Three-Dimensional Numerical Modeling of Solitary Wave

Breaking and Force on a Cylinder Pile in a Coastal Surf Zone

Hong Xiao1 and Wenrui Huang, M.ASCE2

Abstract: In this paper, a three-dimensional numerical wave model is applied to simulate solitary wave run-up and breaking on a plane beach,
as well as the resulting breaking-wave force exerted on a single pile located at different elevations on the beach. The model employed is based on
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Reynolds–averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations with a k-ɛ model for turbulence closure. The model is validated using experimental data
on breaking solitary wave run-up on a plane beach, time history of the wave force on a cylinder, and wave-pile interaction on a sloping bottom.
After model validation, the wave model is applied to simulate wave-pile interaction with the pile located at seven different elevations on the
plane beach. Snapshots of wave-pile interaction, as well as the time history of breaking-wave force on the pile, are obtained and analyzed. The
variations in breaking-wave force with elevation of the pile are also discussed. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000834. © 2014
American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Surf zone; Wave breaking; Breaking-wave force; Volume-of-fluid (VOF) method; Pile.

Introduction
Piles (vertical circular cylinders) are popular elements of coastal
structures such as coastal highway bridge piers and wind turbine
foundations (Fig. 1). Hydrodynamic wave forces exerted on piles
during storm-surge events are of significant engineering relevance
to the safety of these coastal structures. For practical reasons, many
piles are constructed within coastal high-hazard areas in the surf
zone (FEMA 2005), where wave breaking and high-speed roller
run-up can produce extremely large wave forces during hurricane
or tsunami events (Fig. 1). In the case of wave breaking in the surf
zone, the resulting flow patterns and hydrodynamic loadings on
piles are significantly different from the case of nonbreaking
waves, which makes accurate estimation of the wave forces on
piles more difficult. However, for small-scale piles, the Morison
equation (Morison et al. 1950) can produce an estimate of wave
forces acting on these piles. For large-scale piles, though, the wave
forces can be accurately calculated only if the interaction between
waves and the cylinder is fully considered (Sapkaya and Issacson
1981).
The interactions between waves and pile(s) in coastal region
were studied previously by many researchers. In many cases, the
main focus was the total horizontal force on a vertical cylinder
on a horizontal bottom. For nonbreaking wave force on a single
pile, there have been a few widely accepted results. For instance,
Morison et al. (1950) proposed a semiempirical equation for the
drag and inertia wave force acting on a single small-scale pile. The
1
Associate Professor, State Key Laboratory of Hydraulics and Mountain
River Engineering, Sichuan Univ., Chengdu, Sichuan 610065, China.
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Florida
State Univ., Tallahassee, FL 32310; Adjunct Professor, Dept. of Hydrau-
lic Engineering, Tongji Univ., Shanghai 200092, China (corresponding
author). E-mail: whuang@eng.fsu.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 25, 2013; approved
on June 23, 2014; published online on August 1, 2014. Discussion period
open until January 1, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for indi-
vidual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
© ASCE, ISSN 0733-9399/A4014001(13)/$25.00.
results based on the Morison equation can vary with selection of
drag and inertia coefficients and wave theory for estimation of
water-particle velocity and acceleration. McCamy and Fuchs (1954)
provided an analytical solution to the problem of wave diffraction by
a large vertical cylinder using the linear wave theory. The linear
exciting force on the large cylinder also can be obtained by the wave-
diffraction solution.
A number of experimental studies have been undertaken to
investigate the breaking-wave forces on vertical cylinders. Most of
the studies are for the maximum or total wave force on vertical
cylinders. For wave-breaking cases, in addition to the drag and
inertia forces considered in the Morison equation, the force pro-
duced as waves break against a pile also plays an important part and
is often termed impact force. Goda et al. (1966) conducted a series
of experiments to investigate the maximum force on a single pile in
wave-breaking cases. Based on their experimental results, they
proposed a formula to calculate the maximum breaking-wave force
as the sum of three forces, namely, drag, inertia, and impact forces.
Watanabe and Horikawa (1974) pointed out that the maximum
inertia and drag forces on a pile did not occur at the same time and
that the phase lag between the two forces should be considered.
After careful analysis of their experimental data, they proposed
a new formula to compute the maximum breaking-wave force with
the phase lag between inertia and drag forces taken into account.
Sawaragi and Nochino (1984) measured and studied the time
variation of hydrodynamic forces at different heights on a vertical
circular cylinder. They argued that hydrostatic pressure introduced
by surface-elevation differences between the front and rear of the
cylinder as the wave broke against the cylinder should not be
neglected. Sawaragi and Nochino (1984) modified the formula of
Goda et al. (1966) by introducing an additional force resulting from
the wave-level differences between the front and rear of the cyl-
inder. Tanimoto et al. (1987) studied the breaking-wave force of
random waves on an inclined pile. The impact force was ap-
proximated as a triangular pulse in the time domain. Apelt and
Piorewiez (1987) found that the slamming force on a single pile
was related to the ratio of pile diameter D to wave height H and that
the maximum slamming force occurred when D=H was approxi-
mately 2.0. Chan et al. (1995) presented detailed snapshots of the

© ASCE A4014001-1 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech.
 investigated. The variations in wave forces with elevation of the pile
are also discussed based on the results calculated by the numerical
model.

Methodology

Fig. 1. Diagram of breaking wave acting on a single pile in the surf zone
[a photographic example can be found in Katz (2013)]
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Governing Equations
During the wave-structure interaction process, the wave is in tur-
bulent motion, and the turbulence effect cannot be neglected in
a wave-breaking model. Therefore, RANS equations [Eqs. (1) and
(2)] are used to solve the mean fluid flow velocity, and the standard
k-ɛ model [Eqs. (3) and (4)] is used for the turbulence closure of the

RANS equations.

interaction between a breaking wave and a single pile. They

demonstrated that different impact-pressure patterns occurred RANS Equations
depending on whether the breaking event happened before, during,
or after the wave impinged on the pile. Wienke and Oumeraci
∂ui
(2005) reported an experimental investigation and theoretical ¼0 (1)
analysis of breaking-wave impact on vertical and inclined slender ∂xi
cylinders. A theory for slamming force was elaborated, with the
assumption that outside the slamming area the wave force could be ∂ui ∂u 1 ∂p ∂t ij
þ uj i ¼ 2 þ gi þ (2)
found using Morison’s equation. Similar to the results obtained by ∂t ∂xj r ∂xi ∂xj
Chan et al. (1995), the impact force was shown to strongly depend
on the distance between the breaking location and the cylinder. A
more recent experimental study on breaking-wave force on cyl- k-ɛ Model
inders can been found in Arntsen et al. (2011).
  
Wave hydrodynamics in the surf zone is complicated, and the ∂k ∂k ∂ nt ∂k
þ uj ¼ þn þ G2ɛ (3)
interaction between waves and structures in the surf zone is more ∂t ∂xj ∂xj sk ∂xj
complicated. From the preceding review, it is clear that improved
knowledge of the pressure distributions and characteristics is still
  
∂ɛ ∂ɛ ∂ nt ∂ɛ ɛ ɛ2
necessary for better understanding of the physics of breaking-wave þ uj ¼ þn þ C1ɛ G 2 C2ɛ (4)
∂t ∂xj ∂xj sɛ ∂xj k k
impact on a pile in the surf zone. Although a few studies investigated
the breaking-wave impact on a single pile, little work has been
reported on the time history of breaking-wave forces on piles on where
a sloping bottom. Mo et al. (2013) conducted a particle-image    
k2 2 1 ∂ui ∂uj
velocimetry (PIV) experimental trail to study a plunging breaking t ij ¼ 2 n þ Cd sij 2 kdij ; sij ¼ þ ;
solitary wave on a sloping beach and its interaction with a vertical ɛ 3 2 ∂xj ∂xi
circular cylinder. The surface elevation, velocity, and wave profile k2 ∂u
nt ¼ Cd ; G ¼ 2nt sij i ; Cd ¼ 0:09;
during wave-pile interaction were well documented. Mo et al. (2013) ɛ ∂xj
also used the experimental data for validation of their large-eddy
C1ɛ ¼ 1:44; C2ɛ ¼ 1:92; sk ¼ 1:0; sɛ ¼ 1:3
simulation (LES) model with renormalization group (RNG) subgrid
turbulence closure, and comparisons demonstrate that their model k 5 turbulent kinetic energy; ɛ 5 turbulent dissipation rate; sij
can adequately reproduce the main features of the wave-breaking 5 rate-of-strain tensor; dij 5 Kronecker delta function; v 5 water
process. Although Mo et al. (2013) investigated a single case of viscosity; vt 5 eddy viscosity; ui 5 velocity vector of mean flow;
solitary wave interaction with a vertical cylinder on a sloping p 5 pressure of mean flow; gi 5 ith component of gravitational
bottom, how the impacting force changes with pile elevation remains acceleration; r 5 fluid density; and i and j 5 1, 2, 3 for 3D flows.
unclear.
In this study, three-dimensional (3D) numerical computations are
carried out to improve understanding of the wave impact on a pile Boundary Conditions
located at different elevations on a plane beach. A 3D wave model On the free surface, the kinematic boundary condition must be sat-
based on Reynolds–averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations with isfied. For the kinematic boundary condition, any particle cannot go
a k-ɛ model for turbulence closure is utilized. Three sets of well- through the free surface. Let hðxi , tÞ 5 0 denote the free surface, and
documented experimental data are selected to validate the model, the total derivative of the surface with respect to time would be zero
namely, (1) breaking solitary wave run-up on a plane beach by on the surface
Synolakis (1986), (2) time history of wave run-up and total force on
a single vertical cylinder over a flat bottom by Kriebel (1992, 1998), ∂h
and (3) wave-pile interaction on a sloping bottom by Mo et al. þ ui × =h ¼ 0 (5)
∂t
(2013). Following validation, the model was applied to simulation of
the dynamic wave loads acting on a single pile at different elevations It is assumed that turbulence does not diffuse across the free
on a plane beach. Both the process of wave-pile interaction and surface. Therefore, the normal flux of k and ɛ should vanish on the
the time history of breaking-wave force exerted on the pile were free surface

© ASCE A4014001-2 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech.
 ∂k ∂ɛ boundaries in Cartesian mesh grids. Compared with the conven-
ni ¼ 0, ni ¼ 0 (6)
∂xi ∂xi tional method to treat an irregular solid wall that creates a zigzag
boundary in Cartesian mesh grids, the partial-cell treatment (PCT)
Along the rigid wall boundary, the near-wall function method partially blocks the sides of the cell and the cell itself based on the
(Launder and Spalding 1974) is adapted in this model. The real geometry of the boundary (Lin and Liu 1998). A comprehensive
universal logarithmic law of a wall with a smooth surface that is review of recent developments in cut-cell methods for arbitrary solid
applicable to the fully turbulent region outside the viscous sub- boundaries can be found in Ingram et al. (2003). Nevertheless, the
layer is expressed as idea of the PCT method is illustrated in the following example of
a circular cylinder in a fluid. Although a two-dimensional (2D)
u 1 u y example is shown here, extension of the PCT method to 3D cases is
¼ ln t þ C (7)
ut k n straightforward.
As shown in Fig. 2, cells with solid lines are partial (boundary)
where u 5 resulting velocity parallel to the wall at the first cell; ut cells through which the solid cylinder surface crosses. An openness
5 resulting friction velocity; k 5 0:41, a constant; y 5 normal dis- function u is introduced in the PCT method to represent the fraction of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tance to the wall boundary; v 5 kinetic viscosity of water; and C 5 5:0 volume of open space in a cell. It is defined such that when u 5 0, the
for smooth surfaces. For rough surfaces, where the effects of roughness cell is a solid cell; when u 5 1, the cell is a fluid cell; and when u is
must be considered, the constant C should be changed based on the between 0 and 1, the cell is a partial cell. In addition to the openness
material of the surface. For a fully rough wall, the following equation function u that is defined at the cell center to represent cell information,
is used to specify velocity in the near-wall region: additional functions, namely, ur , ul , ut , and ub , are also introduced to
represent the openness on the right, left, top, and bottom boundaries,
 p  respectively, of the cell, as shown in Fig. 2.
Up 1 U YP
¼ ln f (8) The governing equations for the mean velocity and pressure in
Up k n
these partial cells are rewritten as
where Up 5 velocity parallel to the wall surface; f 5 surface roughness
of the wall; U p 5 bottom-friction velocity; k 5 von Karman constant ∂ðuui Þ
¼0 (11)
(usually equal to 0.41), and YP 5 dU p =n is the normalized friction ∂xi
length. For a smooth surface, the surface roughness f is set to 9.0.
YP strongly depends on grid mesh sizes—usually 30 , YP , 100. ∂ðuui Þ ∂ðuui Þ u ∂p ∂tij
The near-wall turbulent kinetic energy k and dissipation rate ɛ þ uuj ¼2 þ ugi þ u (12)
∂t ∂xj r ∂xi ∂xj
are specified assuming local equilibrium of turbulence

Up U p3 With use of the PCT method, the variables (e.g., velocity and
k ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi, ɛ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (9) pressure) in cells or on cell sides are defined by multiplying the
Cm kYP
openness coefficients by the original variables. Near the obstacle,
the openness coefficients are less than 1, which makes the mean
On the inlet wavemaker boundary, the wave surface displace-
quantities smaller than their original values.
ment and velocities are specified based on the analytical solution
h 5 ht , u 5 ut , v 5 vt , and w 5 wt . The values of k and ɛ are
specified on the wavemaker boundary assuming a small distur-
bance. The information about mean velocities and mean free-
surface displacement can be obtained from experimental data,
numerical results by another model, or analytical solutions. In this
study, the analytical solution for a solitary wave is applied at the
inlet wavemaker boundary to generate a solitary wave.
On the outlet open boundary without wave reflections, the
Sommerfeld radiation condition is adopted, and a sponge layer
(Larsen and Dancy 1983) is set before the open boundary to absorb
the wave energy. The Sommerfeld radiation condition allows the
wave to go out of the computational domain without significant
reflection. The gradient of all hydrodynamic variables is assumed to
be zero at the right boundary

∂Q ∂Q
þ Un ¼0 (10)
∂t ∂n

where Un 5 phase celerity of the wave at the open boundary; and

Q 5 hydrodynamic parameters such as mean flow velocities, free-
surface displacement, kinetic energy, and dissipation rate.

Partial-Cell Treatment for Arbitrary Solid Boundaries Fig. 2. Sketch of partial-cell treatment of cylindrical solid boundary
[cells with solid lines are partial cells; openness function is defined at cell
In the numerical model, the cut-cell method (sometimes also center (u) and faces (ur , ul , ut , and ub ) for partial cells]
called the partial-cell method) is used to deal with cylindrical solid

© ASCE A4014001-3 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech.
 Volume-of-Fluid Method for Free-Surface Boundary kijnþ1 2 kijn  
1 nþ1
¼ 2FkX 2 FkY þ VISk þ Gij þ Gnij 2 ɛ nþ1 2 ɛ nij
The original concept behind the volume-of-fluid (VOF) method was Dt 2 ij

proposed in the early 1970s. A solid review of the VOF method can (17)
be found in Rider and Kothe (1998). VOF methods gained popu-
larity in the 1980s with the development of the donor-acceptor
ɛ nþ1
ij 2 ɛ nij ɛ nij ɛ nij
algorithm by Hirt and Nichols (1981) and Youngs’ algorithm (Youngs ¼ 2FɛX 2 FɛY þ VISɛ þ C1ɛ Gnþ1 2 C2ɛ ɛ nþ1
1982). The VOF method continues to be improved, with methods Dt kijn ij
kijn ij

based on Youngs’ scheme being known as piecewise linear interface (18)

calculation (PLIC) methods. Recently, the main focus of VOF re-
search has been on developing higher-order schemes for 3D un- where FkX and FkX 5 advection terms of the turbulent kinetic
structured mesh systems. energy k in the x- and y-directions, respectively; VISk 5 viscous
To capture the wave surface, a color function Fðxi , tÞ was first diffusion terms of k; FɛX and FɛY 5 advection terms of the tur-
introduced by Hirt and Nichols (1981) to indicate the fraction of bulent dissipation rate ɛ in the x- and y-directions, respectively; and
a mesh cell that is filled with water (or fluid of a particular type). If
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

VISɛ 5 viscous diffusion term of ɛ.

