IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS Related content

- Morphodynamic Model Suitable for River
Numerical modeling of wave-current interaction in Flow and Wave-Current Interaction
Silvia Bosa, Marco Petti, Francesco
Merak Port, Indonesia Lubrano et al.

- Longitudinal Pipeline Scour Propagation

Induced by Wave-Current Interaction For
To cite this article: S Nurfitri et al 2018 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 162 012007 the South Sumatra-West Java Submarine
Pipeline
Suntoyo, B. Perkasa, T.J. Atikasari et al.

- Water surface slope spectra in nearshore

and river mouth environments
View the article online for updates and enhancements. N J M Laxague, D G Ortiz-Suslow, B K
Haus et al.

This content was downloaded from IP address 114.142.173.37 on 01/07/2019 at 04:38

MSAT IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 162 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012007 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/162/1/012007

Numerical modeling of wave-current interaction in Merak

Port, Indonesia

S Nurfitri, N S Ningsih, A N Sentanu and R Rachmayani

Department of Oceanography, Bandung Institute of Technology, Jalan Ganesha 10,
Bandung 40132, Indonesia

E-mail: suliskania.n@oceanography.itb.ac.id

Abstract. This study aimed to investigate the effects of currents to wave height in the waters of
Merak Port, Banten using wave spectrum model. The wave-current interaction simulation was
performed by utilizing SWAN (Simulating Waves Nearshore) in stationary mode and using the
unstructured triangular grid. Data of wind velocity and direction as model inputs were obtained
from BMKG (Indonesian Agency for Meteorology, Climatology, and Geophysics), whereas
tidal current velocity data was obtained from TMD (Tide Model Driver). The model was
simulated in two different scenarios, i.e. without and with following (adverse) current which is
same (opposite) with wave propagation. The model input of dominant west wind was used to
represent the west monsoon, while the dominant wind from the north was used to represent the
east monsoon. The simulation results show that the maximum wave height is 2.98 m in the
west monsoon and 1.9 m in east monsoon. In the west (east) monsoon the following current
decrease wave height to 9.26% (5.09%), while the adverse current increase wave height up to
9.07% (6.56%).

1. Introduction
Merak Port, Cilegon, Banten is the port which devoted ship transportation from Java Island to Sumatra
and vice versa. The water transportation activity at this port is highly depends on the wave condition.
Wave height is one of the major factors which affects the ship performance and safety [1]. Wave
condition is strongly influenced by wind variability which is the main generating force (dominant) of
sea wave [2, 3]. Ocean circulation of Indonesian sea, here in particular, Java Sea is affected by the
monsoon cycle. From December to March the wind blows southeastward and eastward near the
equator [4]. It is known as the northwest monsoon or in Java it is also called west monsoon. On the
contrary, from June to September, the prevailing wind blows northwestward from Australia [4]. In
Java Sea, the wind blows from the east, thus it is called east monsoon.
The previous study of ocean waves in Sunda Strait area using SWAN (Simulating Waves
Nearshore) spectrum model has been conducted by Ramadhan (2014) and Adiprabowo (2015) [2, 5].
Adiprabowo (2015) conducted two stages of nested modeling using a regional model by Ramadhan
(2014) as a large model with non-stationary and stationary mode [5]. The simulation was using the
dominant wind field at Serang Station during 2003-2013. The result shows that the maximum wave
height (Hmax) at southern Sunda Strait in west monsoon is 3.2 m and east monsoon is 1.6 m [5].
Study of wave-current interaction has been conducted by Baddour and Song (1990) and Wolf and
Prandle (1999). Waves which propagate in the area of current circulation may experience the changes
of wave height and wavelength [6, 7]. When the waves propagate in the same direction with current,
significant wave height decreased and wavelength increased. Meanwhile, when the wave propagates in

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
MSAT IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 162 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012007 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/162/1/012007

the opposite direction with current, wave height increased and wavelength decreased [6, 7, 8]. The
previous study of wave-current interaction also conducted by Hein et al (2011) using SWAN coupled
with HAMSOM in Ems-Dollard Estuary [9]. Generally, the results show that in shallow regions the
difference between the simulation of waves, with and without currents is less than 10% [ 9]. On the
other hand, inside tidal channels, the difference can exceed 25% [9].
This study aimed to investigate the effects of currents to wave height in the waters of Merak Port,
Banten, Sunda Strait using wave spectrum model. The interaction of wave and current can produce
extreme wave height which caused the disruption of ship transportation and also ship docking at the
port. The research was conducted by utilizing SWAN. The scope of research is covering the Sunda
Strait, here in particular Merak Port. Constant wind velocity (spatial and temporal) which used as
generating force. In addition to that, the tidal current was taking into account.

2. Methodology
2.1. Wave equations
SWAN is based on the Eulerian formulation of the discrete spectral balance of action density that
accounts for refractive propagation over arbitrary bathymetry and current fields [10]. SWAN solves
the evolution of the wave spectrum by using the action density spectrum [8]. In the presence of
ambient current, the action density is conserved while the energy density is not [8]. The action density
N(σ; θ) is equal to the energy density E(σ; θ) divided by the relative angular frequency σ, i.e. N(σ; θ) =
E(σ; θ)=σ. SWAN solves the evolution of the wave spectrum by using the action density spectrum [8].
The governing equation for Cartesian coordinates is [8, 11]:
E ( , )
N ( , )  (1)

     S
N  cx N  c y N  c N  c N  tot (2)
t x y   

where x and y are horizontal Cartesian coordinates, t is time, θ is the propagation direction of each
wave component, cx, cy, cσ, and cθ are the propagation velocity in x-space, y-space, σ-space, and θ-
space respectively [8]. S is the source term in terms of energy density, which include the effects of
generation, dissipation, and nonlinear wave-wave interaction [8]. The first term on the left-hand side
of equation (2) is the rate of change of action density in time, the second and third terms are the
propagation of action in physical space [8]. The fourth and fifth terms show the shifting of the relative
frequency and the refraction due to variations in depth and currents [8].

2.2. Model domain and parameters

Area of interest of the study is covering Java Sea, Sunda Strait, and Indian Ocean (figure 2) and
focused on Merak Port (figure 2). Model inputs are dominant wind velocity, bathymetry, coastline and
current velocity. Wind data obtained from BMKG (Indonesian Agency for Meteorology, Climatology,
and Geophysics). Bathymetry data obtained from GEBCO (Global Bathymetric Chart of Oceans)
resolution 30” and coastline from GSHHG (Global Self-consistent, Hierarchical, High-Resolution
Geography Database) [12, 13]. Meanwhile, current velocity obtained from TMD (Tide Model Driver)
[14].
The wave simulation utilized unstructured triangular grid as shown in figure 1 which generated by
mesh generator MESH2D. Physical processes during the wave simulation are wave generation,
quadruplet nonlinear interaction, dissipation and current-wave interaction. The boundary condition is
the open boundary. There are 6 model scenarios which showed in Table 1. The scenarios are divided
based on wind and current direction (table 1). The current is divided into two directions i.e. following
(FC) and adverse current (AC) which has the same and opposite direction with wave propagation.

2
MSAT IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 162 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012007 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/162/1/012007

Figure 1. Model grid

Table 1. Model scenarios

Sc. Wind velocity (from-) Current
1 West (10.28 m/s) No Current
2 North (7.72 m/s) No Current
3 West (10.28 m/s) Following Current (FC)
4 North (7.72 m/s) Adverse Current (AC)
5 West (10.28 m/s) Adverse Current (AC)
6 North (7.72 m/s) Following Current (FC)

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Model verification
The model verification was done by compared the Hs (significant wave height) with reference model
by Adiprabowo (2015) at 3 locations (figure 2). Wave simulation using west wind as generating force
representation of west monsoon, meanwhile east monsoon represents the north wind. Generally, wave
propagation is agreed with the wind direction. For example, the west wind generates eastward wave
and north wind generates the southward wave.

Figure 2. Area of interest (right). Location of model verification show by the yellow circles (left).

3
MSAT IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 162 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012007 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/162/1/012007

Table 2. Model verification results

Adiprabowo (2015) This study
West monsoon East monsoon West monsoon East monsoon
St. Hs (m) Hmax (m) Hs (m) Hmax (m) Hs (m) Hmax (m) Hs (m) Hmax (m)
1 1.6 3.2 0.8 1.6 1.5 3.0 0.8 1.6
2 1.5 3.0 0.6 1.2 1.5 3.0 0.7 1.4
3 1.2 2.4 0.5 1.0 1.4 2.8 0.7 1.4
Bias (m) 0.03 0.01
RMSD (m) 0.13 0.13
CC 0.97 0.94

Significant wave height in west monsoon is higher than east monsoon. It is caused by the dominant
wind velocity is faster than east monsoon. The results agree with verification results conducted by
Adiprabowo (2015) in Sunda Strait [5]. The model verification produce the bias 0.03 m in west
monsoon and 0.01 m in east monsoon (table 2). These results show that the model overestimates
compared to referenced model by Adiprabowo (2015). In addition to that, the RMSD (Root Mean
Square Difference) is 0.13 both in west and east monsoon. Meanwhile, the coefficient correlation is
relatively high, that is 0.97 and 0.94 in west and east monsoon.

3.2. Wave-current interaction

There are two different of current direction which used in this research i.e. following and adverse
current. Following current (FC) was used when the current direction is same with wave propagation.
While adverse current (AC) was used if the current direction is opposite with wave propagation. The
vector of current and wind which generated wave is shown in figure 3. Scenario 3 represented the west
monsoon when flood tide, hence the current is in the same direction with wave propagation (FC).
Meanwhile, scenario 5 represent the ebb tide, so that the current direction is opposite with wave
propagation (AC). Scenario 4 represented the east monsoon when flood tide, hence the current is
opposite with wave propagation (AC). While scenario 6 represented the ebb tide so that the current is
in the same direction with wave propagation (FC).
Figure 4 shows the Hs differences between three scenarios in west monsoon. The percentage of Hs
difference between a simulation with and without current in the west monsoon is -9.26% (FC) and
+9.07% (AC). Meanwhile in east monsoon, Hs alteration is -5.09% (FC) and +6.56% (AC). Negative
(positive) sign show the decreasing (increasing) of Hs. These simulation results show that the current
direction affects the significant wave height (Hs). When the wave propagates in the same direction
with current, significant wave height decreased. Meanwhile, when the wave propagates in the opposite
direction with current, Hs increased.
The condition which affects the port activities and ship transportation significantly is when the
wave propagating in the opposite direction with the current. In this experiment, the adverse current
occurs when ebb tide (flood tide) in west monsoon (east monsoon) as shown in scenario 5 (scenario 4).
Both in west and east monsoon, Hs increment is below 10%. Despite the relatively small percentage,
the Hs increment may affect the ship transportation, especially if the Hs with no current effects is
equal or more than 2 meters. As stated on ‘Guide the Marine Meteorological Services, Third Edition’
that almost all the sailing ship will be disrupted by the wave which has Hs ≥ 2 meters [15].

4
MSAT IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 162 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012007 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/162/1/012007

Figure 3. Wind (black) and current (blue) direction.

Figure 4. The significant wave height in the west monsoon (above) and the east monsoon (below).
The vector arrows show the direction of wave propagation.

The graph in figure 5 and figure 6 show the comparison of energy spectrum in several points. The
graph represents energy change during wave propagation from the open sea to shore. Generally, the
energy density spectrum of the wave with adverse current is larger than without current, whereas the
smallest is the following current. In the west monsoon, the energy spectrum from open sea (T1) to
nearshore (P1) is decreasing (figure 5). The Hs reduction is up to 0.18 m. This happened because of
energy dissipation due to shallower waters. Energy density is decreasing in P4 because this area is
being covered by Merak Besar Island. The Hs reduction in P4 is 0.58 m which is higher than P1.
In east monsoon which the wave propagates from the north, the energy density is decreasing from
U3 to P2 and P3, then increasing in S3 (figure 6). Point P3 (behind Merak Besar Island) is the
‘covered’ area, so it has lower energy than in P2 (in front of Merak Besar Island). Even S3 also
located behind Merak Besar Island, but its location is further than P3. It causes S3 has longer fetch
(wave generating area) and generates higher Hs than P3 (figure 6).

5
MSAT IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 162 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012007 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/162/1/012007

Figure 5. The energy density spectrum 1 dimension during the west monsoon.

