See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/37618269

Characteristics of Plunging Breaking Waves

Article · October 1995

Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

10 1,166

2 authors, including:

Jaw-Fang Lee
National Cheng Kung University
39 PUBLICATIONS 483 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jaw-Fang Lee on 01 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CHARACTERISTICS OF
PLUNGING BREAKING WAVES

by

Hubert CHANSON

Senior Lecturer in Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland, Australia

and

LEE Jaw-Fang

Professor in Hydraulics and Ocean Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan R.O.C.

RESEARCH REPORT No. CE 150

Department of Civil Engineering

The University of Queensland

October, 1995

Synopsis :
The main mechanisms of air entrainment by breaking waves are spilling breakers and plunging breakers.
With plunging breakers, the entrainment of air bubbles is caused by the top of the wave forming a
plunging jet and entraining air when it impacts the water in front of the wave. The potential for air
bubble entrainment is much greater than the spilling wave type.
New experiments were performed in a two-dimensional wave basin. The breaking process was
investigated with a high-speed video camera. The results provide new information on the breaking point
characteristics, the jet impact conditions and the energy dissipation process. The entrainment of air
bubbles is detailed. And the rate of energy dissipation by plunging breakers is estimated. The interactions
between air bubble entrainment and energy dissipation mechanisms are discussed.

Résumé :
L'entrainement d'air par vagues déferlantes résulte principalement du déferlement de vagues
'déversantes' ("spilling") et en 'jet plongeant' ("breaking"). Dans le cas de vagues déferlantes en jet
plongeant, la crête de la vague se referme et plonge à travers la surface libre, entrainant un nombre
important de bulles d'air. Potentiellement, l'entraînement de bulles d'air par vagues déferlantes en jet
plongeant est largement plus important que pour les vagues déversantes ("spilling").
On présente de nouvelles expérimentations, faites dans un canal à houle bi-dimensionel. Le processus de
déferlement a été observé avec des images vidéo-caméra prises à grandes vitesses. Les résultats de cette
étude fournissent de nouvelles informations sur le mécanisme de déferlement en jet plongeant, l'impact
du jet plongeant et sur la dissipation d'énergie associée. On détaille, en particulier, le processus de
déferlement et l'entraînement de bulles d'air, la dissipation d'énergie et les interactions entre
l'entraînement d'air et la dissipation d'énergie.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Synopsis - Résumé I
Table of contents II
Notation III
1. Introduction 1-1
2. Experimental apparatus 2-1
2.1 Experimental wave flume
2.2 Instrumentation
2.3 Preparation of the experimental flow conditions
3. Experimental results 3-1
3.1 Presentation
3.2 Breaking point
3.4 Plunging jet impact conditions
4. Discussion 4-1
4.1 Impact flow conditions
4.2 Bubble penetration depth
4.3 Energy dissipation by plunging breaking waves
5. Conclusion 5-1
6. Acknowledgments 6-1
References R-1

APPENDIX
Appendix A. Experimental data : wave gauge recordings A-1
Appendix B. Experimental data : wave breaking and jet impact B-1
Appendix C. Energy dissipation calculations C-1
Appendix D. Energy dissipation by plunging jet at a drop structure D-1

II
NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this report :

A cross-section area (m2) : for a rectangular channel : A = W*d;

Co celerity (m/s) of the deep-water waves;

DH hydraulic diameter (m) : DH = 4*A/Pw;

(Dp)max maximum air bubble penetration height (m) measured vertically from the jet impact

position : (Dp)max = (Lp)max + Hi ;

d still water depth (m) at breaking point;

dc critical flow depth (m) in open channel flow;

do still water level (m) measured perpendicular to the channel bottom;

E 1- energy of the incident wave;

2- total head (m) of a free-surface flow;

g gravity constant(m/s2);

H wave amplitude (m);

Hb wave crest elevation (m) at breaking measured from the still water level;

Hi height (m) of the plunging jet impact measured above the still water level;

Ho wave amplitude (m) of deep-water waves;

h wave height (m) measured from crest to trough;

hI incident wave height (m);

hb breaking wave height (m) measured from crest to trough;

ho 1- wave height (m) of deep-water waves;

2- wave height (m) of deep-water waves measured at wave gauge No. 2 (see fig. 2-2);

hr wave reflexion height (m);

ht wave transmission height (m);

Kr wave reflexion coefficient : Kr = hr/hI;

Kt wave transmission coefficient : Kt = ht/hI;

Lo wave length (m) of the deep-water waves;

III
(Lp)max maximum penetration height (m) measured from the still water level and positive

downwards;

Pw wetted perimeter (m) : for a rectangular channel : Pw = W + 2*d;

T wave period (s);

V velocity (m/s);

Vb velocity (m/s) of the wave crest at breaking point;

Vi impact velocity (m/s) of the plunging jet,

W channel width (m);

x distance along the channel bottom (m);

y distance measured perpendicular to the channel bed surface (m);

z transverse distance (m) measured perpendicular from the right sidewall;

α angle between the free-surface and the horizontal at impact of the plunging jet;

∆E 1- energy dissipation by breaking wave;

2- head loss (m);

∆z 1- backward facing step height (m);

2- drop (m) at a drop structure;

θ angle between the impinging plunging jet and the water free-surface;

ρw water density (kg/m3);

Subscript

b flow conditions at breaking;

BEM BEM model computations;

i impact flow conditions at the impingement of the plunging jet with the water free-surface;

o deep-water flow conditions;

r wave reflexion;

t wave transmission;

IV
Abbreviations

BEM Boundary Elements Method.

V
1. Introduction

1.1 Presentation

An important parameter in the assessment of the water quality of lakes, estuaries and the ocean is the

dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration. Most aquatic life forms are aerobic. And if the DO levels are low

(i.e. < 0.5 ppm) these life forms die and are replaced by anaerobic bacteria which produce toxic and

unpleasant chemicals (e.g. H2S) as part of their metabolism. Low DO levels can also result in reduction

of oxides in the bottom sediments, releasing iron and manganese into water supply reservoirs. Low DO

levels may also indicate other problems such as excessive waste water inflow, as waste waters often

contain high nutrient levels. These waste waters often contain other contaminants such as faecal coliform

bacteria and pesticides. For all these reasons DO levels are an excellent indicator of the overall water

quality.

Unless a lot of algae is present, most dissolved oxygen is derived from free surface aeration (i.e. gas

transfer at the free-surface). A substantial component of the mass transfer process occurs in the air bubble

clouds entrained by breaking waves, in particular plunging breakers. Air-water gas transfer across the air

bubble interface is predominant as the net surface area of thousands of tiny bubbles is much greater than

the surface area above the bubble clouds.

A general understanding of the mechanism and processes governing the mean flow fields in water

waves just breaking remains one of the unsolved problems in fluid mechanics (BASCO 1985). The

proposed research is focused on this area. It is of significance to coastal and offshore engineers as

plunging breaking waves are the most severe environmental load on coastal and offshore structures.

1.2 Breaking wave process

The main mechanisms of air entrainment by breaking waves are spilling breakers and plunging

breakers. In this study, only the plunging breaking wave type is examined as its potential for air bubble

entrainment is much greater than the spilling wave type (COKELET 1977). With plunging breakers, the

entrainment of air bubbles is caused by the top of the wave forming a water jet projecting ahead of the

wave face and entraining air when it impacts the water free-surface in front of the wave (fig. 1-1). The air

bubble advective dispersion downstream of the impingement point is a function of the initial jet

1-1
momentum, pressure gradients, turbulence and currents. Away from the entrainment point, the bubbles

are carried to the free-surface by the combined action of buoyancy and turbulence. The air-water gas

transfer occurs across the air bubble interface during the transport time.

Several researchers (KOGA 1982, HUBBARD et al. 1987, CHANSON and CUMMINGS

1992,1994a) proposed to model only the plunging jet of the waves in laboratory using a steady plunging

jet flow. Although some successful results were obtained (e.g. CHANSON and CUMMINGS 1994b),

most studies highlighted the lack of knowledge of the characteristics of plunging water jets in front of the

breaking waves. Indeed air bubble entrainment by steady plunging water jets depends critically upon the

jet impact velocity and impact angle. Different amounts of air will be entrained and the characteristics of

the bubbles (size, number life time) will vary with various jet impact flow conditions. It is believed that

the same effects occurs with the plunging jets of breaking waves. The air bubble entrainment process at

plunging breakers is further complicated by the flow unsteadiness.

