2022-06-28 16:08:48 +02:00
|
|
|
|
\documentclass[a4paper, twocolumn, draft]{article}
|
2022-06-07 09:23:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
\usepackage{polyglossia} \usepackage{authblk}
|
2022-06-06 09:53:23 +02:00
|
|
|
|
\usepackage[sfdefault]{inter}
|
2022-06-07 11:41:48 +02:00
|
|
|
|
\usepackage{graphicx}
|
2022-06-28 15:05:11 +02:00
|
|
|
|
\usepackage[hmargin=2.1cm, vmargin=2.97cm]{geometry}
|
2022-06-28 16:08:48 +02:00
|
|
|
|
\usepackage{hyperref}
|
2022-06-06 09:41:23 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\setmainlanguage{english}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\usepackage[
|
|
|
|
|
backend=biber,
|
|
|
|
|
style=iso-authoryear,
|
|
|
|
|
sorting=nyt,
|
|
|
|
|
]{biblatex}
|
|
|
|
|
\bibliography{library}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-06-28 16:08:48 +02:00
|
|
|
|
\hypersetup{
|
|
|
|
|
pdftitle={Analysis of the displacement of a large concrete block under an extreme wave},
|
|
|
|
|
pdfauthor={Edgar P. Burkhart}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-06-06 09:41:23 +02:00
|
|
|
|
\title{Analysis of the displacement of a large concrete block under an extreme wave}
|
|
|
|
|
\author[1]{Edgar P. Burkhart}
|
|
|
|
|
\author[*,1]{Stéphane Abadie}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\affil[1]{Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour, E2S-UPPA, SIAME, France}
|
|
|
|
|
\affil[*]{Corresponding Author, stephane.abadie@univ-pau.fr}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{document}
|
|
|
|
|
\maketitle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\section{Introduction}
|
|
|
|
|
% Displacement of blocks studies
|
|
|
|
|
Displacement of large blocks or boulders by waves is an interesting phenomenon in the study of extreme historical
|
|
|
|
|
coastal events. The existence of block deposits at unusual heights can be a clue to past events such as extreme storms
|
|
|
|
|
or tsunamis. For instance, \textcite{cox2018} studied coastal deposits on the coast of Ireland in relation to the
|
|
|
|
|
storms from winter 2013--2014, and extracted criteria for analysing such deposits. Similarly, \textcite{shah2013}
|
|
|
|
|
found boulder deposits on the mediterranean coast to be evidence of extreme storms in the Little Ice Age.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% Need for analytical equations
|
|
|
|
|
In order for those studies to be possible, analytical criterias are needed in order to ascertain the cause of the
|
|
|
|
|
displacement of a block. \textcite{nott1997,nott2003} proposed a set of equations that have been widely used for that
|
|
|
|
|
purpose. Those equations rely on an equilibrium relation between the lift force produced by a wave and restraining
|
|
|
|
|
forces depending on the initial setting of the block, allowing to extract a minimal flow velocity necessary for
|
|
|
|
|
movement initiation. A parametrisation of waves depending on their source is also used to provide minimal wave heights
|
|
|
|
|
depending on the type of scenario --- wave or tsunami. Those equations were later revised by \textcite{nandasena2011},
|
|
|
|
|
as they were found to be partially incorrect. A revised formulation based on the same considerations was provided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The assumptions on which \citeauthor{nott2003, nandasena2011} are based were then critisized by \textcite{weiss2015}.
|
|
|
|
|
In fact, according to them, the initiation of movement is not sufficient to guarantee block displacement.
|
|
|
|
|
\textcite{weiss2015} highlights the importance of the time dependency on block displacement. A method is proposed that
|
|
|
|
|
allows to find the wave amplitude that lead to block displacement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% Lack of observations -> observation
|
|
|
|
|
Whether it is \textcite{nott2003}, \textcite{nandasena2011} or \textcite{weiss2015}, all the proposed analytical
|
|
|
|
|
equations suffer from a major flaw; they are all based on simplified analytical models and statistical analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, no block displacement event seems to have been observed directly in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-06-07 11:04:23 +02:00
|
|
|
|
In this paper, we study such an event. On February 28, 2017, a 50T concrete block was dropped by a wave on the crest of
|
|
|
|
|
the Artha breakwater. Luckily, the event was captured by a photographer, and a wave buoy located 1.2km offshore
|
|
|
|
|
captured the seastate. Information from the photographer allowed to establish the approximate time at which the block
|
2022-06-06 09:41:23 +02:00
|
|
|
|
displacement occured. The goal of this paper is to model the hydrodynamic conditions near the breakwater that lead to
|
|
|
|
|
the displacement of the 50T concrete block.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% Modeling flow accounting for porous media
|
2022-06-07 09:23:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
Several approaches can be used when modelling flow near a breakwater. Depth-averaged models can be used to study the
|
|
|
|
|
transformation of waves on complex bottoms. Studying the hydrodynamic conditions under the surface can be achieved
|
|
|
|
|
using smoothed-particles hydrodynamics (SPH) or volume of fluid (VOF) models. SPH models rely on a Lagrangian
|
|
|
|
|
representation of the fluid, while VOF models rely on an Eulerian representation. VOF models are generally more mature
|
|
|
|
|
for the study of multiphase incompressible flows.
