See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233752032

Keeping it simple by using complex models

Conference Paper · January 2005

CITATIONS READS

54 1,209

2 authors:

Dano J.A. Roelvink Dirk-Jan Walstra

IHE Delft Institute for Water Education Deltares
260 PUBLICATIONS 5,245 CITATIONS 130 PUBLICATIONS 1,708 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sustainable development of North Sea and Coast View project

Development of Delft3D-GeoTool View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dirk-Jan Walstra on 30 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ADVANCES IN HYDRO-SCIENCE AND –ENGINEERING, VOLUME VI 1

KEEPING IT SIMPLE BY USING COMPLEX MODELS

Dano Roelvink1 and Dirk-Jan Walstra2

1. INTRODUCTION

This paper deals with the application of complex (2DH/3D) morphodynamic models to commonly
applied engineering solutions such as the design of nourishments, groynes, offshore breakwaters on
approximately uniform coasts. Common practice today is to apply a combination of coastal profile
and (one- or two-line) coastline models to such cases, even when the scales of the problem are such
that the assumptions on which these models are based are violated. The continuing popularity of 1D
models is due to a combination of budgetary and temporal constraints under which such projects are
commonly executed. Application of existing 2DH/3D models is hampered by the fact that they are
considered to be difficult to set up, time-consuming to run, have unstable or unpredictable behaviour
and are consequently difficult to calibrate to realistic solutions, even though they represent more
processes,. In other words, a consultant is better off using a simple, predictable model, even if it is
wrong, than doing an expensive exercise with a complex model if the results are unreliable or only
cover weeks instead of years.
Rather than accepting this reasoning we aim to improve the usability of complex models to
such an extent that applying them actually becomes easier than using coastline models, as the results
become more realistic and fewer problems have to be explained away. To achieve this we have to
do a number of things, some of which are fundamental, others purely practical:
• use a robust, implicit transport and bed updating scheme that will survive any reasonable
forcing;
• create appropriate boundary conditions for the wave, flow, sediment transport and bottom
change equations.
• apply a morphological upscaling technique that allows you to bridge the gap between
hydrodynamic and morphological time-scales;
• convert a coastline model schematisation to a 2D curvilinear model grid and bathymetry.
• implement cross-shore physical processes that make the profiles tend to a reasonable
equilibrium, specifically including (for fine-scale problems) or excluding (for larger-scale
problems) breaker bars;
• implement a scheme to allow the dry beach to follow nearshore bed changes.
Once such improvements have been made the complex model can be used as a sophisticated
engine in an environment similar to that of simple coastline models. Even if the underlying sediment
transport prediction will always be a point of uncertainty, the fundamental behaviour of the system
will be much improved: nourishments may move along the coast instead of just diffusing out,

1
WL | Delft Hydraulics and Delft University of Technology, p.o.box 177, 2600 MH Delft, the Netherlands, email:
dano.roelvink@wldelft.nl
2
WL | Delft Hydraulics and Delft University of Technology, p.o.box 177, 2600 MH Delft, the Netherlands, email:
dirkjan.walstra@wldelft.nl
ADVANCES IN HYDRO-SCIENCE AND –ENGINEERING, VOLUME VI 2

offshore breakwaters create horizontal circulations, sediment may be deposited downstream of short
groynes rather than upstream, effects of tidal deltas can be accounted for, to name a few examples.
In our paper we will outline how such improvements have been made to the Delft3D
morphological system and show some comparisons between a coastline approach and a Delft3D
approach on the same schematisation.

2. MODEL OVERVIEW

The modelling system applied is the 3D Morphology version of the Delft3D system, which is
described in detail in Lesser et al. (2004). In Figure 1 below the general flow chart of the system is
shown. The main components are Delft3D-WAVE, which is based on the spectral wave model
SWAN (Holthuijsen et al, 1997), and Delft3D-FLOW, which in the form used is a non-stationary,
2DH or 3D, hydrostatic flow model with an in-built advection-diffusion solver that is used (among
others) to transport suspended
sediment. Bed load transport is Initial bathymetry
computed separately and
bottom changes due to the
combined effect of the Wave b.c. Flow b.c.
sediment entrainment and Waves
Flow
deposition and bed load Transport
Bottom change
transport gradients are
computed every flow time step. Flow, transport and
To account for the difference in Every N flow time steps bottom change solved
time-scales between the update wavefield simultaneously
hydrodynamics and the
morphology, bottom changes Figure 1 Flow chart of Delft3D system
per time step are scaled up by a
'morphological factor', which for typical coastal problems may be in the order of 100.
The numerical scheme applies a curvilinear, orthogonal, staggered grid, where water level
points and depth-points are co-located in the cell centres and the u- and v- velocity points are
located in the middle of the cell walls. For the simulations presented in this paper an Alternating
Direction Implicit (ADI) method is used to solve the continuity and horizontal momentum equations
(Leendertse 1987). The advantage of the ADI-method is that the implicitly integrated water levels
and velocities are coupled along grid lines leading to systems of equations with a small bandwidth.
Stelling (1984) extended the ADI method of Leendertse with a special approach for the horizontal
advection terms, namely the splitting of a third order upwind finite difference scheme for the first
derivative into two second order consistent discretisations: a central discretisation and an upwind
discretisation, which are successively used in both stages of the ADI-scheme. The scheme is
denoted as a Cyclic Method (Stelling and Leendertse, 1991). This leads to a method which is
computationally efficient, at least second order accurate, and stable at Courant numbers of up to
approximately 10. Wave effects are accounted for through additional driving terms near surface
and bed, enhanced bed shear stress, mass flux and increased turbulence; see Walstra et al. (2000).
The wave-current interaction is implemented by running the wave module every N flow timesteps,
where updated bottom, water level and velocity information is passed to the wave model and wave-
induced forces, wave heights, periods and directions are passed back to the flow module.
The most important adaptations for the sediment transport and morphology model are the
following:
• the depths in u- and v-points are taken as the minimum of the surrounding depths in water level
points.
ADVANCES IN HYDRO-SCIENCE AND –ENGINEERING, VOLUME VI 3

• sediment source and sink terms and bed load transport vectors are evaluated in the water level
points (cell centres).
• the velocity vectors applied in the centres are determined by a depth-weighted averaging of the
surrounding velocities in u- and v-points:
• the erosion and deposition terms of suspended sediment are combined into an implicit term that
depends on the near-bed concentration and the fall velocity, and an explicit term that depends on
the reference concentration given by one of several formulations.
• the bed load transport components in the u- and v-points are copied from the up-stream water
level points where the bed load transport is evaluated.
• the bottom change (in water level points) over a half time-step is computed as the sum of the net
entrainment or deposition and the net bed load transport into or out of a cell, muliplied by the
'morphological factor'.
This scheme, which is a slight modification of the upwind/downwind scheme presented in Lesser et
al (2004) has been tested and applied in a wide range of conditions, varying from wave-dominated
to tide-dominated, in 2DH and 3D mode, and has proven to be very stable.

3. BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

The problem of specifying boundary conditions at lateral boundaries is that due to a combination of
processes acting on the model domain, a certain water level or velocity distribution will develop in
cross-shore direction. For the boundary conditions to match this distribution it has to be known
beforehand; if not, boundary disturbances will develop.
There are two ways to overcome this problem. The first is to try and predict the water level
setup or the current velocity along the lateral boundary by solving a 1DH or 2DV problem along the
boundary and to impose this. For simple cases this is possible but for more complex combinations of
forcing conditions it is cumbersome. A better solution is to let the model determine the correct
solution at the boundary by imposing the alongshore water level gradient (a so-called Neumann
boundary condition) instead of a fixed water level or velocity. In many cases this can be assumed to
be zero; only in tidal cases are in cases where a storm surge travels along a coast the alongshore
gradient varies in time, but for models with a limited cross-shore extent, the alongshore gradient of
the water level does not vary much in cross-shore direction.
The equations solved at the lateral boundaries now read, if s is the direction along the
boundary and n the direction normal to the boundary:

∂η
= f (t ) (1)
∂n
∂us ∂u ∂u ∂η τ F R τ
+ u s s + un s = − g + f cor un + ws + s + s − bs (2)
∂t ∂s ∂n ∂s ρh ρh ρh ρh

∂un ∂u ∂u ∂η τ F R τ
+ u s n + un n = − g − f cor us + wn + n + n − bn (3)
∂t ∂s ∂n ∂n ρh ρh ρh ρh

