0
Research Papers: CFD and VIV

Extreme Wave Generation, Breaking, and Impact Simulations Using Wave Packets in REEF3D

[+] Author and Article Information
Hans Bihs

Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering,
Norwegian University of
Science and Technology, NTNU,
Trondheim 7491, Norway
e-mail: hans.bihs@ntnu.no

Arun Kamath

Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering,
Norwegian University of
Science and Technology, NTNU,
Trondheim 7491, Norway
e-mail: arun.kamath@ntnu.no

Mayilvahanan Alagan Chella

Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering,
Norwegian University of
Science and Technology, NTNU,
Trondheim 7491, Norway
e-mail: acm@ntnu.no

Øivind A. Arntsen

Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering,
Norwegian University of
Science and Technology, NTNU,
Trondheim 7491, Norway
e-mail: oivind.arntsen@ntnu.no

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Ocean, Offshore, and Arctic Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manuscript received July 17, 2017; final manuscript received November 23, 2018; published online January 17, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Yi-Hsiang Yu.

J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng 141(4), 041802 (Jan 17, 2019) (7 pages) Paper No: OMAE-17-1112; doi: 10.1115/1.4042178 History: Received July 17, 2017; Revised November 23, 2018

On several occasions, freak waves have been observed in the past, some causing severe damage. In order to model such extreme wave conditions, one possibility is to use focused waves of first- or second-order based on irregular sea-state wave spectra. The wave phase is chosen such that the waves focus at a predetermined location and time, but the individual wave components become steep and start breaking before the focus location for large amplitudes. In this study, transient wave packets are used for extreme wave generation. Extreme waves are generated that are higher and only break at the concentration point using the transient wave packets method implemented in the open-source CFD model REEF3D. Model validation is performed by comparison to experimental results. The generation of wave packets with an 8.3 times shorter focus distance is investigated and the wave is replicated in a shorter domain with a 9% higher crest. The method is further used to generate a steepness induced-breaking wave and calculation of extreme wave forces on an offshore structure is demonstrated.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Topics: Waves , Wave packets
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Soares, C. G. , 1993, “Long Term Distribution of Non-Linear Wave Induced Vertical Bending Moments,” Mar. Struct., 6(5–6), pp. 475–483. [CrossRef]
Wang, L.-H. , 2001, “Probabilistic Analysis of Nonlinear Wave-Induced Loads on Ships,” Ph.D. thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Torhaug, R. , 1996, “Extreme Response of Nonlinear Ocean Structures: Identification of Minimal Stochastic Wave Input for Time-Domain Simulation,” Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/jc562qv5910
Tromans, P. S. , Anaturk, A. R. , and Hagemeijer, P. , 1991, “A New Model for the Kinematics of Large Ocean Waves-Application as a Design Wave,” The First International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Edinburgh, UK, Aug. 11–16, pp. 64–71. https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/ISOPE-I-91-154
Hansen, P. F. , and Nielsen, L. P. , 1995, “On the New Wave Model for the Kinematics of Large Ocean Waves,” International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Copenhagen, Denmark, June 18–22, pp. 17–25.
Pastoor, W. , Helmers, J. B. , and Bitner-Gregersen, E. , 2003, “Time Simulations of Ocean-Going Structures in Extreme Waves,” ASME Paper No. OMAE2003-37490.
Wheeler, J. D. , 1969, “Methods for Calculating Forces Produced by Irregular Waves,” Offshore Technology Conference (OTC), Dallas, TX, May 18–21, pp. 71–82.
Clauss, G. F. , and Bergmann, J. , 1986, “Gaussian Wave Packets—A New Approach to Seakeeping Tests of Ocean Structures,” Appl. Ocean Res., 8(4), pp. 190–206. [CrossRef]
Phillips, O. M. , Gu, D. , and Donelan, M. , 1993, “Expected Structure of Extreme Waves in a Gaussian Sea—Part I: Theory and SWADE Buoy Measurements,” J. Phys. Oceanogr., 23(5), pp. 992–1000. [CrossRef]
Clauss, G. F. , and Kuehnlein, W. L. , 1997, “A New Tool for Seakeeping Test—Nonlinear Transient Wave Packets,” Eighth International Conference on the Behaviour of Offshore Structures, Delft, The Netherlands, July 7–10, pp. 269–285.
Rozario, J. B. , Tromans, P. S. , Taylor, P. H. , and Efthymiou, M. , 1993, “Comparison of Loads Predicted Using ‘NewWave’ and Other Wave Models With Measurements on the Tern Structure,” Wave Kinematics and Environmental Forces, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 143–159.
Chen, L. F. , Zang, J. , Hillis, A. J. , Morgan, G. C. J. , and Plummer, A. R. , 2014, “Numerical Investigation of Wave–Structure Interaction Using OpenFOAM,” Ocean Eng., 88, pp. 91–109. [CrossRef]
Paulsen, B. T. , Bredmose, H. , and Bingham, H. B. , 2014, “An Efficient Domain Decomposition Strategy for Wave Loads on Surface Piercing Circular Cylinders,” Coastal Eng., 86, pp. 57–76. [CrossRef]
Bihs, H. , Alagan Chella, M. , Kamath, A. , and Arntsen, Ø. A. , 2017, “Numerical Investigation of Focused Waves and Their Interaction With a Vertical Cylinder Using REEF3D,” ASME J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng., 139(4), p. 041101. [CrossRef]
Bihs, H. , Kamath, A. , Alagan Chella, M. , Aggarwal, A. , and Arntsen, Ø. A. , 2016, “A New Level Set Numerical Wave Tank With Improved Density Interpolation for Complex Wave Hydrodynamics,” Comput. Fluids, 140, pp. 191–208. [CrossRef]
Chorin, A. , 1968, “Numerical Solution of the Navier–Stokes Equations,” Math. Comput., 22(104), pp. 745–762. [CrossRef]
Ashby, S. F. , and Falgout, R. D. , 1996, “A Parallel Multigrid Preconditioned Conjugate Gradient Algorithm for Groundwater Flow Simulations,” Nucl. Sci. Eng., 124(1), pp. 145–159. [CrossRef]
van der Vorst, H. , 1992, “BiCGStab: A Fast and Smoothly Converging Variant of Bi-CG for the Solution of Nonsymmetric Linear Systems,” SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput., 13(2), pp. 631–644. [CrossRef]
Center for Applied Scientific Computing, 2006, “HYPRE High Performance preconditioners—User's Manual,” Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.
Wilcox, D. C. , 1994, Turbulence Modeling for CFD, DCW Industries, La Canada, CA.
Durbin, P. A. , 2009, “Limiters and Wall Treatments in Applied Turbulence Modeling,” Fluid Dyn. Res., 41(1), p. 012203.
Naot, D. , and Rodi, W. , 1982, “Calculation of Secondary Currents in Channel Flow,” ASCE J. Hydraul. Div., 108(8), pp. 948–968. https://cedb.asce.org/CEDBsearch/record.jsp?dockey=0034501
Jiang, G. S. , and Shu, C. W. , 1996, “Efficient Implementation of Weighted ENO Schemes,” J. Comput. Phys., 126(1), pp. 202–228. [CrossRef]
Jiang, G. S. , and Peng, D. , 2000, “Weighted ENO Schemes for Hamilton-Jacobi Equations,” SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 21(6), pp. 2126–2143. [CrossRef]
Berthelsen, P. A. , and Faltinsen, O. M. , 2008, “A Local Directional Ghost Cell Approach for Incompressible Viscous Flow Problems With Irregular Boundaries,” J. Comput. Phys., 227(9), pp. 4354–4397. [CrossRef]
Sussman, M. , Smereka, P. , and Osher, S. , 1994, “A Level Set Approach for Computing Solutions to Incompressible Two-Phase Flow,” J. Comput. Phys., 114(1), pp. 146–159. [CrossRef]
Henning, J. , 2005, “Generation and Analysis of Harsh Wave Environments,” Ph.D. thesis, Technical University Berlin, Berlin.
Schäffer, H. A. , 1996, “Second-Order Wavemaker Theory for Irregular Waves,” Ocean Eng., 23(1), pp. 47–88. [CrossRef]
Ning, D. Z. , Zang, J. , Liu, S. X. , Taylor, R. E. , Teng, B. , and Taylor, P. H. , 2009, “Free-Surface Evolution and Wave Kinematics for Nonlinear Uni-Directional Focused Wave Groups,” Ocean Eng., 36(15–16), pp. 1226–1243. [CrossRef]
Schäffer, H. A. , and Klopman, G. , 2000, “Review of Multidirectional Active Wave Absorption Methods,” J. Waterw., Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 126(2), pp. 88–97. [CrossRef]
Pakozdi, C. , “Numerische Simulation Nichtlinearer Transienter Wellengruppen,” Technical University Berlin, Berlin, Report No. Cl 35/30-1.
Stern, F. , Wilson, R. V. , Coleman, H. W. , and Paterson, E. G. , 2001, “Comprehensive Approach to Verification and Validation of CFD Simulations—Part 1: Methodology and Procedures,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 123(4), pp. 793–802. [CrossRef]
Wienke, J. , and Oumeraci, H. , 2005, “Breaking Wave Impact Force on a Vertical and Inclined Slender Pile—Theoretical and Large-Scale Model Investigations,” Coastal Eng., 52(5), pp. 435–462. [CrossRef]
Irschik, K. , Sparboom, U. , and Oumeraci, H. , 2002, “Breaking Wave Characteristics for the Loading of a Slender Pile,” 28th International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Cardiff, UK, July 7–12, pp. 1341–1352.
Kamath, A. , Alagan Chella, M. , Bihs, H. , and Arntsen, Ø. A. , 2016, “Breaking Wave Interaction With a Vertical Cylinder and the Effect of Breaker Location,” Ocean Eng., 128, pp. 105–115. [CrossRef]
Choi, S.-J. , Lee, K.-H. , and Gudmestad, O. T. , 2015, “The Effect of Dynamic Amplification Due to a Structure's Vibration on Breaking Wave Impact,” Ocean Eng., 96, pp. 8–20. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Free surface elevation in the numerical wave tank with velocity magnitude contours and magnified free surface showing the propagation, focusing, and defocusing of the wave packets: (a) t = 76.0 s, (b) t = 103.0 s, and (c) t = 120.0 s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Comparison of the numerical results and experimental data for propagation of wave packets focusing at xf = 126.21 m and t = 103.0 s: (a) wave gage close to wave generation at x1 = 3.59 m, (b) wave gage at x2 = 50.05 m, (c) wave gage at x3 = 79.05 m, (d) wave gage at x4 = 100.10 m, and (e) wave gage at the focus point at xf = 126.21 m

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Defocusing of the wave packet after passing the focus point at xf = 126.21 s: (a) wave gage at x6 = 140.0 m and (b) wave gage at x7 = 160.0 m

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison of free surface elevation at the focus point for all the different tank lengths simulated along with the free surface in the experiments. The results are shifted along the x–axis to obtain a comparison of the focused amplitude in the all the cases.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of free surface elevation at the focus point xf = 15.0 m at time tf = 15.0 s in a 25 m long numerical wave tank

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Grid convergence study for the breaking wave with focused amplitude Af = 1.35 m, with the vertical front marked at the breaking location xb = 13.70 m

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Evolution of the breaking wave produced by focusing wave packets with a target focus amplitude Af = 1.35 m in a water depth of d = 4.01 m: (a) t = 13.90 s, (b) t = 14.20 s, (c) t = 14.60 s, and (d) t = 14.90 s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Grid convergence for the wave forces due to the focused breaking wave of amplitude Af = 1.35 m

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Interaction of the overturning wave crest with a vertical cylinder: (a) t = 14.1 s and (b) t = 14.4 s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Dynamic pressure in front and behind the cylinder during the impact of the focused breaking wave: (a) t = 13.9 s, (b) t = 14.3 s, and (c) t = 14.6 s

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In