REPRESENTATION OF TIDAL CURRENTS IN GENESIS

Original Formulation
In the original version of GENESIS, the governing equation for the longshore
sediment transport rate Q (m3/s) is (Kraus and Harikai 1983)
H b

Q H 2C g b a1 sin 2 bs a2 cos bs
x

where H is the wave height (m), Cg is the wave group speed (m/s), bs is the angle of
the breaking waves to the shoreline, subscript b denotes the wave breaker position.
The quantities and a1 and a2 are non-dimensional parameters given by
K1
a1
16( s / 1)(1 p )1.4165/ 2

K2
a2
8( s / 1)(1 p) tan 1.4165/ 2

where K1 and K2 are empirical coefficients, s () is the density of sand (water)

(kg/m3), p is the porosity of sand, and tan is the average bottom slope from the
shoreline to the limiting depth of longshore transport. The factor 1.416 is used to
convert from significant to RMS wave height. The nominal value of K1 is 0.77,
whereas there is no corresponding value of K2. As a rule of thumb, based on modeling
experience, Hanson and Kraus (1989) recommend 0.5K1 < K2 < 1.5K1.
The second term in Equation 1 accounts for the longshore current and associated
sediment transport induced by a gradient in wave height (Ozasa and Brampton 1980)
as produced, for example, by diffraction behind a detached breakwater. In the
calibration and verification procedure, values of K1 and K2 are determined by
reproducing changes in shoreline position measured over a certain time interval.
By writing the transport rate in terms of immersed weight, I l (N/s), Equations (1)
and (2) may be expressed as
cos bs H b
I l EC g K1 sin b cos bs K 2
b
tan x
where E is the wave energy density (J/m2). The classical CERC-equation for
calculating the longshore sediment transport rate is formulated as
I l EC g K1 sin bs cos bs
b

which is identical to the first term in the GENESIS transport relation as given in
Equation (3).

Introducing Currents
Following the formula proposed by Bagnold (1963), Eq. (4) can be modified to
explicitly represent a longshore current as
 vl
I l K 3 ( EC g )b cos b
um
where K3 is a dimensionless coefficient, vl (m/s) is the average longshore current in
the surf zone, and um (m/s) is the maximum wave-induced near-bottom horizontal
velocity at wave breaking. The quantity, um, may be written as
1/ 2 1/ 2
2 Eb gH b
um
hb 4 1.416

where hb is the breaker depth, is the breaker index, and g is the acceleration due to
gravity. By using Equation (5), the longshore sediment transport rate is no longer
restricted to being generated exclusively by breaking waves; the longshore current
may originate from other mechanisms as discussed further by Komar and Inman
(1970) and Kraus et al. (1982), for example, as generated by the tide or the wind.
Thus, by assuming shallow water conditions at the location of wave breaking, the
wave group velocity Cgb may be approximated by
C gb Cb ghb gH b / (7)

where Cb (m/s) is the wave breaking celerity. Inserting Equation (7) into (5) yields
1/ 2
K 3 g
Il H b1.5Cg vl cos bs (8)
4 1.4162

If the longshore current vl comprise of a wave generated current vb alone, it may

be calculated as (Lonquet-Higgins 1970; Komar and Inman 1970)
vl vb K 4 um sin b (9)
where K4 is an empirical coefficient for which Komar and Inman (1970) suggested K4
= 2.7. By combining Equations (5), (6), and (9), we obtain K3 = K1/K4 = 0.28. Thus,
with only wave generated currents taken into account, Equations (5) and (9) together
are compatible with the CERC equation but are still able to account for currents of
different origin.

Proposed Formulation
Along the same lines as the previous section, the present study proposes a
generalized version of Equation (9) that includes the effect of longshore gradients as
4 (um2 ) 1
vb K 4um sin b K 5 um (10)
g x tan
where K5 is an empirical coefficient (= K2/K3). It can easily be shown that Equation
(10) inserted into (5) reduces back to Equation (3). Thus, the relationship in Equation
(10) is equivalent to the original transport relationship used in GENESIS with only
wave-generated transport accounted for. In combination with currents of different
origin, e.g., tidal induced vt or wind induced vw , the total longshore current simply
becomes
 vl vb vt vw (11)
and, when included in Equation (8), becomes
K3 g 4 (um2 ) 1
Il H b1.5Cg cos bs K 4um sin bs K 5 um vt vw (12)
4 1.4162 g x tan

This equation may be written in terms of Q (m3/s) as

Q A3 A4 sin 2 bs A5 cos bs (13)
where
K 3 H b1.5C g
A3 (14)
4 *1.4162 ( S 1)(1 p ) g
K 4um
A4 (15)
2
H b 1
A5 K5 um vt vw (16)
x tan

Combining Waves and Currents in GENESIS

For each time step DT and at every cell DX, GENESIS is calculating a
longshore current velocity vb as caused by the breaking waves. In order to combine
this with a tidal current vt , a surf-zone average tidal current velocity vt needs to be
read from a file. The time interval between updating the tidal current DTTI may be
different from the calculation time step DT as well as the time step in the wave file
DTW. However, the selection of DTTI is under the same restrictions as those for
DTW, i.e., DTTI needs to be an even multiple of DT. The tidal-current velocities may
be obtained from field measurements or from a tidal-circulation model. Typically, the
tidal currents are determined for one representative tidal cycle. From this, the
longshore component of the tidal current is interpolated into the GENESIS grid, with
one value for each DTTI and DX. In this process, it is necessary to specify a
representative surf zone width for which an average tidal current velocity vt is
specified.
In the discussion above, it is assumed that all types of currents have the same
impact on sediment transport. Thus, the total effective longshore current is simply
taken as the arithmetic sum of the individual components as described in Equation
(11). However, due to different velocity profiles, boundary layers, etc., between
wave-induced currents and tidal currents, this is not necessarily true. The parameter
KTIDE provides the user with the possibility to alter the relative weight of the two
types of currents in generating a longshore sediment transport rate. Thus, in Equations
(11) and (12) the velocity vt is replaced by vt vt KTIDE . The default value of
*

KTIDE is 1.0 but it is possible to assign other values. It should not deviate too much
from the default value. The setting of this value will be a part of the overall
calibration/verification process.
Schematized Example Downdrift of Shinnecock Inlet, LI
Here, the conditions near Shinnecock Inlet, Long Island are simplified and
should only be regarded as a simple illustration of the possible impact of tidal currents
near a tidal inlet. During flood tide the tidal current in the inlet is directed into the
channel. This induces a flow towards the inlet from surrounding waters as illustrated
in Figure 1 (red arrows). At the same time, the tide generates an open-coast longshore
tidal current from east to west (right to left) assumed to be uniform alongshore (blue
arrows). As indicated in the figure, at some distance from the down-drift (west) jetty
the open-coast tidal current towards the west will be balanced by a tidal-inlet induced
tidal current of equal magnitude but directed towards the east. West of this point, the
resulting tidal current will be less than the open coast component but still directed
towards the west. To the east of this point, i.e., closer to the inlet, the inlet-induced
component will be stronger resulting in a composite tidal towards the inlet although
the open-coast tidal current is directed away from the inlet.
During ebb tide the current in the inlet channel is directed towards the ocean.
Assuming that this current is behaving like a classical jet (Figure 2, red arrows), it will
produce secondary return currents that will be directed towards the inlet on either
side. At the same time, the tide generates an open-coast longshore tidal current from
west to east (left to right) assumed to be uniform alongshore (blue arrows). On the
down-drift side of the inlet, both tidal component are directed towards the inlet,
resulting in a stronger composite current in the same direction.
The results over an entire tidal cycle (assumed to be sinusoidal) are illustrated
in Figure 3. Far away from the inlet (green line) the composite tidal motion is only
that of the open-coast component, thus describing a sinusoidal pattern with no net
effect over a complete tidal cycle. Closer to the inlet the composite ebb current will
become stronger whereas the flood current will decrease. At some location (blue
line), the two components will counter-balance each other resulting in a zero tidal
current velocity during flood. Closer to the inlet (yellow and red lines) the composite
tidal current will always be directed towards the inlet, thus resulting in a net transport
of sediment towards the inlet at all times.
In conclusion, far away from inlets the net effect of tidal currents is small and
may be disregarded. However, near the inlets the inclusion of tidal currents is
necessary in order to get a realistic description of the longshore sediment transport
and the resulting shoreline evolution. This is especially true on the down-drift side of
the inlets, where inclusion of tidal currents may reverse the net direction of sediment
transport.

Schematized Example Downdrift of Ocean City Inlet, ML

The following example was made in order to illustrate the possible impact of a
tidal current on shoreline evolution near an inlet. Conditions adjacent to the down-
drift (south) jetty of Ocean City Inlet, ML, were used as a basis for a schematic
example. However, with all the simplification and assumptions, this case should not
be used as an example of what is actually happening at Ocean City Inlet but rather as
an illustration of a generic application of GENESIS to a situation involving a tidal
current.
 The Ocean City area (Figure 4) is subject to long-term shoreline recession
caused by a longshore transport to the south, indicated by the impoundment on the
north jetty and a corresponding erosion downdrift of the south jetty. The net sediment
transport at the site is estimated at some 150.000 m3/yr from north to south (Stauble et
al. 1993).
Simulations were carried out over one year without and with contribution from
a schematized tidal current quite similar to that described above for Shinnecock Inlet.
Without the tidal current, the transport rate is at all locations directed south with a net
transport rate of about 170,000 m3/yr far away from the jetty and decreasing gradually
closer to the jetty. By including the tidal current the net transport far away from the
structure is still the same. Furthest away within the calculation domain, the net
transport rate is reduced to about 130,000 m3/yr. Closer to the jetty the transport
gradually reduces and changes direction about 250 m from the structure.
The difference in shoreline evolution clearly demonstrates the effect of the
tidal current. Without the tidal current, the beach is eroding at all locations, but to a
lesser degree with the distance from the jetty. With the tidal current, the situation is
quite similar further away from the inlet. About 700 m south of the jetty shoreline
evolution with and without a tidal current is almost the same. Near the jetty, however,
the difference is more pronounced with a net accretion with the 100 m closest to the
south jetty.

References
Bagnold, R.A. 1963. Mechanics of Marine Sedimentation, in The Sea, Vol. 3, pp.
507-528, (ed. Hill, M.N.), Interscience, NY.
Hanson, H., and Kraus, N.C. 1989. GENESIS: Generalized Model for Simulating
Shoreline Change. Report 1: Technical Reference. Technical Report CERC-89-
19, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Komar, P.D. and Inman, D.L. 1970. Longshore Sand Transport on Beaches, Journal
of Geophysical Research, 75(30), 5914-5927.
Kraus, N.C., and Harikai, S. 1983. Numerical Model of the Shoreline Change at
Oarai Beach. Coastal Engineering, 7(1): 1-28.
Kraus, N.C., Isobe, M., Igarashi, H., Sasaki, T. and Horikawa, K. 1982. Field
Experiments on Longshore Sand Transport in the Surf Zone, Proceedings 18th
Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE, 969-988.
Longuet-Higgins, M.S. 1970. Longshore Currents Generated by Obliquely Incident
Sea Waves, 1, Journal of Geophysical Research, 75(33), 6778-6789.
Ozasa, H. and Brampton, A.H. 1980. Mathematical Modeling of Beaches Backed by
Seawalls. Coastal Engineering, 4(1): 47-64.
Stauble, D.K., Garcia, A.W., Kraus, N.C., Grosskopf, W.G., and Bass, G.P. (1993).
"Beach Nourishment Project Response and Design Evaluation: Ocean City,
Maryland," Report 1, 1988-1992, Final General Design Memorandum,
Department of the Army, Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers, Baltimore, MD
(3 volumes).
Figures

Figure 1. Schematic illustration of possible tidal currents at Shinnecock Inlet, LI

during flood condition.

O p e n -C o a s t T id a l C u r r e n ts
T id a l-In le t In flu e n c e d C u r r e n ts

Figure 2. Schematic illustration of possible tidal currents at Shinnecock Inlet, LI

during ebb condition.

x
Figure 3. Schematic illustration of possible tidal currents downdrift of Shinnecock
Inlet, LI at different distances from the inlet.

Figure 4. Site map of Ocean City Inlet.

 12000

M eas 86
C a lc 8 7 , n o tid e
11900
C a lc 8 7 , tid e
S h o r e lin e L o c a t io n ( m )

11800

11700

11600

11500
200 400 600 800
D is ta n c e A lo n g s h o r e ( m )
Figure 5. Calculated shoreline evolution downdrift of Ocean City Inlet, ML
illustrating the difference between including and not including the tidal current.