Here, η is the water level, u the velocity, g the acceleration of gravity, fcor the coriolis
coefficient, τ w the wind stress, F the wave force, R the Reynolds stress, τ b the bed shear stress, ρ
the water density and h the water depth. The greyed-out terms are neglected at the boundaries. Note
that the advection terms containing cross-shore gradients of the velocity are not neglected, as they
ADVANCES IN HYDRO-SCIENCE AND –ENGINEERING, VOLUME VI 4

are important during the spin-up of the model or in instationary conditions, and in the case of 3D
flow. For a given water level at the seaward boundary, these equations fully determine the solution
of the water level and two velocity components along the cross-shore boundary.
These lateral boundary conditions can only be applied in combination with a water level
boundary at the seaward boundary, which is needed to make the solution well-posed. At the seaward
boundary, the water level is prescribed as a function of time and advection terms containing normal
gradients of the velocity are set to zero.
In a simple example with wind blowing at an angle to an alongshore uniform sloping beach,
the left-hand panel in Figure 2 shows a very wrong solution for uniform water level boundaries. If
we specify not the water level but the water level gradient normal to the boundary (equal to zero)
then the wind-induced setup can freely develop at the lateral boundaries and the correct solution is
found. We can see the uniform stationary solution on the right panel in Figure 2; in Figure 3 we see
that the time-evolution in this case is also modelled correctly.

Figure 2 Wind-driven current and water level set-up on a small-scale model. Left panel: uniform water level
boundaries; right panel: uniform water level at seaward side, zero water level gradient boundary top and
bottom. Stationary solution, plane 1:100
sloping beach until 20 m depth ; wind
velocity 20 m/s, wind direction 225
deg. N.

Figure 3 Wind-driven velocity vs.

time for different water depths;
comparison of 2DH solution with
gradient-type lateral boundary
conditions and theoretical solution.

For wave-driven currents the

situation is very similar in principle.
However, as the wave-driven current
ADVANCES IN HYDRO-SCIENCE AND –ENGINEERING, VOLUME VI 5

only appears in a narrow strip along the coast, the effect of the boundary disturbances reaches less
far into the model area. A typical example, for the same model now driven by obliquely incident
waves, is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Current velocity and water level pattern for waves Hs=2m, Tp=7s, direction 240 deg. N,
with uniform water level boundaries (left) and gradient-type lateral boundaries (right panel).

For situations where a tidal wave propagates along the coast we may derive harmonic
boundaries as follows. The propagation of the tidal water level along the coast can be described by:

N
η ( s, t ) = ∑η j cos (ω j t − k j s − ϕ j )
)
(4)
j =1

)
Here η j is the amplitude of the j-th component, ω j the angular frequency, k j the alongshore
wavenumber of the tidal component, s the alongshore distance and ϕ j its phase relative to a fixed
point in time and space. To obtain the alongshore gradient of the water level we can now simply
differentiate with respect to s, to get:

∂η N
( s, t ) = ∑ k jη j sin (ω j t − k j s − ϕ j ) =
)
∂s j =1
N
(5)
cos (ω j t − k j s − ϕ j − π / 2 )
)
∑k η
j =1
j j

If our model area is in between two water level stations where tidal amplitudes and phases are
known, we can simply determine the local water level amplitudes and phases by spatial
interpolation; the alongshore wavenumber can be derived for each component by analysing the
phase difference between the two water level stations.
ADVANCES IN HYDRO-SCIENCE AND –ENGINEERING, VOLUME VI 6

Similar procedures can be followed for output from larger-scale models. At the seaward
boundary we now prescribe the water level and at the lateral boundaries we prescribe a uniform
longshore pressure gradient as a function of time or as a combination of harmonic components with
the right phases.
With tidal boundary conditions of this kind it is possible to add arbitrary forcing due to wind
or waves, in 2DH or 3D without
generating spurious circulations.
As an example, we show results
for a 2D grid with dimensions of 2000
m in cross-shore direction and 2500 m
in alongshore direction. The depth is
20 m at the seaward boundary and
decreases linearly at a slope of 0.01.
The tidal amplitude is 1 m and the tidal
alongshore wave length is 400 km. The
tidal alongshore wave number is then
1.57.10-5 rad/m and the phase
difference between the southern and
northern boundary is 2.25 degrees. The
boundary conditions applied are then:
• Southern boundary: water level
gradient amplitude 1.57.10-5 and
phase 90 deg.; Figure 5 Example tidal velocity profiles at 6 times
• Northern boundary: water level during a tidal period. Thick lines: Delft3D using
gradient amplitude 1.57.10-5 and Neumann boundary conditions. Thin lines: offline
phase 92.25 deg.; numerical solution of 1D equations
• Western boundary: water level
amplitude 1 m, phase linearly varying from 0 deg at the southern end to 2.25 deg. at the northern
end.
In Figure 5 the cross-shore distribution of the longshore velocity is shown at 6 time points in
the tidal period. The distribution in longshore direction is quite uniform. In the figure the numerical
solution using Delft3D is compared with a 1D solution. The agreement is very good, indicating that
in this case advection effects are apparently negligble as they are not taken into account in the 1D
case.

4. PRACTICAL APPLICATION

To illustrate the robustness of the approach we constructed a small-scale model at Egmond (The
Netherlands) covering the area of the Coast3D pilot campaign (Soulsby, 2001). The flow model was
forced by astronomical components of water level and water level gradient interpolated from two
tidal stations (IJmuiden en Petten) about 35 km apart. Local wind and wave time-series measured
during the Coast3D pilot campaign were imposed on the flow model and used as boundary
conditions for the wave model, respectively. Surveys carried out during the course of the experiment
were used to construct a model bathymetry. The dimensions of the flow model domain are 2300 m
alongshore (57 gridcells) and 1300 m cross-shore (63 gridcells) extending the model to about the 11
m depth contour (left panel in Figure 6). Velocity measurements at Station 18A, located on the
seaward slope of the outer bar and Stations 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D, located across the inner bar, (top
right panel in Figure 6) were used to test the model performance. The wave model has an identical
ADVANCES IN HYDRO-SCIENCE AND –ENGINEERING, VOLUME VI 7

grid in the flow domain, but to avoid boundary disturbances of the wave model reaching the flow
domain it was extended about 1500 m in both alongshore directions and about 1800 m in seaward
direction.

Figure 6 Flow model grid and bathymetry (left), detail of the grid and bathymetry and
measurement locations (top right) and cross-shore depth profile along the measurement cross-
section (bottom right).

The model boundaries were set-up as outlined in the previous section: water level imposed at
the distal ends of the seaward alongshore boundary and cross-shore constant water level gradients at
both lateral boundaries.
The water level amplitudes for each astronomical component were determined for both lateral
model boundaries as:
) ) ) ) ) )
η bc
j
, south
= f southη tsj , south + (1 − f north )η tsj ,north , η bc
j
, north
= f northη tsj , south + (1 − f south )η tsj ,north (6)

) , south ) ,north
where η bc
j and η bc
j are the interpolated amplitudes, f south and f north are the spatial
interpolation factors using the distance dts between the tidal stations and distance of the lateral
model boundaries dsouth and dnorth to the southern tidal station (dts=35117 m, dsouth=16056 m,
) )
dnorth=18388 m), η tsj , south and η tsj ,north are the amplitudes at the tidal stations. The alongshore wave
number:
ϕ north
j − ϕ south
j
kj = (7)
dts
is used to determine the alongshore water level gradients:
ADVANCES IN HYDRO-SCIENCE AND –ENGINEERING, VOLUME VI 8

north south
⎛ ∂η ⎞ ) ⎛ ∂η ⎞ )
⎜ ⎟ = η tsj ,north k j , ⎜ ⎟ = η tsj , south k j (8)
⎝ ∂s ⎠ j ⎝ ∂s ⎠ j

and the relative phases:

ϕ south
j = ϕ tsj , south + k j d south , ϕ north
j = ϕ tsj , south + k j d north (9)

for each astronomical component. The obtained boundaries were used in a simulation using standard
values for roughness (Chezy = 50 m½/s) and horizontal viscosity (ν = 1 m2/s) and other model
parameters without any calibration. Measured and modelled longshore velocities are compared for
Stations 1A to 1D in the left panel of Figure 7. The comparison shows that with this boundary
schematization a very accurate representation of local currents can be achieved. The deviations in
the middle of the period are primarily caused by inaccuracies in the wave model as the increased
error in the predicted longshore velocities is correlated to the increased error of the wave predictions
across the inner bar (see top right panel of Figure 7). We have pushed the concept even further by
running the model in profile mode (3 gridcells in the alongshore direction). A comparison of
longshore velocities at Station 18A for both models and measurements (bottom right panel of Figure
7) proves that this simplification hardly affects the longshore velocities (wave forcing and wind
were identical in both simulations).

Figure 7 Left panel: comparison of measured (red)

and simulated (blue) longshore velocities at Stations
1A to 1D (left), top right panel: comparison of
significant wave height at Station 1A (blue: model,
red: measurements), bottom right panel: comparison
of longshore velocities at Station 18A computed with
the 2DH grid (blue), 1DH grid (green) and
measurements (red).

