187

2017,29(2):187-216
DOI: 10.1016/S1001-6058(16)60730-8

Smoothed particle hydrodynamics and its applications in fluid-structure

interactions*

A-man Zhang (张阿漫)1, Peng-nan Sun (孙鹏楠)1,2, Fu-ren Ming (明付仁)1, A. Colagrossi2
1. College of Shipbuilding Engineering, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin 150001, China,
E-mail: zhangaman@hrbeu.edu.cn
2. CNR-INSEAN, Marine Technology Research Institute, Rome, Italy

(Received November 24, 2016, Revised January 25, 2017)

Abstract: In ocean engineering, the applications are usually related to a free surface which brings so many interesting physical
phenomena (e.g. water waves, impacts, splashing jets, etc.). To model these complex free surface flows is a tough and challenging
task for most computational fluid dynamics (CFD) solvers which work in the Eulerian framework. As a Lagrangian and meshless
method, smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) offers a convenient tracking for different complex boundaries and a straightforward
satisfaction for different boundary conditions. Therefore SPH is robust in modeling complex hydrodynamic problems characterized
by free surface boundaries, multiphase interfaces or material discontinuities. Along with the rapid development of the SPH theory,
related numerical techniques and high-performance computing technologies, SPH has not only attracted much attention in the
academic community, but also gradually gained wide applications in industrial circles. This paper is dedicated to a review of the
recent developments of SPH method and its typical applications in fluid-structure interactions in ocean engineering. Different
numerical techniques for improving numerical accuracy, satisfying different boundary conditions, improving computational efficie-
ncy, suppressing pressure fluctuations and preventing the tensile instability, etc., are introduced. In the numerical results, various
typical fluid-structure interaction problems or multiphase problems in ocean engineering are described, modeled and validated. The
prospective developments of SPH in ocean engineering are also discussed.

Key words: Smoothed particle hydrodynamics, ocean engineering, fluid-structure interaction, bubble dynamics, underwater
explosion, hydrodynamics

Introduction ction to its typical applications in fluid-structure inte-

Smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) method
and its related variants have been developing as a new
generation of computational fluid mechanics (CFD)
solvers for complex hydrodynamic problems for deca-
des[1-9] and have been widely applied in a wide range
of engineering problems[10-17]. The present work is
devoted to a review of the recent developments and
achievements of SPH methodology and an introdu-
* Project supported by the National Natural Science Foun-
dation of China (Grant Nos. U1430236, 51609049), the China
Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant No. 2015M581432)
and the China Scholarship Council (CSC, Grant No.
201506680004).
Biography: A-man Zhang (1981-), Male, Ph. D., Professor
ractions in ocean engineering.
The distinctive features of the problems in ocean
engineering are mostly linked to the existence of a
free fluid surface (when the air phase is neglected) and
moving or deforming wall boundaries. To deal with
these kinds of problems, different numerical solvers
based on Eulerian, Lagrangian or Arbitrary Lagrangian
Eulerian (ALE) formulations are developed[18-21].
These numerical solvers are mesh-based or meshless.
The Eulerian mesh-based methods may demand com-
plex algorithms and huge computational costs in the
tracking of the free surface, especially in simulations
with drastic free surface splashing jets. While in the
Lagrangian mesh-based solvers, the fluid surface and
boundary are explicitly tracked. However, the proble-
ms of the Lagrangian mesh distortion and re-mesh in
some violent fluid-structure interaction problems may
become cumbersome. By contrast with the mesh-based
188
methods, in Lagrangian meshless methods, e.g. SPH[22]
or Moving Particle Semi-implicit method (MPS)[23],
inherently the complex algorithm of the free surface
tracking and the mesh distortion are avoided. The
Lagrangian motions of the material particles also
supply a convenient way for the analysis of the flow
features in a Lagrangian way, which is another merit
compared to the Eulerian methods[24,25]. As SPH is a
distinct representative of Lagrangian meshless metho-
ds and it has been widely applied in the field of
hydrodynamics recently. Moreover, it has been proven
in Souto-Iglesias et al.[26,27] and Shao and Gotho[28]
that SPH and MPS are closely related, or in other
words, equivalent, hereinafter our review and discu-
ssion are mainly based on SPH and its applications in
fluid-structure interaction problems in ocean enginee-
ring.
In the present review, the problems solved by
SPH are classified into two categories namely hydro-
dynamic problems (e.g. water-body interactions, water
impacts, water entries and exits, flow past bodies, etc.)
and explosion problems (e.g. underwater explosions,
contact explosions, etc.). The two categories of pro-
blems have obviously different features. For the for-
mer, the conservation of mass, momentum and energy
of the numerical solver is crucial for maintaining the
numerical accuracy and stability in a long-term simu-
lation, while for the latter, the fluid should be conside-
red as compressible and a large transient and violent
deformation of the structure (fluid boundary) are usua-
lly involved.
For long-term hydrodynamic problems, expen-
sive computational costs are usually encountered. To
obtain a fast and efficient simulation, on the one hand
the adoption of advanced computing platforms can be
crucial, recently different high performance computing
techniques, e.g. OpenMP[13,29], MPI[30,31], CUDA[32-34],
OpenCL[11] are introduced and applied in the frame-
work of SPH method to accelerate the computing. On
the other hand, different algorithms are also proposed
to reduce the amount of computation by SPH itself. In
the weakly-compressible SPH (WCSPH) method, e.g.
the well-known δ - SPH scheme, a fourth-order
Runge-Kutta time-integration is adopted, which allows
for a relatively large CFL coefficient for the time
step[35-37]. While in the Incompressible SPH (ISPH)
method[38-41], the time-step is not restricted by the
stability reason but by the accuracy reason[42,43]. The
time step of ISPH can be 5 times larger than WCSPH,
however in each time step, the ISPH requires a more
expensive computational cost due to the tracking of
the free surface particles[44] and the solving of the
Poisson equation[45]. Finally, after a compromise be-
tween the stability and accuracy, an equivalent efficie-
ncy can be achieved between WCSPH and ISPH[43].
Another cause that restricts the efficiency of SPH is
the request for a uniform particle distribution to sati-
sfy the conditions in the particle approximation, see
the theoretical analysis in Liu and Liu[46]. As has been
recently explored in Antuono et al.[47], only when the
particle distribution is in a sufficiently low disorder, a
convergence rate between 1 and 2 can be obtained.
This characteristic means that in SPH the multi-reso-
lution for the particle scale cannot be as straight-
forward as the adaptive mesh-refinement widely used
in the mesh-based CFD solvers[48]. However, recently
different numerical techniques are developed to add-
ress the adaptive particle refinement (APR)[49-51], in
which not only the total computational cost is reduced
but also the local accuracy is drastically improved.
The achievements of APR in SPH make the large scale
simulation, which is quite common in ocean enginee-
ring applications, become possible.
The explosion problem is another important
branch in the fluid-structure interaction problems in
ocean engineering, e.g. the high-velocity impact[52],
underwater explosion[53-56], contact explosion[16], etc.
In the simulation of these problems SPH can be more
reliable than other mesh-based solvers[46,56,57]. A pro-
per equation of state is important for these problems
since the fluid phases are usually regarded as com-
pressible. Besides, SPH approximation formulations
of high accuracy is also crucial since a large defor-
mation of the material is usually involved, such as the
fluid surface splashing, fragmentations, moving dis-
continuities, large inhomogeneity and structure fractu-
res. In these circumstances, perhaps the particles distri-
butions are quite disordered or the kernel functions
near the boundary can be truncated. Therefore, recen-
tly SPH equations of high accuracy[58-61] are developed
to resolve these problems.
To model the structure responses in fluid-structu-
re interactions, different methods have been developed.
The first way is to adopt an SPH-FEM cou-
pling[52,53,62-65]. The second way is to employ another
particle based method namely shell SPH to model the
structure[66,67]. The third way is to adopt an elastic
SPH model to model the response of an elastic stru-
cture. Recently, this technique has been widely ado-
pted in the sloshing or dam breaking problems con-
sidering an elastic baffle[68,69]. Finally, it is worth
mentioning in Yang et al.[70-72], a coupling method of
SPH and element bending group (EBG) is developed
for modeling the interaction between viscous flows
and flexible structures with free or fixed ends.
The consideration of the air phase above the fluid
surface is also highlighted in the present work. Indeed,
in most of the numerical simulations for free surface
flows, the air effect is not considered since it is diffi-
cult to treat and also brings more expensive computa-
tional cost. Recently, in Marrone et al.[73], it is pointed
out that energy evolutions can be similar when inclu-

ding or not the presence of air in a fluid-structure
simulation. However, from the experimental and
numerical studies[74,75], the air effect can be crucial in
some problems, e.g. the effect of the bubble oscilla-
tion on the load induced by liquid sloshing[76,77] or
dam breaking[78], the cavitation effect on the denuda-
tion of hydraulic equipment[79,80] and rising bubble
problems in the marine resource exploitations[17,81,82].
In the present work, multi-phase SPH formulatio-
ns[41,83-85] are reviewed and the surface tension effect
is considered[85,86]. A 3-D rising bubble benchmark
case will be considered as an example to validate the
multiphase SPH scheme.
1. The numerical models
1.1 Kernel and particle approximations
1.1.1 Classic SPH formulations
In SPH, a generic function f (r ) and its deriva-
tives at a general position denoted by the vector r
can be approximated with the kernel approximation by
integrating over the compact domain Ω as
f (r ) = ∫ f (r ′)W (r − r ′, h)d r ′
W
∇ r f (r ) = ∫ f (r ′)∇ rW (r − r ′, h)d r ′
W j
where ∇ r denotes the gradient with respect to r . r ′
denotes the positions all over Ω . W (r − r ′, h) is the
kernel function where h is named as the smoothing
length. The radius of Ω is equal to an integer mul-
tiple of h depending on the choice of kernel functions.
The kernel function must satisfy a number of condi-
tions, namely an even function, the normalization con-
dition, the Dirac delta function property and the com-
pact condition, for more details see Liu and Liu[46].
Due to the kernel properties, we have ∫ f (r ) ⋅
Ω
∇ rW (r − r ′, h)d r ′ = 0 . Therefore, the derivatives of
f (r ) can be written in the following two forms:
∇ r f (r ) = ∫ [ f (r ′) − f (r )]∇ rW (r − r ′, h)d r ′
W SPH simulations. An improved Gaussian kernel fun-
∇ r f (r ) = ∫ [ f (r ′) + f (r )]∇ rW (r − r ′, h)d r ′
W
In these Eqs.(2), we underline that the second equa-
tion is more suitable for the discretization of the mo-
mentum equation since it allows an anti-symmetric
property between r and r ′ which is crucial for
maintaining the momentum conservation when f (r )
represents pressure.
189
Similarly, the divergence of vector f ( x ) can
also be written as
∇ r ⋅ f (r ) = ∫ [ f (r ′) − f (r )] ⋅ ∇ rW (r − r ′, h)d r ′ (3a)
W
∇ r ⋅ f (r ) = ∫ [ f (r ′) + f (r )] ⋅ ∇ rW (r − r ′, h)d r ′ (3b)
W
In spite of the applicability of the second Eqs.(2)
to the momentum equation, the first equation is more
suitable for the discretization of the continuum equa-
tion. The reason is owing to the existence of a free
surface which makes the kernel function truncated, the
first equation decreases the errors introduced by the
kernel truncations, see more analysis in Colagrossi et
al.[87].
In SPH, the domain is usually discretized into
uniformly distributed particles. The particles carry all
the generic variables, e.g. pressure, density, velocity,
acceleration etc.. The continuous integration can be
approximated with the sum of finite particle volumes.
This process is named particle approximation[46].
Therefore, after a selection for these SPH approxima-
tion equations, the typical kernel approximations can
be rewritten in a particle approximation form as follo-
(1a) ws:
(1b) f (r i ) = ∑ f (rj )W (ri − rj , h)V j (4a)
∇i f (ri ) = ∑ [ f (rj ) + f (rj )]∇iW (ri − rj , h)V j (4b)
j
∇i ⋅ f (ri ) = ∑ [ f (rj ) − f (rj )] ⋅ ∇iW (ri − rj , h)V j (4c)
j
where the subscript i denotes the i - th particle, j
denotes the particle within the compactly supported
domain Ω of particle i . V j denotes the volume of
particle j . V j can be calculated by m j / ρ j , where
m and ρ denote particle mass and density respe-
ctively.
The selection of kernel function directly affects
(2a) the computational efficiency, accuracy and stability of
ction[84] was suggested for the simulation of free sur-
(2b) face flows and multiphase flows[17,82]. However, as
analyzed in Dehnen and Aly[88], the increase of N H
which is the number of neighbor particles may lead to
pairing (or clumping) instability. Dehnen and Aly have
recommended a series of kernels named Wendland
kernels. Regarding the determination of the smoothing
length, usually a ratio κ = h / ∆x ( ∆x is the initial
particle spacing) is adopted. We underline that for 2-D
190

problems, 50 particles in the neighboring domain is If we multiply both sides of Eq.(5) with ∂W (r ′ −
enough for an accurate simulation. It corresponds to r , h) / ∂x and ∂W (r ′ − r , h) / ∂y , integrating on Ω and
κ = 2 for the Wendland C2 kernel. In 3-D simula-
omitting the terms with seconder order derivatives, we
tions, 113 neighboring particles can be enough, which
have[60,61]
corresponds to κ = 1.5 for the Wendland C2 kernel.
∂W (r ′ − r , h) ∂W (r ′ − r , h)
1.1.2 SPH formulations of higher order of accuracy ∫WW
f (r ′)
∂x
d r ′ = f (r ) ∫
∂x
dr′ +
In some cases, the SPH approximations introdu-
ced above are not accurate enough or the errors con-
∂ f (r ) ∂W (r ′ − r , h)
verge to zero slowly, especially in the cases with
∂x ∫W
( x′ − x)
∂x
dr′ +
kernel truncations or disordered particle distributions.
In this part, SPH formulations with higher order of
accuracy are reviewed. Here we suggest several diffe- ∂ f (r ) ∂W (r ′ − r , h)
rent variants: normalization for the divergence app- ∂y W ∫ ( y′ − y)
∂x
d r ′ + O (h 2 ) (8)

roximation[89], corrected smoothed particle hydrodyna-

mics (CSPH)[60,90], finite particle method (FPM)[7,59] and
and kernel gradient free SPH (KGF-SPH)[91]. The
similarity of these variants is they can be derived by ∂W (r ′ − r , h) ∂W (r ′ − r , h)
the adoption of the Taylor series. Here we use a 2-D ∫WW
f (r ′)
∂y
d r ′ = f (r ) ∫
∂y
dr′ +
case for instance. The Taylor series expansion with
the first order completeness is ∂ f (r ) ∂W (r ′ − r , h)
∂x ∫W
( x′ − x)
∂y
dr′ +
∂ f (r ) ∂ f (r )
f (r ′) = f (r ) + ( x′ − x) + ( y ′ − y ) + O (h 2 )
∂x ∂y ∂ f (r ) ∂W (r ′ − r , h)
(5) ∂y ∫W
( y′ − y)
∂y
d r ′ + O (h 2 ) (9)

where x and y are the two components in x and

Solving Eq.(8) and Eq.(9) together we have
y directions of the vector r .
(1) The corrected smoothed particle hydrodyna-  ∂ f (r )   ∂W (r ′ − r , h) 
mics (CSPH)  ∂x   ∂x 
CSPH operators have been widely applied in SPH   = ∫ [ f (r ′) − f (r )] M −1   dr′
simulations. A typical one is the evaluation of the gra-  ∂ f (r )  W  ∂W (r ′ − r , h) 
dient of the density used in the δ - term in the well-  ∂y   ∂y 
known δ - SPH scheme[92]. Similar to what was done (10)
in Jiang et al.[60], if we multiply both sides of Eq.(5)
with W (r ′ − r , h) , integrate on Ω and we have where

 ∂W (r ′ − r , h)
∫WW f (r ′)W (r ′ − r , h)d r ′ = f (r ) ∫ W (r ′ − r , h)d r ′ +  ∫W ( x′ − x) ∂x
dr′
M =
 ( x′ − x) ∂W (r ′ − r , h) d r ′
 ∫Ω
∂ f (r )
∂x ∫W
( x′ − x)W (r ′ − r , h)d r ′ + ∂y

∂ f (r ) ∂W (r ′ − r , h) 
∂y ∫W
( y ′ − y )W (r ′ − r , h)d r ′ + O (h 2 ) (6) ∫W ( y′ − y) ∂x
d r ′
 (11)
∂W (r ′ − r , h) 
By omitting the terms with derivatives of f (r ) , we ∫W ( y′ − y) ∂y
dr′

obtain the interpolation formulation for f (r ) with the
first order accuracy as And therefore we have corrected kernel derivatives
allowing a second order accuracy as follows

f (r ) =
∫W f (r ′)W (r ′ − r , h)d r ′ (7)  ∂W C (r ′ − r , h)   ∂W (r ′ − r , h) 
∫W W (r ′ − r , h)d r ′ 
 ∂x
 
 = M −1  ∂x 
 (12)
 ∂W (r ′ − r , h)   ∂W (r ′ − r , h) 
C
Equation (7) is often used to filter the density fluctua-  
∂y  ∂y 
tion in WCSPH[93].  
 191

Equation (10) has the second order accuracy even for FPM allows a second order accuracy for both f (r )
a truncated kernel function or in a disordered particle and its gradients for internal and boundary particles
distribution. Since the Eq.(12) cannot ensure a sym- alike. In case only derivatives of the f (r ) are needed,
metric property between r and r ′ , it is not often the differences of accuracy and stability between
adopted for the discretization of the governing equa- Eq.(10) and Eq.(13) still need further investigations.
tions. However Eq.(10) is often employed for the cal- Although here the formulations are merely derived in
culation of the gradients, for example in vorticity, 2-D, they can be extended straightforwardly to 3-D.
diffusive terms or deformation gradients in the evalua- (3) The kernel gradient free SPH (KGF-SPH)
tion of finite time lyapunov exponent (FTLE), see e.g. method derived based on CSPH and FPM
in Sun et al.[24]. Recently, another kernel interpolation formula-
(2) The finite particle method (FPM) tion has been developed[94]. In that method, the kernel
FPM can be regarded as an improvement of derivatives are never used, which helps to make the
CSPH introduced in the previous subsection[58,59]. In kernel interpolation free from the choice of kernel
FPM, for a 2-D case, Eqs.(6), (8) and (9) are solved functions since for some kernels, the derivatives are
together. With three equations and three unknowns, not as smooth as the kernel functions themselves. This
we have technique was initially named symmetric smoothed
particle hydrodynamics (SSPH) method, based on
    which Jiang et al.[60] developed a mixed corrected
 f (r )   W ( r ′ − r , h)  SSPH (MC-SSPH) and Huang et al.[91] developed a
   
 ∂ f (r )  −1  ∂W ( r ′ − r , h) 
kernel gradient free (KGF) SPH method. Recently, Xu
 ∂x  = ∫W f (r ′) N  ∂x  dr′ (13) et al.[95] extended this technique to 3-D dam breaking
    problems. Hereinafter, as long as the gradient of the
 ∂ f (r )   ∂W (r ′ − r , h)  kernel function is not used, similar to Huang et al.[91],
 ∂y   ∂y  this group of SPH variants is simply called KGF-SPH.
Instead of multiplying both side of Eq.(5) with
where ∂W (r ′ − r , h) / ∂x and ∂W (r ′ − r , h) / ∂y , in the KGF-
SPH, ( x′ − x)W (r ′ − r , h) and ( y ′ − y )W (r ′ − r , h) is
 adopted. Consequently, Eq.(8) and Eq.(9) is updated
 ∫ W (r ′ − r , h)d r ′ ∫ ( x′ − x)W (r ′ − r , h)d r ′
 WW by
 ∂W (r ′ − r , h) ′ ∂W (r ′ − r , h)
N = ∫ d r ∫ ( x′ − x) dr′

WW ∂x ∂x ∫WW
f (r ′)( x′ − x)W (r ′ − r , h)d r ′ = f (r ) ∫ ( x′ − x) ⋅
 ∂W (r ′ − r , h) d r ′ ∂W (r ′ − r , h)
 ∫WW ∫ ( x′ − x ) dr′ ∂ f (r )
∂y ∂y
∂x ∫W
W (r ′ − r , h)d r ′ + ( x′ − x) 2 W (r ′ − r , h)d r ′ +


∂ f (r )
∫W ( y′ − y)W (r ′ − r , h)d r ′ 
 ∂y ∫W
( y ′ − y )( x′ − x)W (r ′ − r , h)d r ′ + O (h 2 )
∂W (r ′ − r , h) 
∫W ( y′ − y) ∂x
d r ′ (14) (16)

∂W (r ′ − r , h)  and
∫W ( y′ − y) ∂y
dr′

∫WW
f (r ′)( y ′ − y )W (r ′ − r , h)d r ′ = f (r ) ∫ ( y ′ − y ) ⋅
and therefore we have the modified kernel function
and its derivatives as follows ∂ f (r )
∂x ∫W
W (r ′ − r , h)d r ′ + ( x′ − x)( y ′ − y )W (r ′ −
   
 W C 2 ( r ′ − r , h)   W ( r ′ − r , h)  ∂ f (r )
∂y ∫W
    r , h)d r ′ + ( y ′ − y ) 2 W (r ′ − r , h)d r ′ + O (h 2 )
 ∂W C 2 (r ′ − r , h)  −1  ∂W ( r ′ − r , h) 
 ∂x =N  ∂x  (15) (17)
   
 ∂W (r ′ − r , h)   ∂W (r ′ − r , h) 
C2
Solving Eq.(16) and Eq.(17) together, we obtain the
 
 ∂y   ∂y  kernel gradient free CSPH equations
192

 ∂ f (r )  
 ∂x  ∫W ( y′ − y)W (r ′ − r , h)d r ′ 
  = ∫ [ f (r ′) − f (r )]( M ′) −1 ⋅
 ∂ f (r )  Ω ∫W ( y′ − y)( x′ − x)W (r ′ − r , h)d r ′ (22)
 ∂y  
∫W ( y′ − y) W (r ′ − r , h)d r ′ 
2

 ( x′ − x)W (r ′ − r , h)  and therefore we have the kernel function and its deri-
( y ′ − y )W (r ′ − r , h)  d r ′ (18)
vatives allowing a second order accuracy as follows
 

where  
 W C 2′ ( x ′ − x , h ) 
   W ( x ′ − x , h) 

′
M =  ∫W
( x′ − x)2 W (r ′ − r , h)d r ′  ∂W C 2′ ( x ′ − x , h) 
  = ( N ′) −1 
 ( x ′ − x )W ( x ′ − x , h ) 

 ( x′ − x)( y ′ − y )W (r ′ − r , h)d r ′  ∂ x 
 ∫W C 2′
( y ′ − y )W ( x ′ − x , h) 
 ∂W ( x ′ − x , h) 
 ∂y 
 
∫W ( y′ − y)( x′ − x)W (r ′ − r , h)d r ′ (19)
(23)
∫W ( y′ − y) W (r ′ − r , h)d r ′ 
2
KGF-SPH is suitable for a wide range of kernel fun-
ctions[60,61]. Besides, as stated in Jiang et al.[60], the
and therefore we have kernel derivatives allowing a corrective matrices M ′ and N ′ are symmetric, which
second order accuracy for the generic gradient appro- helps to improve the numerical stability. Moreover,
ximations as follows the symmetric matrices help to save storage require-
ment as stated in Xu et al.[96].
 ∂W C ′ (r ′ − r , h)  With the kernel interpolation of second order
  ( x′ − x)W (r ′ − r , h)  accuracy, it is straightforward to extend these con-
 ∂x  = ( M ′)−1   (20) tinuous equations to discretized particle approxima-
( y ′ − y )W (r ′ − r , h) 
′
 ∂W (r ′ − r , h) 
C
tions, as been done in Eq.(4). Due to the limitation of
 ∂y 
  the paper length, for more details the readers can refer
to Refs.[60,61,95,96].
And similarly if we solve Eq.(6), Eq.(16) and Eq.(17) In spite of the higher accuracy of the equations
together, we obtain the kernel gradient free FPM as aforementioned, the governing equations are still dis-
follows cretized by classic SPH interpolating formulations in
most of the literature. The reason why the classic SPH
  formulations are mostly adopted is their superior pro-
 f (r )  perties of conservation and stability. The traditional
   W ( r ′ − r , h)  kernel and its derivatives are symmetric between the
 ∂ f (r )  −1  
 ∂x  = ∫W f (r ′)( N ′)  ( x′ − x)W (r ′ − r , h)  d r ′ particle pair, therefore the mass, momentum are stri-
  ( y ′ − y )W (r ′ − r , h)  ctly conserved, for example, in standard SPH and δ -
 ∂ f (r )  SPH. The matrices used to correct the kernels can be
 ∂y  singular when the kernel is truncated severely, which
(21) is harmful to the numerical stability.

where 1.2 Governing equations

 1.2.1 Governing equations for the fluid evolution

 ∫W W (r ′ − r , h)d r ′ (1) Classic governing equations: Form 1
N ′ =  ∫ ( x′ − x)W (r ′ − r , h)d r ′ Here we recall a set of governing equations which
 W are applicable for both free surface and multiphase
 ( y ′ − y )W (r ′ − r , h)d r ′
 ∫W flows as follows:

Dρi
= ρi ∑ (ui − u j ) ⋅ ∇iWijV j (24a)
∫W ( x′ − x)W (r ′ − r , h)d r ′ Dt j

∫W ( x′ − x) W (r ′ − r , h)d r ′
2

Dui 1
∫W ( x′ − x)( y ′ − y )W (r ′ − r , h)d r ′ Dt
=−
ρi
∑( p
j
i + p j )∇iWijV j +
 193

ρ0 mi
α hc0 ∑π ∇ W V + g
ρi j ij i ij j
(24b) ρi =
Vi
(25a)

Dri
= ui (24c) D ui 1  1
dt
Dt
= −
ρi  Vi
∑ j
( piVi 2 + p jV j2 )∇iWij + FiV +

(ui − u j ) ⋅ (ri − rj )
pi = p ( ρi ) , πij = (24d)
2
ri − rj + (0.01h) 2 Fi S ] + g (25b)

Equations (24) is based on the kernel approximation cl 2 ρ0l  ρi 

γl

and particle approximation introduced in Section 1.1.1. pli =   − 1 + pb (25c)
We underline that in the continuity equation, the γ l  ρ 0 l  

divergence for the velocity is calculated based on the
velocity difference ui − u j between the neighboring cg 2 ρ 0 g  ρ i 
gg

pgi =   − 1 + pb (25d)
particles while in the momentum equation, the pre- g g  ρ0 g 
ssure gradient is based on the pressure summation   
pi + p j . The reason is due to the kernel truncation on
2hih j (ri − rj ) ⋅ ∇iWij (ui − u j )
the free surface, as stated in Section 1.1.1 and more FiV = ∑ j (Vi 2 + V j2 )
details can be found in Colagrossi et al.[87]. (hi + h j ) 2
ri − rj + (ε h) 2 Vi
The second term on the right hand-side of the (25e)
momentum is an artificial viscosity, in which α is
the coefficient to smooth the velocity field. c0 is the
Fi S
= βd
∑ (nˆ − j nˆ ) ⋅ ∇ W V
j i i
j
j i ij j
∇ ci (25f)
artificial speed of sound, determined by the weakly-
compressible hypothesis as c0 ≥ 10 max(U max , ∑ r −r ⋅ ∇W V
j i j i ij j

pmax / ρ0 ) where U max and pmax are the expected
maximum velocity and pressure. For a viscous pro-
blem, α hc0 can be replaced by 2(d + 2)ν where d
is the spatial dimension and ν is the kinetic viscosity.
For an inviscid flow, the determination of α is usua-
lly set to ensure a local Reynolds number Reh =
U max h /ν  O (10) for stability reasons[13,37]. The
linearized equation of state written as pi = c 2 ( ρi − ρ0 )
can be adopted under the weakly compressible regime.
ρ0 is the reference density when the particle is on the
free surface with a zero pressure.
Equations (24) can be used in either the free sur-
face flows or multiphase flows, some applications can
be seen in Colagrossi and Landrini[22]. In the present
work, Eqs.(24) are mainly employed for simulations
of free surface flows, e.g. wave propagations, wave-
body interactions, etc.. For the multiphase flow, we
recall another set of formulations in the following sub-
section.
(2) Governing equations for multiphase flows:
Form 2
The second form of governing equations shown
in the following is established for the simulation of
multiphase flows without a free surface. The formula-
tions read as:
Vi ≈ ∑ j χ ijV j = ∑ j
Wij
Vj =
∑ WV
j ij j

σ (ri ) σ (ri )
In Eqs.(25), a particle interpolation for the volume is
adopted and the density is updated using ρi = mi / Vi ,
therefore the density approximation is free from the
restriction of the large density difference near the mul-
tiphase interface[83]. The momentum equation can be
derived based on the principle of virtual work (PVW),
as shown in Grenier et al.[84] and Zhang et al.[17]. The
equation of state for the denser phase is denoted by
the subscript l and that for the lighter phase is deno-
ted by the subscript g where γ l = 7 and g g = 1.4
are usually adopted as proposed in Colagrossi et al.[22].
ρ0l and ρ0 g are the reference density when the pre-
ssure p is equal to pb which is the background pre-
ssure used to prevent the SPH specific numerical in-
stability, namely tensile instability, and keep the parti-
cles distributing uniformly[82,85].
The viscous force FiV is calculated with the
method proposed in Hu and Adams[83]. On the mul-
tiphase interface, the dynamic viscous coefficient is
calculated using the harmonic mean value as ηij =
2ηηηη
i j /( i + j ) . The surface tension Fi
S
can be do-
minant in some cases, e.g. the small scale bubbly
flows. Here the surface tension formulation proposed
in Adami et al.[86] is recommended. A variant of the
normalized divergence operator similar to the CSPH
1
, introduced in Section 1.1.2 is applied for the curvature
σ (ri ) calculation of the water-air interface, but here the ma-
 194

