Coastal Engineering 73 (2013) 167177

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Coastal Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/coastaleng

Boundary layer approach in the modeling of breaking solitary wave runup

Mohammad Bagus Adityawan a, b,, Hitoshi Tanaka b, Pengzhi Lin c
a
b
c

Water Resources Engineering Research Group, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jalan Ganesha 10, Indonesia
Department of Civil Engineering, Tohoku University, 6-6-06 Aoba, Sendai 980-8579, Japan
State Key Laboratory of Hydraulics and Mountain River Engineering, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610065, China

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 13 February 2012
Received in revised form 9 November 2012
Accepted 20 November 2012
Available online 20 December 2012
Keywords:
Breaking wave
Solitary wave
Wave runup
Boundary layer
Bed stress
Simultaneous coupling method

a b s t r a c t
The boundary layer is very important in the relation between wave motion and bed stress, such as sediment
transport. It is a known fact that bed stress behavior is highly inuenced by the boundary layer beneath the
waves. Specically, the boundary layer underneath wave runup is difcult to assess and thus, it has not yet
been widely discussed, although its importance is signicant. In this study, the shallow water equation (SWE)
prediction of wave motion is improved by being coupled with the k model, as opposed to the conventional
empirical method, to approximate bed stress. Subsequently, the First Order Center Scheme and Monotonic Upstream Scheme of Conservation Laws (FORCE MUSCL), which is a nite volume shock-capturing scheme, is applied to extend the SWE range for breaking wave simulation. The proposed simultaneous coupling method
(SCM) assumes the depth-averaged velocity from the SWE is equivalent to free stream velocity. In turn, free
stream velocity is used to calculate a pressure gradient, which is then used by the k model to approximate
bed stress. Finally, this approximation is applied to the momentum equation in the SWE. Two experimental
cases will be used to verify the SCM by comparing runup height, surface uctuation, bed stress, and turbulent intensity values. The SCM shows good comparison to experimental data for all before-mentioned parameters. Further analysis shows that the wave Reynolds number increases as the wave propagates and that the turbulence
behavior in the boundary layer gradually changes, such as the increase of turbulent intensity.
2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The boundary layer approach in approximating bed stress under
wave motion is crucial, especially in bed stress related analyses, i.e.
sediment transport and scouring. It is highly important in relevance to
coastal morphology changes. An extreme example of coastal morphology changes is given by the effect of a tsunami wave such as was shown
in the recent Great East Japan Tsunami, 2011 and the Great Indian
Ocean Tsunami, 2004. Studies on bed stress behaviors under wave
runup may provide better understanding of this phenomenon with
respect to future disaster.
The studies of tsunami effects on coastal regions are normally
conducted by eld assessment, modeling, or experiment. The solitary wave approach is commonly used in the study of tsunamis.
One of the leading studies on solitary wave runup is given by
Synolakis (1986, 1987) in which he conducted experiments and an
analytical solution for runup height. The work has been used as a
benchmark for other various models. The popularity of a modeling
approach in wave runup study is continuously increasing. Current
trends in wave runup modeling emphasize on travel time, runup
height or inundated area. However, studies emphasizing on bed
Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, Tohoku University, 6-6-06
Aoba, Sendai 980-8579, Japan. Tel./fax: +81 22 795 7453;
E-mail address: bagus@kasen1.civil.tohoku.ac.jp (M.B. Adityawan).
0378-3839/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2012.11.005

stress and boundary layer, especially under wave runup, are not
common yet. Boundary layer beneath the wave motion is essential,
especially in the coastal morphology changes. The sediment transport process under wave motion is closely related to the bed shear
stress, which is inuenced by the boundary layer beneath the wave
itself (Vittori and Blondeaux, 2008).
There are very limited resources regarding boundary layer for solitary waves, especially in open-channel umes. Measurement of turbulent behavior requires multiple wave cycles with the same initial
conditions of still water level. It is considered to be difcult and time
consuming to accomplish these conditions in open-channel umes.
Studies mainly use closed-channel umes, which may resemble the solitary prole to some extent. Liu et al. (2007) have reported that the bed
stress changes its sign in the deceleration phase to the opposite direction of the free stream velocity. Sumer et al. (2010) investigated and
proposed Reynolds number criteria for a boundary layer under solitary
waves. Tanaka et al. (2011) developed a new generation method for investigating the boundary layer under solitary waves. These studies have
provided valuable information on the boundary layer under solitary
wave motion. However, the boundary layer under wave runup has
not been investigated widely since the closed-channel umes experiment neglects the effect of nonlinearity. Recently, Sumer et al. (2011)
conducted breaking solitary wave experiments in an open channel.
Several measurements were performed, including the surface prole,
the bed stress and its uctuation. The experiment was conducted on a