F 5 1, the cell is full of fluid; if F 5 0, the cell is empty; and if F is
between 0 and 1, the cell must be a surface cell. Algorithms for free-
surface tracing have been designed to solve the advection equation
DF=Dt 5 0 in a way that keeps the interfaces sharp.
Many numerical techniques have been introduced to solve the
transport equation over the past 20 years. The donor-acceptor al-
gorithm introduced by Hirt and Nichols (1981) was the first. In this
study, the 3D donor-acceptor algorithm is used to update the VOF
value of each mesh cell and reconstruct the free surface during every
time step.
Computational procedures are as follows:
1. Set up the initial conditions. The initial velocity field is zero. The
initial values of turbulent kinetic energy k and turbulent dissi-
pation rate ɛ are the same as the wavemaker boundary’s k and ɛ.
The initial VOF function F is obtained from the still-water
depth, and the pressure field is initialized by static pressure.
2. Compute the intermediate velocity ^ uin11 on the new time level
using Eq. (13).

Projection Method and Computing Procedure

In the numerical model, the computation domain is discretized using
a staggered grid. All scalar quantities, i.e., p, k, ɛ, and nt , and the
VOF function F are defined at the centers of the cells, and the vector
quantities are defined at the centers of the cell faces.
The two-step projection method (Chorin 1968) has been used to
solve the RANS equations. The first step is to solve an intermediate
Fig. 3. Locations of four surface-elevation gauge stations on the plane
velocity ^un11
i beach with slope 1=19:85 (S1 5 xp =d 5 25:35; S2 5 xp =d 5 22:66;
S3 5 xp =d 5 0:23; S4 5 xp =d 5 2:74)
u^nþ1 2 uni ∂unj ∂t nij
i
¼ 2unj þ gi þ (13)
Dt ∂xj ∂xj

where the superscript indicates the time level; and Dt 5 time-step

size. Eq. (13) is the forward time difference equation of the RANS
equations without the pressure-gradient term. The intermediate ve-
locity ^un11
i does not satisfy the continuity equation.
The second step is to project the intermediate-velocity field onto
a divergence-free plane to obtain the final velocity

unþ1 2^ unþ1 1 ∂pnþ1

i i
¼2 n (14)
Dt r ∂xi

∂unþ1
i
¼0 (15)
∂xi

Taking the divergence of Eq. (14) and applying Eq. (15) to the
resulting equation yield the Poisson pressure equation
 
∂ 1 ∂pnþ1 1 ∂^
unþ1
¼ i
(16)
∂xi rn ∂xi Dt ∂xi

Then k-ɛ equations are also discretized by the forward time-

Fig. 4. Sketch of computational setup for wave run-up on a plane beach
difference method as follows:

© ASCE A4014001-4 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Comparison of time histories of surface elevation at four gauge stations: (a) S1; (b) S2; (c) S3; (d) S4

3. Apply the boundary conditions for velocity on the free surface—
the wavemaker boundary conditions.
4. Update the pressure field based on Eq. (16), which automat-
ically incorporates the normal stress on the free-surface bound-
ary condition.
5. Obtain the final velocities based on Eq. (14).
6. Apply the boundary conditions again on the free surface.
7. Update k and ɛ using the final velocities based on Eqs. (17)
and (18).
8. Update the VOF function, and reconstruct the free surface.
9. Apply the final boundary condition.
10. If the computation time is larger than the given time, stop;
otherwise, go to Step 2.
Numerical Model Validation
Comparison with Experimental Data on Breaking-Wave
Run-Up on a Plane Beach
Synolakis (1986) conducted a series of experiments to study
breaking-wave run-up on a plane beach, among which the solitary-
wave experiment on a 1:19.85 sloping beach has been cited
extensively as a benchmark testing problem for many tsunami
numerical models. The experiments of Synolakis (1986) are of
importance in confirming analytical and numerical models of the
run-up process because of the precision of their experimental
techniques compared with those of earlier studies. In this section, the
experimental data of a breaking solitary-wave run-up on a plane
beach (Synolakis 1986) are selected to check the model’s ability
to calculate surface elevation.
Fig. 3 shows a sketch of the experimental setups of Synolakis
(1986). The beach has an angle of 2.88
, and its slope is about
s 5 tanð2:88
Þ  1=19:85. The still-water depth d varies from 0.21
to 0.29 m. A solitary wave with a ratio of wave height H to still-water
depth d of H=d 5 0:28 is generated at the left boundary and travels
to the beach. The origin of the coordination is fixed at the initial
shoreline where water meets the beach. Time history of surface
elevation is measured at four different stations, namely, Station 1
ðS1Þ 5 xp =d 5 25:35, S2 5 xp =d 5 22:66, S3 5 xp =d 5 0:23, and
S4 5 xp =d 5 2:74.
The computational setup is arranged similar to the experimental
setups of Synolakis (1986), as shown in Fig. 4. The dimensions for
the computational domain are 6:5 3 0:32 3 0:32 m (x 3 y 3 z).
Model grid sensitivity studies have been conducted under three different

© ASCE A4014001-5 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech.
 grid resolutions, namely, Dx 5 0:05, 0:025, and 0:0125 m; Dy 5 0:01,
0:005, and 0:0025 m; and Dz 5 0:01, 0:005, and 0:0025 m. Results
indicate no significant differences in terms of wave profiles and
run-up height. Therefore, the computation domain is discretized by
a 250 3 100 3 100 uniform grid system with Dx 5 0:025 m,
Dy 5 0:005 m, and Dz 5 0:005 m. A fixed time step Dt 5 0:005 s
is used to provide a stable and precise solution during the entire
computation.
Comparisons of the time histories of surface elevation at different
locations are shown in Figs. 5(a–d), where the solid line denotes
experimental data by Synolakis (1986), and the dash-dot line denotes
numerical results. In Fig. 5, the surface elevation and time are
p
p
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiby the depth of still water and are given by x 5 x=d and
normalized
t 5 t g=d . To better show the process of solitary wave run-up and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
breaking on the plane beach, 2D snapshots of velocity distribution as
the solitary wave passes the four Gauge Stations S1–S4 are presented
in Figs. 6(a–d), respectively.
Fig. 5(a) shows the time history of surface elevation at S1, where
the wave is shoaling. As shown in Fig. 6(a), while the wave crest is
approaching the beach, the front face becomes steeper than the
rear face, and the wave shape becomes asymmetrical. S1 is located
ahead of the wave-breaking zone. Although the wave crest becomes
steeper when passing S1, the wave does not actually break at this
point. Fig. 5(b) shows the time history of surface elevation at the
wave-breaking point (S2), where the wavefront becomes ultimately
vertical. As shown in Fig. 6(b), the wave height reaches a maximum
value at the breaking point and decreases after the wave breaks.
Fig. 5(c) shows the time history of surface elevation shortly past