Fig. 1-1 - Sketch of a plunging breaking wave (after CHANSON and CUMMINGS 1992)

Wave θ
height F re e-fall
hb h ei ght

E ntra ined
air bubbles

1-2
1.3 Aim of the study

A series of laboratory experiments were performed in a two-dimensional wave flume at the Tainan

Hydraulics Laboratory (see chapter 2). Plunging breaking waves were initiated with a rising bottom. The

(unsteady) flow conditions at wave breaking and at plunging jet impact were recorded using a high-

resolution video-camera system.

The results of the study provide new information of the breaking conditions and on the jet impact

conditions. With such information, the analogy between plunging breaking waves and steady plunging

jets is re-discussed. The energy dissipation characteristics of plunging breakers are also detailed. The rate

of energy dissipation is analysed by comparing experimental result with ideal-fluid flow computations.

And the interactions between air entrainment and energy dissipation are discussed.

1-3
2. Experimental apparatus

2.1 Experimental wave flume

The authors performed experiments in a 10-m glass flume of uniform rectangular section (fig. 2-1).

The channel width is W = 0.3 m and the sidewall height is 0.7 m. The walls are made of glass panels. The

channel bottom and the supporting frame are made of steel. For all the experiments, the channel bed was

horizontal and Tainan tap water was used.

At one end of the flume is located the wave generator. The wave maker is controlled by a variable-

speed electronic controller enabling a fine established-wave characteristic adjustment. The other end of

the channel is a dissipation system (i.e. beach) consisting of inclined perforated steel plates, wave breaker

models and plastic meshes (fig. 2-1). The dissipation system was tested to minimise the wave reflection

and to retard the "backwashing" effect observed after the breaker dissipation (see section 2.3).

A sloping bottom was installed at 4.12 m downstream of the wave maker (fig. 2-2). The bottom slope

was 4.8 degrees and the inclined bottom ended with a backward facing step (fig. 2-1 and 2-2). The

geometry of the bottom and the deep-water wave characteristics were selected to induce breaking near the

end of the sloping bottom with the plunging jet impacting downstream of the bottom edge in a region of

large water depth. Such a geometry enables to minimise the effects of the bed (beach or channel bottom)

on the jet impact conditions.

Further details on the channel were reported by LIN and HWUNG (1992) and HWUNG et al. (1992).

2.2 Instrumentation

The still water level was measured with a graduated scale (∆d < 0.5 mm). Three wave gauges were

installed along the channel (fig. 2-2). The wave gauge resistances were scanned simultaneously at 100 Hz

by a computer-controlled data acquisition system. For all the experiments, the deep-water wave

characteristics were taken as that measured at the wave gauge No. 2 (see fig. 2-2). The error on the wave

amplitude is estimated as ∆H < 0.5 mm.

2-1
 Fig. 2-1 - Photograph of the experimental flume
(A) General view (wave generator on the left)

(B) Detail of the sloping bottom - Note the CCD camera (black camera in front of the sloping bottom) on
the left foreground, the sloping bottom and the beach on the right

2-2
 Fig. 2-1 - Photograph of the experimental flume
(C) Undeveloped wave passing over the sloping bottom without breaking (d = 0.20 m)
Wave direction from the left to the right

(D) Air bubble entrainment shortly after wave breaking (d = 0.20 m)

Wave direction from the left to the right - Note the squares in the background sidewall which are 0.10-m
by 0.10 m

2-3
 z
0.3 m
16 0 167 mm
mm 70 mm
4.12 m
5.69 m sidew alls

incident
wave
flow
measurem ent

2-4
location of h o
Wave generator

y
Wave Wave Wave
gauge 1 gau ge 2 gauge 3
2.7 05 m
6.2 15 m

3.855 m
Fig. 2-2 - Sketch of the experimental setup

Beach
(dissipation system)
De tail of the sloping
bottom
131.2 m m
1570 mm
 The wave breaking process was observed with a digital video-camera Sony™ CCD XC77RR (fig. 2-

1(B)). The shutter speed was set at 1 ms (0.001 second). The images were recorded on a video-recorder

JVC™ HR-S5500V at a rate of 30 frames per second. Two camera positions were used : one at the end of

the sloping bottom to investigate the wave breaking, and one in front of the water pool to record the

plunging jet impact. The camera was focused on the channel centreline and covered a window of about

0.45-m by 0.34-m.

After the experiments, the video-camera pictures were processed on a television set Sony™ Trinitron

KV21DJ2 using a video-recorder Panasonic™ NV-H30 with a fine frame-by-frame adjustment system.

The velocities were obtained from the travelling distance (of the characteristic flow feature) over one

frame interval. The errors on the height and velocity data are estimated as ∆H < 2 mm and ∆V < 0.1 m/s.

2.3 Preparation of the experimental flow conditions

During the series experiments (table 2-1), the same procedure was applied to each experiment. The

water in the flume being perfectly still, the wave gauge data acquisition system and the video-recorder

were started before the wave-maker. Because of the inertia of the wave maker, the waves No. 1 and 2 (i.e.

first and second waves) were not fully-developed and no breaking was observed (e.g. fig. 2-1(C)). Wave

breaking was always observed from the wave No. 3.

After a period of time (i.e. usually after the wave No. 7), two secondary effects were observed : 1- a

"backwashing" effect caused by an increase of volume of water at the end of the channel (i.e. downstream

of the step), and 2- some wave reflection effects caused by the beach at the downstream end of the

channel.

The plunging breaking downstream of the backward-facing step induced an increase of the volume of

water at the downstream end of the flume. After few breaking events, the mean water level at the end of

the flume (wave gauge No. 3) became larger than the still water level and induced a pressure force

opposed to the wave direction. As a result the wave breaking positions were shifted upstream outside of

the camera window and wave breaking no longer occurred at the end of the sloping bottom. A similar

backwashing effect was observed previously by other researchers (e.g. IVERSEN 1952).

2-5
 Further wave reflection on the beach could induce small perturbations (i.e. wavelets) at the free-

surface. The presence of wavelets perturbed the incoming waves and also the video signal. On the

television screen, the wavelets looked grey and the free-surface became difficult to pinpoint accurately.

To avoid these effects, it was decided to investigate only the waves No. 3 to 7 for each run. Although

the waves No. 3, 4 and 5 were undeveloped, their characteristics were close to those of fully-developed

breaking waves. The individual wave properties (as recorded with the wave gauges) were used as the

deep-water wave characteristics. Figure 2-3 shows typical wave amplitude recordings. During the

experiment, wave breaking was observed from the wave No. 3. Note the modification of the signal of the

wave gauge No. 3 after wave breaking (i.e. waves No. 3 and subsequent). The gauge No. 3, located

downstream of the jet impact (see fig. 2-2), recorded the free-surface fluctuations at a location where

most of the breaking wave energy was dissipated.

At last the time between the end of one experiment and the start of the next one was always at least 4

minutes to enable perfectly still water initial flow conditions.

Table 2-1 - Experimental flow conditions

Run Flow depth Wave celerity Wave amplitude Wave length

do Co Ho Lo
m m/s m m
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Series 1 0.1995 1.14 to 1.34 0.029 to 0.047 1.33 to 1.73
Series 2 0.2172 1.26 to 1.35 0.0395 to 0.052 1.28 to 1.56
Series 3 0.18525 1.246 to 1.35 0.027 to 0.038 1.52 to 1.73

Note : experimental flow conditions corresponding to the third to seventh waves.

2-6
 Fig. 2-3 - Wave gauge recordings - Series 1, Run 1A

H (cm)
6 Series 1, Run 1A
Gauge No. 3, Wave No. 5
5

4
Gauge No. 2, Wave No. 1
3

-1
Gauge No. 2
-2 Gauge No. 3

-3 Time (s)
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

2-7
3. Experimental results

3.1 Presentation

The experimental study investigated the wave characteristics at breaking and at the jet impact. The

main wave breaking parameters, recorded during the experiments, are defined on figure 3-1. For each

wave, the individual wave characteristics (wave celerity Co, wave amplitude Ho and wave length Lo)

were deduced from the wave gauge recordings (wave gauge No. 2 for Ho, Lo and T, wave gauges No. 1

and 2 for Co) (e.g. fig. 2-3).

In this chapter, the results of the wave breaking process (breaking height hb, breaking celerity Vb)

and the plunging jet impact flow conditions (angles θ and α, free-surface height Hi, impact velocity Vi)

are described. Additional parameters are discussed in the next section. Full details of the experiments are

reported in appendices A (wave height recordings), B (wave breaking and jet impact parameters) and C

(energy dissipation calculations).

3.2 Breaking point

At breaking near the edge of the sloping bottom (fig. 3-2), the wave amplitude Hb, the wave height hb

and the horizontal velocity of the wave crest Vb were recorded. The results are summarised on figure 3-3

and 3-4.

On figure 3-3, the breaking wave height is presented as IPPEN (1966) and compared with the deep-

water breaking theory (Mitchell theory) and the solitary wave theory. Figure 3-3 shows a close agreement

between the experimental flow conditions recorded near the edge of a backward-facing step and the

results of IPPEN (1966) obtained for a long constant-slope bottom. The small differences noted on figure

3-3 might be accounted for the different bed slope geometry.

Figure 3-4 presents the dimensionless breaking wave celerity Vb/Co as a function of the

dimensionless breaking wave amplitude Hb/d. The results suggests that the breaking velocity is of the

same order of magnitude as the deep-water wave celerity. In average for all experiments : Vb/Co = 1.04.

Details of the experimental results are summarised in table 3-1 and compared with the re-analysis of

photographic studies.

3-1
Fig. 3-1 - Definition of the plunging breaking wave parameters

3-2
 Fig. 3-2 - Wave near breaking

do = 0.20 m - Sloping bottom on the left - Note the wave gauge No. 3 on the right

Fig. 3-3 - Wave breaking height hb/T2 as a function d/T2 (in m/s2)

Comparison between experimental data and the results of IPPEN (1966).

1 hb/T^2 (m/s2) Mitchell theory

0.1
IPPEN (1966)
Data Series 1
Data Series 2
Data Series 3
0.01

Solitary wave theory

0.001 d/T^2 (m/s2)

0.01 0.1 1 10

3-3
 Fig. 3-4 - Wave breaking velocity Vb/Co as a function of Hb/d

Vb/Co
1.80

1.60

1.40
Data - Series 1
1.20 Data - Series 2
Data - Series 3
1.00
BIESEL (1951)
IVERSEN (Slope 1:10)
0.80
IVERSEN (Slope 1:20)
0.60

0.40

0.20 Hb/d
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3

Prior to the experiments, the writers expected that the ratio Vb/Co would be larger than unity. Indeed

with plunging breakers the wave crest must overshot the body of the wave to project ahead of the wave

face. The experimental results refute the writers' guess. Vb/Co is only slightly larger than unity in

average.

3.4 Plunging jet impact conditions

The flow conditions at the impact of the water jet with the free-surface are most important in

characterising the air bubble entrainment process. Recent reviews of air entrainment by plunging jets

(e.g. BIN 1993, CHANSON 1995b) showed that the jet impact velocity Vi and the angle θ between the

plunging jet and the free-surface of the receiving liquid are two dominant parameters for estimating the

amount of entrained air and the sizes of entrained bubbles.

3-4
Table 3-1 - Breaking velocity experiments

Ref. Flow Wave Vb/Co Vb/Co Nb of Comments

depth celerity Exp.
do Co Mean Standard
m m/s value deviation
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Present study
Series 1 0.1995 1.14 to 1.12 0.260 13 Backward-facing step : ∆z =
1.33 0.1312 m.
Series 2 0.2172 1.26 to 1.03 0.097 19
1.35
Series 3 0.18525 1.25 to 0.96 0.092 11
1.35
Experiments
IVERSEN (1951) 0.701 1.4 to 0.492 0.171 5 Beach slope : 1:10.
3.9
0.45 2.4 to 3 0.338 N/A 2 Beach slope : 1:20
CHAN (1994) 0.60 1.70 1.24 1 Impact on vertical structure (fig.
4).
CHAN and MELVILLE 0.60 1.44 1.37 1 In absence of structure (fig. 2).
(1988)
Calculations
BIESEL (1951) 0.36 N/A 1 Calculation (1st-order theory).
0.55 N/A 1 Calculation (2nd-order theory).

Fig. 3-5 - Jet impact height above still water level Hi/Hb as a function of the ratio Ho/Lo
Hi/Hb
0.5 Series 2

0.45

0.4

0.35 Series 1

0.3
Data Series 1
0.25 Data Series 2
Data Series 3
0.2
Series 3
0.15

0.1

0.05

0 Ho/Lo
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

3-5
Fig. 3-6 - Plunging jet angle θ with the free-surface as a function of the ratio Ho/Lo

θ
50 (degrees)

45

40

35

30 Teta Series 1
Teta Series 2
25
Teta Series 3
20 EQ. (3-1)
15

10

0 Ho/Lo
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

Fig. 3-7 - Free-surface slope α at the jet impact as a function of the ratio Ho/Lo

35 α
(degrees)

30

25

20 Series 1
Series 2
15 Series 3

10

0 Ho/Lo
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

3-6
 On figure 3-5, the dimensionless impact height (measured above the still water level and positive

upwards) is plotted as a function of the ratio Ho/Lo. The results can be grouped in three regions as

highlighted on figure 3-5 as a function of the still water flow depth. Typically the ratio Hi/Hb ranges

from 0 to 0.45 : i.e., wave impact occurs always above the still water level (SWL). Note the important

scatter of the data.

The data plunging jet impact angle θ are presented on figure 3-6. For all the experiments, the results

are best correlated by :

Ho
θ = 41.2 - 364.1 * L (3-1)
o

where θ is in degrees. It is worth noting that : 1- the jet impact angle is about 31 degrees (mean value for

all experiments) and 2- θ decreases slightly with increasing wave amplitude and wave steepness. The

former result is consistent with a re-analysis of plunging breaker photographs (COLES 1967,

MELVILLE and RAPP 1985, LONGUET-HIGGINS 1988) by CHANSON and CUMMINGS

(1992)who estimated roughly θ between 15 and 45 degrees .

Figure 3-7 shows the slope of the free-surface at impact with the horizontal. The data exhibit a wide

range of scatter : i.e., between 0 and 35 degrees. Such a scatter is consistent with the scatter of impact

height data. Indeed the free-surface shape in front of the breaking point implies that the free-surface slope

at impact is expected to decrease with decreasing impact height. Overall the order of magnitude of free-

surface slope data is consistent with the re-analysis of photographs by CHANSON and CUMMINGS

(1992).

3-7
4. Discussion

4.1 Impact flow conditions

After wave breaking, the plunging water jet is in free-falling motion before impacting on the free-

surface (fig. 4-1). For a free-falling jet, the impact flow conditions Vi and the jet angle with the

horizontal (α + θ) can be deduced from simple jet trajectory equations as functions of the breaking

velocity Vb and free-falling height (Hb - Hi). It yields :

Vi = Vb2 + 2 * g * (Hb - Hi) (4-1)

2 * g * (Hb - Hi)
tan(α + θ) = Vb (4-2)

On figure 4-2, the measured jet angle with horizontal (α + θ) is compared with equation (4-2). The

agreement between the data and a simple trajectory equation is fair although not excellent.

Fig. 4-1 - Sketch of the impact flow conditions

Vb
Plunging
jet impact

Plunging
jet

H
b
θ
α Still water
level
Hi

V
i
max

max
(Dp )

(Lp)

entr ained
air b ubbles

4-1
 Fig. 4-2 - Jet impact angle : comparison between equation (4-2) and experimental data

70
(α + θ)
EQ. (4-2)
60

50

40

30
(α + θ)
data
20
20 30 40 50 60 70

Fig. 4-3 - Cloud of entrained air bubbles shortly after wave breaking

(A) d = 0.20 m - Sloping bottom on the left and beach on the right - The squares (in the background

sidewall) are 0.10-m by 0.10 m

4-2
 Fig. 4-3 - Cloud of entrained air bubbles shortly after wave breaking

(B) Flow conditions as on figure 4-3(A)

Fig. 4-4 - Maximum bubble penetration depth (Dp)max/Ho as a function of the ratio Ho/Lo

Note : (Dp)max is the penetration depth measured vertically from the impingement point

(Dp)max/Ho Maximum penetration depth

below the impingement point
2

1.5

Data - Series 1
Data - Series 2
1 Data - Series 3

0.5

0 Ho/Lo
0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04

4-3
4.2 Bubble penetration depth

Following the impact of the plunging water jet, the entrained bubbles are carried away downwards by

the jet motion before being trapped in surrounding vortical motion. Later the bubble path becomes driven

by buoyancy and the air bubbles rise to the free-surface (e.g. fig. 4-3).