168

M.B. Adityawan et al. / Coastal Engineering 73 (2013) 167177

sloping beach with 1/14 slope with an incoming wave Reynolds number
of 54,000. Based on criteria for solitary wave from Sumer et al. (2010),
this condition falls in the laminar region. However, the criterion was derived from a closed ume experiment. In this experiment, it was found
that the Reynolds number increases as the wave travels to the shore and
may reach as high as 300,000 with signicant turbulence observed.
Study on the boundary layer under solitary waves by Suntoyo and
Tanaka (2009) has shown good accuracy of bed stress approximation
from the boundary layer using a numerical model. Two equation
models are often used to assess the boundary layer properties with
k- and k being the most common. The k model has the ability
to accommodate the roughness effect of the bed boundary condition,
and is considered to be more accurate in assessing the boundary
layer properties (Adityawan and Adityawan, 2011). Adityawan and
Tanaka (in press) proposed the simultaneous coupling method
(SCM) to assess boundary layer under non-breaking solitary wave
runup. They developed the SCM that couples the SWE with the k
method. The basic idea is to obtain an efcient model such as the
SWE yet capable of assessing the boundary layer beneath the wave
itself. However, the wave Reynolds number in the experiment is
very low; hence, there was no signicant turbulence activity observed. Nevertheless, they have made it clear that bed stress assessment using the boundary layer approach provides information on
known bed stress behaviors under wave motion (i.e. phase shift
and sign change), which are not accessible when using the empirical
Manning approach.
The modeling of breaking solitary wave runup has been widely
studied through various different approaches. An accurate reproduction of breaking waves requires a 2D vertical system to simulate the
dissipation such as given by NEWFLUME (Lin et al., 1999) and
CADMAS SURF (Isobe et al., 1999). The breaking wave simulation in
the SWE and other depth-averaged models are not able to accurately
represent breaking waves. The Boussinesq model requires a breaking
term to be included, which is determined by a calibration process
with experimental or eld data. Zelt (1991) conducted a detailed
laboratory experiment and developed numerical models based on
the Boussinesq type of model, accommodating the constant friction
coefcient and articial dissipation for breaking waves. However, it
was found that the constant friction coefcient value was not a
good solution and should be adjusted in time and space. The SWE
based model, on the other hand, is relatively exible to modify and to
accommodate various treatments. Implementation of certain nite difference numerical schemes in the SWE enhances its capability in
modeling the breaking waves. The Leapfrog scheme performs well in
solving the SWE due to the nature of the scheme that provides diffusive
effect (Imamura, 1995). Thus, it is widely used in far eld tsunami simulations. Other nite difference numerical schemes, such as the Mac
Cormack scheme, were used to investigate runup of a uniform bore on
a sloping beach (Vincent et al., 2001). Conventional nite difference
methods suffer from high oscillation under shock. Articial dissipation,
i.e. Hansen (1962), or changing to a more dissipative scheme is commonly used to reduce the high oscillation. Nevertheless, these steps
must be taken with care. Implementation of a strong dissipation scheme
may lead to unrealistic results, such as the rapid decay of the wave.
Additionally, a weak dissipation scheme may lead to numerical errors
when dealing with abrupt changes. Moreover, articial dissipation
may require determination based on a trial and error procedure. Application of the Mac Cormack nite difference in combination with articial dissipation is given for the 2004 Tsunami, Banda Aceh (Kusuma et
al., 2008), which requires further enhancement of the method.
Finite volume schemes may provide robust ways to handle shock
in the SWE model. Li and Raichlen (2002) developed their model
based on the SWE without friction and veried their simulation
using experimental data from Synolakis (1986). The breaking wave
in their model was treated using the Weighted Essentially
Non-Oscillatory (WENO). WENO schemes achieve higher order

approximation by a linear combination of lower order uxes or reconstruction that provides a high order accuracy and non-oscillatory property near discontinuities. They concluded that the model is simple yet
reasonably suited for estimating solitary wave runup height. Modication of the Godunov-type scheme leads to a second order accuracy in
space such as Monotonic Upstream Scheme of Conservation Laws
(MUSCL) scheme (Toro, 1996). Combining it with the First Order
Centered Scheme (FORCE) (Toro, 2001) and Total Variation Diminished
(TVD) Runge-Kutta (Mahdavi and Talebbeydokhti, 2009) further enhanced the method. Employment of such scheme efciently enhances
the SWE capability for breaking wave simulations.
In this study, the SCM is enhanced using the FORCE MUSCL
shock-capturing scheme for breaking wave simulations. Two case studies of breaking solitary wave runup are used to verify the model. The
boundary layer assessment is veried with the latest open channel experiment by Sumer et al. (2011). This case is currently the only study
that provides detailed measurement on bed stress and turbulence
under solitary wave runup. The runup height estimation is veried
with the well-known canonical problems by Synolakis (1986). This
case has been widely used as numerical model benchmark for solitary
wave runup.
2. Methodology
2.1. Governing equations
The SWE consists of the continuity equation and the momentum
equation as follows:
h Uh

0
t
x

U
U
h zb 0
0
U
g

h
t
x
x

where h is the water depth, U is depth averaged velocity, t is time, g is

gravity, zb is the bed elevation, is uid density and 0 is the bed
stress. The Manning equation is commonly used to assess bed stress.

START

t=0

INITIAL CONDITION

t=1

k- model
u, v,

SWE model
h, U

t=2

k- model
u, v,

SWE model
h, U

FINISH

Fig. 1. Computation ow chart for SCM.

M.B. Adityawan et al. / Coastal Engineering 73 (2013) 167177

169

SWE domain
dx
h,U (SWE)

(2 3 times
of BL
thickness)

(Momentum)
k- domain

intial condition in
moving boundary
linear
for kextrapolation from
behind grids

Bed

Bed
dy

Mild slope Boundary layer develop in y - axis

Fig. 2. Model domain for SCM.

