diffusion model for

suspended sediment in the surf zone, J. of Geophys. Res., AGU, Vol. 102, No.
CIO, pp. 23169-23186.
Fredsoe, J., (1984): Turbulent boundary layers in wave-current motion, J. of Hydr.
Eng., IAHR, Vol. 110 (HY8), pp. 1103-1120.
Kajiura, K., (1968): A model of the bottom boundary layer in the water waves,
Bull. Earthquake Res. Inst., Vol. 45, pp. 75-123.
Kamphuis, J.W., (1975): Friction factors under oscillatory waves, J. of Waterways,
Harbors Coastal and Ocean Eng., ASCE, I01 (WW2), pp. 135-144.
Katopodi, I., Ribberink, J.S., Ruol, P. and Lodahl, C., (1994): Sediment transport
measurements in combined wave-current flows, Proc. of Coastal Dynamics '94,
ASCE, pp. 837-851.
Ribberink, J. Katopodi, I., Ramadan, K.A.H., Koelewijin, R. and Longo, S.,
(1994): Sediment transport under (non)-linear waves and currents, Proc. of the
24th Int.Conf. of Coastal Eng., pp. 2526-2541.
Shibayama T. and Nistor, I. (1998): Modelling of time-dependent sand transport
at the bottom boundary layer in the surf zone, Coastal Engineering Journal, JSCE,
Vol.40, No.3, pp.241-263.

Modelo de Transporte

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Modelo de Transporte

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLA on 09/13/15. Copyright ASCE.

For personal use only; all rights reserved.

A Model of Sediment Transport in the Bottom Boundary Layer

Tomoya Shibayama~and loan Nistor2

~Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Yokohama National University, 79-5

Coastal Engineering 2000

The present paper is presenting the results of a numerical model capable of

Sediment Transport Model

Sediment Transport Model

Figure 1. Calculation of the time-dependent sediment

Coastal Engineering 2000

the turbulent bottom boundary layer is based on the 2-DV Navier-Stokes

Coastal Engineering 2000

Figure 2. Definition of the system of coordinates for the surf zone.

Coastal Engineering 2000

fw =0-04(ab 1-~ when ab > 50 (6)

fw =0"4(ab ]~TS when a h < 5 0 (7)

Sediment Concentration Model

Coastal Engineering 2000

0 c = 0 at i = N , j = l , ,M /---I Upper limit of ]

Figure 3. Boundary conditions for the sand transport BBL model.

Coastal Engineering 2000

undisturbed bed level, as measured before the inception of fluid motion. As

Coastal Engineering 2000

Verification of the Theoretical Model

Laboratory Data of Ribberink et al. (1994)

Most hydrodynamic models calculate fluid velocity without considering the

Coastal Engineering 2000

Figure 5 presents the computed horizontal equi-phase mean horizontal velocities.

Figure 5. Computed horizontal grain velocities inside bottom , case El.

0.4 \]. ==n

Coastal Engineering 2000

Coastal Engineering 2000

Sediment flux (m/s)

The measurements display a pronounced asymmetry, with larger positive fluxes

Coastal Engineering 2000

Sediment flux (m/s)

.... [ ~__ TI4 (E~edment) i

Sediment flux (m/s)

Sediment flux (m/s)

Figure 9. Comparison between computed and laboratory determined

Coastal Engineering 2000

.... I ~ 3T/4 (E~pedm.t) I

Coastal Engineering 2000

Several conclusions can be drawn as a result of the present comparison.

Duy, N.T. and Shibayama, T., (1997): A convection-diffusion model for

Coastal Engineering 2000

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi