
 Aa
 Aa
Klettner, C.A. and Eames, I. 2015. On the integral quantities of a low amplitude solitary wave shoaling on a mild slope. Computers & Fluids, Vol. 119, p. 224.
Tulin, Marshall P. 2003. Future Directions in the Study of Nonconservative Water Wave Systems. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. 125, Issue. 1, p. 3.
1989. Hydrodynamics of Coastal Zones.
Yu, Zhouwen and Wu, Jin 1987. On the integral relationship for mean angular momentum of gravity waves in finitedepth water. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 180, Issue. 1, p. 471.
LonguetHiggins, M. S. 1984. New integral relations for gravity waves of finite amplitude. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 149, Issue. 1, p. 205.
LonguetHiggins, M. S. 1983. On integrals and invariants for inviscid, irrotational flow under gravity. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 134, Issue. 1, p. 155.
Naeser, H. 1981. A theory for the evolution of windgenerated gravitywave spectra due to dissipation. Geophysical & Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, Vol. 18, Issue. 12, p. 75.
The angular momentum A per unit horizontal distance of a train of periodic, progressive surface waves is a welldefined quantity, independent of the horizontal position of the origin of moment.
The Lagrangianmean angular momentum $\overline{A}_L$ consists of two parts, arising from the orbital motion and from the Stokes drift respectively. Together these contribute a positive sum, nearly proportional to the energy density (when the origin is taken in the mean surface level). If moments are taken about some point P not at the mean surface level, the angular momentum will differ by an amount proportional to the elevation of P. There is just one elevation for which the Lagrangianmean angular momentum about P vanishes. This elevation is called the level of action. For infinitesimal waves in deep water the level of action is at a height above the mean surface equal to ½k, that is ¼π times the wavelength.
Just as for ordinary fluid velocities, the Lagrangianmean angular momentum $\overline{A}_L$ differs from the Eulerianmean $\overline{A}_L$, the latter being zero to second order. The difference between $\overline{A}_L$ and $\overline{A}_E$ is associated with the displacement of the lateral boundaries of any given mass of fluid.
For waves of finite amplitude, an initially rectangular mass of fluid becomes ultimately quite distorted by the Stokes drift. Nevertheless it is possible to define a longtime average l.t.$\overline{A}$ and to calculate its numerical value accurately in waves of finite amplitude. In low waves, l.t.$\overline{A}$ is equal to $\overline{A}_L$. Defining the level of action ya in the general case as l.t.$\overline{A}/I$, where I is the linear momentum, we find that ya rises from 0·5k−1 for infinitesimal waves to about 0·6k−1 for steep waves. Thus ya is about the same as the height yx of the wave crests above the mean level in limiting waves, a fact which may account for why steep irrotational waves can support whitecaps in a quasisteady state. The same argument suggests that Gerstner waves (in which the particle orbits are theoretically circular) could not support whitecaps.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.