Merge branch 'report'

report/chapters/olaflow.tex

@@ -7,3 +7,120 @@ from the crest).
 A tool that allows mapping the output fields from swash to the initial fields
 in olaFlow was built. Alpha.water and U fields are mapped from swash to
 olaFlow.
+
+Boundary conditions are set using the output from the swash model.
+
+A regular mesh is generated and snapped to the bathymetry (mesh resolution: \SI{.5}{\m}).
+
+Simulation is run for 400 seconds using the largest wave from the swash model with the buoy spectrum as an input
+(\autoref{fig:wave}).
+
+\begin{figure}
+	\centering
+	\includegraphics{wave.pdf}
+	\caption{Boundary condition for olaflow model.}\label{fig:wave}
+\end{figure}
+
+Results are plotted using python \autoref{fig:resola}.
+\begin{figure}
+	\centering
+	\includegraphics{resola.pdf}
+	\caption{Results from olaFlow model.}\label{fig:resola}
+\end{figure}
+
+\subsection{Porosity parameters}
+Several parameters should be calibrated in order to accurately model the porous media: $a$, $b$ and $c$ are friction
+parameters in Forcheimer's equation; D50 is the median diameter of the elements constituting the porous media; $p$ is
+the porosity of the media.
+
+7 cases were run with the values in \autoref{tab:porotest}.
+
+\begin{table}
+	\centering
+	\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
+		\toprule
+		\textbf{Case} & $a$ & $b$ & $c$ & D50 (\si{\m}) & $\phi$ \\
+		\midrule
+		\textbf{0} & \num{50} & \num{1.2} & \num{0.34} & \num{4} & \num{0.4} \\
+		\textbf{1} & \intersemibold\num{0} & \num{1.2} & \num{0.34} & \num{4} & \num{0.4} \\
+		\textbf{2} & \intersemibold\num{5000} & \num{1.2} & \num{0.34} & \num{4} & \num{0.4} \\
+		\textbf{3} & \num{50} & \intersemibold\num{0} & \num{0.34} & \num{4} & \num{0.4} \\
+		\textbf{4} & \num{50} & \intersemibold\num{3.0} & \num{0.34} & \num{4} & \num{0.4} \\
+		\textbf{5} & \num{50} & \num{1.2} & \num{0.34} & \intersemibold\num{2} & \num{0.4} \\
+		\textbf{6} & \num{50} & \num{1.2} & \num{0.34} & \num{4} & \intersemibold\num{0.25} \\
+		\bottomrule
+	\end{tabular}
+	\caption{Test cases for porosity parameters.}\label{tab:porotest}
+\end{table}
+
+Some results are displayed in \autoref{fig:diff} and \autoref{fig:diff2}. No major differences are noticable
+between cases (excepted for case 3, where $b=0$).
+
+\begin{figure}
+	\centering
+	\includegraphics{diff.pdf}
+	\caption{Tests for porosity parameters; water - air border at \SI{-50}{\m}.}\label{fig:diff}
+\end{figure}
+\begin{figure}
+	\centering
+	\includegraphics{diff2.pdf}
+	\caption{Tests for porosity parameters; water - air border at \SI{-20}{\m}.}\label{fig:diff2}
+\end{figure}
+
+Another run with a different value for $b$ was made (\autoref{tab:porotestb}). Results are in \autoref{fig:diff3b}.
+The value of $b$ seems to have a major effect how wave energy is dissipated / how waves break, as seen in
+\autoref{fig:diff3b175}.
+
+\begin{table}
+	\centering
+	\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
+		\toprule
+		\textbf{Case} & $a$ & $b$ & $c$ & D50 (\si{\m}) & $\phi$ \\
+		\midrule
+		\textbf{0} & \num{50} & \num{1.2} & \num{0.34} & \num{4} & \num{0.4} \\
+		\textbf{1} & \num{50} & \intersemibold\num{0} & \num{0.34} & \num{4} & \num{0.4} \\ % 3
+		\textbf{2} & \num{50} & \intersemibold\num{0.2} & \num{0.34} & \num{4} & \num{0.4} \\ % 3b
+		\bottomrule
+	\end{tabular}
+	\caption{Test cases for porosity parameters.}\label{tab:porotestb}
+\end{table}
+
+\begin{figure}
+	\centering
+	\includegraphics{diff3b.pdf}
+	\caption{Tests for porosity parameters; water - air border at \SI{-20}{\m}.}\label{fig:diff3b}
+\end{figure}
+\begin{figure}
+	\centering
+	\includegraphics{diff3b175.pdf}
+	\caption{Tests for porosity parameters; water - air border at \SI{175}{\s}.}\label{fig:diff3b175}
+\end{figure}
+
+\subsection{Turbulence model}
+A case with the $k-\omega$ SST turbulence model was run to compare with the $k-\varepsilon$ model.
+Results displayed in \autoref{fig:sst}. Significant differences are found between both models.
+
+Wave breaking as expected using SST model (\autoref{fig:sst175}). See
+\url{https://public.edgarpierre.fr/anim_olaflow_kom.mp4}
+
+\begin{figure}
+	\centering
+	\includegraphics{diffsst.pdf}
+	\caption{$x=\SI{-50}{\m}$. Case 1: $k-\varepsilon$ model; case 2: $k-\omega$ SST model.}\label{fig:sst}
+\end{figure}
+\begin{figure}
+	\centering
+	\includegraphics{diffsst175.pdf}
+	\caption{$t=\SI{175}{\s}$. Case 1: $k-\varepsilon$ model; case 2: $k-\omega$ SST model.}\label{fig:sst175}
+\end{figure}
+
+\subsection{Results}
+Maximum flow velocity is displayed in \autoref{fig:maxu}.
+
+\begin{figure}
+	\centering
+	\includegraphics{maxu.pdf}
+	\caption{Maximum velocity.}\label{fig:maxu}
+\end{figure}
+
+The flow reaches \SIrange{15}{20}{\m\per\s} velocity, which is in accordance with results from \textcite{amir}.

report/chapters/swash.tex

@@ -124,5 +124,39 @@ Model runs with 4 layers. \autoref{fig:rests4lay}.
 	\caption{Results with real timeseries, 4 layers.}\label{fig:rests4lay}
 \end{figure}
 
+\section{Reflection coefficient verification}
+
+A small Python script has been written to generate theoretical wave height and homogenized velocity for a combination of
+incident and reflected waves.
+
+The method was taken from \parencite{huntley1999use}. Incident waves are modelled by white noise, reflected waves are
+incident waves shifted and multiplied by the reflection coefficient. Water level is the sum of incident waves and
+reflected waves, velocity is the difference of reflected waves and incident waves. Additionnal noise is added to the
+water level and velocity.
+
+Results are displayed in \autoref{fig:r_test}.
+
+\begin{figure}
+	\centering
+	\includegraphics{r_test.pdf}
+	\caption{Reflection coefficient testing (puv method from \cite{huntley1999use}).}\label{fig:r_test}
+\end{figure}
+
+\section{Plotting orbitals from buoy measurements}
+\autoref{fig:orbitals}. Orbital for the large wave have been plotted in the average motion plane of the buoy.
+
+\begin{figure}
+	\centering
+	\includegraphics{orbitals.pdf}
+	\caption{2Dv buoy trajectory for wave event of 20170228.}\label{fig:orbitals}
+\end{figure}
+
+\subsection{Buoy spectrum}
+
+The swash model was run over 4 hours with the spectrum obtained from the buoy, with and without the breakwater. (2
+layers).
+
+A zero-crossing methods was implemented to find the largest waves.
+
 %\subsection{2D Model}
 %Working on 2D model which might work with overtopping.

report/cours.sty

@@ -170,6 +170,7 @@
     %inter-unit-product      = {.},
     per-mode                = power-positive-first,
     uncertainty-mode = separate,
+		reset-text-family = false,
 }
 \SendSettingsToPgf
 \DeclareSIUnit\met{met}