The bed stress relation in the conventional Manning method is assumed linear to the square of velocity as shown below:

equation for the k model is based on the Reynolds-averaged equations

of continuity and momentum:

0
2 U jU j
gn

Rh 1=3

ui
0
xi

where Rh is the hydraulic radius and n is the Manning roughness.

However, the SCM applied in this study approximate bed stress
from the boundary layer approach using the k model.
The boundary layer is assessed using the k model. This model is
chosen because it has been shown to perform better in assessing boundary layer properties (Sana et al., 2009). Additionally, the model's capability to accommodate rough bed boundary condition (Suntoyo et al., 2008)
is important in the future development of the SCM. The governing

Begin
t=0


ui
u
P

2sij u i u j
uj i
t
xj xi

where ui and xi denotes the velocity in the boundary layer and location in
the grid, ui is the uctuating velocity in the x (i=1) and y (i=2) directions, P is the static pressure, is the kinematics viscosity, u i u j is

FORCE
i+1/2

MUSCL

V
t

i+1/2
(-)

i+1/2
(+)

FORCE

Delta

Delta

Central difference

loop
t = t+dt

i-1/2

TVD
i-1

i+1+1/2

i+1/2

i+1

i+2

MUSCL
End
t=T

Cell i

a) computational flow chart

b) FORCE MUSCL discretization

Fig. 3. Calculation method for breaking wave.

170

M.B. Adityawan et al. / Coastal Engineering 73 (2013) 167177

Toe

Initial Shoreline
x=0

Swash Zone

Solitary Wave
H
0.4

5.6

Measurement section
8

Swash Zone

Hydraulic
Jump

Wave breaks

0.15

0.15

a) Case 1 (Sumer et al., 2011), unit: meter

(x,t)

ho

h(x)

tan
1/20

x=0

x0

x1

b) Case 2 (Synolakis, 1986)

Fig. 4. Solitary wave runup on a sloping bottom sketch.

the Reynolds stress tensor, and Sij is the strain-rate tensor from the following equation.
1 ui uj

Sij
2 xj xi

!
6

The Reynolds stress tensor is given through eddy viscosity by

Boussinesq's approximation (Boussinesq, 1897):
!

u i u j vt

ui uj
2

kij
3
xj xi

where k is the turbulent kinetic energy and ij is the Kronecker delta.

The turbulent kinetic energy and specic dissipation rate, in the
k model, equation is given as follows:
"
#
k
k
ui

k
ij
 k
v  vt
uj
xj
t
xj
xj
xj

"
#

2
ij i
v vt
uj
k
xj
t
xj
xj
xj

7
Table 2
Data source and parameters.
Parameter

Table 1
Measurement point location (Case 1).

Case 1

Case 2

Sumer et al. (2011) Synolakis (1987)

Section

x (m)

h (t = 0) (m)

Toe
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

5.6
0.97
0.91
0.73
0.49
0.25
0.01
0.05
0.25

0.40
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00

h0 (m)
H/h0
Slope
Incoming wave Re
Data source acquired for comparison
Spatial Re
Breaking wave sequence
Water level uctuation
Surface prole
Bed stress and k value
Run up height

0.4
0.175
1/14
54000

0.13
0.3
1/20
18000

O
O
O Dimensional
O (Non-dimensional)
O Dimensional
O (Non-dimensional)

M.B. Adityawan et al. / Coastal Engineering 73 (2013) 167177

171

1250000
1000000

Section 1

Re

750000
500000

Critical Reynolds Number

2x105<Re<5x105(Sumer, 2010)

250000
0
-10

-5

10

15

x*
Fig. 5. Spatial Reynolds number (Case 1).

with being the kinematic viscosity of the uid and the eddy viscosity
(t) is given by
vt

10

The values of the closure coefcients are given by Wilcox (1988) as

= 3/40, * = 0.09, = 5/9, and = * = 0.5. The boundary condition
at the bottom is a no-slip boundary, hence a zero value of turbulent kinetic energy and velocity as well as the dissipation rate gradient. At the
free stream, it is assumed that the velocity gradient, turbulent kinetic
energy gradient and the dissipation rate gradient are zero.
2.2. Simultaneous coupling method (SCM)
There are two governing equations in the SCM as mentioned in the
previous section. They are the SWE and the k equation. The equations are calculated separately at each time step, however their results
are connected, allowing for simultaneous calculation. The basic idea behind the calculation is to upgrade the SWE model by replacing the Manning method with a more accurate method to approximate the bed
stress term within the momentum equation. The commonly used Manning approach will be replaced by a direct approach of bed stress in the
region near the bed using a k model.
Calculation begins with an initial condition of the parameters. An
initial value of friction coefcient is stated for bed stress calculation in
the SWE model (Tanaka and Thu, 1994). The velocity obtained from
the SWE model is applied as the free stream velocity boundary condition in the k model as given below:
P U
U

