Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interaction of wet dam-break flows with a structure: on the effects of surface tension and gate opening velocity in water surface evolution using MPS method

  • Published:
Computational Particle Mechanics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents an experimental and numerical investigation of the interaction of wet dam-break flows with a fixed structure. These flows presented breaking features and caused bow run-up and shipping water events on the deck of the structure. Wet dam-break experiments were performed using high-speed video to capture the stages of wave generation, interaction with the structure and propagation on its deck. Two different incoming flows were generated, varying the freeboard, and keeping the same wet dam-break ratio. These were numerically simulated using Moving Particle Semi-implicit (MPS) method. The purpose was to compare MPS numerical simulations based on two surface tension models previously proposed in the literature and a geometric-based surface tension model proposed in this work, this to improve free surface performance to represent breaking wave features more realistically. First, the different approaches were compared with experimental results. Then, the proposed model was implemented to analyze the effect of the velocity applied to gate opening on the water surface during wave generation, wave-bow interaction and water propagation over the deck. The distribution of particles, pressure and velocity fields was presented in this analysis. Results showed that the proposed surface tension model performed well in representing the free surface. It was seen that surface tension effects can be relevant during the wave formation effects. Furthermore, it was verified that variating the gate opening velocity, dynamic interactions of the resulting waves with the structure was affected, causing energetic processes variations. It is recommended to consider this velocity for validation purposes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Greco M (2001) A two-dimensional study of green-water loading. PhD Thesis. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.

  2. Greco M, Colicchio G, Faltinsen O (2007) Shipping of water on a two-dimensional structure Part 2. J Fluid Mech 581:371. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002211200700568X

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Greco M, Faltinsen O, Landrini M (2005) Shipping of water on a two-dimensional structure. J Fluid Mech 525:309. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112004002691

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Yan B, Luo M, Bai W (2019) An experimental and numerical study of plunging wave impact on a box-shape structure. Mar Struct 66:272–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marstruc.2019.05.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhang X, Draper S, Wolgamot H et al (2019) Eliciting features of 2D greenwater overtopping of a fixed box using modified dam break models. Appl Ocean Res 84:74–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2019.01.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Buchner B (2002) Green water on ship-type offshore structures. PhD Thesis. Delft University of Technology Delft, The Netherlands. PhD Thesis, Delft University of Technology Delft, The Netherlands

  7. Greco M, Bouscasse B, Lugni C (2012) 3-D seakeeping analysis with water on deck and slamming. Part 2: experiments and physical investigation. J Fluids Struct 33:148–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2012.05.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Silva DF, Coutinho AL, Esperança PT (2017) Green water loads on FPSOs exposed to beam and quartering seas, part I: Experimental tests. Ocean Eng 140:419–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.05.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bradner C, Schumacher T, Cox D, Higgins C (2011) Large-scale laboratory observations of wave forces on a highway bridge superstructure. Technical Report. Oregon State University.

  10. Lee GN, Jung KH, Malenica S et al (2020) Experimental study on flow kinematics and pressure distribution of green water on a rectangular structure. Ocean Eng 195:106649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.106649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ryu Y, Chang K-A (2008) Green water void fraction due to breaking wave impinging and overtopping. Exp Fluids 45:883–898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-008-0507-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hernández-Fontes H ID, Mendoza E, Silva R (2020) Green water evolution on a fixed structure induced by incoming wave trains. Mech Based Des Struct Mach. https://doi.org/10.1080/15397734.2020.1791179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hernández-Fontes JV, Mendoza E, Hernández ID, Silva R (2020) A detailed description of flow-deck interaction in consecutive green water events. J Offshore Mech Arct Eng 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4049121

  14. Hernández-Fontes JV, Esperança PT, Silva R et al (2020) Violent water-structure interaction: overtopping features and vertical loads on a fixed structure due to broken incident flows. Mar Struct 74:102816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marstruc.2020.102816

  15. Chuang W-L, Chang K-A, Mercier R (2017) Impact pressure and void fraction due to plunging breaking wave impact on a 2D TLP structure. Exp Fluids 58:68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-017-2356-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lee N, Jung K, Park H et al (2022) Experimental study of green water on rectangular structure with varying flare angle. Ocean Eng 243:110252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.110252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ryu Y, Chang K-A, Mercier R (2007) Application of dam-break flow to green water prediction. Appl Ocean Res 29:128–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2007.10.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ryu Y, Chang K-A, Lim H-J (2005) Use of bubble image velocimetry for measurement of plunging wave impinging on structure and associated greenwater. Meas Sci Technol 16:1945. https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/16/10/009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fontes JV, Hernández ID, Mendoza E et al (2021) On the evolution of different types of green water events. Water 13:1148. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13091148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hernández-Fontes JV, Vitola MA, Silva MC et al (2018) On the generation of isolated green water events using wet dam-break. J Offshore Mech Arct Eng. DOI 10(1115/1):4040050