trix inverse is avoided thanks to the mathematical During the expansion of the explosive gas, the
work done in Adami et al.[86]. In Fi S , β is the sur- smoothing length needs to be updated according to
face tension coefficient. nˆi is the unit normal vector dh 1 h dρ
=− (30)
calculated as nˆi = ∇ci / ∇ci , where the color function dt d ρ dt
cij is defined as follows:
Different from the equation of state for free surface
2 ρi flows, the state equation for explosion problems should
cij = if particle i and j belong to consider also the inner energy, thus real sound speed
ρi + ρ j
of the fluid material should be adopted. For the water
modeling, Gruneisen form of the equation of state
different phase (26a)
should be adopted[57]. The standard Jones-Wilkins-Lee
(JWL) state equation is employed to model the produ-
cij = 0 if particle i and j belong to the same phase
cts of explosion. If the material strength is considered
(26b) for modeling the structure responses in contact explo-
sions or high velocity impact (HIV) problems, the
and ∇ci is calculated as Mie-Gruneisen equation of state for solid mechani-
cs[16,98] can be applied. The Johnson-Cook yield model
1 cii + cij can be employed to evaluate the dynamic yield stress
∇ ci
=
Vi
∑ j
(Vi 2 + V j2 )
2
∇iWij (27)
and the von Mises yield criterion is used to determine
whether the solid material yields or no[57,99].
ji j was defined in Zhang et al.[17] to inverse the nor- (4) Governing equations of higher accuracy: Form
4
mal directions for different fluid phases on both sides
The main difference between form 4 and the
of the interface as
forms 1-3 is the adoption of the kernel gradients. As
reviewed in Section 1.1.2, the KGF-SPH[91] can be
ji j = −1 if particle i and j belong to
derived based on CSPH or FPM. The kernel gradient
different phase (28a) ∇Ci 2′Wij are used to replace the kernel gradients in
Eqs.(24) to discretize the continuity equation and mo-
ji j = 1 if particle i and j belong to the same phase mentum equation. Many applications using these gove-
(28b) rning equations such as dam-breaking flows[95], 3-D
transient generalized Newtonian free surface flows[61]
In Eqs.(25), a summation density is adopted, it leads are published recently.
to kernel truncation near the boundary. But if we In summary, for governing equations, form 1 is
arrange air particles above the fluid surface, it can still widely used for various applications, particularly sui-
be applied for the simulation of flows with a water-gas table for free surface flows in ocean engineering, form
surface[85], but that brings about more expensive com- 2 is widely used for multiphase flows and form 3 is
putational costs. Regarding the the multi-phase model widely used to model HIV or underwater explosions.
in the framework of ISPH, see more in the paper by The form 4 allows of a higher accuracy in the simu-
Shao[41]. lations particular when the kernel truncation is trun-
(3) Governing equations for explosion problems: cated. In Jiang et al.[60], it is shown that with the MC-
Form 3 SSPH model, the modeling of rotating square obtains
For explosion problems like underwater explo- a more uniform particle arrangement and for the
sions in free field, underwater contact explosions, the deformation of the fluid patch, a smoother vorticity
continuity and momentum equations have the same field can be achieved with respect to traditional SPH
form with Eqs.(24). The main differences lie in the models. But since the symmetric characteristic, i.e.
equation of state which takes into account the inner
∇Ci 2′Wij = −∇Cj 2′Wij , is lost, with respect to the classic
energy. In addition, the variating smoothing length[97]
due to the big compressibility of the fluid phase is also kernel gradients, it is difficult for the kernel gradient
considered. The energy equation is written as ∇Ci 2′Wij to ensure a strict conservation of mass and
Dei 1 momentum for a long term simulation with a disorde-
=
Dt 2 ρi
∑( p i + p j )(ui − u j ) ⋅ ∇iWijV j − red free surface deformation. In addition, the treat-
j
ment for the singularity of the corrective matrix is still
an open problem. Therefore, for engineering applica-
ρ0
α hc0
2 ρi
∑π
j
ij (ui − u j ) ⋅ ∇iWijV j (29) tions, the first three forms are mostly used at the pre-
sent stage and form 4 still needs further investigations
 195

in different benchmark cases[50].
1.2.2 Governing equations for the rigid body motions
The governing equations for the motions of six
degrees of freedom (6-DOF) of the solid body are
expressed as follows[100,101]:
M U x = Fxfluid −solid + g , M U y = Fyfluid −solid + g ,
M U z = Fzfluid −solid + g
I x Ωx − ( I y − I z )Ω y Ωz = Txfluid −solid
I y Ω y − ( I z − I x )Ωz Ωx = Tyfluid −solid
I z Ωz − ( I x − I y )Ωx Ω y = Tzfluid −solid
rG = U , θ = Ω
where U = (U x ,U y ,U z ) Ω = (Ωx , Ωy , Ωz )
and
denote the transitional and angular velocity for the
solid body in different axis components. θ denotes
the vector of angle of rotation. M and
I = ( I x , I y , I z ) refer to the total mass and moment of
inertia with respect to the gravity center G . The
1.3 Techniques for preventing high frequency pressure
fluctuations
In WCSPH, since the fluid is assumed to be
weakly compressible and an equation of state is ado-
pted to link pressure and density, the pressure field is
very sensitive to the density oscillations, which leads
to a main challenging issue in the WCSPH model. In
the last decades, several remedies have been proposed
to smooth the pressure field. Recently, a comprehen-
sive study is also carried out in Cercos-Pita et al.[104]
(31) to study the diffusive terms. In the present section,
some widely used numerical techniques are reviewed.
(32a)
1.3.1 The density filtering technique
The density filtering is an efficient way to re-
(32b) move high frequency density oscillations. Generally,
there are two widely adopted techniques respectively
(32c) with the first order and second order accuracy. The
former uses the Shepard kernel interpolation[93] and
the latter uses the well-known MLS interpolation[22,29].
(33) Moreover, generally for multiphase flows, the pre-
vious mentioned techniques are not applicable. How-
ever, recently a novel idea was proposed by Chen et
al.[78], in which the pressure filter technique based on
the Shepard kernel was modified as
ρinew =
∑ W m
j ij j
 j = ρ jV j , ρ j =
, m
p j − pb
+ ρi 0
∑ WV
j ij j ci2

function f denotes a time derivative of a generic (36)

variable f .
where ρ j is the density recalculated based on the pre-
Similar to Kajtar and Monaghan[102] and Bous-
casse et al.[37], the approximations of the forces and ssure of particle j but the speed of sound of particle
moments on the solid body are derived based on the i . The novel idea overcomes the limitation of the dra-
momentum balance between the fluid and solid body stic density difference across the multiphase interface.
particles as follows:
1.3.2 The Rusanov flux
mi m j Although the density filtering technique supplies
Ffluid-solid = ∑ ∑ α c0 h ρ0 ij ) ⋅ ∇iWij
( pi + p j -p
ρi ρ j
a useful way to smooth the pressure field, it has two
i∈fluid j∈solid
drawbacks. The first one is that it cannot satisfy the
(34) volume conservation since the hydrostatic component
can be improperly filtered[105]. The second drawback
i + j
mi m j  ρρ  is its additional computational cost which requests
Tfluid-solid = ∑ ∑ 
i∈fluid j∈solid ρi ρ j  2
- ρG  ×
another loop throughout all the particles. Considering

this point, in many works, the density filtering is con-
ducted every 20 time steps[22]. In this subsection, the
[( pi + p j − α c0 h ρ0 pij )∇iWij ] (35)
Rusanov flux is recalled to smooth the density field
which benefits also the pressure distribution. One
where rG is the position vector of the gravity center. merit is its value can be calculated along with the
For the coupling algorithm between the fluid and body density derivatives avoiding the apparent increase of
particles can refer to Bouscasse et al.[37] when a fixed computational cost.
ghost particle boundary is implemented and to Guo et Vila[106] and Lanson[107] used the Riemann solvers
al.[101] when a dummy particle boundary is adopted. to evaluate a numerical flux between the neighboring
When an ISPH model is adopted, two different kinds particles, but it leads to superabundant numerical
of coupling algorithms can be found in Shao and diffusion. Ferrari et al.[108] proposed to consider diffu-
Gotoh[103] and Liu et al.[38]. sion based on Rusanov flux only in the continuity
196
equation, which significantly reduces the numerical
viscosity while still allows a smooth pressure distribu-
tion. The formulation is written as
Dri
= ri ∑ (ui − u j ) ⋅ ∇iWijV j + DiFerrari
Dt j
rj − ri
D i
Ferrari
= c0 ∑ ( rr
j − i) ⋅ ∇iWijV j
j rj − ri
The Rusanov flux is independent of any artificial
parameters, which therefore makes the scheme con-
venient to be applied in different applications. How-
ever, in long term simulations, similar to the first
order density filtering technique, the Rusanov flux
cannot preserve the hydrostatic equilibrium either[35,36].
The main reason is the inconsistency due to the singu-
larity of the density approximation close to the free
surface[104].
1.3.3 The δ - term
To maintain the hydrostatic equilibrium in long
term simulations, the well-known δ - SPH was propo-
sed[35,36]. When the δ - term is taken into account, the
continuity equation becomes
Dρi
= ρi ∑ (ui − u j ) ⋅ ∇iWijV j + Diδ
Dt j boundary or no-slip boundary. In both the two diffe-
(rj − ri ) ⋅ ∇iWij
Diδ = δ hc0 ∑ψ ij 2
Vj
j rj − ri
L L
ψ ij = 2( ρ j − ρi ) − ( ∇ρ + ∇ρ i ) ⋅ (ρρ
j − i)
j late the generic variables from the fluid particles to
L
where ∇ρ is a renormalized gradient of the den-
sity using the corrected kernel gradients in Section
1.1.2. With the second term on right-hand side in ψ ij ,
the singularity caused by the kernel truncation on the
free surface is avoided. δ is not a free altered para-
meter which is usually set at 0.1. The δ - term is an
improved version of the so-called simple procedure to
stabilize the pressure as proposed in Molteni and
Colagrossi[105].
1.3.4 Techniques adopted in ISPH or MPS models
The pressure fluctuation is also a major issue in
ISPH or MPS models. The error-compensating source
term[109] and higher-order Laplacian formulation[110]
developed by Khayyer and Gotoh in Kyoto University
are widely used. Besides, the hybrid PPE source
term[39,40] is also effective in reducing the pressure
noise.
1.4 Boundary conditions
In SPH, many efforts have also been devoted to
the implementation of boundary conditions. Generally,
the boundary conditions in hydrodynamics can be
mainly divided into two categories: free surface boun-
(37a) dary and solid wall boundary.
1.4.1 Free surface boundary
For the free surface flows, two conditions (kine-
(37b)
matic and dynamic conditions) have to be satisfied on
the free surface[87,111]:
(1) The fluid particle initially on the free surface
should be always on the free surface, except for the
water wave rolling and impact.
(2) The pressure on the free surface is equal to the
background/atmosphere pressure.
The two above mentioned conditions can be im-
plicitly satisfied in the framework of WCSPH if pro-
per governing equations are adopted as discussed in
Colagrossi et al.[87]. However, in ISPH or MPS, it is
another story in which the free surface should be pre-
cisely detected and a free surface condition (dynamic
condition) should be imposed. At present, several good
algorithms have been proposed to detect the free sur-
face particles[28,44,112-115].
1.4.2 Solid wall boundary
Regarding the solid wall boundary conditions,
they can be divided into two categories: free slip
(38a)
rent boundary conditions, a non-penetration condition
has to be satisfied. To achieve this goal, usually two
(38b) manners are adopted. The first one is to use a surface
integral on the boundary to satisfy the boundary con-
dition and the second one is to distribute ghost parti-
cles on and inside the boundary surface and extrapo-
(38c)
these ghost particles. In the first category of boundary
treatment, the well-known techniques are normal flux
method[116] and the so called unified semi-analytical
wall boundary condition[117]. It is worth noting that the
normal flux method has been successfully applied to
discretize the irregular ship hull in the simulation of
bow breaking waves in 3-D[30]. The well-known repul-
sive force boundary can also be classified into this
category since the repulsive force works in a similar
way to the boundary integral term[118] but it lacks con-
sistency. In the second category where ghost particles
are distributed, there are plenty of different techniques
published. The simplest one is the mirroring ghost
boundary as proposed in Cummins and Rudman[119]
and Colagrossi and Landrini[22], however it is only
restricted to the applications with regular shaped boun-
dary shapes. In order to improve the mirroring ghost
boundary, fixed ghost boundary was proposed in
Marrone et al.[92]. A MLS interpolation is used to
interpolate the fluid properties from the fluid particles