U
x
t
x

11

0
u
v vt

12

The process continues until the end of simulation time as shown in

Fig. 1.
A grid system is developed to allow both models to be coupled simultaneously. The grid system for the method does not require a horizontal and vertical grid system to cover the whole domain from bed to
surface. The vertical grid is only required in the near bottom area to assess the boundary layer for bed stress calculation. The grid system limits
the model to simulating a beach with a slope of less than 1/5. In addition, a steep slope causes the boundary layer approach in the y-axis to
no longer apply since the boundary layer develops perpendicular to
the bed.
The water depth becomes very thin at the wave front. In this region,
the boundary layer may develop up to the surface. The boundary layer
thickness is dened as the location where the upper boundary velocity
ratio to free stream is larger than 99%. The limit for the region in which
the boundary layer does not develop up to the surface is dened as the
location where the boundary layer thickness and water depth ratio does
not exceed 33%. This limit acts as a moving boundary for the simulation,
which will change location at each time step. The values were chosen to
ensure the stability and the efciency of the simulation. A higher value
will be used to cover larger domains; however, the boundary will
change rapidly in each calculation step. Other values of threshold may
be applied but must not exceed 50% as shown by Tanaka et al. (1999).
Outside this region the bed stress is calculated using the momentum
equation in the SWE as proposed by Elfrink and Fredse (1993). The

500000

Critical Reynolds Number

2x105<Re<5x105(Sumer, 2010)

400000
300000

Re

where U is the obtained free steam velocity from SWE, and P is the pressure applied in assessing thin boundary layer thickness as compared
with its water depth. Furthermore, the bed stress obtained from the
k model is applied in the momentum equation of SWE model.

200000
100000
0
-10

-5

x*
Fig. 6. Spatial Reynolds number (Case 2).

10

15

20

172

M.B. Adityawan et al. / Coastal Engineering 73 (2013) 167177

model domain denition and treatments are shown in Fig. 2. Outside

the boundary layer thickness (), the gradient of k, and u to the
y-axis is zero ( F/y = 0).

the non-dimensional velocity (U*) is given by:

2.3. Breaking wave treatment

Uc H

SCM applies a shock-capturing scheme, FORCE-MUSCL (Mahdavi

and Talebbeydokhti, 2009), to extend the SWE capability for breaking
wave computation. This scheme was chosen since it was mainly developed to handle shock for wave breaking.
The FORCE-MUSCL scheme is based on a nite volume scheme. It
is basically a combination of several schemes, which covers both
high and low dissipation schemes (Lax Friedrich and Lax Wendroff),
with the application of a slope limiter. The grid reconstruction for
conservative variables in the SWE utilizes MUSCL, which is commonly used in nite volume. It handles shock by applying a slope limiter
function. This method adopted the Superbee-type-non-linear slope
limiter (Toro, 2001). Moreover, to ensure its stability, time derivation is solved using the TVD Runge Kutta scheme. Thus, the time
step for the computation is not constant. It has to follow the Courrant
number criteria. It is found that the Courrant number range of 0.4-0.8
provides an accurate result with efcient computation time. The ow
chart for the computation is shown in Fig. 3.

U U=U c

16

q
g=h0

17

and the non-dimensional time (t*) is given by:

0:5

t t g=h0

18

A summary of these cases, along with the acquired parameters for

verication of the SCM, is given in Table 2.

Sumer et al., (2011)

2.4. Simulated cases

The model is used to simulate two experimental cases of breaking
solitary wave runup on a sloping bottom from previous studies. The
rst one is the case of solitary wave runup by Sumer et al. (2011),
from here on referred to as Case 1, in which verication and analysis
are conducted mostly for the boundary layer. The second experiment
is the case of solitary wave runup by Synolakis (1986), from here on
referred to as Case 2, in which verication and analysis are
conducted for the water surface prole and runup height. Both
cases have a different bed slope value and incoming wave ratio to
still water depth. Case 1 provided measurement data for the time
variation of bed stress, bed stress uctuation, and surface uctuation
at measured point. Additionally, this case also provides illustration of
the breaking wave sequence. Parameters in Case 1 are given in their
dimensional form. On the other hand, Case 2 provided detailed measurements of the water level prole along the channel and the corresponding runup height, based on analytical and empirical methods.
The parameters in Case 2 are given in a non-dimensional form. Due
to the nature of its experiment, Case 2 has been widely used as a numerical model benchmark. The illustration for case 1 and case 2 is
given in Fig. 4(a) and (b), respectively.
The experiment in Case 1 was conducted on a sloping beach with 1/
14 slope. The incoming wave height ratio to the still water level (H/h0)
was 0.1775. Detailed measurement was conducted at 8 points. The location of these points is given in Fig. 4(a) and Table 1. The incoming wave
in Case 2 is given by H/h0 = 0.3, which corresponds to breaking wave
simulation. The beach slope was 1/20.
Case 2 is generally presented in non-dimensional parameter as follows. Linear dimension of horizontal distance (x) and vertical distance
(y) are divided by the still water depth (h0), giving non-dimensional
coordinates as follows:
x x=h0

13

h h=h0

14

the relative free surface elevation (*) is given by:

 =h0

a) Shoaling and wave breaking

Sumer et al., (2011)

b) Runup

Sumer et al., (2011)

c) Rundown and hydraulic jump

Sumer et al., (2011)

d) Trailing wave
15

Fig. 7. Breaking solitary wave runup sequence.

