Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
2
a)
1
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
400
b)
200
0
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2
c)
1
0
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
200
d)
100
0
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
f/f
p
Figure 6.6 Breaking severity analyses versus wave frequency
f
normalised by the peak frequency
f
p
. a) Breaking strength assumed as bubble radius
R
0
(
f
)
in mm (denoted as
R
in the figure);
b) Breaking strength
R
0
(
f
)
divided by the spectral density
P
(
f
)
; c) Product of breaking strength
R
0
(
f
)
and breaking probability
b
T
(
f
)
; d) Product of breaking severity
R
0
(
f
)
and breaking prob-
ability
b
T
(
f
)
normalised by the spectral density
P
(
f
)
.
/
.
/
∇
.
/
. Squares: 12
8m
s; *: 12
9m
s;
:13
2m
s;
diamonds: 13
.
7m
/
s;
×
:15
.
0m
/
s; circles: 19
.
8m
/
s. The records are from
Table 5.2
for breaking waves in a uniform train. Similar calibration in a spectral environment is yet
to be conducted.
In
Figure 6.6
, the four subplots demonstrate a dependence of the severity-related param-
eters on wave frequency for the six wave records of
Table 5.2
depicted previously in
Figure 5.27
. The mean-bubble-size distribution with wave frequency
R
0
(
is shown in
the top panel (
R
0
is the radius of the surface bubbles in mm). Since the bubble size does
not depend on how many waves broke and it is quite uniform across the frequency range for
each of the records, this means that the energy loss across the frequency, at least up to the
relative frequency of 2
f
p
shown in the figure, is approximately constant. Since the waves
away from the peak, and certainly at the double peak frequency are significantly smaller,
f
)
Search WWH ::
Custom Search