Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
1
1
1
2
0.5
0
0
1.5
0
−1
−1
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.8
0.85
0.9
0
0.5
1
kH
kH
kH
S
k
1
1
1
1
0.5
0
0.5
0
0
−1
0
−1
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.8
0.85
0.9
0
0.5
1
0
0.5
1
kH
kH
S
k
S
k
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
−1
−1
−1
−1
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.8
0.85
0.9
0
0.5
1
0
0.5
1
kH
kH
S
k
S
k
1
1
2
2
0
0
1.5
1.5
−1
−1
−1
0
1
−1
0
1
1.5
2
1.5
2
A
s
A
s
f, Hz
f, Hz
Figure 5.10 As in
Figure 5.7
, for the five steepest breakers
In
Figure 5.10
, as the steepness limit is approached, the skewness increases very rapidly
(first subplot) and the asymmetry starts to decrease and becomes negative (subplots 2
and 4), i.e. the wave starts tilting forward at the point of breaking. The latter conclusion
slightly differs from what was simulated numerically with the CS model (see
Section 4.1
)
where the wave started tilting forward after the point of maximum steepness was passed.
Thus, the model simulates the very late stages of the breaking onset with some deviation,
which is not unexpected as discussed above.
We will not discuss the scatter, correlations and cross-correlations of the five steepest
breakers in
Figures 5.10
,
5.11
and
5.12
in great detail as this largely repeats relationships
observed in
Figures 5.7
,
5.8
and
5.9
.Wewill only highlight correlationswhichweremarginal
within the 20-wave statistical plots and only become visible in the asymptotic plots.
In
Figure 5.11
, for the waves following the five steepest breakers, some dependence of
skewness on steepness can be identified (first subplot). This could be expected since this
wave is developing towards breaking. Its asymmetry is almost zero (second and fourth sub-
plots). This fact indicates some interaction between the breaker and this wave. Apparently,
as the breaker asymptotes its point of collapse, the shape of the following wave does not
appear random, but is almost perfectly symmetric and therefore is somehow locked with
Search WWH ::
Custom Search