Advertisement

On the mass source internal wave making method for ALE based numerical wave tank

  • Xiao-Dong Bai
  • Wei ZhangEmail author
  • Jin-Hai Zheng
  • Yong Wang
Original article

Abstract

In this study, we perform simulations for free surface wave tracking inside a numerical tank. A Navier–Stokes solver, combined with the arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian method, is introduced. To generate free surface waves, a mass source internal wave-maker, proposed by Lin and Liu (J Waterw Port Coast Ocean Eng 125(4):207–215, 1999), is employed and implemented in OpenFOAM. A line mass source distribution throughout the water depth is used to mimic a real-world wave-maker. Specifically, two types of line source wave-makers for shallow water, namely the piston and flap types, are established, together with the block mass source model used by Lin and Liu (J Waterw Port Coast Ocean Eng 125(4):207–215, 1999) . Numerical results of free surface profiles and horizontal velocity profiles are validated by experimental data (Umeyama in J Waterw Port Coast Ocean Eng 137(2):85–94, 2010) . It is concluded that in the case of shallow-water wave propagation, the line source model is better than the block source model at maintaining the wave form. The internal wave-making method has its ceiling (wave height and water depth ratio \(H/h = 0.1\)) for applications in numerical wave-making. Flow contamination induced by the wave-maker itself must be considered in complex flow situations such as wave-current interactions.

Keywords

Free surface Shallow water Arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian (ALE) Wave-making Internal mass source 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant nos. 51809084 and 91852117) and the Max Planck Society.

References

  1. 1.
    Lin P, Liu P (1999) Internal wave-maker for Navier–Stokes equations models. J Waterw Port Coast Ocean Eng 125(4):207–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Umeyama M (2010) Coupled PIV and PTV measurements of particle velocities and trajectories for surface waves following a steady current. J Waterw Port Coast Ocean Eng 137(2):85–94MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shen L, Zhang X, Yue DK, Triantafyllou GS (1999) The surface layer for free-surface turbulent flows. J Fluid Mech 386:167–212MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Park JC, Kim MH, Miyata H (2001) Three-dimensional numerical wave tank simulations on fully nonlinear wave-current-body interactions. J Mar Sci Technol 6(2):70–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hirt CW, Nichols BD (1981) Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the dynamics of free boundaries. J Comput Phys 39(1):201–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rusche H (2003) Computational fluid dynamics of dispersed two-phase flows at high phase fractions. PhD thesis, Imperial College London (University of London)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roenby J, Bredmose H, Jasak H (2016) A computational method for sharp interface advection. R Soc Open Sci 3(11):160405MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Larsen BE, Fuhrman DR (2018) On the over-production of turbulence beneath surface waves in Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes models. J Fluid Mech 853:419–460MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Osher S, Sethian JA (1988) Fronts propagating with curvature-dependent speed: algorithms based on Hamilton–Jacobi formulations. J Comput Phys 79(1):12–49MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ménard T, Tanguy S, Berlemont A (2007) Coupling level set/VOF/ghost fluid methods: Validation and application to 3D simulation of the primary break-up of a liquid jet. Int J Multiph Flow 33(5):510–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Albadawi A, Donoghue D, Robinson A, Murray D, Delauré Y (2013) On the analysis of bubble growth and detachment at low capillary and bond numbers using volume of fluid and level set methods. Chem Eng Sci 90:77–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Munk WH (1951) Origin and generation of waves. In: Proceedings of first conference on coastal engineering, Long Beach, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tuković Ž, Jasak H (2012) A moving mesh finite volume interface tracking method for surface tension dominated interfacial fluid flow. Comput Fluids 55:70–84MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jacobsen NG, Fuhrman DR, Fredsøe J (2012) A wave generation toolbox for the open-source CFD library: openfoam®. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 70(9):1073–1088MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berberović E, van Hinsberg NP, Jakirlić S, Roisman IV, Tropea C (2009) Drop impact onto a liquid layer of finite thickness: dynamics of the cavity evolution. Phys Rev E 79(3):036306MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bredmose H, Schäffer HA, Madsen PA (2004) Boussinesq evolution equations: numerical efficiency, breaking and amplitude dispersion. Coast Eng 51(11–12):1117–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Westhuis JH (2001) The numerical simulation of nonlinear waves in a hydrodynamic model test basin. PhD thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Spinneken J, Christou M, Swan C (2014) Force-controlled absorption in a fully-nonlinear numerical wave tank. J Comput Phys 272:127–148MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wei G, Kirby JT, Grilli ST, Subramanya R (1995) A fully nonlinear Boussinesq model for surface waves. Part 1. Highly nonlinear unsteady waves. J Fluid Mech 294:71–92MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhang JS, Zhang Y, Jeng DS, Liu P, Zhang C (2014) Numerical simulation of wave-current interaction using a RANS solver. Ocean Eng 75:157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chen YL, Hsiao SC (2016) Generation of 3D water waves using mass source wavemaker applied to Navier–Stokes model. Coast Eng 109:76–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schmitt P, Elsaesser B (2015) A review of wave makers for 3D numerical simulations, MARINE 2015—computational methods in marine engineering VI, Rome, Italy, pp 437–446Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dean RG, Dalrymple RA (1991) Water wave mechanics for engineers and scientists. World Scientific, SingaporeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Higuera P, Lara JL, Losada IJ (2013) Realistic wave generation and active wave absorption for Navier–Stokes models: application to OpenFOAM®. Coast Eng 71:102–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Perić R, Abdel-Maksoud M (2018) Analytical prediction of reflection coefficients for wave absorbing layers in flow simulations of regular free-surface waves. Ocean Eng 147:132–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rusche H (2011) openfoam-extend-ShipHydroSIG at the github. https://github.com/Unofficial-Extend-Project-Mirror/openfoam-extend-ShipHydroSIG. Accessed 26 May 2016
  27. 27.
    Stern F, Wilson RV, Coleman HW, Paterson EG (1999) Verification and validation of CFD simulations. IIHR Report No.407, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, University of IowaGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Goda Y, Suzuki Y (1976) Estimation of incident and reflected waves in random waves. In: Proceedings of international 15th conference on coastal engineering, ASCE, New York, pp 828–845Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Le Mahaute B, Divoky D, Lin A (1968) Shallow water waves a comparison of theories and experiments. Coast Eng Proc 1(11):86–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japan Society of Naval Architects and Ocean Engineers (JASNAOE) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ministry-of-Education Key Laboratory of Coastal Disaster and DefenceHohai UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.College of Harbor, Coastal and Offshore EngineeringHohai UniversityNanjingChina
  3. 3.Science and Technology on Water Jet Propulsion LaboratoryMarine and Research Institute of ChinaShanghaiChina
  4. 4.Max Planck Institute for Dynamics and Self-OrganizationGottingenGermany

Personalised recommendations