M.B. Adityawan et al. / Coastal Engineering 73 (2013) 167177

173

Here the wave Re is based on the half stroke of particle displacement

as in Sumer et al. (2011):

The SCM adopts an adaptive time step interval ensuring the stability of the computation for any grid size in horizontal direction.
The grid size in the horizontal direction for both cases is chosen to
capture the runup movement as accurately as possible. In this
study, the value is taken to be 0.1x*. On the other hand, the vertical
grid size is determined to ensure that the model can fully capture
the boundary layer thickness. The mesh size of the calculation for
Case 1 was given by 0.04 m horizontally and 0.0002 m vertically.
The mesh size of the calculation for Case 2 was given by 0.013 m horizontally and 0.0005 m vertically.

Re

Um
1

19

in which Um is the maximum free stream velocity. Here is given as

follow:
1

3. Results and discussion

r
3
1
gH
4
h0

20

where H is the incoming wave height and h0 is the initial normal water
depth.
The incoming wave Re for Case 1 was 54,000. Based on criteria for
solitary wave from Sumer et al. (2010), this condition falls in the laminar region. However, it was found in the experiment that the Re value at
point 1 is 300,000. Moreover, bed stress measurement shows signicant

3.1. Spatial Reynolds number

Verication of the SCM range of applicability is given by conducting
analysis on the spatial wave Reynolds (Re) number along the domain.

Toe
5.6 m

5.6 m Toe

0.97 m

Sumer et al. (2011)

10

Section1

10

Section1

Sumer et al. (2011)

SCM

(cm)

(cm)

SCM
5

-5

-5
-2

Section5

10

10

12

14

t (s)

t (s)

a) Toe

b) Section 1

5.6m Toe

0.25 m

0.01 m

Section5

10

12

14

5.6 m Toe

Section6 Section6

10

Sumer et al. (2011)

Sumer et al. (2011)

(cm)

SCM

SCM

-5

-5
0

10

12

14

t (s)

t (s)

c) Section 3

d) Section 5
5.6 m Toe

-0.25 m
Section8

10

Section8

Sumer et al. (2011)

SCM

(cm)

(cm)

-5
0

t (s)

e) Section 8
Fig. 8. Water level comparison (Case 1).

10

12

14

10

12

14

174

M.B. Adityawan et al. / Coastal Engineering 73 (2013) 167177

turbulence behavior. The incoming wave condition for Case 2 was

18,000. As in Case 1, this condition still falls within laminar conditions
based on the criteria by Sumer et al. (2010) Nevertheless, as it has
been shown by Sumer et al. (2011), higher Re with notable turbulence
behavior may occur in the shallower areas.
The spatial Reynolds number value for Case 1 is shown in Fig. 5.
Here, the non-dimensional distance (x*) is used as in Case 2
(Fig. 6). Case 2 is provided here to show that the SCM range covers
low and high Reynolds number regimes. The Reynolds number for
Case 1 at Section 1 from the simulation agrees with the experiment
value of approximately 300,000. The Reynolds number increases
drastically as it gets closer to the shoreline although the incoming
Reynolds number falls in the laminar region. The highest Reynolds
number based on the SCM may reach up to 1,100,000, located around
the initial position of the shoreline. The SCM is able to simulate all regimes, including transition and turbulence based on the classication by Sumer et al. (2010).
Similar behaviors were observed in Case 2 as shown in Fig. 6. A
signicant increase in the Reynolds number also occurred near the
shoreline. However, the highest Reynolds number was approximately
450,000, at similar locations to Case 1, around the initial position of
the shoreline. In both cases, a critical value of Re was achieved at the
shallow area. Moreover, the Reynolds number values in Case 2
exceeded these critical values in Case 1.

In both gures (Figs. 5 and 6), the Reynolds numbers oscillate the
most in shallower area. The Re value is estimated from the maximum
velocity recorded at the corresponding point. The value of the maximum velocity may oscillate in shallower area due to the limiter function
that handles the shock.
3.2. Breaking wave sequence
Breaking wave sequence comparison from Case 1 is compared to the
sequence from the SCM. The sequence comparisons are shown in
Fig. 7(a)(d). It is clearly shown that the SCM may reproduce all of
the sequences as observed in the experiment. The breaking solitary
wave runup sequence starts with an increase in the incoming wave
height. This increase occurs along with wave deformation and follows
immediately after wave breaking. During the run down, the ow is
strong enough to move the shoreline in a seaward direction. This strong
ow creates a hydraulic jump-like behavior. The shoreline moves back
to its original position creating trailing waves. A similar behavior is observed in the SCM results.
3.3. Surface prole and runup height
Comparisons of free surface uctuation between the SCM data and
measured data for Case 1 at several points in the domain are given in

Bottom
Exp. (Synolakis, 1986)
SWE (Manning-FORCE MUSCL)
SWE (Manning-Mac Cormack)

0.6

a) t* = 15

0.5
0.4

NEWFLUME

0.3

SWE (SCM-FORCE MUSCL)

0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-5

10

15

20

10

15

20

10

15

20

x*

0.6

b) t* = 20

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-5

x*

0.6

c) t* = 25

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

-0.1
-0.2
-5

x*
Fig. 9. Free surface comparison (Case 2).

M.B. Adityawan et al. / Coastal Engineering 73 (2013) 167177

Breaking wave

R/h0

Fig. 8(a)(e). Overall, SCM shows good comparison with measurement

data in all sections. A more detailed surface prole and runup height is
given in Case 2. Case 2 is commonly accepted as a runup simulation
benchmark. Thus, several other models were compared for verication.
They are the SWE (SCM-FORCE MUSCL), SWE (Manning-FORCE
MUSCL), SWE (Manning-Mac Cormack) and NEWFLUME (Lin et al.,
1999). Here, the Manning roughness (n) value in the SWE is 0.01,
which was determined by trial and error to give the highest accuracy
of the runup height. This value corresponds well with the experiment
condition.
The wave prole comparison between the experimental data
and the numerical methods is shown in Fig. 9. The Mac Cormack
method is not able to provide a realistic wave prole at the top. It
produces a pointy-shaped wave top, followed by a near at water
surface which can be seen at t* = 15 and 20 in Fig. 9. It also fails
to give a realistic prole at the rst instances of motion of a breaking wave over a dry bed. At this location, shock and discontinuity
occur and cannot be accurately simulated with the Mac Cormack
method. The FORCE MUSCL method gives a better prole for comparison to the measured data than the Mac Cormack method.
Moreover, FORCE MUSCL with the SCM performs better than the
conventional Manning method.
The NEW FLUME undeniably provides very realistic and accurate
results (Fig. 9). In addition, the NEWFLUME provides detail on the kinetic energy especially near the surface. This ability is highly crucial in
breaking wave study and suspended load transport mechanisms.
However, the computation time is about 15 times that of the SWE
and 2 times that of the SCM (Table 3). Nevertheless, the simulation
result is highly informative (Lin et al., 1999).
Runup height comparison is given in Fig. 10. Here, the models
were used to simulate various incoming height condition. Implementation of the FORCE MUSCL method gives a much better
runup height comparison for the SWE-type model (Table 3). It
should be noted here that additional cases with different magnitudes of incoming wave were simulated for runup height comparison with the runup law (Synolakis, 1986) which were also used
to estimate the root mean square error value (RMSE) for each
model. The lowest RMSE value is given by SWE (SCM-FORCE
MUSLC), followed by SWE (Manning-FORCE MUSCL). The highest
error is given by SWE (Manning-Mac Cormack). The runup height
prediction in NEWFLUME depends highly on the method used for
constructing the surface. Therefore, this model was not included
in the RMSE comparison. In addition, non-breaking wave simulations from a previous study (Adityawan and Tanaka, in press) was
added in Fig. 10 to show the SCM range of applicability. It should
be noted here that Reynolds number for non-breaking wave case
is very low. Therefore, the Manning roughness value for non-SCM
model was adjusted (n = 0.046). The SWE (SCM) model gives a better estimation of the runup height than SWE (Manning). Details on
the non-breaking wave simulation can be found in the reference
(Adityawan and Tanaka, in press).

175

0.1

Non breaking wave

0.01
0.001

0.01

0.1

H/h0
Run Up Law (Synolakis, 1986)
SWE (SCM) non-breaking (Aditawan and Tanaka, 2011 b)
SWE (Manning) non-breaking (Adityawan and Tanaka, 2011b)
SWE (Manning-Mac Cormack)
SWE (Manning-FORCE MUSCL)
NEWFLUME
SWE (SCM-FORCE MUSCL)
Fig. 10. Runup height comparison (slope 1/20).

3.4. Bed stress and turbulent intensity

Case 1 provided valuable parameters regarding bed stress and k
values under solitary wave runup. Here, bed stress is normalized as
follow:
0 

0
U c 2

21

where 0 is bed stress.

Bed stress comparison between the SCM data and measured data at
several points in the domain is given in Fig. 11. Overall, the SCM result
shows good comparison with the measurement. However, discrepancies can be found especially during the down rush. As it was explained
earlier, the SCM employs moving boundary condition threshold, based
on the ratio of the boundary layer thickness to the corresponding
water depth for separating the region where the boundary layer approach is used. During the down rush, there can be sudden change in
the before-mentioned threshold due to the sudden decrease of the
water level resulting in less accurate bed stress estimation.
The measured bed stress uctuation at the corresponding points is
compared to the turbulent intensity from the SCM. Bed stress

Table 3
Model performance comparison (Case 2).
Method

Governing equation
Real time
Breaking wave
RMSE of run up height (R/h0)
Advantage

SWE

NEWFLUME

SCM-FORCE MUSCL

Manning (n = 0.01)
McCormack

FORCE MUSCL

SWE + k
Approx. 70 min
Very good
0.001
Breaking wave + boundary
layer

SWE
Approx. 15 min
Poor
0.032

SWE
Approx. 12 min
Very good
0.002
Breaking wave

*All simulated using Core i3 330 m, average of 5 repetitions.

RANS 2DV k-
Approx. 160 min
Excellent

Reproduces realistic wave

breaking in details

176

M.B. Adityawan et al. / Coastal Engineering 73 (2013) 167177

5.6 m Toe

0.91 m

Section 2

1.5

Sumer et al. (2011)

5.6 m Toe

0.25 m

Section 2

SCM

Section 5

1.5

Sumer et al. (2011)

Section 5

SCM

0*

0.5

0*

0
-0.5

0.5
0
-0.5
-1

-1
0

10

12

14

10

a) Section 2

b) Section 5
5.6 m Toe

-0.25 m
Section 6

12

14

Sumer et al. (2011)

Sumer et al. (2011)

Section 6

Section 8

1.5

SCM

0*

t (s)

5.6 m Toe

0.01 m

1.5

t (s)

Section 8

SCM

0.5

0.5

0*

0
-0.5

-0.5

-1

-1

-1.5
0

10

12

14

10

t (s)

t(s)

c) Section 6

d) Section 8

12

14

Fig. 11. Bed stress comparison.

uctuation and turbulent intensity cannot be compared directly.

However, they both show the turbulence behavior in the boundary
layer. Thus, similar behavior between the two parameters is expected.
It is found that the uctuation magnitude and occurrence time are
closely related to the estimated turbulent intensity value (Fig. 12).
Here, y is the non-dimensional height from the bottom with its

0.2

5.6 m Toe

0.91 m

Section 2

0.1

boundary layer thickness () and k* is the non-dimensional turbulent

intensity given as,

k
k 
2
g=h0 0:5 H

0.2

Section 2

0.2

5.6 m Toe

0.25 m
Section 5

22

Section 8
Section 5

0.1

0.1

-0.1

-0.1
0

10

12

14

10

12

14

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0
0

10

12

14

10

12

14

10

12

14

0.6
0.4
0.2
0

10

12

14

0
0.7

t (s)

k*

t (s)

0.8

t (s)

t (s)

0.6

0.6

t (s)

0.8

0.8

Section 8

-0.1
0

t (s)

5.6 m Toe

-0.25 m

k*

0.7

k*

0.7

y'

y'

0.0

0.0

0.0

a) Section 2

b) Section 5
Fig. 12. Turbulent intensity and bed stress uctuation comparison.

c) Section 8

M.B. Adityawan et al. / Coastal Engineering 73 (2013) 167177

where k is the turbulent intensity. '0* refers to the measured bed

stress uctuation, normalized as follow:
0

0 

0
U c 2

23

It is observed that in the deeper locations during the runup, there

is no signicant k value that is conrmed by the low value of bed
stress uctuation. On the other hand, the k value is high at the
runup, which is conrmed with a high magnitude of bed stress uctuation. Thus, the bed-generated stress plays an important role in the
overall process. Overall, the similarity of k values from the SCM data
and the measured bed stress uctuation conrms the SCM's ability
to assess a turbulent boundary layer.
It is interesting to note that turbulence behavior appears earlier as
the wave approaches the shoreline with respects to the wave shape. It
has been shown by Sumer et al. (2010) that turbulent activities shift
from a deceleration phase to an acceleration phase as the Re increases. The SCM results show that at Section 2 (Fig. 12(a), at Re =
350,000) turbulent activity under the wave runup is low. At Section
5 (Fig. 12(b), at Re = 400,000) the turbulence behavior under the
wave runup occurs around the wave peak. However, turbulence behavior under the wave runup appears earlier than the wave peak at
Section 8 (Fig. 12(c), at Re = 1,000,000).
4. Conclusions
The application of the boundary layer approach for breaking solitary wave runup simulation has been accomplished. The FORCE
MUSCL scheme has been implemented in the SCM. Two cases were
simulated to verify the SCM. In general, the SCM is able to reproduce
water surface evolution along with the general sequence of breaking
solitary wave runup. The SCM estimates bed stress directly from the
boundary layer, which leads to a higher accuracy. Runup height comparison shows that the SCM increases the SWE based model accuracy
in predicting water surface prole and the runup height.
The SCM data has been veried with the measured bed stress and
bed stress uctuation. The bed stress from the SCM shows good comparison to the measured value. In addition, the turbulent activity in
the boundary layer beneath the wave corresponds well to the measured bed stress uctuation. It is noted that as the wave approaches
the shoreline and the wave Reynolds number increases, turbulent activities may start earlier than the wave peak.
Overall, the SCM is a promising solution for boundary layer analysis under wave runup for future practical application. The SCM has
the simplicity of the SWE, yet it provides more details in terms of
the boundary layer. Future development may combine the basic
idea of the SCM with NEWFLUME. The SCM assumes uniform velocity
outside the boundary layer up to the surface. NEWFLUME may provide a better estimation of vertical velocity prole outside the boundary layer with the k- model. Therefore, the velocity outside the
boundary layer can be accurately estimated. The k model may
use this calculated velocity and utilize it to assess boundary layer.
Thus, the developed model may assess boundary layer as in the
SCM, yet be fully capable of simulating ow in detail as in NEWFLUME.
Both models were developed under different approaches and concerns.
The combination of both will be highly benecial for coastal sediment
transport related studies, since it may accurately predict both bed load
and suspended load.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the nancial supports from
Grant-in-Aid for Scientic Research from Japan Society for Promotion
of Science (No. 21360230, No. 22360193, and No. 2301367), the River

177

Environmental Fund (REF) from the Foundation of River and Watershed

Environmental Management (FOREM), Japan, Open Fund from State
Key laboratory of Hydraulics and Mountain River Engineering
(SKLH-OF-0907), Natural Science Foundation of China (51061130547
and 51279120). The rst author is a Postdoctoral Fellow granted by
JSPS (No. P11367).
References
Adityawan, M.B., Adityawan, H., 2011. Boundary layer under oscillatory wave. ISRN Applied Mathematics 8 (Article ID 814045). http://dx.doi.org/10.5402/2011/814045.
Adityawan, M.B., Tanaka, H., in press. Bed stress assessment under solitary wave runup.
Earth Planets and Space, Tsunami: Science, Technology, and Disaster Mitigation 64,
945954.
Boussinesq, J., 1897. Theorie de l'ecoulement turbillonnant et tumultueux des liquides
dans les lits rectilignes a grande section. Gaulthier-Villars.
Elfrink, B., Fredse, J., 1993. The effect of the turbulent boundary layer on wave runup.
Progress Report, 74. Technical University of Denmark, pp. 5165.
Hansen, W., 1962. Hydrodynamical methods applied to oceanographic problems. Proc.
Symp. Math.-Hydrodyn. Meth. Phys. Oceanogr.
Imamura, F., 1995. Tsunami Numerical Simulation with the Staggered Leap-Frog
Scheme (Numerical Code of TUNAMI-N1 and N2). Disaster Control Research Center, Tohoku University.
Isobe, M., Takahashi, S., Yu, S.P., Sakakiyama, T., Fujima, K., Kawasaki, K., Jiang, Q.,
Akiyama, M., Oyama, H., 1999. Interim development of a numerical wave ume
for maritime structure design. Proceedings of Civil Engineering in the Ocean 15,
321326.
Kusuma, M.S.B., Adityawan, M.B., Farid, M., 2008. Modeling two dimension inundation
ow generated by tsunami propagation in Banda Aceh city. Proceedings of International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation.
Li, Y., Raichlen, F., 2002. Non-breaking and breaking solitary wave runup. Journal of
Fluid Mechanics 456, 295318.
Lin, P., Chang, K.-A., Liu, P.L.-F., 1999. Runup and rundown of solitary waves on sloping
beaches. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering 125 (5),
247255.
Liu, P.L.-F., Park, Y.S., Cowen, E.A., 2007. Boundary layer ow and bed shear stress under
a solitary wave. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 135, 449463.
Mahdavi, A., Talebbeydokhti, N., 2009. Modeling of non-breaking and breaking solitary
wave runup using FORCE-MUSCL scheme. Journal of Hydraulic Research 47 (4),
476485.
Sana, A., Ghumman, A.R., Tanaka, H., 2009. Modeling of a rough-wall oscillatory boundary layer using two-equation turbulence models. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
135 (1), 6065.
Sumer, B.M., Jensen, P.M., Srensen, L.B., Fredse, J., Liu, P.L.-F., Cartesen, S., 2010. Coherent structures in wave boundary layers. Part2. Solitary motion. Journal of
Fluid Mechanics 646, 207231.
Sumer, B.M., Berke Sen, M.B., Karagali, I., Ceren, B., Fredse, J., Sottile, M., Zilioli, L.,
Fuhrman, D.R., 2011. Flow and sediment transport induced by a plunging solitary
wave. Journal of Geophysical Research 116, C01008.
Suntoyo, Tanaka, H., 2009. Numerical modeling of boundary layer ows for a solitary
wave. Journal of Hydro-Environment Research 3 (3), 129137.
Suntoyo, Tanaka, H., Sana, A., 2008. Characteristics of turbulent boundary layers over a
rough bed under saw-tooth waves and its application to sediment transport.
Coastal Engineering 55, 11021112.
Synolakis, C.E., 1986. The Runup of Long Waves, PhD Thesis. California Institute of
Technology, Pasadena CA.
Synolakis, C.E., 1987. The runup of solitary waves. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 185,
523545.
Tanaka, H., Thu, A., 1994. Full-range equation of friction coefcient and phase difference in a wave-current boundary layer. Coastal Engineering 22, 237254.
Tanaka, H., Sana, A., Kawamura, I., Yamaji, H., 1999. Depth-limited oscillatory boundary
layers on a rough bottom. Coastal Engineering Journal 41 (1), 85105.
Tanaka, H., Winarta, B., Suntoyo, Yamaji, H., 2011. Validation of a new generation system for bottom boundary layer beneath solitary wave. Coastal Engineering (59),
4656.
Toro, E.F., 1996. On Glimm-Related Schemes for Conservation Laws. Technical Report
MMU-9602. Department of Mathematics and Physics, Manchester Metropolitan
University, UK.
Toro, E.F., 2001. Shock-Capturing Methods For Free-Surface Shallow Flows. Wiley,
Chichester UK.
Vincent, S., Caltagirone, J.-P., Bonneton, P., 2001. Numerical modelling of bore propagation and runup on sloping beaches using a MacCormackTVD scheme. Journal of
Hydro-Environment Research 39 (1), 4149.
Vittori, G., Blondeaux, P., 2008. Turbulent boundary layer under a solitary wave. Journal
of Fluid Mechanics 615, 433443.
Wilcox, D.C., 1988. Reassessment of the scale determining equation for advanced turbulence models. AIAA Journal 26 (11), 12991310.
Zelt, J.A., 1991. The runup of nonbreaking and breaking solitary wave. Coastal Engineering 15, 205246.