This example shows that an accurate local model can be created using easy-to-obtain local
information, without the need to nest in a larger regional tidal model, which is one step towards
reducing the complexity of applying morphodynamic area models in coastal engineering problems.
Furthermore, we have shown that a 2DH model can be run in profile mode. This can be especially
useful to reduce the calibration effort by using the profile mode for calibration purposes (e.g. on
longshore transports) before applying the relative computer expensive 2DH (or 3D) model.
ADVANCES IN HYDRO-SCIENCE AND –ENGINEERING, VOLUME VI 9

5. IS IT WORTH IT?

We are aware of the fact that coastline models are still quicker and easier to set-up, despite the
significant reduction in complexity our approach constitutes regarding application of process based
area models. However, we will show with a simple “text book” example that application of
morphological area models is worth the extra effort: we constructed a simple Delft3D model with an
alongshore uniform depth profile and zero Neumann lateral and water level boundaries, forced with
a single wave condition (Hs=1.6 m, Tp=5.5 s) and an incident shore normal wave angle of 30˚.
Morphodynamic simulations covering a period of 256 days were performed with a long and short
groyne (700 m and 250 m) based on the Bijker transport formula and applying a morphological
scaling factor of 192. The predictions are compared with those made with a coastline model using
the same depth profile, wave condition and transport formula (i.e. identical undisturbed integrated
longshore transport) in Figure 8. For comparing Delft3D results with the coastline model the
Delft3D bathymetric output was integrated over the zone -6 m to +1 m, providing an averaged
coastline position.

Figure 8 Comparing Delft3D and a coastline model results with a long and short groyne after 256
days starting with an alongshore uniform depth profile. Left: Delft3D with long groyne, middle:
Delft3D with short groyne and left: comparison of coastlines after 200 days simulated with Delft3D
and a coastline model (black: initial; magenta: Delft3D with long groyne, red: Delft3D with short
groyne, blue: CL-model with short groyne and green: CL-model with long groyne).

The comparison shows that with a long groyne significant updrift accretion has occurred
which is modelled fairly consistently by both models. However, the downdrift erosion is
significantly larger just downstream of the groyne for the CL-model. The results for the short
groyne are almost opposite. Although the groyne extends beyond the surf zone, Delft3D predicts a
ADVANCES IN HYDRO-SCIENCE AND –ENGINEERING, VOLUME VI 10

significant bypass of sediment due to water with high concentrations of sand flowing around the
breakwater with sand settling just downstream of the groyne. This process can not be accounted for
by the CL-model and as a consequence all sediment is also blocked by the short groyne which
results in almost identical predictions for both groynes.
The erosion downstream in the Delft3D model is much more spread out than in the CL model.
This is due to the water level gradient downstream of the groyne, advection effects and the delayed
picking up of sediment. In fact, as Figure 9 below shows, the model domain should be extended
further upstream and much further downstream to capture the full recovery of longshore transport
and to reach an undisturbed area.

Figure 9 Coastline change averaged over -6m to -1 depth zone (m), comparison between Delft3D
runs with long and short groyne.

6. CONCLUSIONS

The developments described in this paper contribute to the applicability of process-based 2DH or
3D models in practical cases, where up till now application of coastline models is more common.
Especially the gradient-type of lateral boundary conditions presented here take away much of the
complexity of setting up a model. The simple example of a groyne on a uniform beach shows that
applying a 2DH model provides much added value over the use of a coastline model, as it gives a
much better representation of the non-uniform processes around coastal structures.

REFERENCES

Holthuijsen, L.H., N. Booij and R.C. Ris, 1993: A spectral wave model for the coastal zone. Proc. of
the 2nd Int. Symposium on Ocean Wave Measurement and Analysis, New Orleans, 630-641.
Leendertse, J.J., 1987: A three-dimensional alternating direction implicit model with iterative fourth
order dissipative non-linear advection terms. WD-333-NETH, The Netherlands
Rijkswaterstaat.
Lesser, G.R., J.A. Roelvink, J. van Kester and G.S. Stelling, 2004: Development and validation
of a three-dimensional morphological model. Accepted for publication, Coastal Engineering.
Soulsby, R.L., 2001. Sediment transport and morphodynamics on complex coastlines – the
COAST3D project. Proceedings of Coastal Dynamics 2001 , June 2001, Lund, Sweden
 ADVANCES IN HYDRO-SCIENCE AND –ENGINEERING, VOLUME VI 11

Stelling, G.S. and Leendertse, J.J., 1991: Approximation of convective processes by cyclic ACI
methods. Proceeding 2nd ASCE Conference on Estuarine and Coastal Modelling, Tampa.
Walstra, D.J.R., J.A. Roelvink and J. Groeneweg, 2000: Calculation of wave-driven currents in a 3D
mean flow model. In: Coastal Engineering 2000, Billy Edge (ed.), Vol. 2, ASCE, New York,
pp. 1050-1063.

View publication stats