to the interpolation point, which matches the fixed
ghost particles one by one. The procedure for the
implementation of the fixed ghost boundary is rela-
tively tough, especially in 3-D cases. Therefore, pro-
cedures with a more convenient way in interpolating
the fluid properties to the boundary are proposed. In
Adami et al.[120], a generalized wall boundary condi-
tion was proposed and has been applied in many
ocean engineering applications, see examples in
Refs.[15]. In Liu et al.[121], beside the dummy particles
(or ghost particles) inside the boundary surface, a
layer of boundary particle is also distributed along the
boundary surface to prevent the particle penetrations.
This method was named the coupled dynamic SBT
algorithm. This technique was successfully applied in
problems of water entry and exit[122] and sloshing[90].
Recently, it is shown in Cercos-Pita et al.[123] the
presence of some extra terms from the ghost particles
does not affect the consistency of the SPH model,
which further proves that using ghost particles to
model the wall boundary is reliable.
The difference between free-slip boundary and
no-slip boundary lies in the implementation of viscous
force. In order to satisfy the free-slip condition, the
viscous force is imposed to be zero for a particle pair
in which the two particles are respectively fluid and
boundary particles[120]. While in the implementation of
a no-slip boundary, the viscous force evaluation be-
tween fluid and boundary should be carefully add-
ressed. Up to now, different techniques have been
proposed concerning the accuracy, consistency, stabi-
lity and operability for regular or irregular boundary
shapes in 2-D or 3-D. Maciá et al.[124] carried out a
theoretical analysis of the no-slip boundary condition
enforcement in SPH methods. Four different exten-
sions of the velocity from fluid to boundary particles
were investigated, namely, dummy particles fixed
boundary velocity (U0M)[125], ghost particles with
antisymmetric mirroring (ASM)[120], the Takeda et
al.[126] imaginary particles and symmetric mirroring
technique (SSM)[13]. They proposed a renormalized
Takeda extension permitting a consistent redefinition
such that all the operators converge to the correct
values. However, as was pointed out in Marrone et
al.[13] the local inconsistency does not jeopardize the
consistency of global quantities. This means that in
practical applications, ASM and SSM are also app-
licable when the particle resolution is fine enough, see
also the applications in Sun et al.[50].
1.4.3 Inflow and outflow boundary
Inflow and outflow boundary conditions are esse-
ntial for the applications in ocean engineering. A
representative example is the study of flow past solid
bodies. Free stream flow past the bluff body leads to a
periodical shedding of vortices which may induce
vibrations being harmful to the ocean structures. In the
197
WCSPH framework, the inflow-outflow boundary is
relatively convenient to be implemented. The techni-
que proposed in Federico et al.[127] is the most widely
adopted, see the applications in Refs.[13,24,50]. Rece-
ntly in Kazemi et al.[128], another algorithm is propo-
sed. In the SPH model where semi-analytical condi-
tions and Riemann solver are adopted, an unsteady
open boundary was proposed in Ferrand et al.[129].
Recently, in the framework of ISPH, different open
boundaries are also proposed in Refs.[130-132]. It is
worth noting that when the Lagrangian Coherent Stru-
cture is detected inside the flow, some modifications
should be made on the inflow boundary in order to
evaluate the FTLE, see more details in Sun et al.[24].
1.4.4 Non-reflection boundary
(1) Sponge layer
As described in Lastiwka et al.[133], the pressure
wave due to the fluid compressibility reflecting on the
boundary and propagating back to the interior fluid
domain is a non-physical behavior since they should
propagate freely across the boundary. A sponge layer
can be implemented near the stationary solid boundary
wall with a certain thickness s to prevent the non-
physical pressure wave reflection. This sponge layer
was originally used in Gong et al.[12] and then applied
by Sun et al.[15] in water entry problems. For the fluid
particles inside the sponge layer, the time derivatives
of the density and velocity should be multiplied with a
term as
 Dρi  50 λ  Dρ 
 Dt  = (1 − 100−0.9 )  i  (39a)
 sponge  Dt 
 Dui  50 λ  Du 
 Dt  = (1 − 100−0.9 )  i  (39b)
 sponge  Dt 
where λ is defined as λ = ( s − d ) / s , d is the dis-
tance between the fluid particles i and the solid
boundary wall.
(2) Improving viscosity near the wall boundary
The sponge layer works well for preventing spu-
rious pressure wave reflection, however in the simu-
lation of the propagation of gravity water waves, the
reflection of the wave can also be damped by im-
proving the viscosity near the wall boundary. This
technique has been very well adopted in Wen et al.[134].
(3)Non-reflecting Boundary condition
When an inflow and outflow boundary is imple-
mented, the sponge layer introduced previously is not
applicable. Therefore in this circumstance, non-refle-
cting boundary condition introduced in Lastiwka et
al.[133] is recommended.
1.4.5 Particle packing technique
For the fluid-solid interactions with irregular
198
boundary shapes, the arrangement of the initial parti-
cle distribution close to the solid wall boundary can-
not be trivial. If the particles are not very well distri-
buted initially, spurious pressure waves can be genera-
ted due to the particle resettlements. Thanks to the
particle packing technique proposed in Colagrossi et
al.[135], a uniform particle distribution around the solid
wall boundary can be obtained. In Fig.1, the particle
distribution around a submarine shape is shown after
particle packing algorithm was used. The zoom view
on the right-hand side of the same figure demonstrates
a uniform particle distribution around the model stern
with a complex configuration.
Fig.1 The particle arrangement surrounding the submarine
shape after the using of the particle packing algorithm[135]
1.5 Adaptive-particle resolution
In order to well reproduce the physical pheno-
mena in ocean engineering applications, a sufficiently
fine particle resolution should be imposed. For exa-
mple, in the numerical simulation of wave propaga-
tions, it was shown in Antuono et al.[136] that particle
number of the order of 10 should be distributed in the
wave height to avoid overdamping and achieve a con-
vergent solution. Another example is in the simulation
of flow past a bluff body. In order to obtain a con-
vergent evaluation of the force on the body, in parti-
cular for reproducing the viscous force in the boun-
dary layer, a particle resolution of D / Dx ≥ 80 should
be distributed with D being the “projected frontal
side” of the rigid body, see more in Marrone et al.[13].
However in these cases, the fluid domain is quite large
in order to mimic the free stream and therefore the
adoption of single particle resolution leads to very
expensive computational costs.
In the mesh-based methods, e.g. FDM[137], the
adaptive mesh scales are usually adopted, which im-
proves the accuracy in local areas but reduces the total
computational cost due to the reduction of grid ele-
ments.
In SPH, due to the Lagrangian trajectory of the
particle, to achieve an adaptive-particle resolution is
not as straightforward as what done in mesh-based
methods. Despite the difficulty, special treatments are
developed in recent years and will be reviewed in the
following subsections.
1.5.1 Particle splitting and coalescing
One technique is to split one big particle (namely
mother particle) into several smaller particles (namely
daughter particles) to achieve a finer particle resolu-
tion in local regions. At the early stage of develop-
ment of this technique, SPH with variable smoothing
length was often applied, in which, the particle resolu-
tion is gradually increased from the region of interest
up to the borders of the computational domain[138]. In
a similar way, Koukouvinis et al.[139] refined the par-
ticles in certain regions at the initial stage, and during
the simulation, no more particles are refined. Recently,
Tang et al.[140] applied this technique to water entry
problems in the context of MPS. The methods men-
tioned above are easy to be implemented since the
total particle number is fixed.
Starting from Feldman et al.[141], a dynamic parti-
cle splitting method has been proposed, which is very
attractive since only the particles (mother particle)
which enter the region of interest will be split. That
means the total particle number during the simulation
is always updating. It increases the complexity of the
algorithm. The most challenging problem lies in the
treatment of accuracy and stability on the splitting
interface where the smoothing lengths and particle
arrangements have a sharp transition. The error is rela-
ted to the adopting of particle splitting configurations
and the assignment of the smoothing lengths of the
daughter particles. Feldman et al.[141] proposed two
splitting patterns of hexagon and triangle, which allow
satisfactory accuracy at the splitting interface. Omi-
dvar et al.[142,143] simplified Feldman’s method with a
square particle splitting pattern in two dimensions and
a cubic pattern in three dimensions. An systematic
investigation was carried out in López et al.[144]. An
improved splitting error analysis was proposed in their
work, in which the error analysis was based on the
derivative of f (r ) ( f (r ) is a generic physical varia-
ble). However, since the smoothing lengths of the
daughter particles are constrained in order to avoid
particle clumping, a non-uniform distribution of dau-
ghter particles has to be adopted in order to decrease
the splitting error. This may create problems when a
particle shifting technique is adopted, see e.g. Sun et
al.[50], since the latter always tends to make the par-
ticle distribution more uniform.
After the daughter particles are transported out of
the splitting domain, a particle merging technique
should be adopted as the one proposed in Vacondio et
al.[145,146].
1.5.2 Particle overlapping technique
In the particle overlapping technique, the mother
particle split in a certain region is still kept but swit-
ched off and turned on when they flow out of that
region. Therefore, the particle coalescing, which is
complicated for programming, is avoided. Sketches of
the particle splitting and overlapping are depicted in
Fig.2. Figure 2(a) shows the mother particle (Level 0,

blue), the daughter particles after the first splitting
(Level 1, green) and the daughter particles after the
second splitting (Level 2, red). The splitting interface
1 and 2 means the mother particles across the interface
will be split into four particles and the corresponding
daughter particles flowing out of the splitting interface
will be erased. Figures 2(b) and 2(c) show the en-
larged views of the two square boxes by dashed lines
in Fig.2(a). Figure 2(b) shows the particle distribution
after the first splitting with two scales of particles
overlapping. Figure 2(c) shows the particle distribu-
tion after the second splitting with three scales of par-
ticle overlapping.
Fig.2 Sketch of the particle distribution in the particle over-
lapping technique
For the time being, there are two different over-
lapping techniques developed respectively in the
frameworks of WCSPH and MPS. The overlapping
technique in WCSPH was first proposed in Barcarolo
et al.[49] and then further extended and generalized in
Sun et al.[50]. The movements of the mother particles
199
are based on the interpolation of the velocity from the
daughter particles. While in MPS, the movements of
the mother particles are obtained by solving the
Poisson equation based only on the mother particles.
And then the movements of the daughter particles are
solved by the Poisson equation based on the quantities
on the splitting boundary where the quantities are
interpolated from the mother particles, see more de-
tails in Tang et al.[115].
1.6 Preventing of tensile instability
SPH method suffers from tensile instability when
the pressure becomes negative. The behavior can be
described as the particles tend to stay in pairs or clu-
stered. As the tensile instability develops, numerical
fluid voids caused by the fluid material fragmentation
are observed in local regions. The most common ten-
sile instability phenomena appear in the simulation of
lid driven cavity[15] and downstream the flow past a
bluff body[13]. To prevent this non-physical behavior,
Monaghan[147] proposed to add an artificial stress
added into the momentum equation to prevent the ten-
sile instability. However, in WCSPH, the pressure is
linked to the density variation, which is directly rela-
ted to the evolution of the particle velocity. When an
artificial stress is added into the momentum, the velo-
city evolution is never consistent with the N-S equa-
tions, and therefore the pressure field becomes un-
stable and even worse than all, the numerical results
are wrong. An example is the well-known benchmark
test case called rotational fluid patch which has been
widely adopted to test the consistency, accuracy, sta-
bility of a numerical scheme[50,60,148-150]. In Le Touz et
al.[148], it was shown that after adopting the artificial
stress, the phenomenon of particle clustering was re-
moved, while another problem of pressure fluctuation
in the fluid center was observed. This is due to the
inconsistency brought about by the artificial stress.
Another remedy proposed to remove the tensile in-
stability is named the dynamic stabilization (DS) in
the framework of MPS, see Tsuruta et al.[150]. This
technique is suitable for an incompressible scheme
(MPS or ISPH) while in WCSPH schemes it has the
same drawback of introducing pressure noises.
For the flow without a free surface, background
pressure is the most suitable and convenient way to
prevent tensile instability, see the simulations of the
lid driven cavity[15] and flow past body[13]. As pointed
out in Adami et al.[151], a drawback of background pre-
ssure is the inducing of the spurious numerical dissi-
pation. Therefore in that work, a transport-velocity
formulation for smoothed particle hydrodynamics was
proposed. In another work of the same authors[152], the
difference between background pressure and tran-
sport-velocity formulation in SPH was analyzed. How-
ever, these techniques cannot be applied to free sur-
face problems. Therefore in Oger et al.[149], a con-
200
sistent ALE formalism was implemented in the frame-
work of Riemann solver based SPH (one of the varia-
nts of WCSPH). That scheme is consistent and can be
applied to violent fluid-solid interacting problems
with a free surface. Recently in Sun et al.[50], an δ + -
SPH scheme was proposed based on the well-known
δ - SPH by introducing a particle shifting technique,
which was originally proposed by Xu et al.[45] and
extended by Lind et al.[153] to free surface flows. In
Sun et al.[50], a novel technique was introduced to treat
the free surface in order to make δ + - SPH suitable
for violent free surface simulations. Moreover, the shi-
fting was also generalized to multi particle resolu-
tions.
1.7 Time-stepping scheme
1.7.1 Runge-Kutta integration scheme
For the modeling of hydrodynamic problems in
ocean engineering, the well-known δ - SPH scheme[92]
and its further improved variant δ + - SPH[50] can be
adopted. In these schemes, the most adopted explicit
time integration may be the 4th order Runge-Kutta in-
tegration[22,36,92]. The merit of such a time integration
scheme is the allowance of a relatively larger time
step. The time step ∆t in the 4th order Runge-Kutta
integration method is constrained by the maximum
acceleration amax = max( ai ) (both the fluid and body
i
particles), the maximum velocity umax = max( ui )
i 2.1.1 Simulation of liquid sloshing
(both the fluid and body particles) and artificial sound
speed c0 as
 h
∆t ≤ min CFL1 , oil tanks and other large scale liquid containers. SPH
 amax
 
 h  
CFL 2 min (40)
i  c0 + umax + h max φij  
 j 
where the CFL coefficients are heuristically found
to be: CFL1 ≤ 0.25 and CFL 2 ≤ 2.0 .
1.7.2 Prediction-correction scheme
In the modeling of a multiphase flow, a modified
prediction-correction time stepping scheme was pre-
sented in Zhang et al.[17]. In that work, the bubble
rising and bubble interaction were simulated in 3-D. It
was shown that the modified prediction-correction
scheme has a better numerical stability. In Molteni
and Colagrossi[105], a similar time-stepping scheme
was studied, and was named modified Verlet scheme,
which has a form similar to the modified prediction-
correction scheme and also contributes to a better
numerical stability. In either the modified prediction-
correction scheme or modified Verlet scheme, the
evaluation of the general variables is conducted at the
midpoint time step n +1 / 2 except the updating of
the particle position which is based on the velocity
evaluated on the time step n +1 . It is proven that
with this modification, a larger CFL factor ( CFL ≈ 1 )
can be used.
In ISPH and MPS models, the popular two-step
projection solution (prediction-correction) method is
usually adopted, see more in Refs.[41,109,119,125,
154].
2. The recent applications of SPH in fluid-structure
interactions in ocean engineering
2.1 SPH simulations of hydrodynamic problems
With the rapid development of SPH schemes and
numerical techniques, SPH has been widely and
successfully applied in the simulation of fluid-stru-
cture interactions in ocean engineering. Particularly in
the WCSPH method, thanks to the benefits of its low
CPU costs, ease of implementation and parallelization,
large simulations can be launched on high-perfor-
mance computational machines. In this section, diffe-
rent SPH simulations of hydrodynamic problems are
presented.
Sloshing is a process of violent fluid motions
inside a tank[155]. It has a wide application in ocean
engineering, particularly important for the research
and analysis of liquefied natural gas (LNG) carriers,
has been successfully applied to sloshing simulations
by many researchers. Sloshing in different conditions
are modeled, validated and investigated. To successfu-
lly model this violent fluid-structure interacting pro-
cess, a robust SPH scheme with a stable pressure app-
roximation is crucial (e.g. using techniques for pre-
venting high frequency pressure fluctuations as pre-
sented in Section 1.3). Colagrossi et al.[87] conducted a
theoretical analysis on the free surface conditions in
WCSPH, explained why the surface condition is im-
plicitly satisfied in the framework of WCSPH and a
sloshing test case was also tested and validated in that
paper by using the results of a BEM solver. Delorme
et al.[156] carried out an experimental study to validate
SPH results in the sloshing modeling. The influences
of viscosity and of density re-initialization on the SPH
results were discussed. After that, the proposal for
δ - SPH further improved the SPH scheme allowing
much more stable pressure approximations[92], re-
moving the singularity on the free surface[36] and
 201

giving a fast dissipation of the high-frequency energy

in the water wave impact[157]. A good solid wall boun-
dary is also essential. Chen et al.[158] carried out an
investigation on the pressure on solid walls using SPH
method. An improved boundary technique was also
proposed in that work. Fixed ghost particle boundary
works well in 2-D simulations and was adopted in
Bouscasse et al.[155] to investigate shallow water slo-
shing. A 3-D simulation was made by Luo et al.[159]
recently. In Cao et al.[10], sloshing with a baffle was
investigated using a dummy particle boundary. Rece-
ntly, in Hwang et al.[68], sloshing flows interacting
with elastic baffles were modeled and investigated.
Considering the coupled sloshing seakeeping effects, a
SPH-FEM coupling technique was recently developed
in Serván-Camas et al.[63]. After plenty of validations,
SPH has been proven to be a reliable numerical tool to
analyze sloshing flows in different conditions.

2.1.2 Water entry and exit of a circular cylinder

(1) The water entry of a circular cylinder Fig.3 The snapshots of the water entry of a cylinder at t =
Water entry of a rigid body is an important phe- 142 ms from different views
nomenon in ocean engineering operations. From relea-
sing lifeboats, freak wave impact on ship structures to
the launching of missile projectiles, the water entry
can be quite often encountered. In the study of these
problems, the circular cylinder water entries are the
most representative ones since it is the shape mostly
adopted as structural components in the construction
of offshore platforms. 2-D simulations and investiga-
tions have been carried out thoroughly, but 3-D stu-
dies have mostly been conducted in experiments[160,161].
Recently, 3-D water entry problems are very well stu-
died in Nguyen et al.[162] by using a Navier-Stokes
solver. Fig.4 Time evolution of the vertical displacement
In the present subsection, 3-D water entry of a
circular cylinder with the length of 0.20 m and dia- Table 1 Parameters for the water exit tests
meter of 0.05 m is simulated. The vertical velocity Test number No. 1 No. 2
when the cylinder just touches the undisturbed water
surface is 6.22 m/s. The cylinder mass is 0.533 kg. Froude number Fr 0.4627 0.7644
The adopted SPH model is the well-known δ - SPH Reynolds number Re 1 000 1 000
model. A free-slip wall boundary condition is applied
on the cylinder surface and on the wall of the outside (2) The water exit of a circular cylinder
water tank whose geometrical scale is with the length Water exit, compared to water entry, has been
of 0.625 m, width of 0.375 m and depth of 0.45 m. An much less investigated[163]. Beside the challenge from
experimental study was conducted for this case in Wei the dramatic free surface deformation, the water exit is
and Hu[161]. also tightly related to the viscous effect which beco-
The numerical results are shown in Fig.3. Similar mes particularly important when viscous flow separa-
cavity shapes can be observed between the experime- tion occurs. While in the water entry, the viscous force
ntal and SPH results. Only half of the fluid particles can be less important since the non-viscous flow sepa-
are shown in order to more clearly demonstrate the ration at the initial slamming stage is mandatory.
cavity shape induced by the cylinder motion. The con- Therefore, many works addressing slamming load
tour on the fluid particles shows the velocity variation during the water entry by BEM are published, see
while the contour on the cylinder surface shows the Refs.[164-167]. The water exit problems are mainly
pressure distribution. In Fig.4, a good agreement is tackled in experiment or CFD solvers considering the
also obtained for the vertical displacements. viscous stress, see Refs.[122,168-170]. Recently, Ni et
202
Fig.5 The process for the water exit of No. 2 test
al.[171] simulated a complete water exit of a fully-sub-
merged body through an enhanced BEM, mainly focus
on the free surface deformation: free surface breaking
and detachment. Wang et al.[172] adopted a viscous
modification based on the results of BEM to evaluate
the load on a 2-D circular cylinder during the water
exit process.
Taking into account the viscous effect, in this
subsection, 2-D water exit of the cylinder is investiga-
ted with the recently developed δ + - SPH scheme. The
numerical results are validated by the experimental
data[173] and the other numerical results[163,172].
The water exit tests are characterized mainly by
the Froude number Fr = U / gD and the Reynolds
number Re = UD / ν , where U is the velocity of the
cylinder, g being gravity acceleration, D being
cylinder diameter and ν being kinetic viscosity of the
fluid. The parameters are shown in Table 1 correspo-
nding to the experimental study[173]. Here the Reynolds
number we use is 1 000, which on the one hand allows
a satisfactory numerical stability for the SPH simula-
tion, on the other hand considers the viscous effect on
the flow separation. According to the experiment, the
cylinder starts at Vt / R = −5.5 and after a short time
acceleration, the cylinder reaches the expected Froude
number at the time of Vt / R = −5 .
The processes of the water exit for the test No. 2
at four time instants are plotted in Fig.5. A good
 203

agreement for the cylinder position and the free sur- separation which is not taken into account in BEM.
face deformation is achieved between δ + - SPH[50] Besides, the results of BEM at Vt / D > 1 are not pre-
and CIP[163]. Through the SPH results, we can see sented due to free surface breaking which terminates
clearly how the vortices are detached from the cyli- the simulation. Therefore, we can summarize that for
nder at different time instants. In the cores of these the water exit problem, SPH can be a numerical solver
vortices, the pressure is negative. The movements of more appropriate.
the vortex affect the total drag force acting on the
cylinder. Additionally, on the free surface, the pressu-
re is always zero, as the cylinder gradually app-
roaching the free surface, the total drag force which is
equal to the pressure difference between the cylinder
top and bottom is decreasing.

Fig.6 The time evolution of the coefficient of the vertical drag

force acting on the cylinder during the water exit
Fig.7 Time evolutions of the wave elevations at different hori-
In order to give a more clear comparison, time zontal positions. SPH results are validated by the experi-
evolutions of the force coefficients for test No. 1 and mental data[175]
No. 2 are plotted in Fig.6. The vertical force coeffi-
cient is evaluated by ce = Fv /(0.5 ρ V 2 D) . The SPH
results are compared with some reference solutions in
the literature. A fair agreement is obtained between
the results of SPH and CIP since the viscous forces
are both considered in the two solvers. The experi-
mental results are accompanied with some fluctua-
tions due to the automatic control of the hydraulic
system used to enforce the test cylinder to exit the
water[163]. However the overall trends of the force
evolutions of the experiment and numerical results are
in accordance. It is worth noting that the results of Fig.8 Time evolution of the wave elevation at x / H = 7.6
BEM is a little larger during the time range of with three different particle resolutions. SPH results are
Vt / D = (−5,1) . This is owing to the viscous flow compared with the experimental data[175]
204
Fig.9 The snapshots of the interaction between the floating body and the freak wave at different time instants
2.1.3 Wave-body interaction
Wave-body interaction plays an important role in
ocean engineering. In rough seas, the wave induced
motion, wave impact and green water loading can lead
to a disaster for the offshore structure. Recently, SPH
has been widely applied to model these kinds of inte-
ractions[15,37,103,174], particularly for the cases involving
violent freak waves with structure motions presenting
large amplitudes.
To model such a complex interacting process,
three aspects should be considered carefully. (1) The
water wave generation using a wave maker. (2) The
wave damping at the end of the numerical water wave
tank. (3) The coupling between the fluid and floating
body considering 6-DOF motions[162]. In the water
wave generation, generally two types of wave makers
can be adopted: the piston wave maker or the flap one.
The former is more suitable for the shallow water
wave generation while the latter is better for relatively
deeper water waves. In Antuono et al.[136], different
water waves were studied, including standing waves,
regular waves and wave packages using piston or flap
wave makers, and the SPH results were validated by
the numerical results through a BEM-MEL solver or
the experimental data. The results demonstrated that
WCSPH with the diffusive terms developed in
Antuono et al.[36] is robust in modeling different water
waves in particular for nonlinear waves with wave
rolling and breakings. Regarding the wave damping,
the non-reflection boundary introduced in Section
1.4.4 can be employed. Liu et al.[154] also introduced a
non-reflection internal wave maker algorithm in the

framework of ISPH. The advantage of this algorithm
is the wave generations are not affected by the refle-
cted waves.
Regarding the 6-DOF coupling motions between
the fluid and floating body, in Bouscasse et al.[37], a
technique was introduced when the fixed ghost parti-
cle boundary[92] was implemented. In Sun et al.[15], a
coupling method between the floating body and the
fluid based on the dummy particle boundary was pre-
sented. The governing equations introduced in Section
1.2.2 can be applied for the updating of the rigid body
positions.
As an example, the interaction between a 2-D
floating body and a freak wave introduced in Zhao et
al.[175,176] is simulated here by using a coupling
technique based on the dummy particle boundary. Pre-
viously, this case was studied experimentally and
numerically by a CIP method[175,176]. For more details
regarding the case set-up, see Zhao et al.[176]. In the
following, the SPH results are presented comparing
with the experimental data.
Fig.10 Time evolutions of the motions of the floating body are
plotted in the first three subplots and the wave elevation
at x / H = 12.7 is plotted in the last subplot
Firstly, the freak wave generation by using a
piston wave maker is validated. The time evolutions
of the wave elevations at x / H = 7.6 , x / H = 12.7 ,
x / H = 17.5 , x / H = 22.2 and x / H = 27.4 are
plotted in Fig.7. The adopted particle resolution is
205
H / dx = 80 where H is the undisturbed water height
and dx is the initial particle spacing for discretizing
the fluid domain. A good agreement between the SPH
results and the experimental data is obtained in Fig.7.
A convergence study for the wave elevation is also
presented in Fig.8. As the particle resolution is increa-
sed, the wave elevations converge to the experimental
data[177]. With the highest particle resolution of H /
dx = 80 , the interaction between the freak wave and a
floating body is simulated. The floating body can
freely heave and pitch but the surging motion is pro-
hibited. The snapshots of the motions of the floating
body are depicted in Fig.9. The time history of the
body motions and the wave elevation at x / H = 12.7
are plotted in Fig.10. A fair agreement is obtained
between SPH and the experiment, which demonstrates
the robustness of the present SPH scheme in modeling
wave-body interactions. We underline that even thou-
gh a 2-D simulation is conducted here, the SPH sche-
me containing a dummy particle boundary is very
straightforward to be extended in 3-D cases.
Fig.11 Time evolution of the inflooding water through the
opening of a floating structure
2.1.4 Simulation of the water flooding and sinking of
a damaged floating structure
During the lifetime of a surface ship, the crash,
stranding or underwater explosion may make the ship
lose its integrity. The water flooding through the
206

damaged hole of a ship and the water spreading throu- and the undistributed free surface and g is the gra-
gh the openings inside the ship structure are big threa- vity acceleration. For the flow past a cylinder in free
ts to the ship survivability[101]. Therefore a numerical stream, the inflow boundary is imposed at x = −8D
model to predict the dynamic floating state of a and outflow boundary at x = 24 D . The lateral boun-
damaged ship in different inflooding conditions is sig- daries are imposed at y / D = ±8D to avoid the blo-
nificant, which can provide a reference for the ship
operations and sea rescues. To our knowledge, Idel- ckage effect. Three levels of particle resolutions are
sohn et al.[178] first proposed to model the sinking adopted in this simulation. Close to the cylinder,
process of a damaged oil tank using particle methods. within the radius of R2 = 1.75D , the particle spacing
In Le Touzé et al.[179], SPH was proven to correctly is D / Dx = 100 . Within the region of 1.75D < R1 <
simulate transient flooding behavior that occurs during 2.25D , the particle resolution is D / Dx = 50 and in
and immediately after a side collision between two the rest of the fluid domain, D / Dx = 25 is adopted.
vessels. Recently, in Zhang et al.[29], numerical and After a short time acceleration, the inflow speed rea-
experimental studies were carried out to study the mo- ches the expected inflow velocity U . In order to
tions of a damaged floating structure. A fairly good quickly enter the vortex shedding stage, we use a free
agreement was obtained between the results of SPH slip boundary for the upper half of the cylinder while
and experiment. Fig.11 shows the time evolution of a no-slip boundary for the lower half when tU / D < 5 .
the flooding process of a damaged floating structure.
When tU / D ≥ 5 , a no-slip boundary condition is
The structure has a length of 46 m, width of 16 m and
imposed on all the cylinder surface. The pressure and
height of 8.5 m, consisting of three water-tight cabins
vorticity distributions at tU / D = 64.5 are depicted
with the same scales. The water draft is d = 4.2 m .
in Fig.12. A negative pressure region can be observed
There is a circular opening with a diameter of 3.0 m
in the cores of the vortices. We underline that the
located in the position which has the height of 1.6 m
background pressure[13] is not adopted here. Thanks to
from the bottom and the distance of 2.5 m from the
the shifting technique, the particle clustering and the
first bulkhead. Through the opening the water gradua-
non-physical flow cavitation can be avoided in the
lly floods into the cabin and a coupled motion be-
tween the fluid and structure occurs, see the snapshots δ + - SPH when a small time step is used. The time
at different time instants in Fig.11. evolution of the drag and lift force coefficients are
plotted in Fig.13 along with the results by using the
2.1.5 Flow past a circular cylinder by using adaptive- recently developed diffused vortex hydrodynamics
particle resolutions (DVH) method[180]. As can be seen from the curves of
Flow past a bluff body is a classic test case for force coefficient, fair agreement between the two
CFD solvers. It also has important applications in the solvers is observed.
ocean engineering, for example, the applications in the
preventing of vortex induced vibrations in flow past
risers, offshore platforms and transmission pipelines.
The flow features are dependent on Reynold numbers,
Froude numbers and the boundary conditions, e.g. free
stream condition (risers), flow past a body close to a
free surface (offshore jacket platforms, transmission
pipelines) and flow past a body close to seabed (sub-
sea pipelines).
SPH suffers from the so called tensile instability,
which can induce a non-physical flow cavity down-
stream the body[13]. The newly developed δ + - SPH
scheme which contains a particle shifting technique
can help to avoid this numerical cavity. In this sub-
section, flow past a circular cylinder at the Reynold
number Re = UD / ν = 1 000 is simulated firstly and
then in the next subsection the cylinder is transported
close to a free surface at a Froude number of Fr = U /
Fig.12 The flow past a circular cylinder at Re = 1 000
gD = 1 to see the effect of the free surface on the
vortex shedding. In the definition of the Froude num- 2.1.6 Flow past a circular cylinder close to a free
ber, U is the inflow velocity, D is the cylinder surface
diameter, L is the distance between the cylinder top Differing from the flow past a body in free stream,

the flow past the body close to a free surface is far less
investigated by hydrodynamic community. Some dis-
cussions of this topic can be found in Refs.[181,182]
and recently in Refs.[183,184]. The SPH scheme vali-
dated in the previous subsection is employed here to
simulate the flow past a circular cylinder close to a
free surface. The Reynolds number adopted here is
still Re = UD / ν = 1 000 . Owing to the benefits from
the δ + - SPH scheme[50], the numerical cavitation due
to the tensile instability behind the cylinder is avoided.
The Froude number is set at Fr = U / gD = 1 as
stated before. Initially, the cylinder center is placed at
(0,0) . The inflow boundary is set at x = −6 D and
outflow boundary at x = 18D . The fluid bottom is at
y = −4.5D and the undisturbed free surface at y =
−1.5D . It is worth underlining that to our knowledge,
Re = UD / ν = 1 000 is the highest Reynolds numeri-
cal employed for the simulation of flow past cylinder
positioning in the vicinity of a free surface.
Fig.13 Time evolutions of the drag and lift force coefficients on
the circular cylinder at Re = 1 000 (Results of DVH
from Ref.[180])
In Fig.14, the vortex structure downstream the
cylinder is depicted by using the vorticity and FTLE[24]
distributions. Comparing the vorticity field with the
one in Fig.12, we find that the Von Karman vortex
street is completely suppressed by the existing of a
free surface. Beside the vortex shedding from the cyli-
nder, it is also found that the wave breaking generates
strong vortices which interact with the vortices from
the cylinder. This is different from the results shown
in Sun et al.[24] since here the Reynold number has
been increased to 1 000 rather than 180. In such a high
Reynolds number, dipoles composed of two large vor-
tices of opposite signs are observed, see Fig.14.
207
Fig.14 The flow past a circular cylinder close to a free surface
at t ( g / D )1/2 = 21.55 , Re = 1 000 and Fr = 1
2.1.7 Splashing bow wave of a high-speed ship model
In this subsection, an example of the application
of SPH to the breaking and splashing of bow waves of
high speed ships are presented. Contrasted with the
simulations in Sun et al.[24] and Marrone et al.[14], in
order to make this case easier for the readers to repro-
duce, we adopt a simplified ship hull similar to the
one invented in Sun et al.[185]. The water draft of the
ship is one fifth of the ship height.
In Marrone et al.[14] the breaking wave pattern of
a fast ship has been studied in detail for different
forward ship speeds. In that work a 2-D+t SPH model
was used and the vortical structures due to plunging of
the bow wave are tracked using passive markers which
are initially positioned on the undisturbed free surface.
The same technique has been also adopted in Landrini
et al.[186] combining with vorticity contour plots. In
this subsection, a case study is conducted to show the
benefits of using the finite time Lyapunov exponent
(FTLE) for capturing the bow breaking wave fea-
tures[24,185]. In the present study, the water depth of the
fluid domain is 5 times deeper than the ship draft.
Comparing with the water depth of 2 times of the ship
draught as adopted in Marrone et al.[14], the present
study avoids the shallow water effect on the ship wave
propagation.
The ship Froude number considered here is Fr =
U / gL = 0.5 with L being the ship length and U
the forward ship speed. Figure 15 depicts a panorama
view of the ship waves along with the simplified ship.
The particles belonging to the free surface are identi-
fied through the algorithm presented in Marrone et
al.[44] and plotted in blue. The other particles are plo-
208

tted with a contour plot of the FTLE indicated with rising velocity are plotted in Fig.17. As the particle
λT . Only the particles having a λT larger than 0.2, resolution is increased, it is clearly shown that the
which detect the Lagrangian coherent structures (LCSs) SPH results converge to the reference solution.
related to the two submerged vortex tubes, are plotted.
Through the use of FTLE it is possible to reduce the
amount of data for representing the flow feature, which
is a remarkable advantage for the analysis and for the
storing of 3-D SPH data[185].

Fig.15 Breaking wave pattern generated by the simplified ship

model at Fr = U / gL = 0.5

2.1.8 Rising bubble dynamics

Rising bubble is a familiar physical phenomenon Fig.16 The comparisons of the bubble shapes at different time
in ocean engineering from the exploring and proce- instants
ssing of marine resources (e.g. nature gas, combusti-
ble ice) to small scale bubbles generated by ship wave
breaking and propeller cavities. With a multiphase
SPH scheme, the rising bubble problems can be simu-
lated properly. Since Colagrossi et al.[22], many efforts
have been devoted to modeling of rising bubbles. In
Grenier et al.[84], an interface sharpness force was pro-
posed and it plays an important role in preventing the
non-physical penetration on the multiphase interface
due to the implementation of the surface tension
model[186,187]. In Sun et al.[82] and Zhang et al.[17], a
comprehensive multiphase SPH model combining di-
fferent numerical techniques from different models
are employed to simulate the rising bubbles in 2-D Fig.17 Time evolution of the rising velocity
and 3-D respectively.
Here, with the multiphase SPH scheme [17,82], a 2.2 SPH simulations of impact and explosion problems
benchmark of a rising bubble in 3-D is simulated as an Underwater explosion is an important branch in
example. The parameters for the 3-D benchmark of the ocean engineering research. In the off shore opera-
rising bubble can be found in Adelsberger et al.[188]. tion, the explosion may cause structural destruction
To the best of our knowledge, this may be the first which may even lead the platform bilge to capsize.
attempt that the 3-D rising bubble is quantitatively For example, in the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of
validated using SPH method. Mexico, the “Deepwater Horizon” platform sunk due
The bubble shapes at different time instants are to the explosion which made the structure lose its inte-
compared with the results of DROPS[188] as shown in grity. In naval engineering, the underwater explosion
Fig.16 in which the fluid domain is discretized in the is a main threat that makes the warship lose its sur-
particle number of 90×90×180. A fair agreement is vivability[53]. The shock wave by the explosion first
obtained between SPH and the reference solution. A creates local damages and then the pressure load gene-
convergence study is carried out with three different rated by the explosive bubble may cause the ship to
resolutions, respectively discretizing the fluid domain lose its longitudinal strength[189-193]. SPH method has
into particle numbers of 30×30×60, 60×60×120 and been proven to be a good numerical method to predict
90×90×180, under which the time evolutions of the the shock wave load of underwater explosions[55].

2.2.1 Underwater explosions in a free field
It is important to predict the pressure load gene-
rated by an underwater explosion since the former is
an important reference for the design and evaluation
of the strength and survivability of marine structures.
2-D simulations were carried out to validate the SPH
results by comparing with the solutions of other nume-
rical results[16,55]. In Zhang et al.[54] and Ming et al.[99],
an axisymmetric SPH method was developed in the
cylindrical coordinate system to simulate the under-
water explosion when the TNT charge has the chara-
cteristic of rotational symmetry. A validation for the
axisymmetric SPH on predicting the shock wave load
is plotted in Fig.18. The present result is calculated
with a finer particle resolution than the one used in
Ming et al.[99]. Here the particle spacing is ∆x =
0.00532 m. The pressure is measured at R = 6.834 m
far away from the center of a spherical TNT charge
with the weight of 8 kg. A fair agreement is achieved
between SPH and experimental data. The advantage
of this technique is its efficiency when compared with
purely 3-D simulations. However, it cannot be applied
to problems with general boundary shapes.
Fig.18 Validation of the shock wave pressure calculated by an
axisymmetric SPH model
Table 2 The parameters for the Johnson-Cook model
A / MPa B / MPa C n
460 320 0.022 0.36
m ε0 / s−1 D1 D2 - D5
1.0 1.0 0.1 0 success, there are still some challenges that constrain
2.2.2 Underwater contact explosions by using an SPH-
FEM coupling technique
The shock wave load generated by an underwater
explosion is validated in the previous subsection. In
this part, the SPH method is coupled with a FEM
solver to simulate the contact explosion which is a
great threat to the warship or other marine structures.
Recently, in Ming et al.[53], a systematic investigation
is conducted by using the SPH-FEM technique, in
which SPH is devoted to model fluid dynamics and
209
the FEM is devoted for the elastoplasticity, damage
and fracture of ductile structures. The “Glue” algori-
thm[53] for the fluid-structure coupling is adopted. The
Johnson-Cook strength and damage models (see Table
2) are used to model the structure.
An air-backed plate subjected to an underwater
contact explosion is simulated since the air-backed
plate is an element of the ship structure that below the
water line. The geometry parameters of the plate and
stiffeners are shown on the top of Fig.19. The TNT
charge with the weight of 0.16 kg attached to the
center of the plate is detonated. The snapshot at t =
2.0 ms is shown on the bottom of Fig.19, from which
a petal cracking is observed.
Fig.19 Parameters and results of the contact explosion problem
3. Future works
Particle methods have been recognized as the
next generation of numerical tools for multi-physics
simulations. Developed for more than three decades,
SPH has been proven a successful method solving
violent fluid-structure interactions. Despite the great
the application of SPH to industry circles. In the futu-
re studies, a few items urgent to be solved or optimi-
zed are summarized as follows:
(1) In Eulerian CFD solvers, adaptive structured
or unstructured grids have been adopted successfully to
simulate multiscale flows with variable resolutions[48].
However, in SPH most of the simulations are still done
with single particle resolution. More attentions should
be paid to the development of models with adaptive
particle resolutions or particle refinement and de-
refinement.
210
(2) Inflow and outflow boundaries should be ex-
tended to curved or other irregular inlet or outlet shapes.
At present, almost all the inlet boundary is a straight
wall, which in some cases wastes a lot of computa-
tional resources. For example in Colagrossi et al.[194],
the simulation of a ship bow wave, a straight inflow
boundary demands more space in which some particles
do not contribute to the bow wave generation or deve-
lopment. In the same paper, the shape of the inflow
boundary of Level Set method is a cured one, which
shrinks the scale of the fluid domain.
(3) Techniques for preventing Lagrangian particle
structures (LPS) or tensile instability need improve-
ment. Particle shifting with strict conservations of mo-
mentum and energy should be developed to break
LPS[149]. For example in the famous benchmark test
case called rotating square fluid patch[50], the disorde-
red particle distribution due to LPS can completely
make the numerical results go in a wrong direction. In
flow past body in high Reynolds number, the particle
shifting cannot be sufficient to prevent the tensile insta-
bility and therefore more robust techniques should be
developed.
(4) A particle re-distribution can be developed. In
the explosion problems, after the explosive gas is too
much exploded, the particle distribution becomes quite
diffused and therefore the accuracy of the particle app-
roximation on the interface between explosion produ-
cts and fluid is restricted. A proper particle re-distribu-
tion (similar to re-mesh) which harmonizes the particle
volume is hopeful to overcome this problem.
(5) SPH can be further extended to model the
complex multiphase flow with a free surface conside-
ring the development and collapse of the physical
cavitation. For example, the supercavitation flow arou-
nd a high-speed under water vehicle, the water exit of
an underwater launched vehicle or the water entry of a
high-speed launched missile.
(6) The last issue concerns the application of SPH
to industry. Proper pre-processing technique needs to
be developed in order to meet the request of modeling
simulations with complex 3-D boundaries. Post-proce-
ssing is also important to obtain a data reduction in 3-D
simulations and extract flow information from the sca-
ttered data, see more in Sun et al.[24]. A user friendly
interface for the SPH solver and visualization to de-
monstrate SPH results are also significant to drive SPH
from academic research to industry applications. Some
other techniques[20,195,196] evolved from mesh free me-
thods for fluid-structure interactions can also been
applied in ocean engineering applications. Coupling
SPH with other techniques[18,19,197,198] is also an impo-
rtant way to extend SPH to wider applications.
4. Concluding remarks
In the preset work, a review of the SPH method,
from kernel approximations, governing equations, va-
rious numerical techniques to different applications in
ocean engineering is presented. Formulations of kernel
approximations with different orders of accuracy are
recalled. Boundary conditions are reviewed. Techni-
ques for achieving a simulation with multi particle
resolutions are introduced. Techniques for breaking
the Lagrangian particle structure and preventing ten-
sile instability are also reported.
We supplied abundant application cases which
are representative in fluid-structure interactions in
ocean engineering. The applications are classified into
two categories: hydrodynamic problems and explosion
problems, which are based on different equations of
state and have obviously different features. The va-
rious cases show the potential of SPH method to be
further extended and applied in the fluid-structure in-
teractions in ocean engineering.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the CNR-INSEAN
within the Project PANdA: PArticle methods for
Naval Applications, protocol number No. 3263, 21
October 2014.
References
[1] Gingold R. A., Monaghan J. J. Smoothed particle hydro-
dynamics-theory and application to non-spherical stars [J].
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1977,
181: 375-389.
[2] Monaghan J., Gingold R. Shock simulation by the particle
method SPH [J]. Journal of Computational Physics, 1983,
52(2): 374-389.
[3] Monaghan J. J. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics [J].
Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 1992, 30:
543-574.
[4] Monaghan J. J. Simulating free surface flows with SPH [J].
Journal of Computational Physics, 1994, 110(2): 399-406.
[5] Violeau D., Rogers B. D. Smoothed particle hydrodyna-
mics (SPH) for free-surface flows: Past, present and futu-
re [J]. Journal of Hydraulic Research, 2016, 54(1): 1-26.
[6] Shadloo M., Oger G., Le Touzé D. Smoothed particle
hydrodynamics method for fluid flows, towards industrial
applications: Motivations, current state, and challenges [J].
Computers and fluids, 2016, 136: 11-34.
[7] Liu M. B., Li S. M. On the modeling of viscous incom-
pressible flows with smoothed particle hydro-dynamics [J].
Journal of Hydrodynamics, 2016, 28(5): 731-745.
[8] Gotoh H., Khayyer A. Current achievements and future
perspectives for projection-based particle methods with
applications in ocean engineering [J]. Journal of Ocean
Engineering and Marine Energy, 2016, 2(3): 251-278.
[9] Tartakovsky A. M., Trask N., Pan K. et al. Smoothed par-
ticle hydrodynamics and its applications for multiphase
flow and reactive transport in porous media [J]. Computa-
tional Geosciences, 2016, 20(4): 807-834.
[10] Cao X., Ming F., Zhang A. Sloshing in a rectangular tank
based on SPH simulation [J]. Applied Ocean Research,
2014, 47: 241-254.

[11] Cercos-Pita J. L. AQUAgpusph, a new free 3D SPH solver
accelerated with OpenCL [J]. Computer Physics Commu-
nications, 2015, 192: 295-312.
[12] Gong K., Liu H., Wang B. L. Water entry of a wedge
based on SPH model with an improved boundary treat-
ment [J]. Journal of Hydrodynamics, 2009, 21(6): 750-
757.
[13] Marrone S., Colagrossi A., Antuono M. et al. An accurate
SPH modeling of viscous flows around bodies at low and
moderate Reynolds numbers [J]. Journal of Computatio-
nal Physics, 2013, 245: 456-475.
[14] Marrone S., Colagrossi A., Antuono M. et al. A 2D+t SPH
model to study the breaking wave pattern generated by
fast ships [J]. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 2011,
27(8): 1199-1215.
[15] Sun P., Ming F., Zhang A. Numerical simulation of intera-
ctions between free surface and rigid body using a robust
SPH method [J]. Ocean Engineering, 2015, 98: 32-49.
[16] Zhang A. M., Yang W. S., Yao X. L. Numerical simula-
tion of underwater contact explosion [J]. Applied Ocean
Research, 2012, 34: 10-20.
[17] Zhang A. M., Sun P. N., Ming F. R. An SPH modeling of
bubble rising and coalescing in three dimensions [J]. Com-
puter Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering,
2015, 294: 189-209.
[18] Wang S., Khoo B. C., Liu G. et al. Coupling GSM/ALE
with ES-FEM-T3 for fluid–deformable structure intera-
ctions [J]. Journal of Computational Physics, 2014, 276:
315-340.
[19] Wang S., Khoo B., Liu G. et al. An arbitrary Lagrangian–
Eulerian gradient smoothing method (GSM/ALE) for inte-
raction of fluid and a moving rigid body [J]. Computers
and fluids, 2013, 71: 327-347.
[20] Zhang Z. Q., Liu G., Khoo B. C. Immersed smoothed
finite element method for two dimensional fluid–structure
interaction problems [J]. International Journal for Nume-
rical Methods in Engineering, 2012, 90(10): 1292-1320.
[21] Zhang Z. Q., Liu G., Khoo B. C. A three dimensional
immersed smoothed finite element method (3D IS-FEM)
for fluid–structure interaction problems [J]. Computatio-
nal Mechanics, 2013, 51(2): 129-150.
[22] Colagrossi A., Landrini M. Numerical simulation of inter-
facial flows by smoothed particle hydrodynamics [J].
Journal of Computational Physics, 2003, 191(2): 448-475.
[23] Khayyer A., Gotoh H. Enhancement of performance and
stability of MPS mesh-free particle method for multiphase
flows characterized by high density ratios [J]. Journal of
Computational Physics, 2013, 242: 211-233.
[24] Sun P. N., Colagrossi A., Marrone S. et al. Detection of
Lagrangian coherent structures in the SPH framework [J].
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering,
2016, 305: 849-868.
[25] Colagrossi A., Rossi E., Marrone S. et al. Particle methods
for viscous flows: Analogies and differences between the
SPH and DVH methods [J]. Communications in Com-
putational Physics, 2016, 20(3): 660-688.
[26] Souto-Iglesias A., Macià F., González L. M. et al. On the
consistency of MPS [J]. Computer Physics Communica-
tions, 2013, 184(3): 732-745.
[27] Souto-Iglesias A., Macià F., González L. M. et al.
Addendum to “On the consistency of MPS”[Comput. Phys.
Comm. 184 (3)(2013) 732–745] [J]. Computer Physics
Communications, 2014, 185(2): 595-598.
[28] Shao S., Gotoh H. Turbulence particle models for tracking
free surfaces [J]. Journal of Hydraulic Research, 2005,
43(3): 276-289.
211
[29] Zhang A. M., Cao X. Y., Ming F. R. et al. Investigation on
a damaged ship model sinking into water based on three
dimensional SPH method [J]. Applied Ocean Research,
2013, 42: 24-31.
[30] Marrone S., Bouscasse B., Colagrossi A. et al. Study of
ship wave breaking patterns using 3D parallel SPH simu-
lations [J]. Computers and fluids, 2012, 69: 54-66.
[31] Oger G., Le Touzé D., Guibert D. et al. On distributed
memory MPI-based parallelization of SPH codes in massi-
ve HPC context [J]. Computer Physics Communications,
2016, 200: 1-14.
[32] Domínguez J. M., Crespo A. J., Valdez-Balderas D. et al.
New multi-GPU implementation for smoothed particle
hydrodynamics on heterogeneous clusters [J]. Computer
Physics Communications, 2013, 184(8): 1848-1860.
[33] Longshaw S. M., Rogers B. D. Automotive fuel cell slo-
shing under temporally and spatially varying high accele-
ration using GPU-based smoothed particle hydrodynamics
(SPH) [J]. Advances in Engineering Software, 2015, 83:
31-44.
[34] Valdez-Balderas D., Domínguez J. M., Rogers B. D. et al.
Towards accelerating smoothed particle hydrodynamics
simulations for free-surface flows on multi-GPU cluste-
rs [J]. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing,
2013, 73(11): 1483-1493.
[35] Antuono M., Colagrossi A., Marrone S. Numerical diffu-
sive terms in weakly-compressible SPH schemes [J].
Computer Physics Communications, 2012, 183(12): 2570-
2580.
[36] Antuono M., Colagrossi A., Marrone S. et al. Free-surface
flows solved by means of SPH schemes with numerical
diffusive terms [J]. Computer Physics Communications,
2010, 181(3): 532-549.
[37] Bouscasse B., Colagrossi A., Marrone S. et al. Nonlinear
water wave interaction with floating bodies in SPH [J].
Journal of Fluids and Structures, 2013, 42: 112-129.
[38] Liu X., Lin P., Shao S. An ISPH simulation of coupled
structure interaction with free surface flows [J]. Journal of
Fluids and Structures, 2014, 48: 46-61.
[39] Gui Q., Dong P., Shao S. Numerical study of PPE source
term errors in the incompressible SPH models [J]. Interna-
tional Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2015,
77(6): 358-379.
[40] Gui Q., Shao S., Dong P. Wave impact simulations by an
improved ISPH model [J]. Journal of Waterway, Port,
Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, 2013, 140(3): 04014005.
[41] Shao S. Incompressible smoothed particle hydrodynamics
simulation of multifluid flows [J]. International Journal
for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2012, 69(11): 1715-
1735.
[42] Daly E., Grimaldi S., Bui H. H. Explicit incompressible
SPH algorithm for free-surface flow modelling: A compa-
rison with weakly compressible schemes [J]. Advances in
Water Resources, 2016, 97: 156-167.
[43] Barcarolo D. A. Improvement of the precision and the effi-
ciency of the SPH method: theoretical and numerical
study [D]. Doctoral Thesis, Nantes, France: Ecole Centrale
de Nantes, 2013.
[44] Marrone S., Colagrossi A., Le Touzé D. et al. Fast free-
surface detection and level-set function definition in SPH
solvers [J]. Journal of Computational Physics, 2010,
229(10): 3652-3663.
[45] Xu R., Stansby P., Laurence D. Accuracy and stability in
incompressible SPH (ISPH) based on the projection
method and a new approach [J]. Journal of Computational
Physics, 2009, 228(18): 6703-6725.
212
[46] Liu M., Liu G. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH):
An overview and recent developments [J]. Archives of
computational methods in engineering, 2010, 17(1): 25-
76.
[47] Antuono M., Bouscasse B., Colagrossi A. et al. A measure
of spatial disorder in particle methods [J]. Computer Phy-
sics Communications, 2014, 185(10): 2609-2621.
[48] Yao J., Lin T., Liu G. R. et al. An adaptive GSM-CFD
solver and its application to shock-wave boundary layer
interaction [J]. International Journal of Numerical Metho-
ds for Heat and Fluid Flow, 2015, 25(6): 1282-1310.
[49] Barcarolo D., Le Touzé D., Oger G. et al. Adaptive parti-
cle refinement and derefinement applied to the smoothed
particle hydrodynamics method [J]. Journal of Computa-
tional Physics, 2014, 273: 640-657.
[50] Sun P. N., Colagrossi A., Marrone S. et al. The δ plus-
SPH model: Simple procedures for a further improvement
of the SPH scheme [J]. Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering, 2017, 315: 25-49.
[51] Chiron L., Oger G., Touze D. L. et al. Improvements on
particle refinement method with SPH [C]. Proceeding of
the 11th International SPHERIC Workshop. Munich,
Germany, 2016.
[52] Zhang Z., Wang L., Silberschmidt V. V. et al. SPH-FEM
simulation of shaped-charge jet penetration into double
hull: A comparison study for steel and SPS [J]. Composite
Structures, 2016, 155: 135-144.
[53] Ming F. R., Zhang A. M., Xue Y. Z. et al. Damage chara-
cteristics of ship structures subjected to shockwaves of
underwater contact explosions [J]. Ocean Engineering,
2016, 117: 359-382.
[54] Zhang A. M., Yang W. S., Huang C. et al. Numerical
simulation of column charge underwater explosion based
on SPH and BEM combination [J]. Computers and fluids,
2013, 71: 169-178.
[55] Liu M. B., Liu G. R., Lam K. Y. et al. Smoothed particle
hydrodynamics for numerical simulation of underwater
explosion [J]. Computational Mechanics, 2003, 30(2):
106-118.
[56] Liu M. B., Liu G. R., Zong Z. et al. Computer simulation
of high explosive explosion using smoothed particle hydro-
dynamics methodology [J]. Computers and fluids, 2003,
32(3): 305-322.
[57] Liu G. R., Liu M. B. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: A
meshfree particle method [M]. Singapore: World Scienti-
fic, 2003.
[58] Liu M. B., Liu G. R., Lam K. Y. Constructing smoothing
functions in smoothed particle hydrodynamics with appli-
cations [J]. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathe-
matics, 2003, 155(2): 263-284.
[59] Liu M. B., Xie W. P., Liu G. R. Modeling incompressible
flows using a finite particle method [J]. Applied Mathe-
matical Modelling, 2005, 29(12): 1252-1270.
[60] Jiang T., Ouyang J., Ren J. L. et al. A mixed corrected
symmetric SPH (MC-SSPH) method for computational
dynamic problems [J]. Computer Physics Communications,
2012, 183(1): 50-62.
[61] Ren J., Jiang T., Lu W. et al. An improved parallel SPH
approach to solve 3D transient generalized Newtonian free
surface flows [J]. Computer Physics Communications,
2016, 205: 87-105.
[62] Long T., Hu D., Yang G. et al. A particle-element contact
algorithm incorporated into the coupling methods of FEM-
ISPH and FEM-WCSPH for FSI problems [J]. Ocean
Engineering, 2016, 123: 154-163.
[63] Serván-Camas B., Cercós-Pita J., Colom-Cobb J. et al.
Time domain simulation of coupled sloshing–seakeeping
problems by SPH–FEM coupling [J]. Ocean Engineering,
2016, 123: 383-396.
[64] Hu D., Long T., Xiao Y. et al. Fluid–structure interaction
analysis by coupled FE–SPH model based on a novel
searching algorithm [J]. Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering, 2014, 276: 266-286.
[65] Li Z., Leduc J., Nunez-Ramirez J. et al. A non-intrusive
partitioned approach to couple smoothed particle hydro-
dynamics and finite element methods for transient fluid-
structure interaction problems with large interface mo-
tion [J]. Computational Mechanics, 2015, 55(4): 697-718.
[66] Ming F. R., Zhang A. M., Wang S. P. Smoothed particle
hydrodynamics for the linear and nonlinear analyses of
elastoplastic damage and fracture of shell [J]. Internatio-
nal Journal of Applied Mechanics, 2015, 7(2): 1550032.
[67] Ming F. R., Zhang A. M., Cao X. Y. A robust shell ele-
ment in meshfree SPH method [J]. Acta Mechanica Sinica,
2013, 29(2): 241-255.
[68] Hwang S. C., Park J. C., Gotoh H. et al. Numerical simula-
tions of sloshing flows with elastic baffles by using a par-
ticle-based fluid–structure interaction analysis method [J].
Ocean Engineering, 2016, 118: 227-241.
[69] Hwang S. C., Khayyer A., Gotoh H. et al. Development of
a fully lagrangian MPS-based coupled method for simula-
tion of fluid–structure interaction problems [J]. Journal of
Fluids and Structures, 2014, 50: 497-511.
[70] Yang X., Liu M., Peng S. et al. Numerical modeling of
dam-break flow impacting on flexible structures using an
improved SPH–EBG method [J]. Coastal Engineering,
2016, 108: 56-64.
[71] Yang X., Liu M., Peng S. Smoothed particle hydrodyna-
mics and element bending group modeling of flexible
fibers interacting with viscous fluids [J]. Physical Review
E, 2014, 90(6): 063011.
[72] YANG X., LIU M. B. Bending modes and transition crite-
ria for a flexible fiber in viscous flows [J]. Journal of
Hydrodynamics, 2016, 28(6): 1043-1048.
[73] Marrone S., Colagrossi A., Di Mascio A. et al. Analysis of
free-surface flows through energy considerations: Single-
phase versus two-phase modeling [J]. Physical Review E,
2016, 93(5): 053113.
[74] Thiagarajan K., Rakshit D., Repalle N. The air–water slo-
shing problem: Fundamental analysis and parametric stu-
dies on excitation and fill levels [J]. Ocean Engineering,
2011, 38(2): 498-508.
[75] Gong K., Shao S., Liu H. et al. Two-phase SPH simulation
of fluid–structure interactions [J]. Journal of Fluids and
Structures, 2016, 65: 155-179.
[76] Lugni C., Brocchini M., Faltinsen O. Evolution of the air
cavity during a depressurized wave impact. II. The dyna-
mic field [J]. Physics of Fluids, 2010, 22(5): 056102.
[77] Lugni C., Miozzi M., Brocchini M. et al. Evolution of the
air cavity during a depressurized wave impact. I. The kine-
matic flow field [J]. Physics of Fluids, 2010, 22(5):
056101.
[78] Chen Z., Zong Z., Liu M. B. et al. An SPH model for mul-
tiphase flows with complex interfaces and large density
differences [J]. Journal of Computational Physics, 2015,
283: 169-188.
[79] Luo X. W., Ji B., Tsujimoto Y. A review of cavitation in
hydraulic machinery [J]. Journal of Hydrodynamics, 2016,
28(3): 335-358.
[80] Sedlar M., Ji B., Kratky T. et al. Numerical and experime-
ntal investigation of three-dimensional cavitating flow
around the straight NACA2412 hydrofoil [J]. Ocean Engi-

neering, 2016, 123: 357-382.
[81] Grenier N., Le Touze D., Colagrossi A. et al. Viscous
bubbly flows simulation with an interface SPH model [J].
Ocean Engineering, 2013, 69: 88-102.
[82] Sun P. N., Li Y. B., Ming F. R. Numerical simulation on
the motion characteristics of freely rising bubbles using
smoothed particle hydrodynamics method [J]. Acta Phy-
sica Sinica, 2015, 64(17): 174701-174701.
[83] Hu X., Adams N. A multi-phase SPH method for macro-
scopic and mesoscopic flows [J]. Journal of Computatio-
nal Physics, 2006, 213(2): 844-861.
[84] Grenier N., Antuono M., Colagrossi A. et al. An
Hamiltonian interface SPH formulation for multi-fluid and
free surface flows [J]. Journal of Computational Physics,
2009, 228(22): 8380-8393.
[85] Ming F. R., Sun P. N., Zhang A. M. Numerical investi-
gation of rising bubbles bursting at a free surface through
a multiphase SPH model [J]. Meccanica, 2017, 1-20.
[86] Adami S., Hu X., Adams N. A new surface-tension formu-
lation for multi-phase SPH using a reproducing divergence
approximation [J]. Journal of Computational Physics,
2010, 229(13): 5011-5021.
[87] Colagrossi A., Antuono M., Le Touzé D. Theoretical con-
siderations on the free-surface role in the smoothed-parti-
cle-hydrodynamics model [J]. Physical Review E, 2009,
79(5): 056701.
[88] Dehnen W., Aly H. Improving convergence in smoothed
particle hydrodynamics simulations without pairing insta-
bility [J]. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society, 2012, 425(2): 1068-1082.
[89] Randles P., Libersky L. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics:
Some recent improvements and applications [J]. Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 1996,
139(1): 375-408.
[90] Shao J. R., Li H. Q., Liu G. R. et al. An improved SPH
method for modeling liquid sloshing dynamics [J]. Com-
puters and Structures, 2012, 100: 18-26.
[91] Huang C., Lei J. M., Liu M. B. et al. A kernel gradient free
(KGF) SPH method [J]. International Journal for Numeri-
cal Methods in Fluids, 2015, 78(11): 691-707.
[92] Marrone S., Antuono M., Colagrossi A. et al. δ - SPH
model for simulating violent impact flows [J]. Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2011,
200(13): 1526-1542.
[93] Ren B., He M., Dong P. et al. Nonlinear simulations of
wave-induced motions of a freely floating body using
WCSPH method [J]. Applied Ocean Research, 2015, 50:
1-12.
[94] Zhang G., Batra R. Symmetric smoothed particle hydro-
dynamics (SSPH) method and its application to elastic
problems [J]. Computational Mechanics, 2009, 43(3):
321-340.
[95] Xu X. An improved SPH approach for simulating 3D
dam-break flows with breaking waves [J]. Computer Me-
thods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2016, 331:
723–742.
[96] Xu X., Deng X. L. An improved weakly compressible
SPH method for simulating free surface flows of viscous
and viscoelastic fluids [J]. Computer Physics Communica-
tions, 2016, 201: 43-62.
[97] Benz W. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: A review [J].
The Numerical Modelling of Nonlinear Stellar Pulsations,
1989, 302: 269-288.
[98] Adams B. Simulation of ballistic impacts on armored civil
vehicles [D]. Doctoral Thesis, Eindhoven, The Netherlands:
Eindhoven University of Technology, 2003.
213
[99] Ming F. R., Sun P. N., Zhang A. M. Investigation on
charge parameters of underwater contact explosion based
on axisymmetric SPH method [J]. Applied Mathematics
and Mechanics, 2014, 35: 453-468.
[100] Shibata K., Koshizuka S., Sakai M. et al. Lagrangian
simulations of ship-wave interactions in rough seas [J].
Ocean Engineering, 2012, 42: 13-25.
[101] Guo K., Sun P. N., Cao X. Y. et al. A 3-D SPH model for
simulating water flooding of a damaged floating structu-
re [J]. Journal of Hydrodynamics, 2017(in Press).
[102] Kajtar J., Monaghan J. J. SPH simulations of swimming
linked bodies [J]. Journal of Computational Physics,
2008, 227(19): 8568-8587.
[103] Shao S., Gotoh H. Simulating coupled motion of progre-
ssive wave and floating curtain wall by SPH-LES
model [J]. Coastal Engineering Journal, 2004, 46(2):
171-202.
[104] Cercos-Pita J., Dalrymple R., Herault A. Diffusive terms
for the conservation of mass equation in SPH [J]. Applied
Mathematical Modelling, 2016, 40(19-20): 8722-8736.
[105] Molteni D., Colagrossi A. A simple procedure to improve
the pressure evaluation in hydrodynamic context using
the SPH [J]. Computer Physics Communications, 2009,
180(6): 861-872.
[106] Vila J. On particle weighted methods and smooth particle
hydrodynamics [J]. Mathematical models and methods in
applied sciences, 1999, 9(02): 161-209.
[107] Lanson N., Vila J. P. Renormalized meshfree schemes I:
Consistency, stability, and hybrid methods for conserva-
tion laws [J]. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 2008,
46(4): 1912-1934.
[108] Ferrari A., Dumbser M., Toro E. F. et al. A new 3D para-
llel SPH scheme for free surface flows [J]. Computers
and fluids, 2009, 38(6): 1203-1217.
[109] Khayyer A., Gotoh H. Enhancement of stability and
accuracy of the moving particle semi-implicit method [J].
Journal of Computational Physics, 2011, 230(8): 3093-
3118.
[110] Khayyer A., Gotoh H. A higher order Laplacian model
for enhancement and stabilization of pressure calculation
by the MPS method [J]. Applied Ocean Research, 2010,
32(1): 124-131.
[111] Colagrossi A., Antuono M., Souto-Iglesias A. et al. Theo-
retical analysis and numerical verification of the con-
sistency of viscous smoothed-particle-hydrodynamics
formulations in simulating free-surface flows [J]. Physi-
cal Review E, 2011, 84(2): 026705.
[112] Dilts G. A. Moving least-squares particle hydrodynamics
II: Conservation and boundaries [J]. International Jour-
nal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2000, 48(10):
1503-1524.
[113] Haque A., Dilts G. A. Three-dimensional boundary dete-
ction for particle methods [J]. Journal of Computational
Physics, 2007, 226(2): 1710-1730.
[114] Zheng X., Duan W. Y., Ma Q. W. A new scheme for
identifying free surface particles in improved SPH [J].
Science China Physics, Mechanics and Astronomy, 2012,
55(8): 1454-1463.
[115] Tang Z. Y., Zhang Y. L., Wan D. C. Numerical simula-
tion of 3-D free surface flows by overlapping MPS [J].
Journal of Hydrodynamics, 2016, 28(2): 306-312.
[116] De Leffe M., Le Touzé D., Alessandrini B. Normal flux
method at the boundary for SPH [C]. 4th ERCOFTAC
SPHERIC Workshop. Nantes , France, 2009.
[117] Ferrand M., Laurence D., Rogers B. et al. Unified semi-
analytical wall boundary conditions for inviscid, laminar
214
or turbulent flows in the meshless SPH method [J]. Inter-
national Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2013,
71(4): 446-472.
[118] Monaghan J., Kajtar J. SPH particle boundary forces for
arbitrary boundaries [J]. Computer Physics Communica-
tions, 2009, 180(10): 1811-1820.
[119] Cummins S. J., Rudman M. An SPH projection me-
thod [J]. Journal of Computational Physics, 1999, 152(2):
584-607.
[120] Adami S., Hu X., Adams N. A generalized wall boundary
condition for smoothed particle hydrodynamics [J]. Jour-
nal of Computational Physics, 2012, 231(21): 7057-
7075.
[121] Liu M. B., Shao J. R., Chang J. Z. On the treatment of
solid boundary in smoothed particle hydrodynamics [J].
Science China-Technological Sciences, 2012, 55(1): 244-
254.
[122] Liu M. B., Shao J. R., Li H. Q. An SPH model for free
surface flows with moving rigid objects [J]. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2014, 74: 684-
697.
[123] Cercos-Pita J., Antuono M., Colagrossi A. et al. SPH
energy conservation for fluid–solid interactions [J]. Com-
puter Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering,
2017, 317: 771-791.
[124] Maciá F., Antuono M., González L. M. et al. Theoretical
analysis of the no-slip boundary condition enforcement
in SPH methods [J]. Progress of theoretical physics,
2011, 125(6): 1091-1121.
[125] Shao S., Lo E. Y. Incompressible SPH method for simu-
lating Newtonian and non-Newtonian flows with a free
surface [J]. Advances in Water Resources, 2003, 26(7):
787-800.
[126] Takeda H., Miyama S. M., Sekiya M. Numerical simula-
tion of viscous flow by smoothed particle hydrodyna-
mics [J]. Progress of theoretical physics, 1994, 92(5):
939-960.
[127] Federico I., Marrone S., Colagrossi A. et al. Simulating
2D open-channel flows through an SPH model [J].
European Journal of Mechanics-B/Fluids, 2012, 34: 35-
46.
[128] Kazemi E., Nichols A., Tait S. et al. SPH modelling of
depth-limited turbulent open channel flows over rough
boundaries [J]. International Journal for Numerical Me-
thods in Fluids, 2017, 83(1): 3-27.
[129] Ferrand M., Joly A., Kassiotis C. et al. Unsteady open
boundaries for SPH using semi-analytical conditions and
Riemann solver in 2D [J]. Computer Physics Communi-
cations, 2016, 210: 29-44.
[130] Leroy A., Violeau D., Ferrand M. et al. A new open
boundary formulation for incompressible SPH [J]. Com-
puters and Mathematics with Applications, 2016, 72(9):
2417-2432.
[131] Kunz P., Hirschler M., Huber M. et al. Inflow/outflow
with dirichlet boundary conditions for pressure in
ISPH [J]. Journal of Computational Physics, 2016, 326:
171-187.
[132] Tan S. K., Cheng N. S., Xie Y. et al. Incompressible SPH
simulation of open channel flow over smooth bed [J].
Journal of Hydro-environment Research, 2015, 9(3):
340-353.
[133] Lastiwka M., Basa M., Quinlan N. J. Permeable and non-
reflecting boundary conditions in SPH [J]. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2009, 61(7):
709-724.
[134] Wen H., Ren B. 3D Numerical wave basin based on
parallelized SPH method [C]. ASME 33rd International
Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering.
San Francisco, USA, 2014.
[135] Colagrossi A., Bouscasse B., Antuono M. et al. Particle
packing algorithm for SPH schemes [J]. Computer Phy-
sics Communications, 2012, 183(8): 1641-1653.
[136] Antuono M., Colagrossi A., Marrone S. et al. Propagation
of gravity waves through an SPH scheme with numerical
diffusive terms [J]. Computer Physics Communications,
2011, 182(4): 866-877.
[137] Rossi E., Colagrossi A., Durante D. et al. Simulating 2D
viscous flow around geometries with vertices through the
diffused vortex hydrodynamics method [J]. Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2016,
302: 147-169.
[138] Marsh A., Oger G., Touzé D. l. et al. Validation of a con-
servative variable-resolution SPH scheme including ∇h
terms [C]. Proceedings of the 6th International SPHERIC
Workshop. Hambourg, Germany, 2011.
[139] Koukouvinis P. K., Anagnostopoulos J. S., Papantonis D.
E. Simulation of 2D wedge impacts on water using the
SPH–ALE method [J]. Acta Mechanica, 2013, 224(11):
2559-2575.
[140] Tang Z., Wan D., Chen G. et al. Numerical simulation of
3D violent free-surface flows by multi-resolution MPS
method [J]. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Marine
Energy, 2016, 2(3): 355-364.
[141] Feldman J., Bonet J. Dynamic refinement and boundary
contact forces in SPH with applications in fluid flow pro-
blems [J]. International Journal for Numerical Methods
in Engineering, 2007, 72(3): 295-324.
[142] Omidvar P., Stansby P. K., Rogers B. D. Wave body in-
teraction in 2D using smoothed particle hydrodynamics
(SPH) with variable particle mass [J]. International Jour-
nal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2012, 68(6): 686-
705.
[143] Omidvar P., Stansby P. K., Rogers B. D. SPH for 3D
floating bodies using variable mass particle distribu-
tion [J]. International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Fluids, 2013, 72(4): 427-452.
[144] López Y. R., Roose D., Morfa C. R. Dynamic particle
refinement in SPH: Application to free surface flow and
non-cohesive soil simulations [J]. Computational Mecha-
nics, 2013, 51(5): 731-741.
[145] Vacondio R., Rogers B., Stansby P. et al. Variable reso-
lution for SPH in three dimensions: Towards optimal
splitting and coalescing for dynamic adaptivity [J]. Com-
puter Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering,
2016, 300: 442-460.
[146] Vacondio R., Rogers B., Stansby P. et al. Variable reso-
lution for SPH: A dynamic particle coalescing and spli-
tting scheme [J]. Computer Methods in Applied Mecha-
nics and Engineering, 2013, 256: 132-148.
[147] Monaghan J. J. SPH without a tensile instability [J].
Journal of Computational Physics, 2000, 159(2): 290-
311.
[148] Le Touzé D., Colagrossi A., Colicchio G. et al. A critical
investigation of smoothed particle hydrodynamics app-
lied to problems with free-surfaces [J]. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2013, 73(7):
660-691.
[149] Oger G., Marrone S., Le Touzé D. et al. SPH accuracy
improvement through the combination of a quasi-
Lagrangian shifting transport velocity and consistent
ALE formalisms [J]. Journal of Computational Physics,
2016, 313: 76-98.