    Google Scholar 

  21. Nakagawa H, Nakamura S, Ichihashi K (1969) Generation and development of a hydraulic bore due to the breaking of a dam. Technical Report. Bull Disaster Prev Res Inst 19:1–17

    Google Scholar 

  22. Stansby P, Chegini A, Barnes T (1998) The initial stages of dam-break flow. J Fluid Mech 374:407–424. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112098009975

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Hernández-Fontes JV, Vitola MA, Esperança PT et al (2020) Patterns and vertical loads in water shipping in systematic wet dam-break experiments. Ocean Eng 197:106891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.106891

  24. Areu-Rangel O, Hernández-Fontes J, Silva R et al (2020) Green water loads using the wet dam-break method and SPH. Ocean Eng 108392:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.108392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bašić J, Degiuli N, Malenica Š, Ban D (2020) Lagrangian finite-difference method for predicting green water loadings. Ocean Eng 209:107533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Khojasteh D, Tavakoli S, Dashtimanesh A et al (2020) Numerical analysis of shipping water impacting a step structure. Ocean Eng 209:107517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Zhang X, Tian X, Guo X et al (2020) Bottom step enlarging horizontal momentum flux of dam break flow. Ocean Eng 214:107729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Khayyer A, Gotoh H, Tsuruta N (2014) A new surface tension model for particle methods with enhanced splash computation. J Jpn Soc Civ Eng. https://doi.org/10.2208/kaigan.70.I_26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Natsui S, Soda R, Kon T et al (2012) Wettability model considering three-phase interfacial energetics in particle method. Mater Trans 53:662–670. https://doi.org/10.2320/matertrans.M2011330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Nomura K, Koshizuka S, Oka Y, Obata H (2001) Numerical analysis of droplet breakup behavior using particle method. J Nucl Sci Technol 38:1057–1064. https://doi.org/10.1080/18811248.2001.9715136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Alam A, Kai H, Suzuki K (2007) Two-dimensional numerical simulation of water splash phenomena with and without surface tension. J Mar Sci Technol 12:59–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-006-0230-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhang S, Morita K, Fukuda K, Shirakawa N (2007) A new algorithm for surface tension model in moving particle methods. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 55:225–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/fld.1448

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Ichikawa H, Labrosse S (2010) Smooth particle approach for surface tension calculation in moving particle semi-implicit method. Fluid Dyn Res 42:035503. https://doi.org/10.1088/0169-5983/42/3/035503

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Zhang S, Fukuda K, Morita K, Shirakawa N (2005) Simulation of the incompressible flows with the MPS method. In: The 13th international conference on nuclear engineering abstracts

  35. Gotoh H, Sakai T (2006) Key issues in the particle method for computation of wave breaking. Coast Eng 53:171–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2005.10.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Xie H, Koshizuka S, Oka Y (2004) Numerical simulation of liquid drop deposition in annular-mist flow regime of boiling water reactor. J Nucl Sci Technol 41:569–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/18811248.2004.9715520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Duan G, Koshizuka S, Yamaji A et al (2018) An accurate and stable multiphase moving particle semi-implicit method based on a corrective matrix for all particle interaction models. Int J Numer Methods Eng 115:1287–1314. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.5844

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Kim KS, Kim MH (2018) Simulation of viscous and inviscid Rayleigh-Taylor instability with surface tension by using MPS. Ocean Syst Eng. 8:167–182

    Google Scholar 

  39. Gotoh H (2001) Sub-particle-scale turbulence model for the MPS method-Lagrangian flow model for hydraulic engineering. Comput Fluid Dyn Jour 9:339–347

    Google Scholar 

  40. Smagorinsky J (1963) General circulation experiments with the primitive equations: I. The basic Experiment Mon Weather Rev 91:99–164. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1963)091%3c0099:GCEWTP%3e2.3.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Koshizuka S, Oka Y (1996) Moving-particle semi-implicit method for fragmentation of incompressible fluid. Nucl Sci Eng 123:421–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lee B-H, Park J-C, Kim M-H, Hwang S-C (2011) Step-by-step improvement of MPS method in simulating violent free-surface motions and impact-loads. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 200:1113–1125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2010.12.001