|
2022-06-06 09:41:23 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
2022-06-07 11:04:23 +02:00
|
|
|
|
In this paper, we first use a one-dimensionnal depth-averaged non-linear non-hydrostatic model to verify that the
|
|
|
|
|
signal measured by the wave buoy can be used as an incident wave input for the determination of hydrodynamic conditions
|
|
|
|
|
near the breakwater. For this model, we use a SWASH model \parencite{zijlema2011} already calibrated by
|
2022-06-23 11:12:00 +02:00
|
|
|
|
\textcite{poncet2021} on a domain reaching 1450m offshore of the breakwater.
|
2022-06-07 09:23:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
2022-06-07 11:04:23 +02:00
|
|
|
|
Then, we use a nested VOF model in two vertical dimensions that uses the output from the larger scale SWASH model as
|
|
|
|
|
initial and boundary conditions to obtain the hydrodynamic conditions on the breakwater. The models uses olaFlow
|
|
|
|
|
\parencite{higuera2015}, a VOF model based on volume averaged Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes (VARANS) equations, and
|
|
|
|
|
which relies on a macroscopic representation of the porous armour of the breakwater. The model is qualitatively
|
|
|
|
|
calibrated using photographs from the storm of February 28, 2017. Results from the nested models are finally compared
|
|
|
|
|
to the analytical equations provided by \textcite{nandasena2011}.
|
2022-06-06 09:56:14 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
2022-06-06 09:41:23 +02:00
|
|
|
|
\section{Results}
|
2022-06-07 11:41:48 +02:00
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Identified wave}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preliminary work with the photographer allowed to identify the time at which the block displacement event happened.
|
|
|
|
|
Using the data from the wave buoy located 1250m offshore of the Artha breakwater, a seamingly abnormally large wave of
|
|
|
|
|
14m amplitude was identified that is supposed to have lead to the block displacement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Initial analysis of the buoy data plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:wave} shows that the movement of the buoy follows two
|
|
|
|
|
orbitals that correspond to an incident wave direction. These results would indicate that the identified wave is
|
|
|
|
|
essentially an incident wave, with a minor reflected component.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-06-27 14:56:09 +02:00
|
|
|
|
The wavelet power spectrum displayed in Figure~\ref{fig:wavelet} highlights a primary infragravity wave in the signal, with
|
2022-06-27 10:58:32 +02:00
|
|
|
|
a period of over 30s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-06-07 11:41:48 +02:00
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure*}
|
|
|
|
|
\centering
|
|
|
|
|
\includegraphics{fig/ts.pdf}
|
|
|
|
|
\includegraphics{fig/out_orbitals.pdf}
|
|
|
|
|
\caption{\textit{Left}: Free surface measured during the extreme wave measured on February 28, 2017 at 17:23UTC.
|
|
|
|
|
\textit{Right}: Trajectory of the wave buoy during the passage of this particular wave.}\label{fig:wave}
|
|
|
|
|
\end{figure*}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-06-07 11:04:23 +02:00
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Reflection analysis}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-06-07 11:41:48 +02:00
|
|
|
|
The results from the large scale SWASH model using two configurations --- one of them being the real bathymetry, and
|
|
|
|
|
the other being a simplified bathymetry without the breakwater --- are compared in Figure~\ref{fig:swash}. The results
|
|
|
|
|
obtained with both simulations show a maximum wave amplitude of 13.9m for the real bathymetry, and 12.1m in the case
|
|
|
|
|
where the breakwater is removed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The 13\% difference between those values highlights the existence of a notable amount of reflection at the buoy.