[150] Tsuruta N., Khayyer A., Gotoh H. A short note on dyna-
mic stabilization of moving particle semi-implicit me-
thod [J]. Computers and fluids, 2013, 82: 158-164.
[151] Adami S., Hu X., Adams N. A transport-velocity for-
mulation for smoothed particle hydrodynamics [J]. Jour-
nal of Computational Physics, 2013, 241: 292-307.
[152] Litvinov S., Hu X., Adams N. Towards consistence and
convergence of conservative SPH approximations [J].
Journal of Computational Physics, 2015, 301: 394-401.
[153] Lind S. J., Xu R., Stansby P. K. et al. Incompressible
smoothed particle hydrodynamics for free-surface flows:
A generalised diffusion-based algorithm for stability and
validations for impulsive flows and propagating
waves [J]. Journal of Computational Physics, 2012,
231(4): 1499-1523.
[154] Liu X., Lin P., Shao S. ISPH wave simulation by using
an internal wave maker [J]. Coastal Engineering, 2015,
95: 160-170.
[155] Bouscasse B., Antuono M., Colagrossi A. et al. Numeri-
cal and experimental investigation of nonlinear shallow
water sloshing [J]. International Journal of Nonlinear
Sciences and Numerical Simulation, 2013, 14(2): 123-
138.
[156] Delorme L., Colagrossi A., Souto-Iglesias A. et al. A set
of canonical problems in sloshing, Part I: Pressure field
inforced roll comparison between experimental results
and SPH [J]. Ocean Engineering, 2009, 36(2): 168-178.
[157] Marrone S., Colagrossi A., Di Mascio A. et al. Prediction
of energy losses in water impacts using incompressible
and weakly compressible models [J]. Journal of Fluids
and Structures, 2015, 54: 802-822.
[158] Chen Z., Zong Z., Li H. et al. An investigation into the
pressure on solid walls in 2D sloshing using SPH me-
thod [J]. Ocean Engineering, 2013, 59: 129-141.
[159] Luo M., Koh C., Bai W. A three-dimensional particle
method for violent sloshing under regular and irregular
excitations [J]. Ocean Engineering, 2016, 120: 52-63.
[160] Wei Z., Hu C. Experimental study on water entry of cir-
cular cylinders with inclined angles [J]. Journal of
Marine Science and Technology, 2015, 20(4): 722-738.
[161] Wei Z., Hu C. An experimental study on water entry of
horizontal cylinders [J]. Journal of Marine Science and
Technology, 2014, 19(3): 338-350.
[162] Nguyen V. T., Vu D. T., Park W. G. et al. Navier-Stokes
solver for water entry bodies with moving Chimera grid
method in 6DOF motions [J]. Computers and fluids,
2016, 140: 19-38.
[163] Zhu X., Faltinsen O. M., Hu C. Water entry and exit of a
horizontal circular cylinder [J]. Journal of Offshore Me-
chanics and Arctic Engineering, 2007, 129(4): 253-264.
[164] Zhao R., Faltinsen O. Water entry of two-dimensional
bodies [J]. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 1993, 246(1):
593-612.
[165] Wu G., Sun H., He Y. Numerical simulation and experi-
mental study of water entry of a wedge in free fall
motion [J]. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 2004, 19(3):
277-289.
[166] Sun S., Wu G. Oblique water entry of a cone by a fully
three-dimensional nonlinear method [J]. Journal of Fluids
and Structures, 2013, 42: 313-332.
[167] Sun H., Faltinsen O. M. Water impact of horizontal cir-
cular cylinders and cylindrical shells [J]. Applied Ocean
Research, 2006, 28(5): 299-311.
[168] Vandamme J., Zou Q., Reeve D. E. Modeling floating
object entry and exit using smoothed particle hydrodyna-
mics [J]. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean
215
Engineering, 2011, 137(5): 213-224.
[169] Colicchio G., Greco M., Miozzi M. et al. Experimental
and numerical investigation of the water-entry and water-
exit of a circular cylinder [C]. Proceedings of the 24th
International Workshop on Water Waves and Floating
Bodies. Zelenogorsk, Russia, 2009, 19-22.
[170] Zhu X. Application of the CIP method to strongly non-
linear wave-body interaction problems [D]. Doctoral
Thesis, Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian University of
Science and Technology, 2006.
[171] Ni B. Y., Zhang A. M., Wu G. X. Simulation of complete
water exit of a fully-submerged body [J]. Journal of
Fluids and Structures, 2015, 58: 79-98.
[172] Wang S., Zhang G., Feng S. et al. Numerical simulation
for 2D water-exit problem based on boundary element
method [J]. Journal of Dalian Maritime University, 2016,
42(4): 26-32(in Chinese).
[173] Gang M. Hydrodynamic forces and dynamic responses of
circular cylinders on wave zones [D]. Doctoral Thesis,
Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian Institute of Technology,
1989.
[174] Pan K., IJzermans R., Jones B. et al. Application of the
SPH method to solitary wave impact on an offshore plat-
form [J]. Computational Particle Mechanics, 2016, 3(2):
155-166.
[175] Zhao X., Hu C. Numerical and experimental study on a
2-D floating body under extreme wave conditions [J].
Applied Ocean Research, 2012, 35: 1-13.
[176] Zhao X., Ye Z., Fu Y. et al. A CIP-based numerical
simulation of freak wave impact on a floating body [J].
Ocean Engineering, 2014, 87: 50-63.
[177] Zhao X. Z., Hu C. H. Numerical and experimental study
on a 2-D floating body under extreme wave conditio-
ns [J]. Applied Ocean Research, 2012, 35: 1-13.
[178] Idelsohn S., Onate E., Del Pin F. et al. Fluid–structure
interaction using the particle finite element method [J].
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Enginee-
ring, 2006, 195(17): 2100-2123.
[179] Le Touzé D., Marsh A., Oger G. et al. SPH simulation of
green water and ship flooding scenarios [J]. Journal of
Hydrodynamics, 2010, 22(5): 231-236.
[180] Rossi E., Colagrossi A., Bouscasse B. et al. The diffused
vortex hydrodynamics method [J]. Communications in
Computational Physics, 2015, 18(2): 351-379.
[181] Bouscasse B., Colagrossi A., Marrone S. et al. Viscous
flow past a circular cylinder below a free surface [C].
ASME 33rd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore
and Arctic Engineering. San Francisco, USA, 2014.
[182] Bouscasse B., Colagrossi A., Marrone S. et al. High
froude number viscous flow past a circular cylinder [C].
ASME 34th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore
and Arctic Engineering. St. Johnʼs, Newfoundland,
Canada, 2015.
[183] Cercos-Pita J. L., Colagrossi A., Souto-Iglesias A. Low
Reynolds flow past a circular cylinder close to a free-
surface with vertical motion dynamics [C]. ASME 35th
International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic
Engineering, Busan, Korea, 2016.
[184] Bouscassea B., Colagrossi A., Marronea S. et al. SPH
modelling of viscous flows past a circular cylinder inte-
racting with a free surface [J]. Computers and fluids,
2017.
[185] Sun P. N., Colagrossi A., Marrone S. et al. SPH formula-
tion of FTLE for the detection of Lagrangian coherent
structures [C]. Proceeding of the 11th Int. SPHERIC
Workshop. Munich, Germany, 2016.
216
[186] Landrini M., Colagrossi A., Greco M. et al. The fluid
mechanics of splashing bow waves on ships: A hybrid
BEM–SPH analysis [J]. Ocean Engineering, 2012, 53:
111-127.
[187] Morris J. P. Simulating surface tension with smoothed
particle hydrodynamics [J]. International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2000, 33(3): 333-353.
[188] Adelsberger J., Esser P., Griebel M. et al. 3D incompre-
ssible two-phase flow benchmark computations for rising
droplets [C]. Proceedings of the 11th World Congress on
Computational Mechanics (WCCM XI). Barcelona, Spain,
2014.
[189] Zhang A., Zhou W., Wang S. et al. Dynamic response of
the non-contact underwater explosions on naval equip-
ment [J]. Marine Structures, 2011, 24(4): 396-411.
[190] Zhang A. M., Zeng L. Y., Cheng X. D. et al. The evalua-
tion method of total damage to ship in underwater explo-
sion [J]. Applied Ocean Research, 2011, 33(4): 240-251.
[191] Zhang A. M., Liu Y. L. Improved three-dimensional
bubble dynamics model based on boundary element me-
thod [J]. Journal of Computational Physics, 2015, 294:
208-223.
[192] Li S., Han R., Zhang A. M. et al. Analysis of pressure
field generated by a collapsing bubble [J]. Ocean Engi-
neering, 2016, 117: 22-38.
[193] Li S., Li Y. B., Zhang A. M. Numerical analysis of the
bubble jet impact on a rigid wall [J]. Applied Ocean
Research, 2015, 50: 227-236.
[194] Colagrossi A., Marrone S., Bouscasse B. et al. Numerical
simulations of the flow past surface-piercing objects [J].
International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering,
2015, 25(1): 13-18.
[195] Zhang Z. Q., Yao J., Liu G. R. An immersed smoothed
finite element method for fluid–structure interaction pro-
blems [J]. International Journal of Computational Me-
thods, 2011, 8(4): 747-757.
[196] Yao J., Liu G., Narmoneva D. A. et al. Immersed smoo-
thed finite element method for fluid–structure interaction
simulation of aortic valves [J]. Computational Mechanics,
2012, 50(6): 789-804.
[197] He Z. C., Liu G. R., Zhong Z. H. et al. A coupled
ES-FEM/BEM method for fluid–structure interaction
problems [J]. Engineering Analysis with Boundary Ele-
ments, 2011, 35(1): 140-147.
[198] Marrone S., Di Mascio A., Le Touzé D. Coupling of
smoothed particle hydrodynamics with finite volume
method for free-surface flows [J]. Journal of Computa-
tional Physics, 2016, 310: 161-180.