The maximum bubble penetration depth was recorded during the experiments. Results are shown on

figure 4-4. Note that the maximum penetration depth is measured vertically from the impingement point

(see definition on fig. 4-1).

The results suggest that the air bubbles are entrained down to 1.2 to 2 times the wave amplitude below

the free-surface. Such results must be considered as a pessimistic estimate as the effects of flume bottom

might be substantial. With plunging water jets in shallow waters, the submerged jet flow is deflected by

the bottom. The change of momentum direction is accompanied by a local increase of pressure and of

pressure gradient. The modification of the pressure field induces a modification of the bubble path as

well as an increase of the buoyancy effects, the bubble rise velocity being proportional to the square root

of the vertical pressure gradient.

4.3 Energy dissipation by plunging breaking waves

The energy dissipation by breaking waves can be estimated from the incident wave properties (hI, T)

and the wave transmission characteristics downstream of the breaking point. For the present series of

experiments, the wave energy dissipation was estimated by comparing the wave height measurements at

wave gauges No. 2 and 3 (see fig. 2-2) with ideal-fluid flow computations. Full details of the calculations

and computational results are reported in appendix C.

The rate of energy dissipation by plunging breaking waves was deduced from the difference of the

wave transmission energy for ideal fluid flow (BEM model) minus the measured wave transmission

energy (data).

The ideal-fluid flow computations were performed with a Boundary Elements Method (BEM) model

which a simplification of that developed by LEE (1995). The flow field was represented by 7 boundaries

and 510 boundary elements. The incident wave flow conditions were set at the upstream open boundary.

The computations provided the (ideal-flow) wave transmission downstream of the sloping bottom and the

wave reflexion caused by the sloping bottom.

4-4
 Fig. 4-5 - Rate of energy dissipation by plunging breaking wave

(A) ∆E/E as a function of the wave steepness Ho/Lo

100 ∆E/E (%)

90
80
70
60 Data Series 1
50 Data Series 2
Data Series 3
40
30
20
10
0 Ho/Lo
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

(B) ∆E/E as a function of the dimensionless penetration depth (Dp)max/Ho

∆E/E
100
90
80
70
60 Data Series 1
Data Series 2
50
Data Series 3
40 EQ. (4-3)
30
20
10
0 (Dp)max/Ho
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

4-5
 During the experiments, the incident flow properties (i.e. produced by the wave maker) were not

measured. They were estimated instead as the wave period T measured at wave gauge No. 2 and the

measured wave height ho at wave gauge No. 2.

The results are reported on figure 4-5. They show that the rate of energy dissipation ranges from 20%

to 60% with a mean values of about 40%. Figure 4-5(B) suggests an increase of rate of energy dissipation

with increasing bubble penetration depth which is best fitted by :

0.624
∆E ⎛(Dp)max⎞
E = 31.2 * ⎜⎝ Ho ⎟⎠ (4-3)

After the impact of the free-falling jet with the free-surface, a turbulent shear flow develops below the

free-surface. Kinetic energy is dissipated by turbulent shear in the shear layers. Additionally the transfer

of momentum from the impinging flow to the surrounding fluid is dissipated by vortical and recirculatory

flow motion. As the bubble penetration depth gives an indication of the shear flow characteristic length,

figure 4-5(B) shows an increase of energy dissipation with increasing shear flow length.

Comparison with energy dissipation by plunging jet at a drop structure

Energy dissipation by plunging jet is commonly used at drop structures, along staircase waterways

and stepped channels (fig. 4-6). A simple analytical expression of the rate of energy dissipation by

plunging jet can be developed :

⎛dd + 12 * ⎛⎝ddc⎞⎠ ⎞
2

∆E ⎜c ⎟
E = 1 - ⎜ 3 ∆z ⎟
(4-4)

⎝ 2 + dc ⎠
d 21/2
dc = 3 3 ∆z
(4-5)
+ 2 + dc
23/2

where d, dc and ∆z are defined on figure 4-6 (see details in App. D). Such calculations were successfully

compared with a larger number of experimental data (e.g. CHANSON 1995a). In summary the rate of

energy dissipation at a drop structure is a non-linear function of the ratio of the critical flow depth over

the drop height.

4-6
 Fig. 4-6 - Sketch of a drop structure (after CHANSON 1995a)
critical flow
conditions
d
c

drop θ
height ∆ z d
Vi

recirculatory
flow motion

Fig. 4-7 - Comparison of energy dissipation at drop structures (vertical axis) with that at plunging

breaking waves (horizontal axis) for similar flow conditions

Calculations performed assuming a plunging jet thickness of 0.1*hb

100 (∆E/E)drop-structure
%
90
Drop structure
80 calculations
70

60 Series 1
Series 2
50
Series 3
40 Slope 1:1

30

20

10 (∆E/E)calculation
% Plunging breaker
0
calculations
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

4-7
 For a plunging breaker the drop height equals (Hb - Hi) (see fig. 3-1). At a drop structure, the critical

flow depth is a characteristic jet thickness. For plunging breaking waves, CHANSON and CUMMINGS

(1992) estimated a plunging jet thickness of about 0.01 to 0.1*hb based upon a photographic analysis.

Assuming a plunging thickness of 0.1*hb, the writers computed the equivalent rate of energy

dissipation at drop structures for the wave flow conditions. On figure 4-7 the rate of energy dissipation at

drop structures (∆E/E)drop-structure is compared with the breaking wave energy dissipation calculations

(∆E/E)calculations (App. C). Figure 4-7 indicates that the rate of energy dissipation by plunging jets is of

the same magnitude at both plunging breaking waves and drop structures. The reasonably good

agreement suggests some analogy in the mechanisms of energy dissipation.

It must be emphasised however that the analogy between drop structures and plunging breakers is

limited by fundamental differences : drop structure flows are steady flows impacting into shallow waters

while plunging breakers (as investigated in this study) are unsteady flows impacting in deeper waters.

Discussion

The above calculations are based upon a number of approximations. These are :

[H1 and H2]- The ideal fluid flow computations were performed for [H1] a steady flow and they are the

solution of [H2] linear equations.

A real-fluid flow is non-linear and unsteady. The unsteadiness of the flow implies that the wave

incidence calculations are not exactly correct. The wave reflexion on the sloping bottom propagates back

to the wave gauge No. 2 with a time delay (which is not accounted for).

[H3] The incident wave properties were taken as the measured wave height and period at the wave gauge

No. 2.

BEM computations (see App. C) showed that the wave reflexion on the sloping bottom is not

insignificant. The measured wave height ho at gauge No. 2 is in fact the superposition of the incident

wave height hI and the wave reflection height hr.

[H4]- The wave reflexion energy from the beach (at the downstream end of flume) is neglected.

As a result, the downstream wave energy estimate (deduced from the measurements) is in fact the sum of

the wave transmission energy downstream of the breaking point plus the wave reflexion energy on the

beach.

4-8
[H5]- The plunging jet impact takes place in a region of 'relatively' shallow waters. The effects of the

flume bottom might be significant.

In deep waters, the plunging jet flow and the entrained air bubbles would diffuse deeper downwards

below the free-surface. And the energy dissipation in the jet shear flow could be more important.

Overall the writers believe that the errors on the wave reflexion effects caused by the sloping bottom

and by the beach might "balance" each other. The reasonably good agreement between the drop structure

calculations and the breaking wave calculations provides an interesting comparison, suggesting some

similar dissipation processes.

4-9
5. Conclusion

Plunging breaking waves are an important mechanism of entrainment of air bubbles in the ocean and

induce the large amount of energy dissipation.

New experiments were performed in a laboratory wave flume to investigate the characteristics of

plunging breaking waves. The experimental configuration was designed to provide new information on

the breaking point characteristics and on the flow properties at the impact of the plunging jet.

The main results of the study can be summarised as :

- At the breaking point, the breaking wave celerity Vb/Co is about unity. For the experiments the mean

value was 1.04.

- The location of first-impact of the plunging water jet with the free-surface is always above the still

water level. But the data show an important scatter.

- The impact angle of the plunging jet with the receiving free-surface is about 32 degrees. It decays

slowly with increasing wave steepness.

- Below the impingement point, the entrained air bubbles are carried downwards up to 1.2 to 2 times the

wave amplitude.

- The rate of energy dissipation at each plunging breaker is about 20% to 60%. Energy dissipation

calculations suggest that the rate of energy dissipation increases with the bubble penetration depth and

with the characteristic length of the plunging jet shear flow.

- The rate of energy dissipation by plunging breakers is of the same magnitude as the rate of energy

dissipation by plunging jet at drop structures.

The writers wish to emphasise that the calculations of energy dissipation were based upon several

approximations. However, in their opinion, the close agreement between energy dissipation calculations

at plunging breakers and at drop structures confirms the soundness of the calculation results.

Some experimental data showed a high level of scatter : i.e., figures 3-4, 3.5, 3-7. It is believed that

the high levels of scatter were caused by the instable nature of the phenomenon rather than by the

accuracy of the measurements. Similar levels of scatter were indeed reported by other researchers.

5-1
Future research

The experimental results provide new information on the plunging breaking wave process. Several

lessons can be learned from the research project to develop future research :

- Experiments in a longer flume could provide a better wave attenuation at the downstream end (i.e.

beach) of the flume.

- Additional instrumentation must be considered to estimate accurately the wave reflexion at both the

sloping bottom and the wave reflexion at the beach.

- Two (or more) video-cameras would provide simultaneous information on the wave breaking process

and on the jet impact. The present series of experiments were performed with on video-camera only and

some experimental results were incomplete (see App. B). Further a faster scanning rate (i.e. 60 frames per

second or more) could enable more accurate results.

- The knowledge of the incident wave flow properties is necessary to compare the experimental results

with analytical and computational calculations. Additional instrumentation must be installed on the wave

maker to record the wave maker period and amplitude.

- An improved wave maker could be used to provide nearly-instantly fully-developed waves. A computer

control of the wave maker would enable also a better control of the wave properties.

- At the plunging jet impact, flow visualisation by illumination (laser-sheet) would provide additional

information on the velocity and vorticity fields. Such results would give more accurate information on the

energy dissipation mechanisms.

5-2
6. Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the financial support of the National Science Council of the Republic of

China (Taiwan R.O.C.). They acknowledge also the support of the Department of Hydraulics and Ocean

Engineering at the National Cheng Kung University and of the Tainan Hydraulics Laboratory which

provided the experimental facility. They wish to thank Dr HWANG G.S. for his assistance in the

preparation of the experiments and Mr LAM who performed some numerical computations.

The first author acknowledges the financial assistance of the Australian Academy of Science with a

1995 Scientific Exchange Fellowship with Taiwan. He indicates that the report was prepared during a

Special Study Program awarded by the University of Queensland and spent at the National Cheng Kung

University (Taiwan R.O.C.).

6-1
References

BASCO, D.R. (1985). "A Qualitative Description of Wave Breaking." Jl of Waterway, Port, Coatal and

Ocean Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 111, No. 2, pp. 171-188.

BIESEL, F. (1951). "Study of Wave Propagation in Water of Gradually Varying Depth." Nat. Bureau of

Standards Circular, No. 521, Nov., pp. 243-253.

BIN, A.K. (1993). "Gas Entrainment by Plunging Liquid Jets." Chem. Eng. Science, Vol. 48, No. 21, pp.

3585-3630.

CHAN, E.S. (1994). "Mechanics of Deep Water Plunging-Wave Impacts on Vertical Structures." Coastal

Engineering, Vol. 22, pp. 115-133.

CHAN, E.S., and MELVILLE, W.K. (1988). "Deep-Water Plunging Wave Pressures on a Vertical Plane

Wall." Proc. Roy. Soc. London, UK, Vol. A417, pp. 95-131.

CHANSON, H. (1995a). "Hydraulic Design of Stepped Cascades, Channels, Weirs and Spillways."

Pergamon, Oxford, UK, Jan., 292 pages (ISBN 0-08-041918-6).

CHANSON, H. (1995b). "Air Bubble Entrainment in Free-surface Turbulent Flows. Experimental

Investigations." Report CH46/95, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Queensland, Australia,

June, 368 pages (ISBN 0 86776 611 5).

CHANSON, H., and CUMMINGS, P.D. (1992). "Aeration of the Ocean due to Plunging Breaking

Waves." Research Report No. CE142, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Queensland,

Australia, Nov., 42 pages.

CHANSON, H., and CUMMINGS, P.D. (1994a). "Modelling Air Bubble Entrainment by Plunging

Breakers." Proc. Intl Symp. : Waves - Physical and Numerical Modelling, IAHR, Vancouver, Canada,

M. ISAACSON and M. QUICK Edit., Vol. 2, pp. 783-792.

CHANSON, H., and CUMMINGS, P.D. (1994b). "Effects of Plunging Breakers on the Gas Contents in

the Oceans." Marine Technology Society Journal, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 22-32.

COKELET, E.D. (1977). "Breaking Waves." Nature, Vol. 267, pp. 769-774.

COLES, K.A. (1967). "Heavy Weather Sailing." Adlard Coles, London, UK, 303 pages.

DEAN, R.G., and DALRYMPLE, R.A. (1991). "Water Wave Mechanics for Engineers and Scientists."

World Scientific, Singapore, 2nd ed..

R-1
HUBBARD, D.W., GRIFFIN, O.M., and PELTZER, R.D. (1987). "Foam Generation and Air

Entrainment near a Free Surface." Naval Research Laboratory Memorandum Report 6038, Sept.,

Washington DC, USA.

HWUNG, H.H., CHYAN, J.M., and CHUNG, Y.C. (1992). "Energy Dissipation and Air Bubbles Mixing

inside Surf Zone." Proc. 23rd Intl Conf. on Coastal Eng., ASCE, Venice, Italy, Vol. 1, Chap. 22, pp.

308-321.

IPPEN, A.T. (1966). "Estuary and Coastal Hydrodynamics." McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.

IVERSEN, H.W. (1951). "Laboratory Study of Breakers." Nat. Bureau of Standards Circular, No. 521,

Nov., pp. 9-32.

IVERSEN, H.W. (1952). "Waves and Breakers in Shoaling Water." Proc. 3rd Conf. on Coastal Eng.,

Oct., Cambridge, USA, pp. 1-12.

KOGA, M. (1982). "Bubble Entrainment in Breaking Wind Waves." Tellus, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 481-489

LEE, J.F. (1995). "A Boundary Element Formulation for 2D Stokes Flow with Filtration Barriers." Proc.

10th Intl Conf on Boundary Element Tech. BETECH95, Liège, Belgium, CMP, Southampton, UK, pp.

145-152.

LIN, C., and HWUNG, H.H. (1992). "External and Internal Flow Fields of Plunging Breakers."

Experiments in Fluids, Vol. 12, pp. 229-237.

LONGUET-HIGGINS, M.S. (1988). "Mechanisms of Wave Breaking in Deep Water" in "See Surface

Sound." Kluwer Academic Publishers, NATO ASI Series C, Vol. 238, B.R. Kerman editor, pp. 1-30.

MELVILLE, W.K., and RAPP, R.F. (1985). "Momentum Flux in Breaking Waves." Nature, Vol. 317,

pp. 514-516.

WHITE, M.P. (1943). "Energy Loss at the Base of a Free Overfall - Discussion." Transactions, ASCE,

Vol. 108, pp. 1361-1364.

R-2
Appendix B. Experimental data : wave breaking and jet impact

Definitions

Co celerity (m/s) of the deep-water waves;

d still water depth (m) at breaking point : d = do - ∆z;

do still water level (m) measured perpendicular to the channel bottom;

Hb wave crest elevation (m) at breaking measured from the still water level;

Hi height (m) of the plunging jet impact measured above the still water level;

Ho wave amplitude (m) of the deep-water waves;

hb breaking wave height (m) measured from crest to trough;

Lo wave length (m) of the deep-water waves;

(Lp)max maximum penetration height (m) measured from the still water level and positive downwards;

Vb velocity (m/s) of the wave crest at breaking point;

Vi impact velocity (m/s) of the plunging jet,

α angle between the free-surface and the horizontal at impact of the plunging jet;

∆z backward facing step height (m) : ∆z = 0.1312 m;

θ angle between the impinging plunging jet and the water free-surface;

B-1
 Table B-1 - Experimental results

Run Wave Flow Wave Wave Wave Break. Break. Break. Jet Surface Impact Impact Penetr.
No. No. depth celerity ampl. length veloc. ampl. height angle slope veloc. height depth
do Co Ho Lo Vb Hb hb θ α Vi Hi (Lp)max
m m/s m m m/s m m deg. deg. m/s m m
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
Series 1
1A 3 0.1995 1.242 0.0349 1.707 1.2135 0.0719 0.0949 36 0 0.017
4 0.1995 1.181 0.0463 1.514 1.653 0.0674 0.0916
5 0.1995 1.1446 0.0457 1.398 1.854 0.0713 0.0966 21.5 20.5 1.02 0
6 0.1995 1.136 0.0459 1.331 1.518 0.0629 0.0882
1B 3 0.1995 1.315 0.0347 1.618 1.347 0.0697 0.0913 32.5 0 0.0135
4 0.1995 1.329 0.0469 1.549 1.299 0.0697 0.093 34.5 11.5 1.011 0.0146
5 0.1995 1.259 0.0467 1.418 1.011 0.077 0.1009 27 17 0.009
1C 3 0.1995 1.344 0.0293 1.728 1.179 0.059 0.0806
4 0.1995 1.329 0.0444 1.597 1.263 0.0786 0.1016 28 13 0.0034
5 0.1995 1.239 0.0454 1.406 1.113 0.0708 0.0955 21.5 33 0.0022
1D 3 0.1995 1.322 0.035 1.636 1.365 0.0685 0.0896 0.0123
4 0.1995 1.293 0.0466 1.511 1.938 0.0573 0.0784
5 0.1995 1.259 0.0465 1.413 1.416 0.0753 0.0978 33 24 0
1E 3 0.1995 1.329 0.0348 1.645 27 7.1 0.0101
4 0.1995 1.315 0.0455 1.548 26 11.3 1.011 0.0112 0.0416
5 0.1995 1.259 0.0453 1.413 1.347 0 0.0764
6 0.1995 1.259 0.0447 1.371 0.101
1F 4 0.1995 1.315 0.044 1.58 26 14 1.347 0.0056 0.073
5 0.1995 1.259 0.0457 1.43 0 0.0697
6 0.1995 1.259 0.0458 1.37
1G 3 0.1995 1.294 0.0342 1.607 27 5.7 0.009 0.0562
4 0.1995 1.307 0.0458 1.54 32.5 9.9 2.022 0.0124 0.0449
5 0.1995 1.246 0.0455 1.405 0.0034 0.0787
1H 4 0.1995 1.315 0.0407 1.674 31.5 11.3 1.686 0.0067 0.0539
5 0.1995 1.33 0.0473 1.549 28.5 11.3 1.686 0.0079 0.0843
Series 2
2A 3 0.2172 1.326 0.0413 1.54 1.347 0.0742 0.0972
4 0.2172 1.27 0.0504 1.361 1.449 0.0702 0.0949
5 0.2172 1.27 0.0499 1.278 1.179 0.0944 0.1202
2B 3 0.2172 1.327 0.0407 1.527 1.383 0.073 0.0943
4 0.2172 1.277 0.0503 1.362 1.314 0.0697 0.0933
5 0.2172 1.349 0.0492 1.351 1.416 0.0848 0.1101
2C 3 0.2172 1.325 0.0407 1.527 1.263 0.073 0.0958
4 0.2172 1.272 0.0492 1.362 1.263 0.0719 0.0961
5 0.2172 1.269 0.0488 1.278 1.281 0.0944 0.1214 26 17 0.017
2D 3 0.2172 1.293 0.0395 1.498 1.347 0.0742 0.097
4 0.2172 1.293 0.0503 1.383 1.332 0.0685 0.0915
5 0.2172 1.348 0.0486 1.361 1.518 0.0747 0.0994 28 21 0.0112
7 0.2172 1.307 0.0604 1.2945 1.416 0.0747 0.1028 24 13 0.0056
2E 3 0.2172 1.325 0.0409 1.54 1.518 0.064 0.0837 31 11 1.35 0.0292
4 0.2172 1.282 0.0523 1.369 1.179 0.0584 0.0786 29 13 1.518 0.0124 0.0382
2F 3 0.2172 1.321 0.0483 1.452 0.0708
4 0.2172 1.278 0.0482 1.325 37 7 1.686 0 0.0596
5 0.2172 1.285 0.0496 1.292 0.092
2G 3 0.2172 1.344 0.0407 1.557 1.146 0.0629 31 11 1.347 0.0258
4 0.2172 1.273 0.0511 1.367 1.551 0.0652 35 0 0.0124 0.0483
5 0.2172 1.273 0.0496 1.278
2H 4 0.2172 1.276 0.0492 1.399 1.08 0.0674 31 11 0.0225 0.0292
2I 3 0.2172 1.311 0.0408 1.509 0.0629 28 14 0.0225
4 0.2172 1.263 0.0502 1.348 1.347 0.0629 26.5 14 0.0258

B-2
 Table B-1 - Experimental results

Run Wave Flow Wave Wave Wave Break. Break. Break. Jet Surface Impact Impact Penetr.
No. No. depth celerity height length veloc. ampl. height angle slope veloc. height depth
d Co Ho Lo Vb Hb hb θ α Vi Hi (Lp)max
m m/s m m m/s m m deg. deg. m/s m m
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
Series 3
3A 3 0.1853 1.259 0.0267 1.686 1.383 0.0517 0.0694 46 8.5 1.416 0
4 0.1853 1.352 0.0334 1.715 1.179 0.0539 0.0716 29 14 1.686 0.0056
5 0.1853 1.287 0.0361 1.586 1.179 0.0618 0.0792 36 11 0.0056
6 0.1853 1.246 0.0369 1.521 1.23 0.0629 0.082 39 11 0.0056
3B 3 0.1853 1.301 0.0302 1.694 1.347 0.0517 0.0691 33 11 0.0056
4 0.1853 1.322 0.0378 1.646 1.146 0.0494 0.0668 27 10 0.0056
5 0.1853 1.266 0.0378 1.536 1.179 0.0629 0.0803 34 8.5 0
3C 3 0.1853 1.266 0.0284 1.7096 1.383 0.05 0.0677 0.0034
4 0.1853 1.315 0.0339 1.674 1.0785 0.0567 0.0741
3D 3 0.1853 1.260 0.0288 1.658 1.248 0.0517 0.0711 36 7 0
4 0.1853 1.322 0.0371 1.646 1.212 0.0652 0.084 40 8 0
3E 3 0.1853 1.259 0.0288 1.64 0 0.0562
3F 3 0.1853 1.273 0.0290 1.673 0 0.0506
4 0.1853 1.273 0.038 1.569 0 0.0652
3G 3 0.1853 1.287 0.0283 1.679 0 0.0337
4 0.1853 1.341 0.0371 1.669 0 0.0607
3H 3 0.1853 1.315 0.0273 1.7297 39 4.3 0 0.0427
4 0.1853 1.326 0.0366 1.65

B-3
Appendix C. Energy dissipation calculations

Definitions

h wave height (m) measured from crest to trough;

hI incident wave height (m);

ho wave height (m) at the wave gauge No. 2 (measurement);

hr wave reflexion height (m) at wave gauge No. 2, deduced from BEM model computations;

ht wave transmission height (m) at wave gauge No. 3;

Kr wave reflexion coefficient : Kr = hr/hI;

Kt wave transmission coefficient : Kt = ht/hI;

T wave period (s) measured at wave gauge No. 2;

The energy dissipation by plunging breaking waves downstream of the sloping bottom was estimated by

comparing the wave height measurements at wave gauges No. 2 and 3 (see fig. 2-2) with ideal-fluid flow

computations.

The ideal-fluid flow computations were performed with a Boundary Elements Method (BEM) model. The

BEM model was a simplification of the two-dimensional steady flow model developed by LEE (1995). The

flow field was represented by 7 boundaries and a total of 510 boundary elements. The upstream and

downstream boundaries were open boundaries located 4 wave depths of the upstream and downstream

sloping-bottom edges respectively. The incident wave flow conditions (see below) were set at the upstream

boundary. The computations provided the (ideal-flow) wave transmission over the sloping bottom and the

wave reflexion.

The rate of energy dissipation by plunging breaking waves was deduced from the difference of the wave

transmission energy for ideal fluid flow (BEM model) minus the measured wave transmission energy (data).

It yields :
2 2
∆E ⎛(ht)BEM⎞ ⎛(ht)data⎞
= ⎜ h ⎟ - ⎜ h ⎟ = ((Kt)BEM)2 - ((Kt)data)2 (C-1)
E ⎝ o ⎠ ⎝ o ⎠

C-1
Incident flow properties

During the experiments, the incident flow properties (at the wave maker) were not available. The incident

wave flow properties were estimated as the wave period T was that measured at wave gauge No. 2 and the

measured wave height at wave gauge No. 2. Computations showed that wave reflexion coefficient was not

zero, implying that the measured wave height ho was in fact the superposition of the incident wave height hI

and the reflected wave height hr at that location.

Notes on the calculations

The energy dissipation calculations are based upon a number of approximations.

The numerical computations have three limitations which might be the cause of errors : they solve a system

of linear equations for a steady flow situation, the incident wave flow conditions are unknown the beach

reflexion effects are ignored.

1- The BEM model solves a set of linear equations although the real-fluid flow equations are non-linear.

2- During the computations, the flow is assumed steady. As discussed in paragraph 2 and shown in appendix

A, the flow field was not fully-developed : i.e., the flow is unsteady. The unsteadiness of the flow induces

some error on the estimate of wave reflexion characteristics. Indeed the wave reflexion of the incident wave

propagates back to the measurement station (i.e. wave gauge No. 2) with some delay. Steady flow

computations implies that the wave reflexion delay is zero.

3- The incident wave conditions are unknown. As discussed above, the incident wave height is taken as that

measured at wave gauge No. 2. Supplementary computations (with the BEM model) showed that the

incident wave heights were consistently smaller than the measured wave heights at wave gauge No. 2.

4- The energy reflexion on the beach at the downstream end of the wave flume are neglected. The wave

height measurements at wave gauge No. 3 are therefore affected by the wave reflection

C-2
 Run Wave Wave Wave Wave Wave Transmit. Reflected Transmit. Wave Wave Rate of
No. No. celerity amplitude period height wave wave wave reflexion transmis. energy
height height height coeff. coeff. dissipat.
Co Ho T ho ht hr ht Kr Kt ∆E/E
data data data data G2 data G3 BEM (a) BEM (b) BEM BEM
m/s m s m m m m %
(1) (2) (3) (4) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)
Series 1
1A 3 1.3595 0.0349 1.256 0.0617 0.0465 0.0149 0.0598 0.243 0.969 37.1
4 1.3019 0.0463 1.163 0.071 0.0551 0.0172 0.0687 0.243 0.969 33.6
5 1.2804 0.0457 1.092 0.0696 0.0475 0.0161 0.0675 0.233 0.971 47.8
6 1.2407 0.0459 1.073 0.0768 0.0462 0.0175 0.0746 0.229 0.972 58.3
1B 3 1.2864 0.0347 1.258 0.0615 0.0471 0.0147 0.0596 0.241 0.970 35.4
4 1.3269 0.0469 1.167 0.0706 0.0613 0.0171 0.0683 0.244 0.969 18.5
5 1.2962 0.0467 1.094 0.0708 0.0521 0.0165 0.0687 0.234 0.971 40.1
1C 3 1.3605 0.0293 1.270 0.0546 0.0449 0.013 0.0529 0.239 0.970 26.6
4 1.3274 0.0444 1.203 0.0689 0.051 0.0168 0.0667 0.244 0.969 39.1
5 1.3 0.0454 1.082 0.0696 0.0518 0.016 0.0675 0.231 0.972 39.0
1D 3 1.3081 0.035 1.251 0.0622 0.0464 0.015 0.0603 0.241 0.970 38.4
4 1.2978 0.0466 1.164 0.0708 0.0585 0.0172 0.0685 0.244 0.969 25.6
5 1.2993 0.0465 1.088 0.0712 0.0523 0.0164 0.0691 0.232 0.971 40.4
1E 3 1.3079 0.0348 1.256 0.0615 0.0476 0.0148 0.0596 0.241 0.970 34.2
4 1.3204 0.0455 1.172 0.0696 0.0559 0.0169 0.0674 0.244 0.969 29.4
5 1.2967 0.0453 1.090 0.0685 0.0534 0.0159 0.0664 0.233 0.971 33.4
6 1.28 0.0447 1.072 0.0755 0.0495 0.0172 0.0733 0.228 0.972 51.5
1F 4 1.2961 0.044 1.219 0.0693 0.0491 0.0168 0.0671 0.243 0.969 43.8
5 1.3018 0.0457 1.099 0.0694 0.051 0.0162 0.0673 0.234 0.970 40.1
6 1.2685 0.0458 1.080 0.0724 0.0514 0.0166 0.0703 0.230 0.972 44.0
1G 3 1.2775 0.0342 1.258 0.0608 0.0472 0.0146 0.0589 0.241 0.970 33.9
4 1.2947 0.0458 1.190 0.0695 0.0532 0.0169 0.0673 0.244 0.969 35.3
5 1.2846 0.0455 1.094 0.069 0.0497 0.016 0.0669 0.233 0.971 42.4
1H 4 1.4652 0.0407 1.150 0.0706 0.052 0.0171 0.0683 0.242 0.969 39.7
5 1.3959 0.0473 1.110 0.0694 0.0496 0.0164 0.0672 0.234 0.970 43.0
Series 2
2A 3 1.388 0.0413 1.110 0.0722 0.0577 0.0146 0.0705 0.203 0.978 31.8
4 1.284 0.0504 1.060 0.0799 0.0666 0.0156 0.0781 0.197 0.979 26.3
5 1.2662 0.0499 1.009 0.0806 0.0499 0.0149 0.079 0.186 0.983 58.3
2B 3 1.3261 0.0407 1.151 0.0702 0.057 0.0142 0.0686 0.203 0.978 29.7
4 1.2934 0.0503 1.053 0.081 0.0689 0.0158 0.0792 0.195 0.980 23.5
5 1.3363 0.0492 1.011 0.0802 0.0554 0.0149 0.0786 0.187 0.983 48.8
2C 3 1.3302 0.0407 1.148 0.0701 0.0587 0.0142 0.0685 0.203 0.978 25.6
4 1.2882 0.0492 1.057 0.0806 0.0691 0.0157 0.0788 0.196 0.979 22.5
5 1.2622 0.0488 1.013 0.0804 0.0634 0.0149 0.0788 0.187 0.982 34.4
2D 3 1.2951 0.0395 1.157 0.069 0.0571 0.0139 0.0674 0.203 0.978 27.1
4 1.3047 0.0503 1.060 0.0817 0.0669 0.016 0.0799 0.197 0.979 28.8
5 1.3373 0.0486 1.018 0.0797 0.0588 0.0149 0.0781 0.188 0.982 42.0
7 1.35 0.0604 0.959 0.0929 0.0623 0.0164 0.0913 0.178 0.986 52.1
2E 3 1.3396 0.0409 1.150 0.07 0.0574 0.0142 0.0684 0.203 0.978 28.4
4 1.2995 0.0523 1.053 0.0814 0.066 0.0158 0.0796 0.195 0.980 30.2
2F 3 1.3026 0.0483 1.115 0.0782 0.0634 0.0158 0.0764 0.203 0.978 29.8
4 1.2892 0.0482 1.028 0.0777 0.0602 0.0147 0.0761 0.190 0.981 36.2
5 1.3015 0.0496 0.993 0.0813 0.0548 0.0148 0.0798 0.183 0.984 51.4
2G 3 1.352 0.0407 1.152 0.0706 0.0602 0.0143 0.069 0.203 0.978 22.9
4 1.3034 0.0511 1.049 0.0819 0.0698 0.0159 0.0801 0.195 0.980 23.4
5 1.2584 0.0496 1.016 0.0848 0.0535 0.0158 0.0831 0.188 0.982 56.7
2H 4 1.2946 0.0492 1.081 0.0802 0.0634 0.016 0.0783 0.200 0.978 33.3
2I 3 1.3136 0.0408 1.149 0.0697 0.0596 0.0141 0.0681 0.203 0.978 22.6
4 1.2792 0.0502 1.054 0.0805 0.0678 0.0157 0.0787 0.195 0.980 25.0

C-3
 Run Wave Wave Wave Wave Wave Transmit. Reflected Transmit. Wave Wave Rate of
No. No. celerity amplitude period height wave wave wave reflexion transmis. energy
height height height coeff. coeff. dissipat.
Co Ho T ho ht hr ht Kr Kt ∆E/E
data data data data G2 data G3 BEM (a) BEM (b) BEM BEM
m/s m s m m m m %
(1) (2) (3) (4) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)
Series 3
3A 3 1.2448 0.0267 1.354 0.0535 0.036 0.0149 0.0513 0.279 0.959 46.8
4 1.3146 0.0334 1.305 0.0598 0.0379 0.017 0.0572 0.284 0.958 51.6
5 1.2903 0.0361 1.229 0.0604 0.0406 0.0173 0.0578 0.287 0.957 46.4
6 1.2714 0.0369 1.196 0.0583 0.0374 0.0166 0.0558 0.285 0.958 50.5
3B 3 1.2636 0.0302 1.341 0.0544 0.0373 0.0152 0.0521 0.281 0.959 44.9
4 1.2916 0.0378 1.274 0.0617 0.0366 0.0176 0.059 0.287 0.957 53.0
5 1.2873 0.0378 1.193 0.0588 0.0388 0.0167 0.0563 0.285 0.958 48.1
3C 3 1.2548 0.0284 1.362 0.0527 0.0386 0.0146 0.0505 0.277 0.960 38.5
4 1.2622 0.0339 1.326 0.0593 0.0424 0.0167 0.0586 0.282 0.959 40.8
3D 3 1.2357 0.0288 1.342 0.0545 0.0319 0.0153 0.0522 0.281 0.959 57.8
4 1.2933 0.0371 1.273 0.0608 0.0364 0.0174 0.0582 0.287 0.957 55.8
3E 3 1.2239 0.0288 1.340 0.0545 0.0343 0.0152 0.0522 0.281 0.959 52.4
3F 3 1.2505 0.029 1.338 0.0548 0.0353 0.0154 0.0525 0.281 0.959 50.5
4 1.23 0.038 1.276 0.0622 0.0381 0.0148 0.0595 0.287 0.958 54.2
3G 3 1.2468 0.0283 1.347 0.0541 0.0349 0.0151 0.0519 0.280 0.959 50.4
4 1.3069 0.0371 1.277 0.0612 0.0372 0.0175 0.0586 0.287 0.958 54.7
3H 3 1.2959 0.0273 1.335 0.055 0.0347 0.0154 0.0527 0.281 0.959 52.1
4 1.2952 0.0366 1.274 0.062 0.0371 0.0177 0.0593 0.287 0.957 55.9

Comments :

BEM : BEM model calculations

Data : experimental data

Data G2 : experimental data recorded at gauge No. 2

Data G3 : experimental data recorded at gauge No. 3

∆E/E : rate of energy dissipation

(a) : wave reflection height at the upstream open boundary located 4 wave depths upstream

of the sloping bottom

(b ) : wave transmission height at the wave gauge No. 3

C-4
Appendix D. Energy dissipation by plunging jet at a drop structure

Definitions

dc critical flow depth (m) in open channel flow;

E total head (m) of free-surface flow;

∆E head loss (m);

∆z drop height (m) at a drop structure;

Considering a vertical drop structure (drop height ∆z), most flow properties at the jet impact can be

deduced from the application of the momentum equation at the base of the overfall (e.g. CHANSON

1995a). Energy dissipation occurs by jet breakup and jet mixing.

The dimensionless head loss equals :

⎛ ⎞
2
d 1 ⎛dc⎞
∆E ⎜
dc + 2 * ⎝ d ⎠ ⎟
E = 1 - ⎜3 ∆z ⎟ (D-1)

⎝2 + dc ⎠
where d is the flow depth downstream of the jet impact, dc is the critical flow depth and ∆z is the drop

height (fig. D-1). Application of the momentum equation to the base of overfall (WHITE 1943) gives :
d 21/2
dc = 3 3 ∆z
(D-2)
+ 2 + dc
23/2

For a drop structure, equations (D-1) and (D-2) provide the rate of energy dissipation as a function of

the ratio dc/∆z.

Analogy with plunging breaker

In equation (D-1) and (D-2), dc/∆z is the dimensionless ratio of the drop height over the characteristic

jet thickness.

For a plunging breaker, the drop height equals (Hb - Hi). (see fig. 3-1). And the characteristic jet

thickness (which is analogous to dc) was estimated as 0.01 to 0.1*hb by CHANSON and CUMMINGS

(1992) based upon a re-analysis of photographs (COLES 1967, MELVILLE and RAPP 1985,

LONGUET-HIGGINS 1988) and where hb is the breaker height.

D-1
Equations (D-1) and (D-2) can be used to estimate the energy dissipation at an "equivalent" drop

structure of height ∆z = (Hb - Hi) and for a characteristic jet width dc ~ 0.1*hb. Typical results are

given on table D-1 and they are compared with wave energy dissipation calculations (App. C).

Fig. D-1 - Sketch of a drop structure (after CHANSON 1995a)

c ritical flo w
condition s
dc

drop θ
height ∆ z d
Vi

recircula tory
flow mo tion

D-2
 Table D-1 - Energy dissipation by plunging breaking wave (App. C) and at drop structures

Run No. Wave Breaking Breaking Impact Wave Drop

No. wave wave height energy structure
amplitude height dissipation dissipation
Hb hb Hi ∆E/E ∆E/E (a)
data data data App. C App. D
m m m % %
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Series 1
1A 3 0.0719 0.0949 0.0170 37.1 46.3
5 0.0713 0.0966 0.0000 47.8 50.1
1B 3 0.0697 0.0913 0.0135 35.4 47.3
4 0.0697 0.0930 0.0146 18.5 46.7
5 0.0770 0.1009 0.0090 40.1 48.7
1C 4 0.0786 0.1016 0.0034 39.1 50.1
5 0.0708 0.0955 0.0022 39.0 49.7
1D 3 0.0685 0.0896 0.0123 38.4 47.6
5 0.0753 0.0978 0.0000 40.4 50.7
Series 2
2C 5 0.0944 0.1214 0.0170 34.4 47.9
2D 5 0.0747 0.0994 0.0112 42.0 47.9
7 0.0747 0.1028 0.0056 52.1 48.7
2E 3 0.0640 0.0837 0.0292 28.4 40.5
4 0.0584 0.0786 0.0124 30.2 46.5
Series 3
3A 3 0.0517 0.0694 0.0000 46.8 50.2
4 0.0539 0.0716 0.0056 51.6 48.8
5 0.0618 0.0792 0.0056 46.4 49.5
6 0.0629 0.0820 0.0056 50.5 49.3
3B 3 0.0517 0.0691 0.0056 44.9 48.6
4 0.0494 0.0668 0.0056 53.0 48.3
5 0.0629 0.0803 0.0000 48.1 50.9
3C 3 0.0500 0.0677 0.0034 38.5 49.1
3D 3 0.0517 0.0711 0.0000 57.8 49.9
4 0.0652 0.0840 0.0000 55.8 50.8

Note :

(a) : calculated using equations (D-1) and (D-2) with dc = 0.1*hb and ∆z = Hb - Hi

D-3

View publication stats