299

Longuet-Higgins, M.S., 1983. Wave set-up, percolation and undert ow in the surf zone.
Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 390: 283--291.
Raman, H., Sethuraman, V. and Muralikrishna, I.V., 1974. Velocity measurement in
waves using strain gage technique. Int. Syrup. on Ocean Wave Meas. and Analysis,
ASCE, New York, Vol. 1, pp. 817--835.
Sallenger, A.H., Howard, P.C., Fletcher, C.H. and Howd, P.A., 1983. A system for
measuring bot t om profile, waves and currents in the high-energy nearshore environ-
ment. Mar. Geol., 51: 63--76.
Stive, M.J.F., 1980. Velocity and pressure field of spilling breakers. Proc. 17th Conf.
Coastal Eng., Sydney, pp. 547--566.
Stive, M.J.F. and Battjes, J.A., 1984. A model for offshore sediment transport. Proc. 19th
Conf. Coastal Eng., Houston, pp. 1420--1436.
Stive, M.J.F. and Wind, H.G., 1985. Cross-shore mean flow in the surf zone. Manuscript,
Delft Hydraulics Laborat ory report.
Svendsen, I.A., 1984a. Mass flux and undert ow in a surf zone. Coastal Eng., 8: 347--365.
Svendsen, I.A., 1984b. Wave heights and set-up in a surf zone. Coastal Eng., 8: 303--329.
Wang, H., Sunamura, T. and Hwang, P.A., 1982. Drift velocity at the wave breaking
point. Coastal Eng., 6: 121--150.
MASS F L UX AND UNDE RT OW I N A S URF ZONE,
b y i . A. Sv e n d s e n - - RE P L Y
I.A. SVENDSEN
Institute of Hydrodynamics and Hydraulic Engineering, Technical University of Denmark,
DK-2000 Lyngby, Denmark
(Received October 28, 1985; accepted for publication December 10, 1985)
Th e a u t h o r wo u l d l i ke t o e xpr e s s hi s a p p r e c i a t i o n o f t he c a r e f ul anal ys i s
o f t he p a p e r a nd al so t he i n d e p e n d e n t wo r k car r i ed o u t b y Da l l y a nd De a n
a nd p r e s e n t e d in t he i r di s cus s i on. I t gr e a t l y hel ps i n t h r o wi n g l i ght o n s o me
o f t he de t a i l s o f t h e c o mp l i c a t e d i n t e r a c t i o n me c h a n i s ms b e t we e n waves a nd
t u r b u l e n c e wh i c h caus es t he u n d e r t o w in t h e s ur f zone. Th e wr i t e r s ar e al so
t h a n k e d f o r br i ngi ng f o r wa r d f u r t h e r r e f e r e n c e s wh i c h we r e e i t he r u n n o t i c e d
b y t h e a u t h o r or ha ve c o me o u t l at er .
As me n t i o n e d b y t he wr i t e r s i t is a us ef ul o p p o r t u n i t y t o e s t a bl i s h as
c o mp l e t e a r e c o r d as pos s i bl e f or t hi s p r o b l e m, whi c h has b e e n k n o wn f or
ye a r s b u t o n l y s por a di c a l l y a ddr e s s e d in t he l i t e r a t ur e . To f u r t h e r c o mp l e t e
t h e r e c o r d i t ma y b e a d d e d t h a t t he me a n u n d e r t o w wa s me a s u r e d b y
Wang a nd Ya ng ( 1980) ; t h a t Na d a o k a a nd Ko n d o h ( 1 9 8 2 ) p r e s e n t e d l ab-
o r a t o r y me a s u r e me n t s o f b o t h t he u n d e r t o w pr of i l e s a nd t he t u r b u l e n c e
i nt e ns i t i e s in t h e s ur f z o n e ( b u t u n f o r t u n a t e l y l ef t o u t o t h e r i mp o r t a n t
i n f o r ma t i o n s u c h as s e t - up) ; a nd f i nal l y t h a t a p h e n o me n o n t e r me d
pe r i s t a l t i c p u mp i n g , g e n e r a t e d p a r t l y b y t he s a me me c h a n i s ms as t he
u n d e r t o w, was a n a l y z e d b y Longue t - Hi ggi ns ( 1983) .
300
The wr i t er s st at e in t he out s et t hat t he maj or poi nt of critisism is t he
aut hor ' s dismissal of t he use of linear wave t he or y f or t he analysis of t he
vert i cal di s t r i but i on of mo me n t u m f l ux in t he surf zone, and par t of
t he di scussi on aims at provi ng t hat linear t he or y is r el evant bot h f or t hi s
pur pos e and f or cal cul at i ng t he mass flux. The wri t ers do, however , also
f i nd ot her poi nt s open t o criticism. The aut hor can agree wi t h s ome of t hei r
ar gument s, wi t h ot her s not , and he fi nds t hat a f ew closing r emar ks may
be useful .
The aut hor can of cour se not agree t hat t he wave descr i pt i on used
' obs cur es t he essence of t he pr obl em' . It is also cl ai med by t he wri t ers t hat
t he aut hor ' s wave descr i pt i on r equi r es a si gni fi cant a mount of empi ri cal
i nput (in compar i son wi t h t he wr i t er s' appr oach pr esumabl y) . This is l at er
s ubs t ant i at ed in Tabl e 1 (p. 293) whi ch gives a s omewhat di st or t ed pi ct ur e
of t he t wo met hods .
(1) Obscuri ng t he pr obl em seems in t he wri t ers opi ni on t o be associ at ed
wi t h t he f act t hat ' t he aut hor avoi ds t he ques t i on of di st r i but i on of momen-
t um f l u x . . , above t r ough level' . Tr uel y t hi s is done ver y del i ber at el y f or t wo
reasons:
(a) No wave t heor y known t oda y can pr edi ct in any det ai l f l ow pr oper -
t i es such as shear stresses in t he regi on above t r ough level in a br oken
wave. Thi s also appl i es t o t he wri t ers' met hod.
(b) The i mpor t ant par t of t he pr obl em is f or mos t pract i cal appl i cat i ons
(such as sedi ment t r anspor t ) t he f l ow beneat h t r ough level and wi t h t he
me t hod suggest ed we onl y need t o know t he r adi at i on st ress cont r i but i on
and t he vol ume f l ow f or t he regi on above t r ough level, not mean vel oci t i es,
shear stresses etc.
The wri t ers pr opos e t o use linear pot ent i al wave t he or y in t hat regi on,
augment ed by mean shear stresses cr eat ed by an e ddy vi scosi t y. This leads
t o eqn. (1), wher e t he last t er m r epr esent s t he mean shear stress. The deri-
vat i on of eqn. (1) is not given but t ur ns out t o be r at her l engt hy (Dal l y, 1980) .
It shall not be di scussed here. In essence, however , t hi s equat i on a mount s t o
bei ng ' anal ogous t o speci fyi ng a ( mean) shear stress bounda r y condi t i on at
t he mean wat er level' . In pri nci pl e, t he aut hor agrees wi t h t hi s concl usi on
and not i ce t hat , apar t f r om t he f act t hat MWL is s ubs t i t ut ed f or t r ough level
(in accor dance wi t h t he wr i t er s' use of linear t heor y) , t hi s is exact l y t he
c ont e nt of eqn. (4. 1) i f this equat i on is i nt egr at ed once [as eqn. (1) has
al r eady been] .
Denot e t he above- ment i oned shear stress at t r ough level by ~tr and con-
sider t he i dent i t y:
b ~Sxx
TD = - - p g ( h o + b) (1. 1)
Ox Ox
Def i ne t he cont r i but i on Sxx, o t o Sxx f r om t he r egi on bel ow t r ough level by:
301
~t r
S x x , O = ~ ( p U 2 +PD)dZ (9)
- h 0
The n ~-t~ equal s rb pl us t he di f f er ence bet ween S~, 0 and t he set -up pr essur e
c ont r i but i on be t we e n t r ough and bot t om, i.e.:
a Ob
r-tr - ~x (Sx~ - - Sx~, o) + Pg ~lt~ Ox (10)
Her e t he last t er m (represent i ng t he cont r i but i on f r om set -up pressure
gr adi ent be t we e n t r ough and MWL) is O ( H a) and, cons equent l y, is negl ect ed
in linear t heor y.
Si nce bot h Sxx, Sx~,0, ~tr and ~ b / ~ x are assumed t o be known i nput -
quant i t i es t o t he under t ow- model , 7tr is also a known quant i t y.
Hence, t he di f f er ence be t we e n t he t wo met hods at t hi s poi nt onl y concer ns
t he t o t a l r adi at i on stress cont r i but i on in t he regi on above t r ough level
(i.e. t he choi ce of wave descri pt i on). Nei t her of t he met hods real l y need
t he det ai l ed vari at i on in t hi s regi on cl ai med by t he wri t ers.
(2) In cont i nuat i on of t hi s t he wr i t er s claim: ' A t hi r d bounda r y condi t i on
(such as 7t~) woul d be r equi r ed t o deri ve' eqn. (2) f r om t he aut hor ' s met hod.
As ment i oned above t hi s ' bounda r y condi t i on' is al r eady i mpl i ci t in t he sys-
t em (given by eqn. 10). So t he answer is: No, t her e is no need f or f ur t her
bounda r y condi t i ons t o deri ve an equat i on like eqn. (2).
(3) The pr obl em of pr oper boundar y condi t i ons was br i ef l y di scussed by
Hansen and Svendsen ( 1984) and in mor e det ai l by Svendsen ( 1985) who
also shows how t he mean b o t t o m shear stress 75 f ol l ows f r om t he unde r t ow
pr of i l e when combi ned wi t h t he b o t t o m bounda r y layer. Thi s resul t was also
i mpl i ci t in BSrecki ' s wor k, except t hat he used t he same e ddy vi scosi t y in
t he b o t t o m boundar y- l ayer as out si de and t hat t ur ned out t o yi el d qui t e
mi sl eadi ng numer i cal resul t s.
One cons equence of this, however , is t hat due t o t he ef f ect of Vb on b in
eqn. (1. 1) t he set -up cannot be det er mi ned cor r ect l y wi t hout eval uat i ng t he
unde r t ow f l ow. Thi s was one of t he reasons why t he aut hor used measur ed
b / Ox ( whi ch do i ncl ude t he ef f ect of ~-b, however small) f or his compar i son
wi t h St i ve' s dat a (Svendsen, 1984, end of Sect i on 6).
(4) In essence bot h met hods rel y on i nf or mat i on a bout wave hei ght and
wat er dept h (i ncl udi ng set-up). These quant i t i es can ei t her be measur ed, or
t he y can be det er mi ned by an i ndependent mode l solving t he energy and
hor i zont al mo me n t u m equat i ons (as e.g. Svendsen, 1984, or t he wri t ers'
model , Dal l y et al., 1984 - - see t he r ef er ence list of t he wri t ers). Ther ef or e,
and f or ot he r reasons, t he wri t ers' list of quant i t i es t hat need t o be measur ed
t o use t he aut hor s me t hod is grossl y mi sl eadi ng as it suggests t hat none of
302
t he s e qua nt i t i e s ne e d t o be me a s u r e d usi ng t he wr i t er s ' me t h o d . Thi s list o f
si x qua nt i t i e s a nd t he as s oci at ed a r gume nt s ar e es s ent i al l y r e p e a t e d in Ta bl e
1 ( see p. 000) , b u t in a mo r e ba l a nc e d f o r m si nce he r e b o t h me t h o d s ar e
anal yzed. F o r a p r o p e r di scussi on, howe ve r , a s o me wh a t mo r e i nf or ma t i ve
c o mp a r i s o n is s hown in Ta bl e 2.
I n Ta bl e 2 t he f i r st f o u r poi nt s , whi c h ar e es s ent i al l y i n p u t - d a t a f or t he
u n d e r t o w mode l s , can be d e t e r mi n e d by me t h o d s whi c h ar e t h e s ame f or
t h e t wo u n d e r t o w mode l s ( see above) . Th e a c c u r a c y and r e l e va nc e of s uch
mode l s is f or br e vi t y n o t di s cus s ed her e.
Th e e d d y vi s cos i t y mus t in b o t h mode l s be d e t e r mi n e d f r o m empi r i cal
d a t a a nd ve r y spar se da t a has b e e n publ i s he d so f ar .
F o r t he l ast f o u r p a r a me t e r s t h e l i near wave t h e o r y mo d e l has no c hoi c e :
c is ~ , ~?c is H/2, Bo is 0. 125, a nd A is 0. Thus t hes e qua nt i t i e s ar e by
t h e c h o i c e of t h e l i near wave t h e o r y pr e s c r i be d at a mo r e or less r e l e va nt
val ue.
TABLE 2
Bore model Linear wave t heory
(author) (writers)
Wave height, H
(H: )
Gradient in wave height, 0 x
Mean water depth, h
0b
Gradient in set-up Ox
Eddy viscosity, ~Tt
Wave celerity, c
Crest elevation, ~c
Wave shape parameter, B0
Roller area, A
Input to undert ow model.
Can be determined either
by breaker model or by
measurements
parameterized
linear theory used
measured
measured
parameterized
parameterized
linear theory (x/g]~)
linear theory (HI2)
linear theory (0.125)
not relevant
Th e mu c h cr i t i ci zed p r o p e r t y o f t he a u t h o r ' s me t h o d whi c h l eaves t he s e
p a r a me t e r s t o be bas ed on me a s u r e me n t s r e f l e c t s t he a t t e mp t t o us e a mo r e
r eal i st i c wave de s c r i pt i on. Th e a u t h o r ' s i n t e n t i o n has be e n t o s how h o w a
n u mb e r of t he f e a t ur e s - t h a t ar e c o mmo n l y a c c e p t e d as bei ng char act er -
i st i c f o r s ur f z o n e waves: t he h o r i z o n t a l and ver t i cal s kewnes s of t he waves
a nd t he t u r b u l e n t r ol l er - - can be qua nt i f i e d i n t e r ms of pa r a me t e r s t h a t
a u t o ma t i c a l l y o c c u r i n t h e e qua t i ons wh e n t he l ong- wave a nd t he c ons t a nt -
f o r m a s s umpt i ons ar e used. Th e me t h o d al so s hows h o w t he s e e f f e c t s e n t e r
t h e e qua t i ons .
303
The writers are quite correct in their criticism of some of the actual values
used. Thus, for example, it is true t hat t he measurements of the roller by
Duncan are not really satisfactory for the surf zone [although t he writers'
criticism of the dispersion in t he results is cont radi ct ed by t he overall con-
sistency of the dat a as shown by Svendsen (1984)] and certainly not valid
for e.g. the early stages of the breaking, be it plunging or spilling. In t he
aut hor' s opinion, however, this just confirms t hat we are in bad need of
relevant measurements. The proposed model indicates some of the quanti-
ties which might be useful to measure. Notice t hat these quantities are
physical and measurable quantities, not calibration factors. It also suggests
somet hi ng about t he accuracy which more advanced mathematical-numerical
models (describing the phase mot i on of the waves) should aim at to be able
to predict t he relevant properties of t he waves.
(5) A last poi nt to be comment ed on is the writers conjecture t hat ' t he
mass t ransport developed by the aut hor is t oo gr eat . . . ' .
The writers give two reasons for this: one is t hat ' the wave celerity c is
assumed representative of all the roller area A' . The answer is: since A is
defined as the water area (volume) t hat rides on the wave front it moves
wi t h exactly t he mean velocity c. There is no other choice here.
The ot her argument is t hat part of A consists of entrained bubbles which
(presumably) do not cont ri but e to the undert ow ret urn flow, t hat is an
overestimation of the roller effect is postulated here.
Since writing the paper the aut hor has analyzed some of these aspects a
little further. The simplest way of checking the relevance of the writers'
arguments is to compare the mass transport predictions of t he aut hor' s
model wi t h numerical integrations of the measured undert ow velocities.
(That is calculating Qs by evaluating t he integral in eqn. (4.5) using
eqn. (2.15) for the right-hand side). This met hod verifies the effect of bot h
the writers' arguments. For Stive's data (1900) this is only possible with
any cert ai nt y by combining the profiles two at a time. Al t hough this means
combining profiles from slightly di fferent depths t he dat a points from
neighbouring profiles t urn out to support each ot her reasonably well.
Figure 1 shows t he profiles. For the Hansen and Svendsen-data there are
enough points in each profile for a mean profile t o be drawn and integrated.
The comparison is shown in Fig. 2 and we see t hat the aut hor' s model
rather t han overestimating t he mass t ransport Qs actually underestimates it
by a fact or 0.6--0.9.
Since Q~ given by eqn. (2.10) is proportional to c, part of the under-
prediction is explained by Fig. 3 which shows a sample from Hansen and
Svendsen (1979) of measured values of c in the surf zone. Although the
scatter is substantial t he trend is clearly t hat c is not as close to ~ as
assumed but typically 15--25% larger, which accounts for some of t he
underpredi ct i on in Qs. Possible explanations for such large c values were in
fact analyzed by Svendsen et al. (1978), but not found in the measurements
3 0 4
t hey had available. This also increases t he roller cont ri but i on Ah/ H 2L which
for c 2 =/=gh more correctly may be wri t t en as Ac / gTH 2 .
The major part of t he rest of t he underest i mat i on of t he mass t ransport
is likely to be due to t he assumption of uni form velocity outside the roller.
h o / h o B = 0.88 & 0.765
y/ h 1.0
/ Y"//////
x
/ x 0.88
I x 0.765
I
I
-0.10 - 0. 05
" / / / 1 ] t r
0.5
h o / h o B = 0.647 & 0.53
yth ~1.0
ho/ hoB = 0.294 & 0.176
/ / / / / / / . < 7 / / / / " 1 ] 1 r
o .
o + "
- - 0.5
l + 0.647
I o 0.53
I
-0.5 0
y / h, 1.0
/ / / / / / / / / / / / : / / ~ ~ . . . . . ~ / / / "q t r
v
o/~ - 0.5
/
!
I
v 0.294. l
[] 0.176 l
t
-O.lO - 0. 05 0
Fi g. 1. Un d e r t o w me a s u r e me n t s o f S t i v e ( 1 9 8 0 ) c o mb i n e d , t wo d e p t h s a t a t i me . - -
e s t i ma t e d v e l o c i t y p r o f i l e ( b a s e d o n mo v i n g a v e r a g e o v e r t wo p o i n t s ) .
O s , c a l c .
O s , m e a s .
-1.0
0.5
, . . / " /
/
Honsen & 5vendsen (1984)
.TStive Test No. 1 {1980)
h o / h oB
I L , , i _
Fig. 2. C o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n m e a s u r e d O s ( d e t e r m i n e d b y numeric'a] integration o f u n d e r -
t o w profiles) a n d Q s d e t e r m i n e d f r o m (2.10). = d a t a f r o m H a n s e n a n d S v e n d s e n ( 1 9 8 4 ) .
I I ----- o b t a i n e d f r o m Fi g. 1.
0
.
9
-

P

I

L

0
.
9
-

O
.
S
-

x
x

o
.
s
-

0
.
7

-

0
.
7
-

0
.
6

-

0
.
6

-

o
.
s
-

0
.
5
-

0
.
4

-

=

A
0
0
1
0
2

0
.
4
-

I

0
6
1
0
8
2

0
.
3

-

x

0
8
3
0
7
1

0
.
3
-

.

0
6
1
0
8
3

0
.
2

-

q

O
S
3
0
7
2

0
.
2

-

o
.
f
-

(
a
)

h
f
h
b
r

O
-
l
-

h

i
h
b
r

0
.
0

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

0
.
0

,

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
t

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
1

0
.
8

0
.
9

4
.
0

t
.
1

0
.
0

O
.
!

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
9

I
.
0

1
.
1

0
.
1

j
(
b
)

h
/
h
,
,

O
-

h

i
h
b
r

0
.
0

,

/

I

I

I

/

I

I

I

I

I

,

0
.
0
,

I

I

I

/

I

1

I

1

I

I

I

0
.
0

O
.
!

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
f

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
9

4
.
0

!
.
I

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
f

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
9

4
.
0

!
.
I

F
i
g
.

3
.

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

v
a
l
u
e
s

o
f

p
r
o
p
a
g
a
t
i
o
n

s
p
e
e
d

c

f
o
r

w
a
v
e
s

s
h
o
r
e
w
a
r
d

o
f

t
h
e

b
r
e
a
k
e
r

p
o
i
n
t
.

D
a
t
a

f
r
o
m

H
a
n
s
e
n

a
n
d

S
v
e
n
d
s
e
n

(
1
9
7
9
)
.

E
z

W
I

306
In fact, bot h the turbulence behind t he roller and the curvature of the wave
surface profile create larger velocities in the crest region behind the roller,
and t hat will enhance t he mass t ransport further.
Notice t hat t he above-mentioned underest i mat i on of Qs is visible by closer
inspection of t he figures in bot h the paper and in Hansen and Svendsen
(1984).
Thus the writers' criticism of the accuracy of the values used for A, c,
~c and Bo has merit (though their conjecture as to the sign of the error does
not seem to hold), and should lead to encouragement to furt her research,
experimental and theoretical. Both these comment s also apply to t he
radiation stress which is likely to be larger t han predicted (rather t han
smaller as suggested by t he writers).
The above-quoted results, however, also riddles the writers' claim t hat
linear t heory gives good results for undert ow. That stream funct i on t heory
will underest i mat e Qs is clear from the out set because this t heory yields Bo
values much smaller t han linear t heory (how small depends on h/L and H/h)
wi t hout including t he roller effect.
CONCLUSION
The aut hor would like to explain a little furt her his resistance towards
t he application of linear t heory (and ot her potential theories) in the surf
zone by recalling the writers' own wise comment s about the remarkable
agreement in fig. 4 between measurements and ' t he most simple t heory' :
' we believe this agreement to be fort ui t ous and due to a combi nat i on of
t he overestimation of the radiation stress by linear t heory and an under-
est i mat i on of t he gradient in t he radiation stress due to t he assumed breaking
relationship in eqn. {4)'.
There is always the chance t hat two ' inaccuracies' in the linear t heory
count eract each other to give t he right numerical result. For one thing,
however, this may not be the case in the whole range of parameter values
of interest. More i mport ant , t hough, it seems t hat using a model t hat does
not at least approxi mat el y include essential parts of the physical processes
(such as the effect of the turbulence, the roller, the actual wave shape),
there is no access to analyze the inaccuracies (except comparison of final
results with measurements by which very little insight is gained), and
generally there is no room for improvements.
Thus in conclusion the aut hor finds t hat although he can agree with the
writers on some points, their major claims of differences in the two met hods
have been found to be almost entirely due to the use of di fferent wave
theories. And t he aut hor cannot follow the writers' support of linear t heory
as a proper basis for obtaining relevant results in t he surf zone.
307
REFERENCES
Dally, W.R., 1980. A numerical model for beach profile evolution. Master's Thesis, Univ.
of Delaware, Dep. Cir. Eng.
Hansen, J.B. and Svendsen, I.A., 1979. Regular waves in shoaling water, experimental
data. Inst. Hydrodyn. Hydrol. Eng. Series Paper 21.
Hansen, J.B. and Svendsen, I.A., 1984. A theoretical and experimental study of under-
tow. Proc. 19th Conf. Coastal Eng., Houston, pp. 2246--2262.
Longuet-Higgins, M.S., 1983. Peristaltic pumping in water waves. J. Fluid Mech., 137:
393--409.
Nadaoka, K. and Kondoh, T., 1982. Laboratory measurements of velocity field structure
in the surf zone by LDV. Coastal. Eng. Jp., 25: 125--146.
Stive, M.J.F., 1980. Velocity and pressure field of spilling breakers. Proc. 17th Conf.
Coastal Eng., Sydney, pp. 547- 566.
Svendsen, I.A., 1984. Mass flux and undert ow in a surf zone. Coastal Eng., 8: 347--365.
Svendsen, I.A., 1985. On the formulation of the cross-shore wave-current problem. Proc.
European Workshop on Coastal Zones, as Related to Physical Processes and Coastal
Structures, Loutraki, Greece, 30 Sep.--4 Oct., 1985.
Svendsen, I.A., Madsen, P.A. and Buhr Hansen, J., 1978. Wave characteristics in the surf
zone. Proc. 16th Conf. Coastal Eng., Hamburg, Chap. 29, pp. 520--539.
Wang, H. and Yang, W.-C., 1980. A similarity model in the surf zone. Proc. 17th Int.
Conf. Coastal Eng., Sydney, pp. 529--546.