tmpst Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 The significant wave height is defined as [math]H_s = 4 \sqrt{\sigma^2}[/math], where [math]\sigma^2[/math] is the variance of the surfave elevation. The variance of a sine wave is [math]\dfrac{a^2}{2}[/math], where [math]a[/math] is the amplitude of the wave. A single wave [math]sin(t)[/math] thus has a variance of [math]\sigma^2 = \dfrac{1}{2}[/math], and a significant wave height of [math]H_s = 4 \sqrt{\sigma^2} = 4 \sqrt{\dfrac{1}{2}} \approx 2.83 m[/math], while the wave height of the sine wave is only [math]2 \cdot a = 2 m[/math]. How is this possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 From the definition, it sounds like this is applied to wave systems observed in nature, which have a certain amplitude distribution. Wikipedia says that they typically follow a Rayleigh distribution. Does a sine wave follow a Rayleigh distribution? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_wave_height Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmpst Posted November 12, 2013 Author Share Posted November 12, 2013 Ah, thank you. It's obvious now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 You should also take note that as waves progress to shallow(er) water the wave height increases and the profile departs markedly from sinusoidal, in particular the crest amplitude and trough depth are no longer equal or equal to half the sinusoidal amplitude, a. See the Reid and Bretschneider 'Breaking Index Curve'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now