|
|
|
|
|
Nonetheless, the gap between the values is still fairly small and the extreme wave identified on February 28, 2017 at
|
|
|
|
|
17:23:08 could still be considered as an incident wave.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure*}
|
|
|
|
|
\centering
|
|
|
|
|
\includegraphics{fig/maxw.pdf}
|
2022-06-07 14:11:15 +02:00
|
|
|
|
\caption{Free surface elevation obtained with the SWASH model in two configurations. \textit{Case 1}: With breakwater;
|
2022-06-07 11:41:48 +02:00
|
|
|
|
\textit{Case 2}: Without breakwater.}\label{fig:swash}
|
|
|
|
|
\end{figure*}
|
2022-06-06 09:41:23 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
2022-06-07 14:11:15 +02:00
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Wave transformation}
|
2022-06-22 15:57:58 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
2022-06-07 14:11:15 +02:00
|
|
|
|
The free surface obtained with the SWASH model using raw buoy measurements as an elevation boundary condition is
|
|
|
|
|
plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:swash_trans}. Those results display a strong transformation of the wave between the buoy and
|
2022-06-22 15:59:32 +02:00
|
|
|
|
the breakwater. Not only the amplitude, but also the shape of the wave are strongly impacted by the propagation over
|
|
|
|
|
the domain. While the amplitude of the wave is reduced as the wave propagates shorewards, the length of the trough and
|
|
|
|
|
the crest increases, with a zone reaching 400m long in front of the wave where the water level is below 0m.
|
2022-06-22 15:57:58 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure*}
|
|
|
|
|
\centering
|
|
|
|
|
\includegraphics{fig/x.pdf}
|
2022-06-07 14:11:15 +02:00
|
|
|
|
\caption{Propagation of the wave supposed to be responsible for the block displacement; highlighted zone:
|
2022-06-28 15:05:11 +02:00
|
|
|
|
qualitatively estimated position of the wave front.}\label{fig:swash_trans}
|
2022-06-22 15:57:58 +02:00
|
|
|
|
\end{figure*}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-06-24 16:44:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Wavelet analysis}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In an attempt to understand the identified wave, a wavelet analysis is conducted on raw buoy data as well as at
|
|
|
|
|
different points along the SWASH model using the method proposed by \textcite{torrence1998}. The results are displayed
|
|
|
|
|
in Figure~\ref{fig:wavelet} and Figure~\ref{fig:wavelet_sw}. The wavelet power spectrum shows that the major component
|
|
|
|
|
in the identified wave is a high energy infragravity wave, with a period of around 60s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The SWASH model seems to indicate that the observed transformation of the wave can be characterized by a transfer of
|
|
|
|
|
energy from the infragravity band to shorter waves from around 600m to 300m, and returning to the infragravity band at
|
|
|
|
|
200m.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure*}
|
|
|
|
|
\centering
|
|
|
|
|
\includegraphics{fig/wavelet9312.pdf}
|
|
|
|
|
\caption{Normalized wavelet power spectrum from the raw buoy timeseries.}\label{fig:wavelet}
|
|
|
|
|
\end{figure*}
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure*}
|
|
|
|
|
\centering
|
|
|
|
|
\includegraphics{fig/wavelet_sw.pdf}
|
|
|
|
|
\caption{Normalized wavelet power spectrum along the SWASH domain.}\label{fig:wavelet_sw}
|
|
|
|
|
\end{figure*}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-06-22 15:57:58 +02:00
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Hydrodynamic conditions on the breakwater}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-06-22 17:02:44 +02:00
|
|
|
|
The two-dimensionnal olaFlow model near the breakwater allowed to compute the flow velocity near and on the breakwater
|
2022-06-23 11:12:00 +02:00
|
|
|
|
during the passage of the identified wave. The results displayed in Figure~\ref{fig:U} show that the flow velocity
|
2022-06-24 15:00:37 +02:00
|
|
|
|
reaches a maximum of 14.5m/s towards the breakwater during the identified extreme wave. Although the maximum reached
|
|
|
|
|
velocity is slightly lower than earlier shorter waves (at t=100s and t=120s, with a maximum velocity of 17.3s), the
|
|
|
|
|
flow velocity remains high for twice as long as during those earlier waves. The tail of the identified wave also
|
|
|
|
|
exhibits a water level over 5m for over 40s.
|
2022-06-22 17:02:44 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure*}
|
|
|
|
|
\centering
|
|
|
|
|
\includegraphics{fig/U.pdf}
|
2022-06-23 11:12:00 +02:00
|
|
|
|
\caption{Horizontal flow velocity computed with the olaFlow model at x=-20m on the breakwater armor. The identified
|
|
|
|
|
wave reaches this point around t=175s.}\label{fig:U}
|
2022-06-22 17:02:44 +02:00
|
|
|
|
\end{figure*}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-06-06 09:41:23 +02:00
|
|
|
|
\section{Discussion}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-06-27 10:58:32 +02:00
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Incident wave}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to the criteria proposed by \textcite{dysthe2008}, rogue waves can be defined as waves with an amplitude over
|
2022-06-27 14:56:09 +02:00
|
|
|
|
twice the significant wave height over a given period. The identified wave fits this definition, as its amplitude is
|
|
|
|
|
14.7m, over twice the significant wave height of 6.3m on that day. According to \textcite{dysthe2008}, rogue waves
|
|
|
|
|
often occur from non-linear superposition of smaller waves. This seems to be what we observe on Figure~\ref{fig:wave}.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The wavelet power spectrum shows that a very prominent infragravity component is present, which usually corresponds to
|
|
|
|
|
non-linear interactions of smaller waves. \textcite{dysthe2008} mentions that such waves in coastal waters are often
|
|
|
|
|
the result of refractive focusing. On February 28, 2017, the frequency of rogue waves was found to be of 1 wave per
|
|
|
|
|
1627, which is considerably more than the excedance probability of 1 over 10\textsuperscript4 calculated by
|
|
|
|
|
\textcite{dysthe2008}. Additionnal studies should be conducted to understand focusing and the formation of rogue waves
|
|
|
|
|
in front of the Saint-Jean-de-Luz bay.
|
2022-06-27 10:58:32 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Reflection analysis}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The 13\% difference between those values highlights the existence of a notable amount of reflection at the buoy.
|
|
|
|
|
Nonetheless, the gap between the values is still fairly small and the extreme wave identified on February 28, 2017 at
|
|
|
|
|
17:23:08 could still be considered as an incident wave.
|
2022-06-24 16:44:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
2022-06-27 14:56:09 +02:00
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, the spectrum wave generation method used by SWASH could not reproduce simlar waves to the one observed
|
|
|
|
|
at the buoy. As mentionned by \textcite{dysthe2008}, such rogue waves cannot be deterministicly from the wave spectrum.
|
|
|
|
|
For this reason, this study only allows us to observe the influence of reflection on short waves, while mostly ignoring
|
|
|
|
|
infragravity waves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Wave transformation}
|
2022-06-24 16:44:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
2022-06-28 15:05:11 +02:00
|
|
|
|
The SWASH model yields a strongly changing wave over the domain, highlighting the highly complex composition of this
|
|
|
|
|
wave. Although the peak of the amplitude of the wave is reduced as the wave propagates, the length of the wave is
|
|
|
|
|
highlighted by the results. At T+60s for instance, the water level is under 0m for 400m, and then over 0m for around
|
|
|
|
|
the same length, showing the main infragavity component of the studied wave.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The wavelet analysis conducted at several points along the domain (Figure~\ref{fig:wavelet_sw}) show that the energy of
|
|
|
|
|
the studied wave (slightly before t=1500s) initially displays a strong infragravity component. Energy is then
|
|
|
|
|
transfered from the infragravity band towards shorter waves, and back to the infragravity band. This behavior is quite
|
|
|
|
|
unexpected, and further investigations should be conducted to understand and validate those results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Hydrodynamic conditions on the breakwater}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The hydrodynamic conditions on the breakwater are the main focus of this study. Considering an initially submerged
|
|
|
|
|
block, analytical equations proposed by \textcite{nandasena2011} yield a minimal flow velocity that would lead to block
|
|
|
|
|
displacement by saltation of 19.4m/s. The results from the Olaflow model yield a maximal wave velocity during the
|
|
|
|
|
displacement of the 50T concrete block of 14.5m/s. The results from the model are 25\% lower than the analytical value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those results tend to confirm recent research by \textcite{lodhi2020}, where it was found that the block displacement
|
|
|
|
|
threshold tend to overestimate the minimal flow velocity needed for block movement, although further validation of the
|
|
|
|
|
model that is used would be needed to confirm those findings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additionally, the flow velocity that is reached during the identified wave is not the highest that is reached in the
|
|
|
|
|
model. Other shorter waves yield similar flow velocities on the breakwater, but in a smaller timeframe. The importance
|
|
|
|
|
of time dependency in studying block displacement would be in accordance with research from \textcite{weiss2015}, who
|
|
|
|
|
suggested that the use of time-dependent equations for block displacement would lead to a better understanding of the
|
|
|
|
|
phenomenon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-06-06 09:41:23 +02:00
|
|
|
|
\section{Methods}
|
2022-06-28 15:05:11 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsection{SWASH models}
|
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Domain}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A 1750m long domain is constructed in order to study wave reflection and wave transformation over the bottom from the
|
|
|
|
|
wave buoy to the breakwater. Bathymetry with a resolution of around 1m was used for most of the domain. The breakwater
|
|
|
|
|
model used in the study is taken from \textcite{poncet2021}. A smoothed section is created and considered as a porous
|
|
|
|
|
media in the model.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A second domain is constructed for reflection analysis. The second model is the same as the first, excepted that the
|
|
|
|
|
breakwater is replaced by a smooth slope in order to remove the reflection generated by the structure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reflection analysis is conducted over 4h in order to generate a fair range of conditions. The wave transformation
|
|
|
|
|
study was conducted over a 1h timeframe in order to allow the model to reach steady-state before the studied wave was
|
|
|
|
|
generated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Model}
|
|
|
|
|
A non-linear non-hydrostatic shallow water model (SWASH, \cite{zijlema2011}) is used to model wave reflection and
|
|
|
|
|
transformation on the studied domain. The study is conducted using a layered one-dimensional model, that allows to
|
|
|
|
|
consider porous media in the domain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reflection analysis was conducted with 2 layers as to prevent model instability in overtopping conditions. The
|
|
|
|
|
study of wave transformation and the generation of boundary conditions for the Olaflow model is done with 4 layers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Porosity}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the SWASH model, the porous breakwater armour is represented using macroscale porosity. The porosity parameters were
|
|
|
|
|
calibrated in \textcite{poncet2021}.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Boundary conditions}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two different sets of boundary conditions were used for both studies. In all cases, a sponge layer was added to the
|
|
|
|
|
shorewards boundary to prevent wave reflection on the boundary. In the reflection analysis, offshore conditions were
|
|
|
|
|
generated using the wave spectrum extracted from buoy data during the storm. The raw vertical surface elevation
|
|
|
|
|
measured by the wave buoy was used in a second part.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-06-28 16:08:48 +02:00
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Olaflow model}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Domain}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A 150m long domain is built in order to obtain the hydrodynamic conditions on the Artha breakwater during the passage
|
|
|
|
|
of the identified extreme wave. The bathymetry with 50cm resolution from \textcite{poncet2021} is used. The domain
|
|
|
|
|
extends 30m up in order to be able to capture the largest waves hitting the breakwater. Measurements are extracted 20m
|
|
|
|
|
shorewards from the breakwater crest. The domain is displayed in Figure~\ref{fig:of}.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A mesh in two-vertical dimensions with 20cm resolution was generated using the interpolated bathymetry. As with the
|
|
|
|
|
SWASH model, the porous armour was considered at a macroscopic scale.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-06-28 15:05:11 +02:00
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure*}
|
|
|
|
|
\centering
|
|
|
|
|
\includegraphics{fig/aw_t0.pdf}
|
|
|
|
|
\caption{Domain studied with Olaflow. Initial configuration.}\label{fig:of}
|
|
|
|
|
\end{figure*}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-06-28 16:08:48 +02:00
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Model}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A volume-of-fluid (VOF) model in two-vertical dimensions based on volume-averaged Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes
|
|
|
|
|
(VARANS) equations is used (olaFlow, \cite{higuera2015}). The model was initially setup using generic values for
|
|
|
|
|
porous breakwater studies. A sensibility study conducted on the porosity parameters found a minor influence of these
|
|
|
|
|
values on the final results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The k-ω SST turbulence model was used, as it produced much more realistic results than the default k-ε model,
|
|
|
|
|
especially compared to the photographs from the storm of February 28, 2017. The k-ε model yielded very high viscosity
|
|
|
|
|
and thus strong dissipation in the entire domain, preventing an accurate wave breaking representation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Boundary conditions}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Initial and boundary conditions were generated using the output from the SWASH wave transformation model. The boundary
|
|
|
|
|
condition is generated by a paddle-like wavemaker, using the water level and depth-averaged velocity computed by the
|
|
|
|
|
SWASH model.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-06-06 09:41:23 +02:00
|
|
|
|
\printbibliography
|
|
|
|
|
\end{document}
|