2007
DOI: 10.1175/jpo3043.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Wave–Current Interaction: A Comparison of Radiation-Stress and Vortex-Force Representations

Abstract: The effects of wind-generated surface gravity waves on more slowly evolving long waves, currents and material distributions in stratified coastal waters are investigated using the wave-averaged, asymptotic equations developed in McWilliams et al. (2004), based on small wave slope and on scale separations in both time and horizontal space. Excluding non-conservative effects such as wave breaking, the lowest order radiation stress, introduced by Longuet-Higgins & Stewart (1960) and Hasselmann (1971), can be comp… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

2
75
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 97 publications
(77 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
2
75
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Bennis and Ardhuin (2011) questioned the method of Mellor and suggested the use of Lagrangian mean framework leading to the so-called vortex force. Vortex force method has been implemented in ROMS-SWAN (Kumar et al, 2012;Lane et al, 2007;McWilliams et al, 2004;Uchiyama et al, 2010). Moghimi et al (2013) critically compared the two approaches claiming that the radiation stress formulation showed unrealistic offshore directed transport in the wave shoaling regions; on the other hand the results of longshore circulations performed similarly for both methods.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bennis and Ardhuin (2011) questioned the method of Mellor and suggested the use of Lagrangian mean framework leading to the so-called vortex force. Vortex force method has been implemented in ROMS-SWAN (Kumar et al, 2012;Lane et al, 2007;McWilliams et al, 2004;Uchiyama et al, 2010). Moghimi et al (2013) critically compared the two approaches claiming that the radiation stress formulation showed unrealistic offshore directed transport in the wave shoaling regions; on the other hand the results of longshore circulations performed similarly for both methods.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some of these have been further adapted into existing ocean numerical models and applied to reproduce observed circulations [e.g., Uchiyama et al, 2009] and nearshore dispersion [e.g., Reniers et al, 2009]. The main distinctions between the different formulations are (1) the use of an Eulerian or Lagrangian point of view and (2) the separation or not of the momentum into wave and mean flow contributions [Lane et al, 2007;Bennis et al, 2011]. For the first aspect, truly Eulerian approach requires a mathematical extrapolation of the velocity profile from the trough level to the mean sea level in order to define the mean flow in the crest-to-trough region [Mc Williams et al, 2004].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We make use of the CoupledOcean-Atmosphere-Wave-Sediment Transport (COAWST) Modeling System described by Warner et al (2010), which provides online, two-way coupling between ROMS, SWAN, and Weather Regional Forecast (WRF) models through the Model Coupling Toolkit (MCT). We implemented the coupled ROMS-SWAN simulations for the south shore of Honolulu, Hawaii, using a vortex force formalism to account for the wave-current interaction described by Uchiyama et al (2010) and Kumar et al (2012), which gives better performance than the traditional (Mellor, 2005(Mellor, , 2008) radiation stress approach (Lane et al, 2007). All simulations use the Mellor and Yamada (1982) turbulence closure model to account for the vertical mixing.…”
Section: The Roms Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is particularly important for the wave-induced mixing and the surf zone circulation. Lane et al (2007) and Uchiyama et al (2010) showed that the radiation stress approach used in the Delft3D system does not properly decompose the wave effects, and it obscures their underlying impact on the long (infragravity) waves and currents. From the point of view of the wave field, Edwards et al (2009) show the Delft3D system tends to underestimate the wave height.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%