Fig. 6. Snapshots of 2D velocity distributions as a solitary wave passes the four gauge stations along the plane beach (contours are cut along the beach
following the x-axis): (a–d) wave passing S1–S4, respectively

Table 1. Parameters for Interaction between Wave and Pile on a Flat Bottom
Case Diameter D (m) Wave height H (m) Water depth d (m) Wavelength L (m) Wave number k
Run-up (Kriebel 1992) 4 1.096 5.54 33.6 0.187
Force (Kriebel 1998) 4 1.529 5.54 33.6 0.187

© ASCE A4014001-6 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Comparison with experimental data of regular wave interaction with a vertical cylinder: (a) wave run-up height on cylinder; (b) time history of
wave force exerted on cylinder
Table 2. Parameters for Wave-Pile Interaction on a Sloping Bottom
Parameter Value
Diameter D (m) 0.06
Wave height H (m) 0.06765
Water depth d (m) 0.205
Slope (degrees) 5.1
the wave-breaking point (S3). As the breaking wave propagates
up the slope, it collapses near the initial shoreline position, and the
wave height decreases dramatically [Fig. 6(c)]. Fig. 5(c) shows
that the elevation is greatly decreased compared with data at
preceding stations. Fig. 5(d) shows the time history of surface
elevation close to the maximum run-up height (S4), where the
breaking wave continues to run up the slope [Fig. 6(d)] until it
reaches the maximum run-up height, and the rundown process
begins. Figs. 5 and 6 suggest that the numerical model is capable
of capturing the wave profile in breaking cases, in which the wave
deforms rapidly.
For this validation case (where the normalized incident solitary
wave height H=d is 0.28 and the slope of the beach is 1:19.85), the
normalized simulated maximum vertical run-up height R=d by the
numerical model is 0.51, whereas the measured result by Synolakis
(1986) is 0.52, with a relative percentage error of 1.96%. Therefore,
this model also can produce satisfactory results of maximum run-up
height of a solitary wave on a plane beach.
Comparison with Experimental Data on Wave Force on
a Single Pile
Kriebel (1992, 1998) studied the nonlinear interaction between
periodic waves and a vertical circular cylinder on a horizontal
bottom. Whereas Kriebel (1992) measured the wave run-up height
on a vertical circular cylinder, Kriebel (1998) investigated the time
history of a wave force exerted on the cylinder. In this section, the
maximum run-up and time history of a wave force exerted on
a vertical circular cylinder are computed by the present model and
compared with the experimental results reported in Kriebel (1992,
1998).
© ASCE A4014001-7
J. Eng. Mech.
The parameters for the two cases selected for comparison are
given in Table 1. The grid resolution is selected as Dx 5 Dy
5 0:32 m and Dz 5 0:16 m. Fig. 7(a) compares the maximum run-
up height R at separate locations on the cylinder. The maximum run-
up height R is normalized by wave amplitude (H=2). The front of
the cylinder is located at b=p 5 0, and the back of the cylinder is
located at b=p 5 1. Fig. 7(a) shows a very good agreement with the
measured maximum run-up. Fig. 7(b) shows the time history of
horizontal wave forces Fx on the vertical cylinder. Fx is normalized
by F0 5 1=2 3 rgh 3 H 3 tanhðkhÞ=kh, and computational time t is
normalized by T=2p, where T is the wave period. Fig. 7(b) suggests
that the experimental and numerical wave forces agree well with
each other.
Comparison of Experimental and Numerical Results of
Wave-Pile Interaction on a Sloping Bottom
Mo et al. (2013) conducted a PIV measurement of a single case of
wave-pile interaction on a sloping bottom. Time snapshots of
measured wave profiles and horizontal and vertical velocity dis-
tributions in the vicinity of the pile were presented. They further
applied a numerical model to simulate the same problem, and time
histories of wave run-up and total force on the pile were computed. In
this section, the identical case of wave-pile interaction on a sloping
bottom considered in Mo et al. (2013) is simulated using the present
model and compared with the measured and calculated results of Mo
et al. (2013).
In Mo et al.’s (2013) experiment, the wave tank was 1 m high,
25 m long, and 0.5 m wide. The initial depth of water d was
0.205 m. A slope with an angle of 5.1
was placed on one side of
the wave flume, and a solitary wave with a ratio of wave height H
to still-water depth d of H=d 5 0:33 was generated on the other
side and traveled to the slope. A pile with a diameter D of 0.06 m
was installed on the slope. The detailed experimental setup for the
case of wave-pile interaction on a sloping bottom can be found in
Mo et al. (2013). Several primary parameters are summarized in
Table 2.
The computational setup is arranged similar to the experimental
setup of Mo et al. (2013). Comparisons of the computed results by
the method presented herein versus the measured and simulated data
J. Eng. Mech.
 of Mo et al. (2013) are provided in Figs. 8 and 9. Fig. 8 shows
a comparison of the wave profile [Fig. 8(a)] and the vertical dis-
tribution of the horizontal p[Fig.
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 8(b)] and vertical [Fig. 8(c)] ve-
locities at selected time t g=h 5 31:70 between the experimental
data of Mo et al. (2013) and the results computed by the present
model. Fig. 9 shows a comparison of the time history of wave run-up
height and total force on the pile with the numerical results of Mo
et al. (2013). Figs. 8 and 9 indicate that the comparisons between the
data of Mo et al. (2013) and the results computed by the present
model are reasonably satisfactory.
Interaction of a Breaking Wave with a Single Pile on
a Plane Beach
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
this paper is to evaluate the variation in wave force with elevation of
the pile, other parameters, such as wave height H, still-water depth d,
plane-beach slope, and pile diameter, are fixed as constant. In the
following numerical computations, the pile diameter is 5 m, the slope
of the plane beach is 1=19:85, the still-water depth is 10 m, and the
incident solitary wave height is 3 m, with H=d 5 0:3, which ensure
wave breaking and are consistent with the experimental conditions
of Synolakis (1986).
The computation domain is 400 3 20 3 20 m (x 3 y 3 z) with
the shoreline (intersection between still-water level and plane beach)
located at zero on the horizontal axis. The computational domain
is discretized by a 1,000 3 50 3 100 mesh grid system with Dx
5 0:4 m, Dy 5 0:4 m, and Dz 5 0:2 m. A fixed time step Dt 5 0:1 s
is used to provide a stable and precise solution over the entire

computation. In all the following simulations, a solitary wave is

Numerical Simulation Setups
In this section, the validated numerical model is used to simulate the
interaction between a breaking solitary wave and a single pile on
different elevations of a mild-slope beach. Although the purpose of
generated at the left boundary and travels from left to right.
For a given solitary wave and beach configuration, there is
a maximum elevation on the plane beach beyond which the wave
cannot reach. This maximum elevation with reference to the
shoreline is often termed the maximum vertical run-up height R of

Fig. 8.
pComparison
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi with experimental data (Mo et al. 2013) of solitary wave run-up on a mild slope and interaction with a vertical cylinder at selected
time t g=h 5 31:70: (a) wave profile in front of the cylinder; (b and c) normalized horizontal and vertical velocities at three selected locations
x 5 320, 360, and 410 mm, respectively

© ASCE A4014001-8 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Comparison with calculated results (Mo et al. 2013) of solitary wave run-up on a mild slope and interaction with a vertical cylinder:
(a) p
time
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffihistory
ffi of run-up on the front side of the cylinder wave force; (b) time history of horizontal force on the cylinder, where time is normalized
by h=g (run-up is normalized by solitary wave height, and horizontal force on the cylinder is normalized by rgD3 , where D is the diameter of the
cylinder)

a solitary wave. First, the maximum vertical run-up height R of

a solitary wave on a plane beach based on the parameters specified
earlier is computed using the numerical model and verified with
results from the empirical equation. Then the single pile is placed at
seven different elevations [as shown in Fig. 10(a)] on the beach
related to the maximum wave run-up height R; i.e., 20:75, 20:5,
20:25, 0, 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75 of the maximum run-up height R. For
each of the pile locations, the wave-pile interactions are modeled
using the validated numerical model. Three representative cases are
selected to present in detail, namely, Case I: emerged (pile location is
1=2R on the beach); Case II: on the shoreline (pile location is 0 on
the beach); and Case III: initially partially submerged (pile location
is 21=2R under water).

Maximum Vertical Run-Up Height R

Using the numerical model described earlier, the simulated maximum
vertical run-up height is 4.51 m. In following sections, a maximum
vertical run-up height R of 4.51 m is used in the modeling of wave-
pile interactions on a sloping bottom.

Case I: Pile Located at 1 / 2R above the Shoreline

Fig. 10. Sketch of computational setup for wave interaction with
a pile at different elevations on beach: (a) single pile location 5 20:75,
20:5,20:25, 0, 0:25, 0:5, and 0:75 of maximum vertical run-up height
R on the plane beach; (b) example of 3D computational setup for
Location IV; pile location 5 0 of maximum vertical run-up height R
(pile is located right on shoreline)
Fig. 11 shows snapshots of wave-pile interaction where the pile is
located at 1=2R on a plane beach with a slope of 1=19:85. Fig. 11(a)
shows the shoaling of the solitary wave. As the solitary wave
approaches the shoreline, wave speed is slowed by bottom friction
as the water shallows. The wave shape becomes asymmetrical, and
the amplitude increases because of the decrease in water depth.
Because of the wave shoaling effect, the amplitude of the solitary
wave in Fig. 11(a) increases to 3.14 m, 4.7% higher than the in-
cident wave height H of 3 m. The further steepening of the wave-
front causes initiation of the wave-breaking process, which is
evident by the existence of a vertical tangent in Fig. 11(b). Fol-
lowing the breaking point, the wave height decreases rapidly, and
the surface profile deforms greatly [Fig. 11(c)]. The wave breaks
continuously as its turbulent front moves toward the shoreline.
After the wavefront passes through the still-water shoreline, it
collapses, and the run-up process commences. The breaking wave

© ASCE A4014001-9 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 11. Snapshots of solitary wave run-up and interaction with pile (pile location 5 1=2R above shoreline): (a) T 5 25 s; (b) T 5 30 s; (c) T 5 35 s;
(d) T 5 40 s; (e) T 5 43 s; (f) T 5 45 s
continues to run up the beach and hits the pile in Fig. 11(d). After the
interaction, the wave begins to run down, and the run-up process
ends.
Case II: Pile Located at the Shoreline
Fig. 12 show the process of wave-pile interaction where the pile is
located at 0 of the total wave run-up height R. The initial wave
shoaling, breaking, and run-up snapshots are similar to those of the
preceding case where the pile is located at 1=2R. In Fig. 12, because
the pile is closer to the shoreline than in the preceding case, the wave
hits the pile earlier [Fig. 12(c)], and water rises up higher on the front
of the pile. The moment the breaking wave hits the pile, the wave
force exerted on it jumps from zero to maximum instantly, after
which the wave force decreases as velocity becomes slow and water
rises up the front of the pile. The reflection of breaking solitary waves
is stronger than in the first case because the duration of the inter-
action is longer.
Case III: Pile Located at 1 / 2 of R below the Shoreline
Fig. 13 show the wave-pile interaction where the pile located at 1=2R
below the shoreline (initially partially submerged under still-water
surface). For this case, the solitary wave undergoes no run-up
© ASCE A4014001-10
J. Eng. Mech.
process before it hits the pile. The crest becomes steeper as the
water becomes shallower until it breaks, as shown in Fig. 13(b). The
water rises up much higher on the front of the cylinder than in
preceding cases, and the duration of the interaction is also much
longer.
Variation in Wave Forces with Elevation of the Pile
Fig. 14 shows the time history of breaking wave forces F on the pile
for seven cases where the pile is located at 20:75, 20:5, 20:25, 0,
0.25, 0.5, and 0.75 of the maximum vertical run-up height R,
respectively.
In Fig. 14, the vertical axis is the total force in the form of
a slamming coefficient Cs (introduced as F normalized by 1=2ru2 A),
and the horizontal axis is normalized time (introduced as t nor-
malized by t), where u is the crest velocity of the incident solitary
wave; A ffiis the cross-sectional area of the pile; t is given by
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
t 5 h=g; h is the elevation of the pile from the sea bed; r is the
density of water; and g is gravitational acceleration.
The location of each of pile is shown in Fig. 10(a). The wave
force is greatest when the pile is located at 3=4R below the shoreline
on the plane beach. The maximum slamming coefficient is 3.88.
For this location, the wave breaks right in front of the pile, and the
wave force on the pile peaks instantly. When the pile locations are
J. Eng. Mech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 12. Snapshots of solitary wave run-up and interaction with pile (pile location 5 right on shoreline): (a) T 5 25 s; (b) T 5 30 s; (c) T 5 35 s;
(d) T 5 40 s; (e) T 5 43 s; (f) T 5 45 s
at 21=2R and 21=4R below the shoreline, which are R=4 and R=2
higher than the first locations, the maximum slamming coefficient is
reduced to 69.1 and 48.1% of the preceding case. For the first three
locations, the solitary wave hits the pile shortly after it breaks, and
the wave-pile interaction completes before the wave undergoes the
run-up process above the shoreline. As a result, the maximum force
peaks instantly the moment the wave slams into the pile. The wave
forces and durations of the interaction are much greater than for the
remainder of cases.
For the last four cases, the pile location is above the shoreline,
with a uniform increase of R=4 in elevation for each case. Because
the pile is located above the still-water level, the solitary wave
undergoes the breaking and run-up process before it meets the pile
on the beach. During the breaking event, a small amount of the wave
energy is lost because of friction and collision between water
particles, and a large amount of wave energy is transformed into
potential energy as the wave runs up the beach. Consequently, the
wave kinetic energy and current speed are greatly reduced when
the wave finally hits the pile on the beach. Therefore, the maximum
wave forces are reduced to 29.1, 16.5, 11.1, and 7.2% of those at the
first pile location. Also, because of the run-up process, for the last
two cases, where the pile is located at 1=2R and 3=4R, the maximum
wave force does not occur when the wave hits the pile but rather
when the water in front of the pile rises to some height. This is
consistent with the finding of Sawaragi and Nochino (1984) that
© ASCE A4014001-11
J. Eng. Mech.
hydrostatic pressure introduced by the surface-elevation difference
between the front and rear of the cylinder as the wave breaks against
the cylinder should not be neglected.
Conclusion
A 3D numerical model based on RANS equations is applied to
investigate the variation in wave forces with elevation of single
pile on a plane beach in the surf zone. The standard k-ɛ turbulent
model is used for the turbulence closure of the RANS equations.
Satisfactory comparisons with available experimental data on
wave run-up on a plane beach and wave forces on a cylinder show
that the 3D numerical model is capable of simulating the process of
wave-pile interaction and the resulting forces acting on the pile.
Following validation, the interactions between a solitary wave
(H 5 3 m) and a single pile (D 5 5 m) located at seven typical
elevations [23=4R, 21=2R, 21=4R, 0, 1=4R, 1=2R, and 3=4R] on
a plane slope were simulated using the numerical model. Snapshots
of wave-pile interaction and the time history of wave force on the
pile are presented and discussed. For the seven cases considered in
this paper, results indicate that the wave force and interaction
duration are the largest when the pile is located at 3=4R below the
shoreline. In the remainder of cases, the maximum forces on
the pile were reduced to 69.1, 48.2, 29.1, 16.5, 11.1, and 7.2% of
J. Eng. Mech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 13. Snapshot of solitary wave run-up and interaction with pile (pile location 5 1=2R below shoreline): (a) T 5 25 s; (b) T 5 30 s; (c) T 5 35 s;
(d) T 5 40 s; (e) T 5 43 s; (f) T 5 45 s

the first location, respectively. Results of the percentage reduction

of wave forces at different pile elevations could be useful for assessing
the potential risk of coastal structures to support coastal hazard-
mitigation planning and management.

Acknowledgments

This research was jointly supported by the National Basic

Research and Development Program of China (973, Grant No.
2013CB036401), the National Science Foundation of China (Grant
Nos. 51309171 and 51279134), and the Doctoral Fund of the Min-
istry of Education of China (Grant No. 20120181120123). This
study also was partially supported by Tongji Univ., which hosting
Dr. Wenrui Huang’s sabbatical visit in 2013.

Fig. 14. Time history of impacting force on a pile at seven typical

locations related to the maximum vertical run-up height R (vertical axis
is total force in the form of slamming coefficient Cs, introduced as F
normalized by 1=2ru2 A, and horizontal axis is normalized time, in-
troduced as t normalized by t, where u is crest velocity of incident
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiwave; A is cross-sectional area of the pile; t is given by t
solitary
5 h=g; h is elevation of the pile from sea bed; r is density of water;
and g is gravitational acceleration)
References
Apelt, C., and Piorewicz, J. (1987). “Laboratory studies of breaking wave
forces acting on vertical cylinders in shallow water.” Coastal Eng.,
11(3), 263–282.
Arntsen, Ø. A., Ros Collados, X., and Tørum, A. (2011). “Impact forces on
a vertical pile from plunging breaking waves.” Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on
Coastal Structures, World Scientific, Singapore, 533–544.

© ASCE A4014001-12 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech.
 Chan, E.-S., Cheong, H.-F., and Tan, B.-C. (1995). “Laboratory study of
plunging wave impacts on vertical cylinders.” Coast. Eng., 25(1–2),
87–107.
Chorin, A. J. (1968). “Numerical solution of the Navier-Stokes equations.”
Math. Comput., 22, 745–762.
FEMA. (2005). Final draft guidelines for coastal flood hazard analysis and
mapping for the Pacific Coast of the United States, Northwest Hydraulic
Consultants, Kent, WA.
Goda, Y., Haranaka, S., and Masahat, M. (1966). “Study on impulsive
breaking wave forces on piles.” Rep. No. 005-06, Port and Harbour
Technical Research Institute (PARI), Tokyo, 1–30 (in Japanese).
Hirt, C. W., and Nichols, B. D. (1981). “Volume of fluid (VOF) method for
the dynamics of free boundaries.” J. Comput. Phys., 39(1), 201–225.
Ingram, D. M., Causon, D. M., and Mingham, C. G. (2003). “Developments
in Cartesian cut cell methods.” Math. Comput. Simul., 61(3–6), 561–572.
Katz, G. (2013). “Hurricane-force gusts batter Britain, France and the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Netherlands: Travel delays reported.” Windsor Star, Æhttp://blogs
.windsorstar.com/2013/10/28/hurricane-force-gusts-batter-britain-france-
and-the-netherlands-travel-delays-reported/æ (Jul. 1, 2014).
Kriebel, D. L. (1992). “Nonlinear wave interaction with a vertical circular
cylinder. Part II: Wave run-up.” Ocean Eng., 19(1), 75–99.
Kriebel, D. L. (1998). “Nonlinear wave interaction with a vertical circular
cylinder: Wave forces.” Ocean Eng., 25(7), 597–605.
Larsen, J., and Dancy, H. (1983). “Open boundaries in short wave simu-
lations—A new approach.” Coast. Eng., 7(3), 285–297.
Launder, B. E., and Spalding, D. B. (1974). “The numerical computation
of turbulent flows.” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 3(2), 269–
289.
Lin, P., and Liu, P. L.-F. (1998). “A numerical study of breaking waves in
the surf zone.” J. Fluid Mech., 359(Mar.), 239–264.
© ASCE A4014001-13
J. Eng. Mech.
McCamy, R., and Fuchs, R. (1954). “Wave forces on piles: A diffrac-
tion theory.” Tech. Memo No. 69, Beach Erosion Board, U.S. COE,
Washington, DC.
Mo, W., Jensen, A., and Liu, P. L.-F. (2013). “Plunging solitary wave and
its interaction with a slender cylinder on a sloping beach.” Ocean Eng.,
74(Dec.), 48–60.
Morison, J. R., Johnson, J. W., and Schaaf, S. A. (1950). “The forces exerted
by surface waves on piles.” J. Pet. Technol., 2(5), 149–154.
Rider, W. J., and Kothe, D. B. (1998). “Reconstructing volume tracking.”
J. Comput. Phys., 141(2), 112–152.
Sapkaya, T., and Issacson, M. St. Q. (1981). Mechanics of wave forces on
offshore structures, Van Nostrand Reinold, New York.
Sawaragi, T., and Nochino, M. (1984). “Impact forces of nearly breaking
waves on a vertical circular cylinder.” Coast. Eng. Japan, 27(4),
249–263.
Synolakis, C. E. (1986). “The run-up of long waves.” Ph.D. thesis, California
Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
Tanimoto, K., Takahashi, S., Kaneco, T., and Shiota, K. (1987). “Impulsive
breaking wave forces on an inclined pile exerted by random waves.”
Proc., 20th Int. Conf. on Coastal Engineering, ASCE, New York, 2288–
2302.
Watanabe, A., and Horikawa, K. (1974). “Breaking wave forces on a large
diameter cell.” Proc., 14th Int. Conf. on Coastal Engineering, ASCE,
New York, 1741–1760.
Wienke, J., and Oumeraci, H. (2005). “Breaking wave impact force on
vertical and inclined slender pile—theoretical and large-scale model
investigations.” Coast. Eng., 52(5), 435–462.
Youngs, D. L. (1982). “Time-dependent multi-material flow with large fluid
distortion.” Numerical methods for fluid dynamics, K. W. Morton and
M. J. Baines, eds., Academic, New York, 273–285.
J. Eng. Mech.