2002
DOI: 10.1029/2001jc001042
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Monochromatic and random wave breaking at blocking points

Abstract: [1] In this paper we study the energy dissipation due to current-limited wave breaking in monochromatic and random waves with the help of experimental tests. The opposing currents are strong enough for wave blocking to occur. A modified bore model is used to simulate the dissipation rate in the monochromatic waves, and an empirical bulk dissipation formula for wave breaking in random waves is proposed. The effects of wave blocking on the dynamics of the wave field are also discussed. INDEX TERMS: 4546

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

9
153
0
1

Year Published

2007
2007
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 124 publications
(163 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
9
153
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Xu and Bowen, 1994). Reciprocally, currents can modify waves by, refraction, partial reflection, up to blocking (Smith, 1975;Chawla and Kirby, 2002).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Xu and Bowen, 1994). Reciprocally, currents can modify waves by, refraction, partial reflection, up to blocking (Smith, 1975;Chawla and Kirby, 2002).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, a spectral approach leads to continuous non-crossing characteristics in (x-k) space, indicating that no singularity exists in a spectral description of wave propagation. Laboratory observations of wave blocking (Lai et al, 1989;Chawla and Kirby, 2002;Suastika and Battjes, 2005) clearly validate the concept of a blocking point. However, the mechanism by which the wave energy is `removed' at the blocking point does not seem to be understood yet.…”
Section: Waves Blockingmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…Here H b is a breaking waveheight, h b is breaking water depth and γ b is a constant. While the value of γ b used in the original Miche's [1951] criterion corresponds to γ b = 0.88, Chawla and Kirby [2002] applied the smaller value, γ b = 0.6, to obtain the best predictions of breaking points observed in their experiment of breaking waves against the opposing current. Ris and Holthujisen [1996] also applied the smaller value, γ b = 0.5, for their computations of wave deformation against strong opposing current.…”
Section: Impact Of Circulating Current On Deformations Of Storm Wavesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(5) to compute breaking wave-height as functions of breaking water depth, h b , wave period, T , and current velocity component in the wave propagation direction, U c . Although Chawla and Kirby [2002] and Ris and Holthujisen [1996] apply the smaller value of γ b in the case of strong opposing current, this study used the constant value, γ b = 0.6, regardless of the magnitude of opposing current velocity since it is not well known how the value of γ b should vary with the opposing current velocity. In this study, therefore, the influence of opposing current appears only in the evaluation of the wave number and corresponding wave steepness obtained through Eqs.…”
Section: Impact Of Circulating Current On Deformations Of Storm Wavesmentioning
confidence: 99%