2003
DOI: 10.1016/s0029-8018(02)00036-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modelling of run up of steep non-breaking waves

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This is consistent with earlier research [11] and hints at the importance of fluid properties, notably viscosity, not included within the BEM formulation. This is a shortcoming of the BEM and is in contrast to other models, such as the volume of fluid (VoF) [25] and smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) [26,27], which can simulate these viscous effects. However, even in these cases the discrepancy is not perhaps as large as might have been anticipated; the BEM formulation providing an effective upperbound for engineering design/analysis.…”
Section: Discussion Of Resultsmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…This is consistent with earlier research [11] and hints at the importance of fluid properties, notably viscosity, not included within the BEM formulation. This is a shortcoming of the BEM and is in contrast to other models, such as the volume of fluid (VoF) [25] and smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) [26,27], which can simulate these viscous effects. However, even in these cases the discrepancy is not perhaps as large as might have been anticipated; the BEM formulation providing an effective upperbound for engineering design/analysis.…”
Section: Discussion Of Resultsmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…At the department of mathematics at UiO, investigation of runup of nonlinear waves have been studied for decades (Gjevik and Pedersen (1981), Jensen et al (2003) and Pedersen et al (2013)). To investigate the runup of solitary waves, a vareity of different numerical models are utilized, Boussinesq (Pedersen and Gjevik, 1983), Navier-Stokes solver (FLUENT) (Wood et al, 2003) and Boundary Integral Model (Pedersen et al, 2013). Discrepancies between the models and experiments are reported, especially for measurements in the last stages of runup, where capillary and viscous effects are prominent (Pedersen et al, 2013).…”
Section: Breaking Wavesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With the application of moving boundary wave-maker, the motion of a realistic wave-maker (flap-type wave-maker or pistontype wave-maker) is numerically simulated by a moving boundary. For example, Wood et al [10] analyzed the runup of steep nonbreaking waves using the piston-type wavemaker based on the FLUENT software, and Finnegan and Goggins [11] simulated the linear water waves and wavestructure interactions using the flap-type wave-maker based on the Ansys CFX commercial software. Since the computational domain changes as the solid body moves toward or away from the fluid, a remeshing is inevitable in each time step or after a large distortion of the generated grid, which should be avoided as suggested by most researchers.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%