Journal of Marine Science and Application

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 362–370 | Cite as

Nonlinear Simulation of Focused Wave Group Action on a Truncated Surface-Piercing Structure

  • Dezhi NingEmail author
  • Xiang Li
  • Chongwei Zhang
Research Article


In this study, we numerically investigated the nonlinear focused wave group action on a truncated surface-piercing structure, and developed a two-dimensional fully nonlinear numerical tank using the higher-order boundary element method. We determined the amplitude of the wave components of the focused wave group based on the JONSWAP wave spectrum. We discuss the effects of the presence of a surface-piercing structure on the characteristics of the focused wave group and find that the location of the structure does not evidently change the focal location or focal time of the focused wave group. The largest amplitudes of the run-up and horizontal force on the structure occur when the front surface of the structure is at the focal location. The critical draught and breadth of the structure occur when the wave run-up reaches its maximum along the structure.


Focused wave Fully nonlinear Numerical wave tank Floating body Boundary element method 


  1. Bai W, Taylor RE (2007) Numerical simulation of fully nonlinear regular and focused wave diffraction around a vertical cylinder using domain decomposition. Appl Ocean Res 29(1–2):55–71Google Scholar
  2. Baldock TE, Swan C, Taylor PH (1996) A laboratory study of nonlinear surface waves on water. Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical Engineering Sci 354(1707):649–676Google Scholar
  3. Bihs H, Chella MA, Kamath A, Arntsen ØA (2017) Numerical investigation of focused waves and their interaction with a vertical cylinder using REEF3D. J Offshore Mechanics Arctic Engineering 139(4):041101Google Scholar
  4. Bona JL, Saut JC (1993) Dispersive blowup of solutions of generalized Korteweg-de Vries equations. J Differential Equations 103(1):3–57. MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen LF, Zang J, Hillis AJ, Morgan GCJ, Plummer AR (2014) Numerical investigation of wave–structure interaction using OpenFOAM. Ocean Eng 88(5):91–109Google Scholar
  6. Goda Y (1999) A comparative review on the functional forms of directional wave spectrum. Coastal Engineering J 41(01):9900002. Google Scholar
  7. Johannessen TB, Swan C (1997) Nonlinear transient water waves—part I. A numerical method of computation with comparisons to 2-D laboratory data. Appl Ocean Res 19(5–6):293–308Google Scholar
  8. Koo WC, Kim MH (2007) Fully nonlinear wave-body interactions with surface-piercing bodies. Ocean Eng 34(7):1000–1012. Google Scholar
  9. Li Y, Lin M (2012) Regular and irregular wave impacts on floating body. Ocean Eng 42(1):93–101Google Scholar
  10. Li JX, Liu SX, Hong K (2008) Numerical study of two-dimensional focusing waves. China Ocean Engineering 22(2):253–266Google Scholar
  11. Li X, Zhang C, Ning DZ, Peng S (2017) Nonlinear numerical study of non-periodic waves acting on a vertical cliff. Chinese J Theoretical Appl Mechanics 49(5):1042–1049 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  12. Liu SX, Li JX, Hong K (2007) Experimental study on multi-directional focused wave breaking in wave basin. J Hydrodyn 22(03):293–304 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  13. Mori N, Yasuda T (2002) Effects of high-order nonlinear interactions on unidirectional wave trains. Ocean Eng 29(10):1233–1245. Google Scholar
  14. Ning DZ, Zang J, Liu SX, Taylor RE, Teng B, Taylor PH (2009) Free-surface evolution and wave kinematics for nonlinear uni-directional focused wave groups. Ocean Eng 36(15–16):1226–1243Google Scholar
  15. Ning DZ, Wang RQ, Chen LF, Li JX, Zang J, Cheng L, Liu SX (2017) Extreme wave run-up and pressure on a vertical sea wall. Appl Ocean Res 67:188–200Google Scholar
  16. Paulsen BT, Bredmose H, Bingham HB (2014) An efficient domain decomposition strategy for wave loads on surface piercing circular cylinders. Coast Eng 86:57–76Google Scholar
  17. Pelinovsky E, Talipova T, Kurkin A, Kharif C (2001) Nonlinear mechanism of tsunami wave generation by atmospheric disturbances. Natural Hazards Earth System Sci 1(4):243–250Google Scholar
  18. Schäffer HA (1996) Second-order wavemaker theory for irregular waves. Ocean Eng 23(1):47–88Google Scholar
  19. She K, Created CA, Easson WJ (1997) Experimental study of three-dimensional breaking wave kinematics. Appl Ocean Res 19 (5–6):329–343Google Scholar
  20. Slunyaev A, Kharif C, Pelinovsky E, Talipova T (2002) Nonlinear wave focusing on water of finite depth. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 173(1–2):77–96MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Turnbull MS, Borthwick AGL, Taylor RE (2003) Numerical wave tank based on a σ-transformed finite element inviscid flow solver. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 42(6):641–663. zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Wang CZ, Wu GX (2006) An unstructured-mesh-based finite element simulation of wave interactions with non-wall-sided bodies. J Fluids Structures 22(4):441–461Google Scholar
  23. Westphalen J, Greaves DM, Williams CJK, Hunt-Raby AC, Zang J (2012) Focused waves and wave–structure interaction in a numerical wave tank. Ocean Eng 45(5):9–21. Google Scholar
  24. Wu CH, Nepf HM (2002). Breaking criteria and energy losses for three-dimensional wave breaking. Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans, 107 (C10), 41–41–41-18 DOI:
  25. Xiao X, Teng B, Gou Y, Ning DZ (2009) Transient response of TLP under freak waves. Port Waterway Engineering 5:9–14 (in Chinese)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Harbin Engineering University and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Coastal and Offshore EngineeringDalian University of TechnologyDalianChina

Personalised recommendations