Figure 6. The energy density spectrum 1 dimension during the east monsoon.

The energy density of wave in west monsoon is higher than east monsoon. It caused by the wind
velocity in west monsoon (10.28 m/s) is higher than east monsoon (7.72 m/s). The graph (figure 5 and
figure 6) show that energy density of wave which propagates along with adverse current as scenario 4
and 5 has the highest value among other scenarios. In the contrary, the energy density of wave which
propagates along with following current as scenario 3 and 6 has lower value compared to no current
simulation as scenario 1 and 2.

Figure 7. Wavelength calculated by Fenton equation in a) west; b) east monsoon.

The wavelength was calculated using the dispersive wave equation by Fenton (1988) [16, 17].
Based on that calculation, the wave which propagates along with adverse current has a shorter
wavelength than following current (figure 7). The shorter wavelength correlate with higher wave
height and vice versa. The correlation between wavelength and wave height is associated with the law
of continuity or conservation of mass during the wave propagation. When the wave encounters the
current in opposite direction, the water mass is accumulated and caused the wave height increase. As
the result, the wavelength is decreasing.

6
MSAT IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 162 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012007 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/162/1/012007

4. Conclusions
Simulation of wave propagation with the following current produced Hmax (maximum wave height)
in west and east monsoon by 2.27 m and 1.56 m. Furthermore, the simulation with adverse current
produced the higher Hmax i.e. 2.98 m in the west and 1.90 m in the east monsoon. The following
current decreased wave height by 9.26% in the west and 5.09% in the east monsoon. On the contrary,
the adverse current increased Hmax by 9.07% in the west and 6.56% in the east monsoon.

References
[1] Cai Y, Wen Y and Wu L 2014 Ship route design for avoiding heavy weather and sea conditions
J. Mar. Navig. Saf. Sea Transport. 8 551-556
[2] Arinaga R A and Cheung K F 2012 Atlas of global wave energy from 10 years of reanalysis and
hindcast Renew. Energ. 39 49-64
[3] Ramadhan H 2014 Characteristics and Analysis of Waves in West Indonesian Waters using
Wave Spectrum Model (Indonesia: ITB)
[4] Putri M R 2005 Study of Ocean Climate Variability (1959-2002) in the Eastern Indian Ocean,
Java Sea and Sunda Strait Using the HAMburg Shelf Ocean Model (Germany: University of
Hamburg)
[5] Adiprabowo S 2015 Study of Wave Characteristics in Sunda Strait using Wave Spectrum Model
(Indonesia: ITB)
[6] Baddour R E and Song S 1990 On the Interaction between Waves and Currents Ocean Eng. 17
1-21
[7] Wolf J and Prandle D 1999 Some Observation of Wave-Current Interaction Coast. Eng. 37 471-
485
[8] Qin W, Kirby J T and Badiey M 2005 Application of the spectral wave model SWAN in
Delaware Bay Res. Rep. (Newark: Center for Applied Coastal Research)
[9] Hein H, Mai S and Barjenbruch U 2011 Interaction of wind-waves and currents in the Ems-
Dollard Estuary Int. J. Ocean Clim. 2 249-258
[10] Booij N, Ris R C and Holthuijsen L H 1999 A third-generation wave model for coastal regions
1. Model description and validation J. Geophys. Res. 104 7649-7666
[11] Tolman H L 1988 Propagation of wind waves on tides Coast. Eng. 512-523
[12] OC, IHO, and BODC 2003 Centenary Edition of the GEBCO Digital Atlas (Liverpool: British
Oceanographic Data Centre)
[13] Wessel P and Smith W H F 1996 A Global Self-consistent, Hierarchical, High-resolution
Geography Database J. Geophys. Res. 101 8741-8743
[14] Padman L and Erofeeva S 2005 Tide Model Driver (TMD) Manual (Seattle: Earth & Space
Research)
[15] World Meteorological Organization (WMO) 2001 Guide the marine meteorological services,
Third Edition (Geneva: Author)
[16] Holthuijsen L H 2007 Wave in ocean and coastal waters (New York: Cambridge)
[17] Fenton J D 1988 The numerical solution of steady water wave problems Comput. Geosci. 14
357-368