Finalise introduction
This commit is contained in:
parent
d1b6819e0c
commit
ec051a2054
1 changed files with 15 additions and 11 deletions
|
@ -48,9 +48,9 @@ Whether it is \textcite{nott2003}, \textcite{nandasena2011} or \textcite{weiss20
|
|||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
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
|
||||
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
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -61,17 +61,21 @@ using smoothed-particles hydrodynamics (SPH) or volume of fluid (VOF) models. SP
|
|||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
In this paper, we use two nested models: a large scale one-dimensionnal model to study the transformation of the wave
|
||||
from the wave buoy to the proximity of the breakwater, and a VOF model in two vertical dimensions to study the
|
||||
hydrodynamic conditions near the breakwater. The large scale model uses SWASH \parencite{zijlema2011} a depth-averaged
|
||||
non-linear non-hydrostatic model that was already calibrated by \textcite{poncet2022}. The nested model uses olaFlow
|
||||
\parencite{higuera2015}, a VOF model based on volume averaged Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes (VARANS) equations 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.
|
||||
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
|
||||
\textcite{poncet2022} on a domain reaching 1450m offshore of the breakwater.
|
||||
|
||||
Results from the nested models are compared to the analytical equations provided by \textcite{nandasena2011}.
|
||||
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}.
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Results}
|
||||
\subsection{Reflection analysis}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Discussion}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue