Simulation of Wave Overtopping of Maritime Structures in a Numerical Wave Flume

Abstract

A numerical wave flume based on the particle finite element method (PFEM) is applied to simulate wave overtopping for impermeable maritime structures. An assessment of the performance and robustness of the numerical wave flume is carried out for two different cases comparing numerical results with experimental data. In the first case, a well-defined benchmark test of a simple low-crested structure overtopped by regular nonbreaking waves is presented, tested in the lab, and simulated in the numerical wave flume. In the second case, state-of-the-art physical experiments of a trapezoidal structure placed on a sloping beach overtopped by regular breaking waves are simulated in the numerical wave flume. For both cases, main overtopping events are well detected by the numerical wave flume. However, nonlinear processes controlling the tests proposed, such as nonlinear wave generation, energy losses along the wave propagation track, wave reflection, and overtopping events, are reproduced with more accuracy in the first case. Results indicate that a numerical wave flume based on the PFEM can be applied as an efficient tool to supplement physical models, semiempirical formulations, and other numerical techniques to deal with overtopping of maritime structures.

Numerical Modeling of Coastal Dike Overtopping Using SPH and Non-Hydrostatic NLSW Equations

“…Nevertheless, the numerical results differ significantly from the experimental ones. Interestingly, the same discrepancy was also noticed by Stansby and Feng (2004) and Oliveira et al (2012), who applied a 1D depth-averaged, semi-implicit, finite-volume, shallow-water Boussinesq model (Stansby, 2003), and a 2D (vertical) Particle Finite Element Method (PFEM) model, respectively, to simulate the same physical experiment. The exact explanation for this discrepancy remains unknown at this stage and further investigation considering results from additional physical experiments will be undertaken to thoroughly validate the numerical models with respect to the overtopping process.…”

Validation of the PICIN solver for 2D coastal flows

“…Accurate wave generation is essential if the model results are to be meaningful. There are a variety of techniques that can be used to generate a wave train including the internal wave maker (source term) approach (Lin and Liu, 1999), the relaxation zone approach (Engsig-Karup et al, 2006;Jacobsen et al, 2012), the boundary condition approach (Higuera et al, 2013a;Chen et al, 2014b) and the wave paddle approach (Ursell et al, 1960;Oliveira et al, 2012). In this paper we employ a moving paddle approach to generate waves.…”

“…Within the coastal engineering community, the topic of wave structure interaction which includes, amongst other things, wave generation and absorption, wave slamming, green water overtopping and floating structures has been widely studied both experimentally and numerically (Faltinsen et al, 2004;Chen et al, 2014b;Gao and Zang, 2014;Oliveira et al, 2012;Zhao and Hu, 2012). Due to the continuous increase in computational power over the last few decades numerical CFD models have become increasingly popular in the coastal engineering field as a very efficient tool for physical process understanding and structure optimization (e.g.…”

“…In their paper they describe a fully coupled fluid-solid interaction algorithm and validate it by successfully modelling wave packet action on a 2D floating box. Other particle methods for coastal applications have also been developed: Koshizuka et al (1998) used the Moving Particle semi-implicit (MPS) method to study wave breaking and its interaction with a floating body; Oñate et al (2008) employed the Particle Finite Element method (PFEM) to investigate fluid-multibody interaction, submerged bodies and bed erosion; Oliveira et al (2012) adopted the PFEM to study wave overtopping problems with an emphasis on low crest structures.…”

Variability of wave impact measurements on vertical breakwaters

“…Eight resistance wave gauges were used for measuring the free surface evolution at 3.00, 5.00, 5.08, 5.20, 5.60, 10.50, 10.71, and 11.11 m from the wavemaker. A sampling rate of 100 Hz was used; the degree of accuracy of these sensors is approximately 0.001 m (Oliveira, Sanchez-Arcilla, & Gironella, 2012;Stagonas et al, 2016). The experimental arrangement consisted of an array of eight HBM P8AP pressure transducers (Hottinger Baldwin Messtechnik GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany) placed in the middle of the vertical wall.…”