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Sanchez-Mondragon J, Vazquez-Hernandez AO (2018) Solitary wave collisions by double-dam-broken simulations with the MPS method. Eng Comput 35(1):53–70. https://doi.org/10.1108/EC-04-2016-0142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Sanchez-Mondragon J (2016) On the stabilization of unphysical pressure oscillations in MPS method simulations. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 82:471–492. https://doi.org/10.1002/fld.4227

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  45. Tanaka M, Masunaga T (2010) Stabilization and smoothing of pressure in MPS method by quasi-compressibility. J Comput Phys 229:4279–4290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2010.02.011

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Xu T, Jin Y-C (2016) Improvements for accuracy and stability in a weakly-compressible particle method. Comput Fluids 137:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2016.07.014

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Morris JP (2000) Simulating surface tension with smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 33:333–353. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0363(20000615)33:3%3c333::AID-FLD11%3e3.0.CO;2-7

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Hernández-Fontes JV, Esperança P de TT, Graniel JFB et al (2019) Green water on a fixed structure due to incident bores: guidelines and database for model validations regarding flow evolution. Water 11:2584. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11122584

  49. Hernández-Fontes JV, Vitola MA, Paulo de Tarso TE, Sphaier SH (2019) Analytical convolution model for shipping water evolution on a fixed structure. Appl Ocean Res 82:415–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2018.11.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Stoker JJ (1957) Water waves: pure and applied mathematics. Interscience Publishers New York

  51. Lee GN, Jung KH, Chae YJ et al (2016) Experimental and numerical study of the behaviour and flow kinematics of the formation of green water on a rectangular structure. Brodogr Teor Praksa Brodogr Pomor Teh 67:133–145

    Google Scholar 

  52. Sanchez-Mondragon J, Hernández-Fontes J, Vázquez-Hernández A, Esperança P (2019) Wet dam-break simulation using the SPS-LES turbulent contribution on the WCMPS method to evaluate green water events. Comput Part Mech. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40571-019-00302-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author Joel Sanchez-Mondragon thanks Dirección de Cátedras CONACYT for the financial support granted during the research included in this manuscript. Jassiel V. H. Fontes thanks the support provided by “GPA/Universidade do Estado do Amazonas, Portaria Nº 086/2021-GR/UEA”. Paulo T. T. Esperança thanks the support provided by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CONACYT Research Fellow, Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo, Eje Central Lázaro Cárdenas 152, Gustavo A. Madero, 07730, Mexico City, Mexico

    Joel Sanchez-Mondragon

  2. Laboratório de Tecnologia Oceânica (LabOceano), Programa de Engenharia Oceânica, COPPE, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, 21941-855, Brazil

    Jassiel V. H. Fontes

  3. Tecnologias Navais e Sustentáveis (TNS), Departamento de Engenharia Naval, Escola Superior de Tecnologia, Universidade do Estado do Amazonas, Manaus, 69050-020, Brazil

    Jassiel V. H. Fontes

  4. Independent Researcher, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Marco Polo Espinoza-Haro

  5. LabOceano, Programa de Engenharia Oceânica, COPPE, Universidade Federal Do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, 21941-907, Brazil

    Paulo T. T. Esperança

Authors
  1. Joel Sanchez-Mondragon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jassiel V. H. Fontes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marco Polo Espinoza-Haro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paulo T. T. Esperança
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joel Sanchez-Mondragon.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

This section presents some results that demonstrate the repeatability of the experiments, which were performed five times for each study case. Figure 

Fig. 17
figure 17

Experiments repeatability. (a) Snapshots taken at 0.28 s (wave generation stage) for the five repetitions (R.1 to R.5) in case 1. (b) Snapshots taken at 1.28 s (bow interaction stage) for the five repetitions (R.1 to R.5) in case 2

Full size image

17a shows representative snapshots of the five repetitions, taken during the wave generation stage (at 0.28 s) for case 1. Despite the general trend of the free surface is very similar in all cases, there are small differences in the features formed by the entrapped air. Similarly, Fig. 17b shows the features of the wave-bow interaction (at 1.12 s) for the five repetitions in case 2. There are similar shapes formed by the free surface but some differences in the splash-type flow at crest and the entrapped air close to the bow edge.

Although the experiments were repeated very carefully and systematically, these small differences were noted. For systematic comparison purposes, representative cases from the five repetitions were considered in this work (see R.3 and R.2 for cases 1 and 2, respectively).

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sanchez-Mondragon, J., Fontes, J.V.H., Espinoza-Haro, M.P. et al. Interaction of wet dam-break flows with a structure: on the effects of surface tension and gate opening velocity in water surface evolution using MPS method. Comp. Part. Mech. 10, 1221–1244 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40571-023-00561-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40571-023-00561-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation