Ocean Dynamics

, Volume 63, Issue 4, pp 447–457 | Cite as

Waves, circulation and vertical dependence

Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on the 4th International Workshop on Modelling the Ocean in Yokohama, Japan 21–24 May 2012

Abstract

Longuet-Higgins and Stewart (J Fluid Mech 13:481–504, 1962; Deep-Sea Res 11:529–562, 1964) and later Phillips (1977) introduced the problem of waves incident on a beach, from deep to shallow water. From the wave energy equation and the vertically integrated continuity equation, they inferred velocities to be Stokes drift plus a return current so that the vertical integral of the combined velocities was nil. As a consequence, it can be shown that velocities of the order of Stokes drift rendered the advective term in the momentum equation negligible resulting in a simple balance between the horizontal gradients of the vertically integrated elevation and wave radiation stress terms; the latter was first derived by Longuet-Higgins and Stewart. Mellor (J Phys Oceanogr 33:1978–1989, 2003a), noting that vertically integrated continuity and momentum equations were not able to deal with three-dimensional numerical or analytical ocean models, derived a vertically dependent theory of wave–circulation interaction. It has since been partially revised and the revisions are reviewed here. The theory is comprised of the conventional, three-dimensional, continuity and momentum equations plus a vertically distributed, wave radiation stress term. When applied to the problem of waves incident on a beach with essentially zero turbulence momentum mixing, velocities are very large and the simple balance between elevation and radiation stress gradients no longer prevails. However, when turbulence mixing is reinstated, the vertically dependent radiation stresses produce vertical velocity gradients which then produce turbulent mixing; as a consequence, velocities are reduced, but are still larger by an order of magnitude compared to Stokes drift. Nevertheless, the velocity reduction is sufficient so that elevation set-down obtained from a balance between elevation gradient and radiation stress gradients is nearly coincident with that obtained by the aforementioned papers. This paper includes four appendices. The first appendix demonstrates the numerical process by which Stokes drift is excluded from the turbulence stress parameterization in the momentum equation. A second appendix determines a bottom slope criterion for the application of linear wave relations to the derivation of the wave radiation stress. The third appendix explores the possibility of generalizing results by non-dimensionalization. The final appendix applies the basic theory to a problem introduced by Bennis and Ardhuin (J Phys Oceanogr 41:2008–2012, 2011).

Keywords

Surface waves Ocean circulation Ocean modeling Wave radiation stress 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Comments by reviewers were helpful in revising the paper.

References

  1. Aiki H, Greatbatch RJ (2013) The vertical structure of the surface radiation stress for circulation over a sloping bottom as given by thickness-weighted-mean theory. J Phys Oceanogr 41:149–164Google Scholar
  2. Ardhuin F, Rascle N, Belibassakis KA (2008) Explicit wave-averaged primitive equations using a generalized Lagrangian mean. Ocean Modelling 20:35–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennis A-C, Ardhuin F (2011) Comments on “The depth-dependent current and wave interaction equations: a revision”. J Phys Oceanogr 41:2008–2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blumberg AF, Mellor GL (1987) A description of a three-dimensional coastal ocean model. Coastal Estuarine Science 4:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowen AJ, Inman DL, Simmons VP (1968) Wave 'set-down' and set-up. J Geophys Res 73:2569–2577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dean RG, Dalrymple RA. 1998: Water wave mechanics for engineers and scientists. Vol. 2, Advanced Series on Ocean Engineering, World Scientific, 353 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. Donelan MA (1999) Wind-induced growth and attenuation of laboratory waves. In: Wind-over-wave couplings. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 183–194Google Scholar
  8. Feddersen F, Guza RT, Elgar S, Herbers THC (1998) Alongshore momentum balances in the nearshore. J Geophys Res 103:15,667–15,676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kumar N, Voulgaris G, Warner JC (2011) Implementation and modification of a three-dimensional wave radiation stress for surf zone and rip-current applications. Coastal Eng 58:1097–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kumar N, Voulgaris G, Warner JC, Olabarrieta M (2012) Implementation of the vortex force formalism in the coupled ocean-atmosphere-wave-sediment transport (COAWST) system for inner shelf and surf zone application. Ocean Modelling 47:65–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Longuet-Higgins MS, Stewart RW (1960) Changes in the form of short gravity waves on long waves and tidal streams. J Fluid Mech 8:565–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Longuet-Higgins MS, Stewart RW (1962) Radiation stress and mass transport in gravity waves, with application to “surf-beats”. J Fluid Mech 13:481–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Longuet-Higgins MS, Stewart RW (1964) Radiation stresses in water waves; a physical discussion with applications. Deep-Sea Res 11:529–562Google Scholar
  14. McWilliams JCM, Restrepo JM (1999) The wave-driven ocean circulation. J Phys Oceanogr 29:2523–2540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mellor GL (2003a) The three dimensional, current and surface wave equations. J Phys Oceanogr 33:1978–1989, Also see ftp://aden.princeton.edu/pub/glm/corrected2002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mellor GL (2003b) Users guide for a three-dimensional, primitive equation, numerical ocean model. Princeton University, Princeton, 53ppGoogle Scholar
  17. Mellor GL (2011a) Wave radiation stress. Ocean Dyn 61:563–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mellor GL (2011b) Reply to Comments by A. Bennis and F. Ardhuin. J Phys Oceanogr 41:2013–2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mellor G, Blumberg A (2004) Wave breaking and ocean surface layer thermal response. J Phys Oceangr 34:693–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mellor GL, Yamada T (1982) Development of a tubulence closure model for geophysical fluid problems. Rev Geophys and Space Phys 20:851–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mellor GL, Donelan MA, Oey L-Y (2008) A surface wave model for coupling with numerical ocean circulation models. J Atmos Ocean Tech 35:1785–1807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Newberger PA, Allen JS (2007) Forcing a three-dimensional, hydrostatic, primitive-equation model for application in the surf zone: 2. Application to DUCK94. J Geophys Res 112:C08019. doi: 10.1029/2006JC003474 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Phillips OM (1977) The dynamics of the upper ocean. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 336Google Scholar
  24. Smith JA (2006) Wave–current interactions in finite depth. J Phys Oceanogr 36:1403–1419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Uchiyama Y, McWilliams JC, Shchepetkin AF (2010) Wave–current interaction in an oceanic circulation model with a vortex-force formalism: application to the surf zone. Ocean Modelling 34:16–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Xu Z, Bowen AJ (1994) Wave- and wave-driven flow in water of finite depth. J Phys Oceanogr 24:1850–1866CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Sayre Hall, Forrestal CampusPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations