Jaouenf Archinav08

The Validation of the Free-Surface Modelling of
F RE SC O
Frederick Jaouen
August 2008
Acknowledgements
I am deeply grateful to Guiherme Vaz for his interest in the development of my master’s thesis.
He has always stimulated me and given interest in Computational Fluid Dynamics to me. More-
over, he has always been willing to help me understanding numerical concepts and to answer
my questions. Helping him validating F RE SC O was a real pleasure.
I also thank Martin Hoekstra and Tim Bunnik for their help for providing me useful references,
grid files and for having shared their knowledge in computational and wave engineering.
I thank besides Professor Jean-Marc Laurens for having encouraged me to carry out my master’s
thesis at MARIN.
Finally, many thanks to all the fellow students from MARIN with whom I had great time all
along the internship. A special thought to Bastien and my corridormates, who have made the
integration in the Netherlands easier to me.
3
Abstract
The CFD code F RE SC O – FREe Surface COde – is the result from a cooperation between HSVA
(Hamburgische Schiffbau Versuch Anstalt), TUHH (Technische Universität Hamburg-Harburg)
and MARIN (MAritime Research Institute of the Netherlands). This code, whose mathematical
formulation is based on the RANS equations (Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes), focuses on the
resolution of multiphase flows, ie. free surface flows, cavitating flows, multi-species flows. In
order to identify the modelling errors and reduce the iteration and discretization errors, any CFD
code has to be validated. The purpose of this master’s thesis is the validation of the free-surface
modelling of F RE SC O, especially regarding wave generation and propagation. The study of the
numerical dissipation and dispersion of Airy and Stokes waves is carried out. Finally, the Dun-
can experiments and Transom Stern flows are used for the validation. Basically the numerical
results show good agreements with analytical solutions or experimental tests and conclusions
are so quite optimistic. However, some specific boundary conditions seem to be required for
wave problems and a more consistent way of discretizing the hydrostatic law at the interface has
to be implemented.
Le code hydrodynamique F RE SC O – FREe Surface COde –est le fruit d’une cooperation entre
HSVA (Hamburgische Schiffbau Versuch Anstalt), TUHH (Technische Universität Hamburg-
Harburg) et MARIN (MAritime Research Institute of the Netherlands). Ce code, dont la for-
mulation mathématique est basée sur les équations RANS (Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes)
porte une attention toute particulière à la résolution des écoulements multiphasiques, autrement
dit des écoulement à surface libre. Afin d’identifier les erreurs de modélisation et réduire les er-
reurs d’itérations et de discrétization, tout code CFD se doit d’être validé. L ’objet de cette thèse
est la validation de F RE SC O en ce qui concerne les écoulements à surface libre, et en particulier
la génération et propagation de vagues. La dissipation et la dispersion numérique des vagues
d’Airy et de Stokes de second-ordre sont etudiées. Enfin, l’hydrofoil de Duncan et l’écoulement
derrière un Transom-Stern sont utilisés pour la validation. Dans l’ensemble, la comparaison des
résultats numériques obtenus par F RE SC O et des solutions analytiques ou données expérimen-
tales permettent de tirer des conclusions assez positives. Cependant, des conditions aux limites
spécifiques aux problèmes de vagues, ainsi qu’un schéma de discrétisation consistant de la loi de
l’hydrostatique doivent être implementés.
5
Nomenclature
Dimensionless Numbers
U ∆t
Cn Courant number [
∆x
]
p − pre f
Cp Pressure coefficient [ 2
]
0.5ρUre f
Ure f
FN Froude number [p ]
g Lre f
Ure f
FNtr Froude number based on the Transom Draft [p ]
g Td
Ure f Lre f
Re Reynolds number [
ν
]
U
u+ Dimensionless velocity [
Uτ
]
Uτ dwall
y+ Dimensionless wall distance [
ν
]
Greek Symbols
α Fluid Volume Fraction [−]
δ0.99 Thickness of the boundary layer [m]
ǫ Expansion factor [−]
ǫ Error (dispersion, dissipation) [−]
η Free surface height [m]
µ Dynamic viscosity [ N.s.m−2 ]
µt Dynamic turbulent viscosity [ N.s.m−2 ]
ν Kinematic viscosity [m2 .s−1 ]
νt Kinematic turbulent viscosity [m2 .s−1 ]
ω Water wave frequency [rd.s−1 ]
ωe Encountered water wave frequency [rd.s−1 ]
Φ Velocity potential [m2 .s−1 ]
τ stress [kg.m−1 .s−2 ]
ρ density [kg.m−3 ]
7
8
Latin Symbols
D Deformation Tensor
Cφ Wave phase velocity = wave celerity [m.s−1 ]
Cg Wave group velocity [m.s−1 ]
d Water depth [m]
H Wave height [m]
h Wave amplitude [m]
L Wave lengh [m]
p Pressure [ N.m−2 ]
Pre f Reference pressure [ N.m−2 ]
T Wave period [s]
Td Transom draft [m]
Te Encountered wave period [s]
T Stress Tensor
U = (u, v, w) Velocity field [m.s−1 ]
Ure f Reference velocity [m.s−1 ]
Abbreviations
BC Boundary Condition
CICSAM Compressive Interface Capturing Scheme for Arbitrary Meshes
CDS Central Difference Scheme
CV Control Volume
DNS Direct Numerical Simulation
F RE SC O FREe Surface COde
FVM Finite Volume Method
HRIC High Resolution Interface Capturing
LES Large Eddy Simulation
NRBC Non-Reflecting Boundary Condition
QUICK Quadratic Upwind Interpolation for Convective Kinematics
RANS Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes
UDS Upwind Difference Scheme
URANS Unsteady Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes
VoF Volume of Fluid
Contents
Acknowledgement 3
Abstract 5
Nomenclature 7
1 Introduction 11
2 Theoretical formulation 15
2.1 Navier-Stokes equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2 Calculation of the pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3 Volume-of-Fluid model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4 Wave theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3 Numerical formulation 21
3.1 General presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2 Spatial discretization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.2.1 Approximation of volume integrals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.2.2 Approximation of surface integrals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2.3 Discretization of the convective terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2.4 Discretization of the diffusive terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2.5 Discretization of pressure terms and body forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.3 Time discretization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.4 Pressure correction scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.5 Implementation of Boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.6 Specific treatment of boundaries for wave generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.6.1 Inlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.6.2 Outlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.6.3 Sea bed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9
10 CONTENTS
4 Numerical studies 31
4.1 Preliminary studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.1.2 Perturbations at the Neumann boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.1.3 Perturbations at the free-surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.2 Wave generation and propagation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.2.1 The grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.2.2 Validation of wave propagation for Airy waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.2.3 Validation of wave propagation for Stokes wave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.2.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5 Validation 47
5.1 Duncan foil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.1.2 Numerical studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.1.3 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.2 Transom Stern flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.2.2 Numerical studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.2.3 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6 Conclusions 61
A URANS Equations and Turbulence 63

A.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
A.2 Turbulence models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
A.3 The y+ parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
B Wave theories 67
C Test case settings: wave 69
D Test case settings: Duncan foil 75
E Duncan foil: plots 83
F Test case settings: transom-stern flow 93

Chapter 1
Introduction
Flows with free surface are of most interest in the fluid mechanics field. Indeed, such flows deal with large
number of industrial interests, such as liquid sloshing in LNG tankers, chemical and food industry, droplet-
wall interaction, cavitation, waves on ships . . . The free surface flows are multi-phase flows, synonymous
with complex physics. They are an especially difficult class of flows with moving boundaries and therefore,
models of the free-surface are required. The wave flows, responsible for stresses on structures and added
resistance for ships, are especially dealt with herein. The purpose is to validate F RE SC O so it can, in a near
future, be applied reliably for hydrodynamics studies on ships and offshore structures.
Modelling of free surface flows
Many methods have been published to find the shape of the free surface. Globally, they can be
classified into two groups: interface tracking methods and interface capturing methods.
In interface tracking methods, the free surface is sharp and the mesh is adjusted for the motion
of the free surface after each timestep. These are usually characterized by separate meshes for
each phase and the motion of the free surface is obtained from boundary condition. On the
one hand, they allow a precise modelling of the free surface and can solve high surface tension
problems. On the other hand, they do not allow changes in the interface topology and problems
can be encountered for low density ratio.
In interface capturing methods, the interface is not defined as a sharp boudary. A fixed mesh
is used and the disctinct phases are all considered as a unique fluid domain, also called the
continuum approach. Each cell of the grid is characterized by fluid volume fractions α phasei .
These methods give a natural handling of interface breakup, the mesh is static and thus leads to
efficient simulations. But the free surface is not sharp and therefore the handling of interfacial
properties is imprecise. Besides, the density ratio and surface tension are limited.
11
12 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
F RE SC O: an URANSE code developped at MARIN
F RE SC O is a CFD code designed to cope with various hydrodynamics problems. It has been de-
veloped through a cooperation between Hamburgische Schiffbau - VersuchAnstalt (HSVA), Tech-
nische Universität Hamburg-Harburg (TUHH) and MARIN. The mathematical model is based
on URANS equations, and the free surface is captured by a Volume-Of-Fluid method (VoF).
The development of F RE SC O started at MARIN in 2005 and can be divided in several steps:
• 2005 : the development of F RE SC O starts.
• March 2007 : B.Abeil began the validation of F RE SC O regarding free-surface flows. Nu-
merical studies on simple free-surface flows were carried out to assess the influence of dif-
ferent parameters on the computations: convection scheme, courant number, grid... A first
validation of the free-surface flows was carried out by comparing numerical results with
experimental results of the well-known dambreak validation test case(See [1]).
• June 2007 : M.Hoekstra et al.[8] presented at the ECCOMAS Marine Engineering 2007 some
results with well-known discretization schemes, like CICSAM and HRIC for artificial bench-
mark problems and two dam-break problems. They were compared with experimental data
as well as results obtained with an alternative code, based on interface tracking. A critical
evaluation was finally given, leading to the conclusion that the interface capturing scheme
in F RE SC O should not be governed by the Courant number.
• August 2008: The latter step of the validation of free-surface flows is carried out. This is the
topic of the studies herein presented, whose main objectives are described below.
Objectives of the present study
The main objective of this thesis is to provide to the CFD researchers from MARIN a good assess-
ment of the current abilities of F RE SC O regarding the wave propagation. This with an objective,
in the near future, to simulate some experimental tests with incident waves with F RE SC O. After
having presented the theoretical and numerical formulations of the free-surface flows problems,
numerical studies will be presented. It will consist first of the study of the numerical dissipation
and dispersion of Airy and second-order Stokes waves, and then of the validation of the wave
flows in F RE SC O by comparing numerical results by the experimental data from Duncan [4] and
Transom Stern flows ([12],[20]). In practical terms, this master’s thesis consists in:
• investigating numerical capabilities of F RE SC O for waves
• validating against analytical solution and experimental data the current code
• identifying problems and future work

13
What does validation mean?

Basically, the subject herein dealt with is the validation of free-surface flows. But what does
”‘validation” exactly mean? Actually, as any new code, F RE SC O has to undergo an analysis
whose purpose is to assess the spatial and discretization errors, to define convergence criteria so
as to assure small iteration errors, and to get rid of as many modelling errors as possible. The
different errors are described on the figure 1.1 and are defined as follows:
• The solution error, sometimes also called iteration or convergence error, is the difference
between the exact solution of the discrete equation and the computed solution. A smaller
convergence criteria enables to reduce it.
• The discretization error is the difference between the exact solution of the differential equa-
tion and the exact solution of the discrete equation. A finer grid enables to reduce it.
• The modelling error is due to the model applied by the user (turbulence model, law of the
wall...). It can only be reduced, once iteration and discretization errors are ensured to be
small enough, by comparing numerical results with accurate experimental data, or accurate
computations (DNS, LES...).
Exact solution
discrete equation
convergence
Exact solution
Total numerical error Computed solution
differential equation
Model error
Figure 1.1: Relation between solutions, errors and properties of a numerical method
Chapter 2
Theoretical formulation
The purpose of this chapter is to present the equations that govern viscous fluid flows. Each fluid is consid-
ered Newtonian, isothermal and incompressible. The notations used can be consulted in the Nomenclature.
The mathematical formulations, on which numerical simulations are based, are derived from conservation
laws of continuum mechanics such as mass conservation or momentum conservation. The equation based
on the conservation of energy is not herein presented since this is not solved in the study carried out. The
method which is applied in F RE SC O to capture the free surface is a VoF method, whose major equations
are presented. Finally, some equations derived from potential flow wave theories are presented.
2.1 Navier-Stokes equations
Basically, Navier-Stokes equations are conservation laws that can be derived by considering the
flow within a certain spatial region called control volume and noted herein CV. The two major laws
are derived from the conservation of mass in a CV expressed by the equation dm/dt = 0 and the
conservation of momentum d(mU)/dt = 0.
Figure 2.1: Control volume (CV) [1]
15
16 CHAPTER 2. THEORETICAL FORMULATION
Mass conservation
The mass conservation law states that without any source or sink, the mass of the incompressible
fluid in the CV is constant. A mass balance in the CV leads to the following equation
∂
Z Z
ρ dV + ρU .n dS = 0
∂t V S
Using the Green-Ostragradski theorem, the previous equation becomes:
∂ρ
+ ∇.(ρU) = 0 (2.1)
∂t
This equation, also called continuity equation, can be further simplified since the flow is consid-
ered incompressible:
∇.U = 0 (2.2)
Momentum conservation
The momentum conservation law states that the temporal change of the momentum of a body
equals the forces acting on this body. This leads to:
∂
Z Z
∂t V
ρU dV +
S
ρU(U . n) dS = ∑f (2.3)
The right hand term can be expressed in two distinct categories: the surface forces (pressure,
normal and shear stresses, surface tension, etc . . . ) and the body forces (gravity, centrifugal and
Coriolis forces, electromagnetic forces, etc. . . ). In the validation studies carried out, the only body
force considered is the gravitational acceleration g.
∂
Z Z Z Z
ρU dV + ρU (U . n) = T . n dS + ρB dV (2.4)
∂t V S S V
The tensor T, whose expression is known for Newtonianian fluids, is called the stress tensor.
D is the rate of strain, also called deformation tensor.

2 1h i
T = − p + µ ∇ . U I + 2µD D= ∇ U + (∇ U)T (2.5)
3 2
The viscous part of the stress tensor T is often described through a new tensor τ. As described
on the figure 2.2, stresses can be divided in axial stresses and shear stresses
Figure 2.2: Stress components on a CV

2.2. CALCULATION OF THE PRESSURE 17
2
τ = 2µD − µ (∇ . U) I = 2µD (2.6)
3
∂(ρU)
+ ∇ (ρUU) = ∇ (− p I + τ ) + ρb (2.7)
∂t
Conservation of a general scalar quantity

It can be very interesting to study the evolution of scalar quantities. In free surface flows, vol-
ume fractions and species concentrations are especially thought about. That is why additional
”transport equations” are solved in addition to the Navier-Stokes equations.
∂
Z Z
∂t V
ρφ dV +
S
ρφ (U . n) dS = ∑ fφ (2.8)
f φ represents transport of the scalar quantity φ by mechanisms other than convection. The
diffusive transport can be described by the well-known gradient approximation
Z
f φd = Γ ∇φ . n dS (2.9)
S
and the expression of source or sink flux of the scalar quantity is

Z
f φs = Qφ dV (2.10)
V
Therefore, the integral form of the general scalar quantity conservation equation becomes
∂
Z Z Z Z
ρφ dV + ρφ (U . n) dS = Γ ∇φ . n dS + Qφ dV (2.11)
∂t V S S V
and the coordinate free vector form of this equation is:
∂(ρφ)
+ ∇ · (ρφU) = ∇ · (Γ ∇φ) + Qφ (2.12)
∂t
2.2 Calculation of the pressure

The Navier-Stokes equations are quite inappropriate to determine the pressure field. Indeed,
there is no independant equation for the pressure, whose gradient contributes to each of the three
momentum equations. Moreover, the continuity equation does not have a dominant variable in
incompressible flows. The most common approach consists then in combining the equation of
continuity and momentum, by expressing the divergence of the momentum equation.

∂ (ρU)
∇. + ∇. (ρUU) = ∇.T + ρB (2.13)
∂t
∇. (∇ p) = −∇. [∇. (ρUU)] (2.14)
The pressure can then be determined by solving iteratively the discretized expression of the
equation 2.14.
2.3 Volume-of-Fluid model

F RE SC O determines the location of the free surface via an interface capturing technique named
VoF – Volume of Fluid. In such a model model the fluid is considered a homogeneous mixture
and each phase cannot ”slip” between each other. This means that there is only a mixture velocity
and pressure and the properties of the ”mix” are proportional to the α distribution. An important
thing to know about VoF methods is that they rely on the fact that the disctinct fluids of the
domain are not interpenetrating, ie. they are not miscible. Each cell is characterized by αi , the
volume fraction of phase i (αi = 1 for cells full of phase i and αi = 0 for cells empty of phase i).
Applying a VoF method requires solving an additional transport equation for α of the type of
Eq.2.12.
n n n
ρ= ∑ ρi αi µ= ∑ µi αi ∑ αi = 1 (2.15)
i =1 i =1 i =1
In the particular case of free surface flows, there is no source or sink of scalar quantity. More-
over, we can neglect any diffusion phenomena at the free surface. The flow being incompressible,
the density can be left out of the integral. Consequently, the scalar quantity conservation equation
adapted to the free surface flows is
∂
Z Z
φ dV + φ (U . n) d S = 0 (2.16)
∂t V S
From the scalar quantity conservation equation Eq. 2.12 previously described, the equation
governing the volume fraction transport equation is easily determined by replacing φ by α:
∂α
+ ∇.(αU) = 0 (2.17)
∂t
The critical issue of the VoF method concerns the discretization of convective term of this
equation. First-order convection schemes, described in the Chapter3 introduce diffusion of the
fluid species and thus are not adequate at all for free surface flows. Therefore, higher order
convection schemes such as HRIC and CICSAM will be prefered if possible (See chapter 3). They
give a sharper interface. Finally, let us notice that VoF methods are suitable even for complex free
surface flows such as wave breaking problems.
2.4 Wave theories
Introduction
Before discussing the two wave theories that are herein studied (Airy, Stokes), let us first intro-
duce some definitions. Plane waves only are dealt with in this document, ie. long crested waves
of permanent form. Their crests and troughs can be represented by straight lines in horizontal
plane cuts. The figure 2.3 shows clearly the difference between short and long crested waves. Us-
ing the notation described on the figure 2.4, the wave number k = 2π/L and the wave frequency
2.4. WAVE THEORIES 19
ω are linked by the dispersion relation:

r
ω g
ω 2 = kg · tanh(kd) → cφ = = · tanh (kd) (2.18)
k k
Finally, let us introduce the wave energy, sum of the kinetic and potential energies. This
equation shows the reason why the dissipation has to be avoided in numerical simulations: this
is equivalent to a loss of the wave energy and leads to underestimated efforts on structures. h
being the wave amplitude, the expression of E is:
1 1 1
E = Ekin + E pot = ρg < h2 > + ρg < h2 >= ρg < h2 > (2.19)
4 4 2
The figure 2.4 shows that the wave theory to apply is different depending on the parameters
of the wave studied (water depth, wave heigth, wave length...). Therefore, engineers need several
different wave theories available in F RE SC O in order to dispose from an accurate wave model
for every situation they could encounter. We have had the time to study two distinct ones in this
document: the Airy wave and the second-order Stokes wave theories. These are based on the
potential flow theory, which assumes that the flow is both incompressible (∇ · U = 0), inviscid
(ν = 0) and irrotational (∇ ∧ U = 0). This leads to the existence of a velocity potential Φ, whose
derivatives give the velocity components:
∃ Φ / U = ∇Φ (2.20)
Figure 2.3: Difference between long-crested waves (left) and short-crested waves (right) [2]
Potential flow formulas

Airy wave
The first wave theory is the Airy theory, also known as linear wave theory or first order theory.
This is the most famous theory because this is the mathematically simplest one and thus gives
rapidly good approximations for engineering applications. The nine assumptions made in this
Figure 2.4: Notations herein used (Left) ; Wave theories (Right) [3]
theory are enumerated in Appendices. For the modelling of the wave flows, we are especially
interested in the wave profile and the particle velocities, which are for the Airy waves:
H
η= cos(kx − ωt) (2.21)
2
kgH cosh k (y + d) kgH sinh k (y + d)
u= cos(kx − ωt); v= sin(kx − ωt) (2.22)
2ω cosh kd 2ω cosh kd
ρgH cosh k (y + d)
p′ = cos(kx − ωt) (2.23)
2 sinh kd
Stokes wave
The Stokes wave is no longer a perfect sinusoidal wave. Crests are a bit steeper and troughs a
bit flatter than in the Airy wave theory. If Airy considered the wave steepness ǫ = kh infinitely
small, Stokes considered ǫ = kh ≪ 1 but not infinitely small.
The wave profile and the prescribed velocities for the Stokes waves are:
H πH 2 cosh kd
η= cos(kx − ωt) + [2 + cosh 2kd] 2(kx − ωt) (2.24)
2 8L sinh3 kd
3 πH 2 cosh 2k(y + d)

kgH cosh k (y + d)
u= cos(kx − ωt) + cos 2(kx − ωt) (2.25)
2ω cosh kd 4c T sinh4 kd
3 πH 2 sinh 2k (y + d)

kgH sinh k (y + d)
v= sin(kx − ωt) + sin 2(kx − ωt) (2.26)
2ω cosh kd 4c T sinh4 kd
Now that all the equations related to wave flows have been presented, let us explain how they
are implemented in F RE SC O.
Chapter 3
Numerical formulation
In order to be solved by computational calculations, the equations presented in the previous chapter have
to be discretized. Since the discretized equations are solved at the cell centers only, the computation of
values involving surfaces and volumes (integrals, gradient...) implies interpolation and approximations.
This chapter presents the spatial and temporal discretization and also the different boundary conditions
implemented in F RE SC O. Finally, the link is done between the theoretical formulation of wave theories
and the numerical implementation in F RE SC O
3.1 General presentation

Most problems in fluid dynamics require solution of coupled systems of equation. The equations
are coupled, but F RE SC O solve them in a segregated manner. This means that each equation is
solved for its dominant variable, treating the other variables as known, and one iterates through
the equations until the solution of the coupled system is obtained. For time-dependant flow prob-
lems such an iteration process is to be done for each time step.
As indicated, the solution process has three iteration loops, denoted as the time loop, the outer
loop and the inner loop. The time loop concerns unsteady flows, and it consists in raising the num-
ber of time steps once the equations for the current time step are solved. The outer loop consists
in solving the different equations in turn, repeating the cycle until all equations are satisfied.
Finally, the inner loop consists of the iterative solver of the discretized equations, and therefore
must be applied for each set of equations. The process exits from the loops as soon as suitable
convergence criteria are met.
initialisation
do (time loop)
increment t
do (outer loop)
solve momentum equations (with an inner loop)
21
22 CHAPTER 3. NUMERICAL FORMULATION
solve pressure correction equation (with an inner loop)

solve turbulence models equations (with an inner loop)
solve additional transport equations (with an inner loop)
end do (outer loop)
end do (time loop)
The notations that are used in this report are depicted on the figure 3.1
Boundary cells (virtual)
hϮс ŝĨĂĐĞ;ŝϮͿ Ϯ Ϯ
ŝϮ ŝϮ Ě h
ŝϭ ŝϭ Face f
Domain cells (real)
ĨĂĐĞĨ
hϭсŝĨĂĐĞ;ŝϭͿ ϭ ϭ &ůŽǁĚŝƌĞĐƚŝŽŶ
&ůŽǁĚŝƌĞĐƚŝŽŶ
Figure 3.1: General notations used in F RE SC O
Let us finally notice that F RE SC O is face-based with a collocated arrangement, ie. all the
variables are stored at the same set of grid points and the same control volumes are used for all
variables.
3.2 Spatial discretization
3.2.1 Approximation of volume integrals

Common volume integrals appear in all equations. The first mean to reckon them is to use the
simplest second order accurate approximation by replacing the volume integral by the product
of the mean scalar value in the cell and the volume of the CV.
Z
φdV = φc △V (3.1)
V
‘
The second way of computing the more complicated volume integrals, involving gradients
and divergence operators, is to transform them using the Gauss’ theorem into surface integrals.
Z Z nf
V
∇.φ dV =
S
φ.nd S ≃ ∑ Sf .φ (3.2)
f =1
Z Z nf
V
∇φ dV =
S
φ.n dS ≃ ∑ Sf φ f (3.3)
f =1
3.2. SPATIAL DISCRETIZATION 23
Z nf
∇φ + ∇T φ dV ≃ ∑ Sf . ∇φ + ∇ T φ (3.4)
V f
f =1
3.2.2 Approximation of surface integrals

The conservation of scalar values requires the knowledge of surface integrals to be mathemati-
cally expressed. Yet, all quantities are defined on the cell-centers, due to the collocated arrange-
ment used. The face values are usually not directly available and have to be reconstructed by
approximations based on the cell-center values. With φ the component of the convective or dif-
fusive flux vector in the normal direction to the face of the control volume,
Z Z
S
φ dS = ∑ Sf
φ dS = ∑ Ff (3.5)
f f
The midpoint rule, of second order accuracy if f k is exactly known, is implemented in F RE SC O

to compute F f .
Z
Ff = φ dS = φ f S f ≃ φ f S f (3.6)
Sf
3.2.3 Discretization of the convective terms

The differential and integral forms of the convective terms are:
∂(ρφu j ) Z
FC = and FC = φ (U . n) d S (3.7)
∂x j S
Considering one of the domain cells, the discretized expression for the convection term is:
nf nf
C
Fcell ≈ ∑ (U f . S f ) φ f = ∑ Ff φf (3.8)
f =1 f =1
The reckon of surface and volume integrals require to know the values of variables at loca-
tions other than the cell-center nodes. The value of φ is needed on the surfaces of the CV. These
are determined by interpolation. The most common convection schemes, available in most of
CFD Codes, are UDS (Upwind Differencing Scheme), CDS (Central Differencing Scheme) and
QUICK (Quadratic Upwind Interpolation for Convective Kinematics), are briefly described be-
low. Others are implemented in F RE SC O: TVD, HRIC and CICSAM. HRIC and CICSAM are
commonly used for free surface flows, since they usually compute a sharper interface than other
interpolation schemes. For CICSAM it was however seen that the current F RE SC O implementa-
tion did show some strange behaviour.The reader is encouraged to refer to [1] to have detailed
explanations about all these convection schemes and also a fully study on CICSAM and F RE SC O.
3.2.4 Discretization of the diffusive terms

The diffusive fluxes correspond to the term (∇φ + ∇ T φ) f in the momentum equations. The
differential and integral forms of the diffusive terms are:
!
∂ ∂U
Z
i
FD = µ and FD = µ ∇ ui . n d S (3.9)
∂x j ∂x j S
Considering one of the domain cells, the discretized expression for the diffusion term is:
nf
D
Fcell ≈ ∑ Γf ∇φ f S f (3.10)
f =1
and according to [22],

φ − φD d
∇φ f · S f = C + ∇φ f · S f − |S f | (3.11)
d d
One way to calculate gradients ∇φ at the cell face is to get them first at CV centers, and then
interpolate them to the cell faces, in the same way of φ f (discretization of convective fluxes). The
Gauss theorem is one method to determine the scalar value at the center cell φc : the derivative
at the CV center is approximated by the average value over the cell.
nf
1
Z Z
V
∇φ dV =
S
φ . n dS → (∇φ)c =
Vcell ∑ φf Sf (3.12)
f =1
The least squares method, not explained here but available in [1] is another method to com-
pute (∇ φ)c .
3.2.5 Discretization of pressure terms and body forces
Pressure terms In finite volume methods, the differential and integral expression for the pres-
sure term are written
∂p
Z
; p ii . n d S (3.13)
∂xi S
This yields to the following discretized equation:
Z nf
S
p ii . n d S ≈ ∑ pf Sf (3.14)
f =1
All other surface forces can be similarly discretized. Methods previously described for the
approximation of surface integral can then be used.
Body forces The only body force herein taken into account is the gravity. Therefore, the differ-
ential and integral expression for the body forces are written:
Z
ρgi ; ρgi dV (3.15)
V
This yields to the following discretized equation:

Z
ρgi dV ≈ ρc gi,c ∆V (3.16)
V
3.3. TIME DISCRETIZATION 25
3.3 Time discretization

Many pratical applications are unsteady – it is especially the case for the wave flows – and thus
require for their numerical simulation the solution of time dependent models equations. There-
fore, the time variable need to be discretized in the equation described in the Chapter2.
Basically, the time discretization schemes are divided in two categories. On the one hand, the
Explicit schemes in which the value of an expression at time step n, written φn depends only on
the previous time step levels φn+1 = F (φn , φn−1 , . . . ). On the other hand, the Implicit schemes in
which the value of an expression at time step n, written φn depends not only on the previous, but
also on the next time step levels φn+1 = F (φn+1 , φn , φn−1 , . . . ).
Figure 3.2: Implicit (left) and Explicit (right) euler time discretization schemes [17]
Two implicit time discretization schemes are available in F RE SC O. These are the first-order
backward Euler scheme, also called first-order Implicit Euler scheme and the second order three-time-
level scheme.
For the three time level discretization scheme, only the time derivative term is discretized
using a second-order backward finite-difference type of scheme, being all the other terms (con-
vection, diffusion and other possible source terms) taken into account in the current time-step n
as it is done for the first scheme.
∂
Z h i
φdV ≈ (c1 φc ∆V )n + (c2 φc ∆V )n−1 + (c3 φc ∆V )n−2 /∆t (3.17)
∂t V
where n, n-1, n-2 are the time levels and ∆t the time step. The values of the coefficients
c1 , c2 , c3 depend on the discretitazion scheme applied.
• first-order backward Euler scheme: c1 = 1.0 ; c2 = −1.0 ; c3 = 0.0
• second-order three-time-level backward scheme: c1 = 1.5 ; c2 = −2.0 ; c3 = 0.5
3.4 Pressure correction scheme

The computation of the pressure constitutes a particular problem for incompressible flows. In-
deed, the pressure only appears in the momentum equations, but not in the continuity equation,
which would be available for this purpose. Several methods exist to cope with this problem.
The most commonly used involve the continuity equation in the computation of the pressure
by using presure-correction scheme. As described in [17], the general idea of a pressure-correction
method is to first compute preliminary velocity components from the momentum equations and
then to correct this together with the pressure, such that the continuity equation is fullfilled. The
pressure correction scheme adopted in F RE SC O is SIMPLE (See [6]).
3.5 Implementation of Boundary conditions

As described in [22] and summarized in [1], I remind in this part the basics of the implementa-
tion of the boundary conditions. A special treatment is required for cells which have at least one
face on the boundary of the fluid domain. Indeed, unlike interior cells, a boundary face has only
one neighbour cell, and therefore the normal procedure to determine a face value of a dependent
variable and of its gradient is not applicable. Boundary conditions have to be prescribed at the
whole boundary Γ of the domain V . The three BC types are:
∂φ ∂φ
Dirichlet : φ = φb ; Neuman : a n = bb ; Cauchy : cb φ + a n = bb
∂xi i ∂xi i
where φb , bb and cb are prescribed values on the boundary Γ and ni are the components of the
outward unit normal vector to the domain. If a Dirichlet BC holds for the variable, the face value
follows directly from the BC. Otherwise, the face value has to be determined by either a zeroth-
order extrapolation (φ f = φc ) or by a first-order extrapolation (φ f = φc − d · (∇φ)c )
Inflow: the 3 components of the velocity vector are given by a Dirichlet boundary condition,
while the pressure is extrapolated from the interior of the domain, by approximations based on
one-sided difference or extrapolations. Convectives fluxes are prescribed at the inflow BC and
diffusive fluxes, usually unknown, can be approximated by using the available variable values
on the boundary face and one-sided discretization schemes for the gradients.
Impermeable wall: considering a no-slip wall, the velocity on the boundary is equal to the
wall velocity (u, v, w) = (uwall , vwall , wwall ). The pressure on the wall is extrapolated from the
interior. The wall being non-porous, the convective fluxes through it are zero for all variables.
This is implemented by setting the convective fluxes through the boundary face of the CV to zero.
The diffusive fluxes do not vanish. The normal stress at the wall is null and that the exchange of
momentum is transmitted only by shear stresse, ie. the wall shear stress. As ∇U f is not available,
approximations are required to fulfill equations for diffusive fluxes:
 
Uc1 − Uc1 . n f n f
∇U f .S f =   |S f | (3.18)
d . nf
Symmetry: the values of both and the velocity components and the pressure on the symme-
try BC can be determined by suitable extrapolation from inner points. In addition, the normal
component of the tangential velocity gradient is null: ∇vt . n = 0. This is generally not the case
3.6. SPECIFIC TREATMENT OF BOUNDARIES FOR WAVE GENERATION 27
for the normal component of the normal velocity gradient: ∇vn . n 6= 0. Besides, the normal
velocity component is null: vn = 0. Given that vn = 0 on a symmetry BC, the convective flux
through the boundary face is zero. The situation is reversed compared to the impermeable wall BC:
the shear stress is zero and the exchange of momentum is transmitted only by the normal stress.
This normal stress gives rise to a force contribution:
!
Uc1 . n f
∇U f .S f = Sf (3.19)
d . nf
Outflow: on outflow boundary conditions, an usual assumption is that the normal deriva-
tives of both velocity components vanish: ∇u . n = 0 ∇v . n = 0. The boundary
and
values of the velocity components are determined by extrapolation from inner values, where a
subsequent correction of these values ensures that the sum of the outflowing mass fluxes equals
the inflowing ones.
Pressure: This BC is commonly used when the mass flow rates at inlet or outlet are not known,
but pressures are or for a far field BC. For this Dirichlet BC, the pressure is fixed while the veloc-
ities are extrapolated from the interior. The pressure gradient at the boundary is determined by
extrapolation using one-sided differences. Moreover, the boundary velocities are corrected so as
to fullfil the mass conservation.
3.6 Specific treatment of boundaries for wave generation

The wave flows require a domain with open boundaries in order to let the fluid enter and leave
the domain. This section deals especially with the BCs to prescribe at the inlet, outlet and sea
bed.
3.6.1 Inlet
The overall approach herein adopted is to use an Inflow BC to simulate the effects of waves enter-
ing the domain. The wave is generated a the inflow BC by prescribing both the particle velocities
and the volume fraction resulting from the potential flow theory described in Chapter2.
For each time step, the coordinates of the cell center are compared to the theoretical wave profile,
and then the volume fraction and velocity components are prescribed as follows:
• if the cell center y-coordinate is superior to this theoretical wave profile: the cell is full of
air. Moreover, the y-velocity is null and the x-particle velocity is constant, uniform, equal
to the velocity of moving reference frame which can be physically see as a current and will
be so noted ucurrent .
• if the cell center y-coordinate is inferior to this theoretical wave profile: the cell is then
full of water and the velocity components are prescribed according to the particle velocites
formulas, where the values of x and y coordinates are taken at the cell centers. A constant
and uniform current velocity ucurrent is eventually added .
For the moment, this current is absolutely required so the x-velocity component remains pos-
itive. Indeed, the Inflow BC is designed for positive inlet velocities only. Let us notice that a
WaveInflow BC, that allows negative x-velocites is currently being developed.
Figure 3.3: Velocities and volume fraction prescribed at the inlet
3.6.2 Outlet
At the outlet, the waves have to leave the domain without being reflected. Otherwise the incident
wave flow would be perturbed by the reflected wave flow and the simulation would be spoiled.
Basically, reflection is due to a net flux of a scalar quantity at the outlet boundary which can lead
to an innacuracy in the scalar-quantity conservation in the whole fluid domain, ie. the fluxes
of the scalar quantity φ at the inlet and outlet are different: Fφinlet 6= Fφoutlet . An overview of the
different options regarding the BC to prescribe at the outlet to prevent waves from being reflected
is given in the following paragraphs (See [9]).
Numerical beach This first method to avoid reflection is a non direct NRBC. The BC used at
the outlet can then be an Outflow BC and a numerical beach is applied in the grid to prescribe
the wave velocity at the outflow. A numerical beach consist in increasing the x-size of the cells
in the end of the domain in order to artificially force the flow to become uniform towards the
outflow. The purpose is to diffuse the waves away before they reach the outlet. This can be easily
understood by considering the UDS convection scheme.
( x f − x C )2 ∂2 φ

∂φ
φ f = φC + ( x f − xC ) + + TH (3.20)
∂x C 2 ∂x2 C
and so the convective flux at the outflow is

Z Z
FfC = (ρφ) U · dS ≈ ρφ f u f S f (3.21)
S
3.6. SPECIFIC TREATMENT OF BOUNDARIES FOR WAVE GENERATION 29
By inserting the expression of the approximation of φ f , this leads to the first-order error in the
convective flux, proportional to the x-cell size (this is why the size of cells are increased):
(ρu f ) ∆x

∂φ
δFfC = D
Fnumerical = (3.22)
2 ∂x C
Pressure damping zone Another method consists in applying an additional pressure to the
atmospheric one in the damping zone. Indeed, an increased pressure is equivalent to an increased
gravity, which leads to increased wave length L and period T and thus to decreased particle
velocity amplitude. This additional damping pressure can be chosen as a function of the vertical
velocity at the free surface:
pdamping (t, x, η ) = α( x ) v(t, x, η )
The damping function α( x ) need be chosen such that the wave is both damped completely near
the outlet BC and not reflected at the transition between study and dissipation zones. Kleefsman
[9] adopts a linear function for wave simulations α( x ) = a ∗ x + b.
Sommerfeld BC The Sommerfeld BC is a Non reflecting BC (NRBC). This is based on the wave
equation
∂φ ∂φ
+c =0 (3.23)
∂t ∂x
where φ is the scalar value which travels wave-like ( for example velocity, pressure or volume
fraction), c is the wave celerity. In equation 3.23 the direction of propagation is x.The wave celer-
ity c is chosen a priori. The steps to compute both velocity components and pressure at the
outflow BC are available in Appendix. The wave equation is discretized 3.23 is discretized using
finite differences:
n +1
φD n
− φD φn − φCn
+c D =0 (3.24)
δt δx D
φ is used for the velocity components and the velocities at the outflow BC unD+1 , vnD+1 , wnD+1 are
immediatly determined. It is previously said that for the Outflow BC, not only the velocity need be
determined but also the pressure. The reader can refer to [9] to see how the pressure is reckoned.
The previous open boundary condition performs quite well when the numerical solution is
characterized by one single undisturbed regular wave. But if it is not the case, reflection will
occur at the boundary. Therefore, this NRBC is not adequate for our study cases since the wave
celerity that I am interested in is not preditable in advance (wave past a hydrodoil, a transom
stern...).
Orlanski BC Orlanski [16] used the Sommerfeld radiation condition at the boundary but in a
slightly different form. Instead of fixing a constant value for the phase velocity, a propagation
velocity is calculated from the neighboring points of the BC for each variable φ. So the celerity
c in the wave equation is not chosen a priori but is calculated every time step based on the local
wave kinematics near the outflow BC. It is supposed to be more general since the wave is not
forced to be regular and undisturbed, but actually reveals to be quite inaccurate.
Figure 3.4: Configuration of cells near the outflow boundary
Finally, the BC that is chosen to avoid reflection is the association of a dissipation zone based
on a numerical beach with an an Outflow BC prescribed at the outlet. Indeed, on the one hand the
pressure damping zone trials were not conclusive, although this is worth being deeplier studied.
One the other hand the Sommerfeld NRBC is not convenient for wave induced by obstacles while
and the Orlanski NRBC is said to be quite inaccurate in all the literature read.
3.6.3 Sea bed

Usually, the boundary that represents the bottom of the domain is a wall or slip wall for wave
studies, because these numerical BC correspond perfectly to the assumptions made in the simple
wave theories herein studied, ie. a flat and non porous sea bed. But sometimes it is not possible,
as you will notice in the Chapter5 and the study of transom-stern flows, where a pressure BC
need be prescribed to fix the transom draft.
In this case, it is important to put the Pressure BC far enough from the free surface, so as the
pressure BC is similar to a far-field BC. Otherwise the pressure can still be significantly oscillating
at z = −d and the inconsistency between the BC prescription and the pressure computed results
in convergence problems.
Chapter 4
Numerical studies
This chapter presents some numerical studies carried out before the validation. First of all, we observed that
some perturbations spoiled the flow when both low veloties and gravity were involved. The preliminary
studies show that these perturbations are related to discretization inconsistencies that have been found in
the code, and explain how these have been solved. Secondly, the wave generation and propagation study is
carried out for Airy and Stokes waves and numerical results are compared with analytical solutions.
4.1 Preliminary studies
4.1.1 Introduction
Before studying the propagation of the waves, some problems in the code resulting in perturba-
tions in the flow had to be solved. A simple free-surface flow described on the figure 4.1 has been
studied to point at the origin of the perturbations that can be actually divided in two categories:
some appear at Neumann boundaries, grow and propagate towards the center of the domain,
while others appear at the free surface and remain quite localized. Let us note that the amplitude
and the propagation of the y-velocities perturbations can be significantly reduced by increasing
the inlet velocity, but also by refining the grid. Besides, there is absolutely no perturbation if the
gravity is switched off.
u v ∆t Timesteps OuterLoops Pre f Point
Case 1 0.1m.s−1 0m.s−1 0.1s 40 50 (0.5 ; 4.5 ; 0.125)
Case 2 1.0m.s−1 0m.s−1 0.01s 400 50 (0.5 ; 4.5 ; 0.125)
Case 3 10m.s−1 0m.s−1 0.001s 4000 50 (0.5 ; 4.5 ; 0.125)
4.1.2 Perturbations at the Neumann boundaries

Identification of the problem
The figure 4.4 shows the absolute value of the non-dimensional y spurious velocities. The veloc-
ity reference value used is the inlet velocity. Several ones have been studied and it was concluded
31
32 CHAPTER 4. NUMERICAL STUDIES
Figure 4.1: schema (left) and grid (right) of the first case studied
that the lower the inlet velocity is, the bigger the perturbations are. The perturbations seems thus
to become insignificant if the convective terms are predominant in the momentum equations.
Considering that U → 0 then the y-equation of the momentum equations becomes:

∂p ∂p
∇p = ρ B = ρ g = ≡ =0 ; = ρg (4.1)
∂x ∂y
Yet, the y-equation is not fullfiled on the Neuman boundary conditions, for which the pressure
is interpolated from the interior. The perturbations that appear at Neumann BCs result from an
inconsistency in the pressure gradient near the boundaries.
Figure 4.2: Neumann boundary condition
Solution to the problem
For Neuman boundary condition, there is usually two means of interpolating the interior value.
Either you do a zeroth-order interpolation of the pressure and then the pressure on the boundary
equals the pressure in the adjacent cell of the domain (p(C1 ) = p(C2 ), or you do a first-order
interpolation and then p(C2 ) = p(C1 ) + (∇ p)C1 · d.
To solve this inconsistency, the pressure gradient has to be implemented such as ∇ p = ρ g
if the gravity is applied. For other problems, the Neumann BC can be expressed as usual. The
figure 4.4 shows that the perturbations at the Neumann BCs disappear completely after having
4.1. PRELIMINARY STUDIES 33
implemented the solution. However, some other perturbations at the free surface, although less
significant in amplitude, also disturb the flow.
4.1.3 Perturbations at the free-surface

Identification of the problem
Before studying the propagation of the waves, the perturbations at the free-surface need be
solved. Indeed, the wave flow is generally associated with low vecloties and in this case the
perturbations spoil totally the flow. The wave profile and y-spurious velocities at the free surface
are displayed on the figure 4.3 for different inlet velocities and timesteps.
Let us have a look on the momentum equation
∂(ρUi ) h i
+ ∇ . (UUi ) − ∇ . µ ∇U + ∇UT = −(∇ p)i + ρGi (4.2)
∂t
For very low inlet velocities – U ≈ 0 –, this yields to

∂p ∂p
0 = −(∇ p)i + ρGi ≡ = ρgx , = ρgy (4.3)
∂x ∂y
The discretized expression of the equation 4.3 for x is:

Z Z
pii . n dS = ρ gi d V (4.4)
S V
nf
∑ p f S f = ρc gi,c V (4.5)
f =1
The equation 4.5 points at the origin of the perturbations observed. Indeed, there is no guar-
antee that this discretized equation is respected. It is said that the discretization scheme for the
pressure is not consistent. Thus, the code need be modified to force this equation to be fullfilled,
ie. the discretization scheme to be consistent. Its is completely understandable that if the grav-
ity is switched off or the velocity is increased, then the consistency error becomes either null or
negligible compared to the other terms of the equation.
Solution to the problem
A general solution is still being studied. Some ideas have been thought about, based on the way
of solving this problem with C OMFLOW ([27]). However, the solution then implemented was
reliable for cartesian grids only.
The study of the wave generation and propagation cannot be done with physical velocities then.
However, considering that wave flows are nearly potential flow, a high enough constant and
uniform inlet velocity allows to make the error due to the perturbations unsignificant. Moreover,
let us notice that this added velocity ucurrent leads to higher values of the Courant number Cn =
(u∆t)/(∆x ) and it is then highly advised to decrease ∆t to maintain Cn ≈ 1., and even Cn < 0.3
if Cicsam is applied (See [1]). A constant and uniform current of 1m.s−1 is consequently applied
for the wave studies.
0.002
non-dimensional Y velocity
-0.5
CoordinateY
0
-0.002
-1
Inlet velocity=0.1m/s, Time=1s Inlet velocity=0.1m/s, Time=1s

Inlet velocity=1m/s, Time=1s -0.004 Inlet velocity=1m/s, Time=1s
Inlet velocity=10m/s, Time=1s Inlet velocity=10m/s, Time=1s
-1.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
CoordinateX CoordinateX
0.005
-0.5 0
CoordinateY
-0.005
-1
-0.01
-0.015
-1.5
-0.02
Inlet velocity=1m/s, Time=2s Inlet_velocity=1m/s, Time=2s
-0.025
-2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.5 0.02
0
0
CoordinateY
-0.5
-0.02
-1
-0.04
-1.5

-2 -0.06
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 4.3: Free-surface data for different inlet velocities and simulation times: non-dimensional
spurious y-velocities at the free-surface (left); wave profile (right)
4.1. PRELIMINARY STUDIES 35
T=1sec T=1sec
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
Y Y
Z X Z X
T=2sec T=2sec
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
Y Y
Z X Z X
T=3sec T=3sec
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
Y Y
Z X Z X
T=4sec T=4sec
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
Y Y
Z X Z X
T=4sec T=4sec
0.5 0.5
Y Y
Z Z
Figure 4.4: Non-dimensional spurious y-velocities for different simulation times: before that the
solution for Neumann BC inconsistency is implemented (left); after that the solution is imple-
mented (right). Bottom pictures:density and velocity vectors
4.2 Wave generation and propagation
4.2.1 The grid

After having given some details about the different boundary conditions used, here is a recapit-
ulative picture of the grid which will be studied for both the Airy and Stokes waves. The water
depth is d = 5m. The numerical beach is 40m long, ie. 8 wave lengths. The reference pressure
point P (0.01,14.80,0.125) leads to a reference pressure at the free surface Pre f = 100162 Pa.
Figure 4.5: grid used for the study of wave generation and propagation
As depicted on the figures 4.6 and 4.7, different grid refinements have been tested so as to get
rid of the discretization errors. The study zone of the GridA (the finer one) contains 240 cells in
the x-direction and then the parameter expressing the number of grid cells per wave length is
(∆x )/L = 240/8 = 30 whereas the same parameter for the GridB (intermediate refinement) is
(∆x )/L = 8/160 = 1/20 and for the GridC (the coarser one) (∆x )/L = 8/120 = 1/15. We can
conclude that 30 cells per wave length seem to be sufficient and then the GridA will be used for
all the wave generation and propagation studies (Airy and Stokes).
4.2.2 Validation of wave propagation for Airy waves

Introduction
First of all let us give the main features of the Airy wave studied. The water depth d = 5m is given
by the grid created. The wave height and the wave period chosen are respectively H = 0.01m
and T = 1.79s. The parameters which determine the corresponding point on the figure 2.4 are:
d 5
= = 1.56m.s−2 = 5.12 f t.s−2 (4.6)
T2 1.792
H 0.01
= = 3.12 10−3 m.s−2 = 1.02 10−2 f t.s−2 (4.7)
T2 1.792
For this deep water wave, the wave length can be iteratively computed. Using k = 2π/L and
c = L/T, the dispersion relation can be expressed implicitly in terms of L and the given wave
parameters, or r
gL 2πd
L=T tanh (4.8)
2π L
4.2. WAVE GENERATION AND PROPAGATION 37
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
CoordinateY
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08 Stokes Potential Flow solution

Stokes Laminar Quick - GridA (Timestep=1500)
Stokes Laminar Quick - GridB (Timestep=1500)
-0.1 Stokes Laminar Quick - GridC (Timestep=1500)
5 10 15 20 25 30
CoordinateX
Figure 4.6: Comparison of the wave profiles of the 3 grids with the case: Stokes Laminar Quick
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
CoordinateY
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08 Stokes Potential Flow solution

Stokes Laminar Quick - GridA (Timestep=1500)
Stokes Laminar Quick - GridB (Timestep=1500)
-0.1 Stokes Laminar Quick - GridC (Timestep=1500)
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
CoordinateX
Figure 4.7: Zoom on a wave length to show the dissipation and dispersion phenomena
This equation solved iteratively leads to the following results:

kL
L = 5 m; k = 2π/L = 1.26 ; ω = = 3.51 rd.s−1 ; ωe = ω + kucurrent = 4.77 rd.s−1
T
Finally, using the expression of the Airy wave profile, the surface elevation is thus:
η = 0.005 cos(1.26x − 3.51t) (4.9)
Two distincts cases have been studied:
• Inviscid flow (viscosity set to 0) with the QUICK convection scheme for the free surface
equation
• Inviscid flow (viscosity set to 0) with the CICSAM convection scheme for the free surface
equation
For these two cases herein studied, some parameters written in the table 4.2.2 remain un-
changed.
Time-Discretization Cn ∆t TimeSteps
Three-Time-Level ¡0.8 0.01s 3000
The results are displayed in the figure 4.9. The parameters that are paid a particular attention
are the wave profile and the C p . As written in the following equation, the link between the value
of C p and the relative error of the computed pressure is easily done.
P − Pre f P − Pre f 0.5 ρU∞ 2 0.5 · 998 · 1.0

Cp = 2
; = Cp = C p = 4.98 · 10−3 C p (4.10)
0.5ρU∞ Pre f Pre f 1.118 · 9.81 · 14.8
The tables 4.1, 4.2 and the figure 4.9 give an assessment of the dispersion and dissipation
errors for the four first crests and troughs. In the tables, X and Y mean respectively the X and Y
coordinates, while C and T mean respectively crest and trough. These are defined as follows:
Xcrest/trough − Xanalytical Ycrest/trough − Yanalytical
ǫ phase = ǫamplitude = (4.11)
Xanalytical Yanalytical
X(T1) X(C1) X(T2) X(C2) X(T3) X(C3) X(T4) X(C4)

Inviscid Quick 0.46% 0.15% 0.32% -0.59% -0.28% -0.30% -0.10% -0.46%
Inviscid Cicsam 0.46% -0.29% -0.64% -0.76% -0.49% -0.48% -0.47% -1.01%
Table 4.1: Dispersion errors for the Airy wave propagation
Conclusions
• Generally, the numerical simulations are in good agreement with the potential flow theory.
Let us notice however that the water level is shifted. This oscillation of the water level may
either be due to the unsolved perturbation problems at the free surface or the way we define
the pressure. The error as regards the wave profile can reach 10%. The error as regards the
relative pressure at the free surface reaches 0.1% .
Y(T1) Y(C1) Y(T2) Y(C2) Y(T3) Y(C3) Y(T4) Y(C4)

Inviscid Quick -14.29% 1.54% 5.71% -3.08% 2.86% 4.62% -2.86% -4.62%
Inviscid Cicsam -8.57% 0.00% 11.43% -9.23% 8.57% -3.08% -14.29% -9.23%
Table 4.2: Dissipation errors for the Airy wave propagation
0.05
0.006
0.04
0.004
0.03
0.002
CoordinateY
0.02
0
Cp
0.01
-0.002
0
-0.004
-0.01
-0.006 Airy Potential Flow solution Cp - Airy Inviscid Quick (Timestep=1500)
Airy Inviscid Quick Timestep=1500 Cp - Airy Inviscid Quick (Timestep=3000)
Airy Potential Flow solution (Shifted)
-0.02
5 10 15 20 0 20 40 60 80
0.01
0.006
0.004
0
0.002
CoordinateY
0
Cp
-0.01
-0.002
-0.004 -0.02
-0.006 Airy Potential Flow solution Cp - Airy Inviscid Cicsam (Timestep=1500)

Airy Inviscid Cicsam Timestep=1500 Cp - Airy Inviscid Cicsam (Timestep=3000)
Airy Potential Flow solution (Shifted)
-0.03
5 10 15 20 0 20 40 60 80
Figure 4.8: Comparisons between numerical and theoretical wave profile for the two cases (left).
C p at the free surface (right)
• Although after 15s (1500 timesteps) of simulation no reflection can apparently be observed,
the pressure plots displayed on the figure 4.9 show that the numerical beach is not as ef-
fective as expected. Indeed, if C p seems to reach 0 near the outflow after 15s on the figure
4.9 – the waves then just reach the dissipation zone– , it is not the case at all after 30s. The
slope of the C p curve is very low and the size of a 100% effective numerical beach would be
huge. This phenomenon is mainly due to the convection scheme applied for the momen-
tum equation (Quick), which is a second order convection scheme. The dissipation would
0.01
0.005
CoordinateY
-0.005 Airy Inviscid - Timestep=1320

Airy Inviscid - Timestep=1350
Airy Inviscid - Timestep=1380
-0.01
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
CoordinateX
Figure 4.9: Propagation of the inviscid Airy waves for three close timesteps
be much more effective if a first-order convection scheme such as UDS was applied in the
dissipation zone. In the long term, the solution consists in applying a specific NRBC instead
of a simple numerical beach. The Sommerfeld and Orlandski are not general enough to be
used frequently and then an in-house NRBC is being currently studied.
• Finally, it is clear the the values of C p obtained are lower for Cicsam than for Quick. This is
due to the interface which is sharper with Cicsam. However, some perturbations in Cicsam
leads to spurious trails, what results in very scattered and oscillating C p .This is the reason
why the study of Stokes waves is done with Quick only. Let us note however that Cicsam
is currently being modified to eliminate these trails.
4.2.3 Validation of wave propagation for Stokes wave

Introduction
The same grid as for the study of Airy wave is used, so d = 5m. The wave height is changed only,
since H = 0.1 is chosen now.
d 5
= = 1.56m.s−2 = 5.12 f t.s−2 (4.12)
T2 1.792
H 0.1
= = 3.12 10−2 m.s−2 = 1.02 10−1 f t.s−2 (4.13)
T2 1.792
For this deep water wave, the wave length can be iteratively computed. Using k = 2π/L and
c = L/T, the dispersion relation can be expressed implicitly in terms og L and the given wave
parameters, or r
gL 2πd
tanh L=T (4.14)
2π L
This equation solved iteratively leads to the following results:
kL
L = 5 m; k = 2π/L = 1.26 ; ω = = 3.51 rd.s−1 ; ωe = ω + kucurrent = 4.77 rd.s−1
T
Finally, using the expression of the 2nd order Stokes wave profile, the surface elevation is thus:
η = 0.005 cos(1.26x − 3.51t) + (2.96 · 10−6 ) cos(2.52x − 7.02t) (4.15)
The Airy case showed us that Quick is more adequate for the moment. So this convection
scheme is applied for solving the free-surface equation. Let us now investigate on the Stokes case
the difference between inviscid and laminar computations:the two cases are then:
• Inviscid with the Quick convection scheme for the free surface equation. The bottom is still
a SlipWall BC and µ = 0
• Viscous laminar with the Quick convection scheme for the free surface equation.
The results are displayed on the figure 4.11 The tables 4.3,4.4 and the figure 4.11 give an
assessment of the dispersion and dissipation errors for the four first crests and troughs. X and Y
mean respectively the X and Y coordinates, while C and T mean respectively crest and trough.
X(T1) X(C1) X(T2) X(C2) X(T3) X(C3) X(T4) X(C4)

Inviscid Quick -0.69% 0.00% 0.00% -0.17% -0.21% -0.36% -0.16% -0.27%
Laminar Quick -0.69% 0.00% 0.00% -0.42% -0.42% -0.18% -0.16% -0.14%
Table 4.3: Dispersion errors for the Stokes wave propagation
Y(T1) Y(C1) Y(T2) Y(C2) Y(T3) Y(C3) Y(T4) Y(C4)

Inviscid Quick -10.00% 4.00% -12.00% 2.00% -12.00% 2.00% -14.00% -2.00%
Laminar Quick -10.00% 4.00% -10.00% 2.00% -12.00% 0.00% 14.00% -2.00%
Table 4.4: Dissipation errors for the Stokes wave propagation

T=0.3s T=15s
CourantNo
0.75
0.65
0.55
0.45
0.35
0.25
Y
0.15
Z X
T=1.5s T=15s
Pressure
101500
101000
100500
100200
100170
100150
Y
Y
Z
Z X
T=3.9s T=15s
Net X veloci
0.2
0.12
0.04
-0.04
-0.12
-0.2
Y
Z X
T=7.5s T=15s
VelocityY
0.2
0.16
0.12
0.08
0.04
0
-0.04
Y
-0.08
-0.12
Z -0.16
Y
-0.2
Z X
T=15s T=15s
Y
Z X
Z X
Figure 4.10: Stokes wave generation and propagation. Left: movie of the propagation with den-
sity contours displayed. Right: Cn ; Pressure; Net x-velocity=x-velocity - ucurrent ; y-velocity;
velocity vectors
0.04 0.04
0.02 0.02
CoordinateY
CoordinateY
0 0
-0.02 -0.02
-0.04 -0.04
-0.06 Stokes Potential Flow solution -0.06 Stokes Inviscid Quick - fine grid (Timestep=1500)
Stokes Inviscid Quick - fine grid (Timestep=1500) Stokes Laminar Quick - fine grid (Timestep=1500)
5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20
0.3 0.3
0.25 0.25
0.2 0.2
0.15 0.15
Cp
Cp
0.1 0.1
0.05 0.05
0 0
-0.05 Cp - Stokes Inviscid Quick (Timestep=1500) -0.05 Cp - Stokes Laminar Quick (Timestep=1500)
Cp - Stokes Inviscid Quick (Timestep=3000) Cp - Stokes Laminar Quick (Timestep=3000)
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
10-3 10-3
10-4 Vx 10-4
Vy Vx
Vz -5 Vy
10-5 p 10
Vz
αv p
-6 -6 αv
10 10
L(res)
L(res)
10
-7
10-7
10-8 10-8
-9
10-9 10
-10
10-10 10
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Iterations Iterations
Figure 4.11: Stokes validation results for inviscid (left) and laminar (right) computations.Wave
profile (top) - C p at the free surface (middle) - Convergence plots (bottom)
Conclusions
• The comparison of the wave profile depicted on the figure 4.11 shows that the computations
are in good agreement with potential flow theory. The change of the still water level, due
to the oscillation of the free surface, observed for the validation of the Airy waves is here
insignificant, compared to the wave height studied. This is however visible especially in
the trough.
• It can be noted that as expected, there are very few differences between the inviscid and
laminar results.
• The plots of C p show that the pressure does not correspond exactly to the value expected.
Theoretically, C p should be zero at the free surface. This difference can be due to the way of
capturing the pressure at the free surface: the free surface is captured by a VOF method and
is considered to be the iso-volume fraction line α = 0.5. The thickness of the free surface
can be one of the reason of this difference. The sudden increase of C p at x = 40m is due to
the transition zone between study and dissipation zones. Finaly, it can be observed that C p
is drasticaly reduced in the dissipation zone, to nearly reach zero at the end of the domain.
• Most the data have been plotted and compared after 1500 stime steps, when the wave is just
about to reach the dissipation zone, so that no reflection issue is involved. Indeed, as for the
validation of the Airy waves, the plots show that the numerical beach does not dissipate
totally the waves and reflection then is likely to spoil the waves. This is clearly visible both
on the plots of C p and convergence plots. The fact that the pressure residuals begin to rise
after 2000 timesteps is related to the poor efficiency of the numerical beach. Indeed, after
3000 timesteps the C p is not vanished at the end of the domain anymore, which means
that some perturbations are there (some wave residuals for example). Basically, the same
conclusion can then be done than in the validation of the Airy wave propagation. One
solution could consist in applying a first order interpolation scheme in the dissipation zone
to accelerate the dissipation process. Another solution consists in applying an efficient
NRBC, eventually coupled with a numerical beach to ensure a total dissipation (but then
more CPU-time demanding).
4.2.4 Conclusions
However, considering that the y-spurious velocities at the free surface are still there and can reach
10% of the inlet velocity (figure4.3), the results obtained for Airy as for as Stokes waves can be
considered very good. It could be interesting to study more deeply the origin of the vertical shift
of the still water level. Indeed, the still water level is shifted of +1.5 10−2 for the Airy waves and
+0.5 10−2 for the Stokes waves. Without this oscillation of the mean water level, the conservation
of both energy and celerity of the waves would be excellent. This is thought to be due to the BCs
that do not impose 100% the right water depth and therefore the right pressure. This problem
will also be encountered in the following chapters.
Moreover, the plots of C p need be analyzed carefully. The values are not so bad as they
could seem. Indeed, we noticed for the Stokes wave that the curve of C p is highly dependent
on the iso-alpha line selected to define the free surface. Thus, the figure 4.12 shows that the
curve of C p correspond much more to the theoretical expectations for free surface defined by
α = 0.9. It means that the free surface should be this line instead of being the line defined by
α = 0.5. Consequently, the sharpness of the free surface has a high effect on the C p curve and
we could expect much more accurate results with a more effective convection scheme for the free
surface equation. Thus, the figure 4.12 shows that Cicsam, which compute a sharper free surface,
implies less variations of C p . Unfortunately, Quick had to be prefered to Cicsam because of
stability problems being solved at the moment and refered before, but it seems really worthwhile
computing wave problems with compressive convection schemes in the future (HRIC, CICSAM).
0.5
0.15
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.05
0.2
Cp
Cp
0
0.1
-0.05
0 Airy Inviscid Quick Timestep=1500 Alpha=0.1
Airy Inviscid Quick Timestep=1500 Alpha=0.5
Airy Inviscid Quick Timestep=1500 Alpha=0.9
Cp - air volume fraction = 0.1 -0.1 Airy Inviscid Cicsam Timestep=1500 Alpha=0.1
-0.1 Cp - air volume fraction = 0.5 Airy Inviscid Cicsam Timestep=1500 Alpha=0.5
Cp - air volume fraction = 0.9 Airy Inviscid Cicsam Timestep=1500 Alpha=0.9
-0.2 -0.15
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Figure 4.12: Cp curves depending on the interpolation scheme used and the iso-α line selected to
define the free surface. Laminar Stokes (left); Inviscid Airy (right)
C hapter 5
Validation
After having carried out some numerical studies about wave generation and propagation, let us now val-
idate the wave flow modelling by comparing numerical results obtained by F RE SC O with experimental
data. Two validation test cases are studied. The first one, called the ”Duncan foil” test case, is interesting
as a first step since it deals with laminar wave flow. More complicated, the second one, called the ”transom-
stern” test case, was to be suitable to validate turbulent wave flows. However, because of a lack of time,
only the first step of the transom-stern validation (inviscid computations) has been carried out.
5.1 Duncan foil
5.1.1 Introduction
The experiments carried out by J.H. Duncan ([4]) in 1981 consist in towing horizontally a fully
submerged aluminium NACA0012 hydrofoil. The towing speed is assumed to be absolutely
constant and the problem two-dimensional. Originally, the towing tank which the hydrofoil
is towed in is about 24m long, 61cm deep and 61cm wide. The speed is fixed so as to have
FN =0.5669, ie. the wave length L equals twice the chord length c. With a chord of 203mm, the
corresponding translating speed is 800mm/s. More precisely, the case that is herein studied
corresponds to a non dimensional submergence depth s = s/c = 1.246, the origin of the y-axis
being located at the leading edge of the foil. This is one of the quasi-steady cases that Duncan
studied. The length of the chord used in the grid is c = 1m and then the corresponding inlet
velocity is u = 1.78m.s−1 .
The increased chord length compared to the original settings of Duncan leads to an increased
inlet velocity, which reduces the amplitude of the y-spurious velocities at the free surface. More-
over, it leads to a different Re which could be problematic if the viscosity played a significant role.
The reader can see in the next paragraph that it is not the case.
47
48 CHAPTER 5. VALIDATION
Duncan (1983) MARIN (2008)
FN = 0.5669 FN = 0.5669
c = 0.203 m c=1m
√ √
u = FN g c = 0.8 m.s−1 u = FN g c = 1.78 m.s−1
uc uc
Re = = 0.143 106 Re = = 1.57 106
ν ν
Table 5.1: Major parameters
5.1.2 Numerical studies

The grid
The grid which is used for the computations is depicted on the figure ??. The table 5.2 then
summarize briefly the different grids which have been studied. For more detais, the reader can
refer to the ”Duncan test case settings” available in Appendices.
Figure 5.1: Grid used for the Duncan foil validation test case
Grid 1 2 3 4 5
(cells)/BC
Grid2 Inflow Wall/SlipWall Pressure SlipWall Pressure

(45560) (x=-2m) hydrostatic 105 Pa
Grid3 Inflow Wall Pressure SlipWall Pressure
Grid6 Inflow Wall Pressure SlipWallPressure Pressure
Table 5.2: BCs used for the different grids studied

5.1. DUNCAN FOIL 49
One can notice that a new type of BC appears in the table: SlipWallPressure. This BC was
implemented in the code in order to help the pressure residuals to converge. Basically, this BC is
a SlipWall BC with the pressure being fixed (Dirichlet BC).
Basically, the purpose of all these studies is to investigate the effect of different parameters: the
viscosity, the grid refinement, the convection scheme and the effect of the BCs applied, especially
at the inlet and the seabed. All the cases have been simulated with unsteady computations.
Indeed, the oscillation of the water level already observed in the Chapter4 makes it difficult to
obtain good results in steady computations. A brief description of the cases and the results are
written in the next paragraphs, and the plots are displayed in Appendices.
Effect of the viscosity
In order to estimate the influence of the viscosity on the results, two disctinct computations have
been running on the Grid2. The viscosity is not switched off in the inviscid computations, but
the BC noted 2 on the figure 5.1 is changed from Wall BC to SlipWall BC.
According to the figure E.1, it can be established that the viscosity does not play a significant role.
So this comparative study between inviscid and laminar computations shows that the results
between the Duncan experiment’s data and the numerical results will not be different because of
the different Re . All the following computations will be carried out in laminar mode.
Effect of the grid refinement
The Grid3 is the same as the Grid2 as regards dimensions and boundary conditions. They are
differentiated by the grid refinement only. The number of cells is indicated in the table 5.2.
The figure E.2 shows that the wave profiles corresponding to Grid2 and Grid3 are quite similar,
what means that the discretization errors are small. We will see in the following that unsteadiness
and BCs alterations implies much more changes in the numerical results than the grid refinement.
The following grids will be at least as refined as the Grid3.
Effect of the convection scheme for solving α
Two distinct convection schemes have been tested for the duncan test: Quick and Cicsam. Let
us remind that we noticed in the wave propagation study that the Quick convection scheme was
preferable to Cicsam.
The same conclusions can be made by observing the figure E.3. The wave profile is not so bad
for the Cicsam computations, but it is clear that it implies much more fluctuations and unsteadi-
ness than Quick. The Cp scattering at the free surface is smoother for Quick. Consequently, all
the computations will be carried out with Quick as convection scheme for solving the free sur-
face equation. Nevertheless, as previously observed, it is clear that the interface is sharper with
Cicsam.
Effect of the Inflow BC
It seems that the Inflow BC plays a major role in the accuracy of the result. The only difference
between the Grid3 and the Grid4 is the position of the inflow, which is farther from the leading
edge in the Grid4.
The results displayed on the figure E.4 are less good as expected. We can be a bit disappointed by
the poor efficiency of the remoteness from the Inlet to the leading edge of the N ACA 0012. The C p
indeed decreases much slower when the inlet is located farther. We can therefore think that the
foil is not directly responsible for the pressure disturbance at the inlet, which is doubtless due to
the propagation of waves towards the inlet. The figure E.6 shows the different results obtained
near the inlet. They are quite different due to the wave propagation. This effect of the inflow is
visible on the movie displayed on the figure 5.2.
Effect of the bottom BC
The study of the effect of the bottom BC on the flow mainly consisted in implementing a new BC.
In the Grid6, the FreeSlipPressure BC is implemented instead of a FreeSlipWall only. The pressure is
then fixed instead of being interpolated from the interior. This is expected to help the convergence
and then get better results. In the same time, the distance from the bottom to the free surface is
increased.
And indeed, the figure E.8 this new BC results apparently in better results. The wave profile is in
better agreement for the Grid6 than for the Grid5. Conversely, no major change can be noticed
both on the curve of C p and convergence plots depicted in the Appendices.
Steadiness of the flow
It can be observed on the figure ?? that the flow does not reach a perfect steady state at the end of
the simulation, what should theoretically occur according to the original tests of Duncan. More-
over, the comparison of these plots with the other ones previoulsy displayed shows that the fluc-
tuations of wave heights due to unsteadiness is big compared to the difference of wave heights
generated by convection schemes scheme, grid refinement, or BC alterations. Thus, the improve-
ment of the results given by the new FreeSlipPressure BC is inexistant after 11040 timesteps instead
of 8640 before. As previously explained, it may be due to the way of the pressure is fixed.
5.1. DUNCAN FOIL 51
10-1
10-3
10-5
Vx
L(res)
10-7 Vy
Vz
10-9 p
αv
10-11
2000 4000 6000 8000

Iterations
10-1 Vx/Vref
Vy/Vref
10-2
Vz/Vref
10-3
Cp
αv
10-4
max (∆φi)
10-5
10-6
10-7
10-8
10-9
2000 4000 6000 8000
Iterations
Figure 5.2: Duncan Grid6 - Left: Wave profile for different times ; Right: Courant number, Pres-
sure, Streamlines, Convergence plot, Convergence plot
5.1.3 Conclusions
To conclude, some optimistic results have been obtained for the Duncan validation test case.
Some progress have been done regarding the choice and configuration of BCs especially. How-
ever the solution fluctuates whereas it should theoretically be steady. This also here must be
related with the fact that the still water line oscillates, what is especially visible near the out-
let. It can be observed on the figure 4.4 that the highest y-spurious velocities are located near
the outflow, and then a link may be established between this unexpected unsteadiness and the
perturbations previoulsy described. As previously explained, the way of defining the pressure
also need be investigated. The crucial thing to do is then to eliminate these perturbations and
progressively optimize both numerical parameters and BCs. Some firther work on that direction
could be:
• the optimization of the outlet BC. One the one hand, it could be interesting to apply BCs
advice given in [7], ie. divide the outlet BC by prescribing a Pressure BC in the water part
only and outflow BC in the air part only. This is done for the transom-stern test case. On the
other hand, it seems very useful to implement a new BC with a non-reflecting algorithm so
as to avoid any reflection problem. It would also allow to decrease the number of grid cells
by decreasing the size of the numerical beach, and maybe even to remove it.
• the optimization of the inlet BC. It could be helpful to dissipate the upwind waves that
propagate towards the inlet BC. Although the C p obtained are quite close to zero, it could
be better by prescribing, as for the outlet BC, a non-reflecting algorithm that dissipate the
waves.
• the optimization of the bottom BC.The results showed that the new NoSlipPressure BC seems
to make the computations more accurate. In fact, this permits to impose correctly the pres-
sure at the bottom corresponding to the correct undisturbed water level and seems to be
therefore the most correct implementation for the BC applied at the bottom.
5.2. TRANSOM STERN FLOW 53
5.2 Transom Stern flow
5.2.1 Introduction
As written in [19], most moto yacht, ferries and container ships are today designed with a wide
transom-stern. But the design requirements which have led to these transom stern also led to
a more difficult estimation of the resistance of the ship. Indeed, if the wave pattern and wave
resistance are usually computed by free surface potential flow codes, the important role of the
viscous effects in transom-stern flows leads to approximative results. And yet, the accuracy of
the solution is very important in this case, especially the determination of FNtr corresponding to
the transition between wet and dry regimes. The wave resistance is usually less important in dry
regimes.
The transom-stern is herein modelled by a rectangular box partially immersed. By progres-

sively increasing the draft every regime can be studied and the Froude number corresponding
to the transition between wet and dry regimes identified. Let us first introduce the case and the
major parameters involved:
Ure f Ure f Ure f L pp

FN = p ; FNtr = p ; Re = (5.1)
gL pp gTd ν
where
• Ure f is the speed advance of the ship
• L pp is the length between perpendicular
• Td is the transom draft
Before studying viscous flows and comparing data obtained by Maki [11] for some FNtr , we
decided to first work on the grid and compare inviscid flow results with theoretical data avail-
able in literature. Then, the objective was to have first a reliable model before studying more
complicated flows implying turbulence.
5.2.2 Numerical studies

The first step consists in establishing a reliable grid to study afterwards viscous flows. The work
consequently consisted in comparing wave profile generated at the transom with linear theory.
The parameters corresponding to the inviscid case studied are summarized in the table. More-
over, some data from PARNASSOS [20] are also available for this case.
Effect of the grid topology
The diffrent grids that have been studied are summarized in the table 5.3. They do not consist of
different grid refinements, but in different grid topologies. The figure 5.3 shows the Grid8Blocks
while the figure 5.4 shows the Grid7Blocks. The only difference between the Grid7Blocks and the
Grid9Blocks is the BC appplied at the outlet.
Grid/BC Grid 8 Blocks Grid 7 Blocks Grid 9 Blocks

1 Water inflow Water inflow Water inflow
(1m.s−1 ) (1m.s−1 ) (1m.s−1 )
2 Air inflow Wall with transpiration ve- Wall with transpiration ve-
locity locity
(1m.s−1 ) (1m.s−1 ) (1m.s−1 )
3 SlipWall SlipWall SlipWall
4 Pressure Pressure Pressure
(hydrostatic) (hydrostatic) (hydrostatic)
5 SlipWall SlipWall SlipWall
6 Outflow Outflow Outflow
7 Pressure
(hydrostatic)
Table 5.3: Transom-stern: the three different grids studied
Figure 5.3: Grid 8 Blocks

Figure 5.4: Grid 7 Blocks
It is often said within the VoF framework that ”what happens in the air part does not matter”.
The first grid that is studied, composed of 8 blocks, denies this assessment. We observed that the
waves grow at the begining of the simulation and suddenly collapse. The figure 5.5 shows the
interaction of the air streamlines with the water part, what results in spoiling the waves.
Timestep:140 Pressure
100270
100225
100180
100135
100090
100045
100000
Z
Y
Z X
Timestep:180 Pressure Timestep:220 Pressure
100270 100270
100225 100225
100180 100180
100135 100135
100090 100090
100045 100045
100000 100000
Y Y
Z X Z X
Figure 5.5: The interaction of the air streamlines with water spoils the waves
And in fact it is absolutely understanble, since the wave profile is highly related to the stream-
line. Indeed, given that the case herein studied is steady and the fluid is incompressible, the
free-surface equation 2.17 becomes:
∇ . (αU) = (∇α) . U + α (∇.U) = (∇α) . U = 0 (5.2)
Therefore, solving accurately the free surface equation means solving accurately the stream-
lines. The reason why the waves are spoiled is then understandable: the waves grow untill they
reach the streamlines of the recirculation zone. Then the fre-surface equation cannot be solved
properly and the waves are spoiled. Firstly we increased a lot the distance between the air inflow
and the free surface, but it was not sucessful.
Effect of the normal velocity in the BC 2
The effect of the normal velocity is investigated by comparing the results of the Grid8Blocks and
the Grid7Blocks. The only major change is that the stern is changed from a SlipWall BC to a
wall with transpiration velocity, represented by an air Inflow BC. The purpose was to make the
streamlines smoother and avoid the creation of a recirculation zone.
The comparison of the wave profile obtained with the PARNASSOS solution and the theoretical
solution of Vanden-Broek, displayed on the figure 5.6, gives quite good results both for dispersion
and dissipation. The streamlines are indeed smooth now: there is no recirculation zone anymore
and the waves can then grow without being disturbed.
T=0.5s T=9.75s
Z X
T=1.5s T=12.75s
Z X
T=3s T=13.25s
Pressur
10049
10042
10035
10028
10021
10014
10007
10000
Y
Z X
T=5.5s T=13.75s
T=8.5s T=8.5s
Pressure
100490
100420
100350
100280
100210
100140
100070
100000
Y Y
Z X Z X
Figure 5.6: Transom Stern computation for the 7Blocks grid and the transpiration velocity.
0.5
z / (.5Fn Lpp)
2
-0.5
Vanden-Broeck (1980)
"inviscid" PARNASSOS
FreSCo - Grid7Blocks (timestep=1720)
0 10 20 30
2
x / (.5Fn Lpp)
Figure 5.7: Results
Conversely, similarly to the Duncan numerical simulations, the solution does never reach a
steady state. The wave profile displayed on the figure 5.7 corresponds to the 1720th timestep,
but you can see in the appendices that the residuals diverged after 4000 timesteps and on the
figure 5.6 that something is wrong with the streamlines. This behaviour seems to be due to
perturbations coming from the outlet and leading to chaotic streamlines.
Effect of the change of the BC 6
The Grid9Blocks is created to try to solve the problem of oscillation of the water level, since it
is thought to be the origin of the divergence of computations. The idea is to apply two different
BCs at the outlet. Instead of prescribing an Outflow BC for the air and water part, a Pressure BC
is prescribed in the water part while an Outflow BC is prescribed in for the air part only. Unfor-
tunately, the results were worse than those obtained with the 7Blocks grid. The convergence is
more difficult and the solution also diverged after some thousands of timesteps. As the figure F.2
and ?? show, the origin is still a chaotic behavior of the streamlines.
5.2.3 Conclusions
Generally, the same difficulties as in the wave and duncan foil studies have been encountered for
the transom case. The wall with transpiration velocity implemented in the Grid7Blocks makes the
streamlines smooth and avoid the creation of a recirculation zone. This leads to very optimistic
results and let us hope excellent results when the perturbations and pressure definition problems
will have been solved. Conversely, the solution always diverges after some time. This behaviour,
not observed for the Duncan and the wave studies is likely to be related to the fact that this is the
only test case where a Pressure BC is applied at the bottom. More than the perturbations observed
in the Chapter4, we sorely think that the way of defining the pressure in the domain is reponsible
for this behaviour.
For future work
The purpose of studying inviscid computations was to build a reliable grid first and then study
turbulent viscous flows. And then not only FNtr need be the same as the compared data but also
the Reynolds number based on the thickness of the boundary layer at L pp /2.
Some interesting data are available in [20], and then the same inflow velocity profile have to
be applied in the F RE SC O numerical simulations.
δ 0.37 0.37
= 1/5
= (5.3)
x ( Rex ) Ure f x 1/5

ν
leads to
L pp 0.37 5 0.37 −2
δ( L pp /2) = = 1/5 = 4.85 10 (5.4)
2 Ure f L pp 1/5 2 1.14 · 5
2ν 2 · 1.13 10−6
Finally, similarly to the numerical simulations carried out by Maki [11], a power law can be
used instead of applying a constant and uniform water inlet velocity at the water inflow:
1/7 1/7
u(y) y y y 1/7
= → u(y) = Uin f ty = 1.14 (5.5)
Uin f ty δ0.99 δ0.99 4.85 10−2
C hapter 6
Conclusions
The purpose of this master’s thesis was to give to the CFD researchers of MARIN good assess-
ment of the capabilities of F RE SC O as regards the wave generation and propagation.
The first fulfilment to notice is the discovery of inconsistencies that were so far absolutely incom-
patible with reliable computations where both low velocities and gravity were involved. The
inconsistency at the Neumann boundaries has been perfectly solved and no perturbation appear
anymore. Conversely, the inconsistency in the discretization of the pressure and gravity terms at
the free-surface has not been solved yet. Therefore, high velocities have to be studied to reduce
significantly the spurious y-velocities at the free-surface. However, the problem is now identified
and the F RE SC O team of MARIN is currently working on a general solution to solve it.
Despite these perturbations, we managed to study first the Airy and Stokes wave generation and
propagation. Given that the current velocity added ucurrent = 1 still implies some errors at the
free surface, we can be very satisfied with the results obtained. The Stokes wave computations,
since the higher wave height than the Airy one results in lower perturbations, are very good.
And yet, these could be still better by applying a less diffusive convection scheme than Quick.
The interface is then sharper and the pressure computed at the interface more accurate. Besides,
we sorely think that the way of defining the pressure is responsible for the shift of the water level,
especially visible in the Airy simulations.
Finally, two distinct validation test cases have been studied. The Duncan foil has given good
results although the boundary conditions used have a bigger influence on the final solution than
expected. The computations were much more difficult for the transom-stern case because un-
steadiness of the flow is much more important than in the Duncan foil case (and these cases are
steady ones). The transom-stern simulations always diverge after some time. However, the in-
viscid solution that was obtained before the residuals begin to raise are in good agreement with
the linear solution and the PARNASSOS computations carried out beforehands.
Consequently, the results are globally optimistic. The errors obtained for the wave genaration
and propagation studies and the two validation test cases may be due to the perturbations at the
free-surface, but also to the way of fixing the pressure. Indeed, for all these studies, a more or less
61
62 CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSIONS
important oscillation of the water level, which is the main origin of the error, can be observed.
Future work
• The first thing to do to progress in the modelling of wave flows in F RE SC O is to solve the
inconsistency problem that results in spurious y-velocities.
• The second work to carry out is to study the influence of the BC on the water level definition
and oscillation.
• Besides, it would be useful to implement a new WaveInflow BC, which would allow negative
inlet velocities. This is absolutely required since the oscillatory velocity components are
bound to be periodically negative if no high enough current is added.
• Similarly to the Inflow BC, it could be useful to implement a non reflecting boundary condi-
tion to avoid any reflection problem. Moreover it would allow to decrease the computation
time since the numerical beach implies many cells which are somehow useless.
• Finally, the wave generation and propagation study needs to be completed by other types of
waves to provide to the F RE SC O users a reliable wave theory for every situation they would
need to study. Then, it could also be interesting to investigate how F RE SC O simulates wave
breaking phenomenon.
Appendix A
URANS Equations and Turbulence
A.1 Introduction
The free-surface flows are often characterized by two non-dimensional parameters: the Froude
number FN , of most importance in free surface flows, and the Reynolds number Re , of most
importance in viscous flows. Indeed, Re approximately determines the turbulent state of the
flow.
Ure f Lre f ρ Ure f Lre f
Re = =
ν µ
The limit commonly used for the transition between laminar and turbulent flows is Re = 2000.
In such cases turbulence need be taken into account. Turbulent flows are highly unsteady, three-
dimensional and they fluctuate on a broad range of length and time scales. Several approaches
exist to predict turbulent flows (DNS,LES,URANS,...) but only the URANS model will be herein
presented, the other being often more accurate but much more complex and CPU-time demand-
ing.
F RE S O was previously defined as a numerical CFD code based on URANS Equations, ie.
Unsteady Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes Equations. In a statistically steady flow, every scalar
quantity can be written as the sum of the averaged quantity and a fluctuation term. As regard
unsteady flows, URANS equations are quite similar to RANS ones, but include the unsteady
terms in the governing equations. The equation A.1 and A.2 explain respectively the start point
of RANS and URANS equation.
Z T
′ 1
φ( x, y, z, t) = φ( x, y, z) + φ ( x, y, z, t) where φ( x, y, z) = lim φ( x, y, z, t)dt (A.1)
T →∞ T 0
Z δt
′ 1
φ( x, y, z, t) = φ( x, y, z, t) + φ ( x, y, z, t) where φ( x, y, z, t) = lim φ( x, y, z, t)dt (A.2)
δt→0 δt 0
By replacing the scalar values in the Navier-Stokes equations by the sum of the average term
and the fluctuation term of these values, one obtains the averaged Navier-Stokes equations writ-
63
64 APPENDIX A. URANS EQUATIONS AND TURBULENCE
Figure A.1: Steady and Unsteady scalar values in a turbulent flow
ten below. Note that the flow is supposed to be incompressible and the only body force consid-
ered is the gravity. The continuity equation 2.2 becomes
∂ui
=0 (A.3)
∂xi
and the momentum equation becomes
∂u j ∂u j

∂ρui ∂p ∂
+ ρui =− + µ − ρ ui′ u′j + ρgi (A.4)
∂t ∂xi ∂x j ∂xi ∂xi
∂ρui ∂ ′ ′ ∂p ∂τ ij
+ (ρui u j + ρui u j ) = − + (A.5)
∂t ∂x j ∂xi ∂x j
where the τ ij are the mean viscous stress tensor components
!
∂ui ∂u j
τ ij = µ + (A.6)
∂x j ∂xi
Because of the additional presence of the Reynolds stresses, the equations are not closed, ie.
they contain more variables than there are equations. Therefore some approximations, called tur-
bulence models, need be introduced.
In laminar flows, energy dissipation and transport of mass, momentum and energy normal to
the streamlines are mediated by the viscosity, so it is natural to assume that the effect of turbu-
lence can be represented as an increased viscosity. The apparent shear stress σapp is the sum of a
molecular shear stress σmolecular and a eddy viscosity σeddy (Boussinesq Approximation)
∂u j

σapp = − µ − ρ ui′ u′j (A.7)
∂xi
∂u j
The eddy component of the shear stress is generally represented as ui′ u′j = −µt and finally
∂xi
∂u j
σapp = σmolecular + σeddy = − (µ + µt ) (A.8)
∂xi
Turbulence models allow to compute this eddy viscosity µt

A.2. TURBULENCE MODELS 65
A.2 Turbulence models

Basically, turbulences models can be divided depending on the number of differential equations
required to estimate the eddy viscosity [24].
• Algebraic models or 0-equation models: In this case, the eddy viscosity is computed by means
of a mixing length. The eddy viscosity and the flow velocity are linked through an algebraic
relation. No such model is available in F RE SC O.
• 1-Equation models: In F RE SC O, the following one-equation turbulence models are available

-The Spalart-Allmaras model ([18])
-The Menter 1-equation model ([13])
-The SKL model
• 2-Equations models. In F RE SC O, the following two-equations turbulence models are avail-

able
-The k-ǫ standard model ([10])
-The k-ǫ RNG model ([26])
-The k-ω original model ([23])
-The k-ω modified model ([?])
-The k-ω SST (Shear Stress Transport) model ([14])
-The k-τ model
-The k-KSKL model
A.3 The y+ parameter

The viscous sublayer of the boundary layer is sometimes so thin - especially for high Reynolds
number - that it is difficult to refine the grid enough near the wall and then compute reliably the
flow. This problem is solved by using wall functions, which rely on the existence of a logarithmic
region in the velocity profile. Typically, the velocity profile in a turbulent boundary layer implies
two non-dimensional parameters. y+ is the non-dimensional distance to the wall and u+ is the
non-dimensional velocity:
Uτ y U
y+ = ; u+ = (A.9)
ν Uτ
where Uτ is called the friction velocity and τwall is the shear stress at the wall. The shear stress
is imparted onto the boundary as a result of the loss of velocity between y = 0 and y = δ0.99 .

τwall ∂u
r
Uτ = ; τwall = µ (A.10)
ρ ∂y y=0
The reason why the y+ is such an important parameter is that it influences directly the value
of the turbulent viscosity and so the results of turbulent flow computations. For example, for
one-equation turbulence models, only the turbulent viscosity need be determined:
• y+ < 1 : νT =0 at the boundary

66 APPENDIX A. URANS EQUATIONS AND TURBULENCE
Figure A.2: Typical velocity profile for a turbulent boundary layer [24]
• y+ > 30 : νT =f (u+ , y+ ) at the boundary
• 1 < y+ < 30 : the value of νT at the boundary is interpolated by a blending between the two
previous relations
The way of computing the turbulent viscosity at the boundary is quite similar for the two-
equation turbulence models. Depending on the two-equation model used, you have:
• νt = Cµ k2 /ǫ for k-ǫ models
• νt = k/ω for k-ω models
For more details, see [24].

Appendix B
Wave theories
Airy wave
The nine assumptions inherent to the linear theory are summarized below:
1. The amplitude a of the surface disturbance is very small relative to the wave length L and
the water depth d
2. The velocity (u2 + v2 )/2g is small compared with the hydrodtatic pressure head ρgz, with
u and v respectively the horizontal and vertical particle velocities.
3. The water depth d is uniform
4. The water is both non viscous and irrotational
5. The water is incompressible and homogeneous
6. The Coriolis forces due to the earth rotation are negligeable
7. Surface tension is negligeable
8. The sea floor is smooth and non porous
9. The sea level atmospheric pressure p a is uniform
The nine assumptions described previously yield in the following equations The flow being
both irrotational (∇ ∧ U=0) and incompressible (∇ . U=0), the continuity equation leads to the
Laplace equation for the velocity potential:
∂2 Φ ∂2 Φ
∆U = 0 ≡ + 2 =0 (B.1)
∂x2 ∂y
As the water surface slope is very small, the potential can be written as a sine with an ampli-
tude depending on the water depth y:
Φ( x, y, t) = P(y) sin(ωt − kx + φ) (B.2)
67
68 APPENDIX B. WAVE THEORIES
By substituting the previous equation into the Laplace equation and solving the differential
equation for P(z), one obtain:
Φ( x, y, t) = (C1 eky + C2 e−ky ) sin(ωt − kx + φ) (B.3)
The boundary condition at the non porous sea bed yields to
∂Φ
=0 at y = −d (B.4)
∂y
Substituting the derivated expression of the potential reduces the two unknowns to one:
Φ( x, y, t) = C cosh(k(y + h)) sin(ωt − kx + φ) (B.5)
Using the free surface dynamic boundary condition, deduced from the Bernouilli equation
and taking into account the small wave steepness:
∂Φ
+ gη = 0 at y=0 (B.6)
∂t
ω
η ( x, t) = ηa cos(ωt − kx ) with ηa = − C cosh(kd) (B.7)
g
ηa g cosh(k(y + d))
Φ( x, y, t) = − sin(ωt − kx + φ) (B.8)
ω cosh kd
∂y 1 ∂2 Φ
+ =0 at y=0 (B.9)
∂t g ∂t2
ω 2 = gk tanh (kd) (B.10)
The phase velocity of a wave is

r
ω g
Cφ = = tanh(kd) (B.11)
k k
H
η = a cos(kx − ωt) = cos(kx − ωt) (B.12)
2
∂Φ πH cosh(k(y + d))
u= = cos(kx − ωt) (B.13)
∂x T sinh(kd)
∂Φ πH sinh(k(y + d))
v= = sin(kx − ωt) (B.14)
∂y T sinh(kd)
2nd order Stokes wave

The nine assumptions of the Airy waves are still required for the Stokes theory, exepted the
steepness assumption. The main difference in the assumptions made concerns the steepness of
the wave:
Airy wave : ǫ = ka → 0 Stokes wave : ǫ = ka ≪ 1 (B.15)
Appendix C
Test case settings: wave
69
70 APPENDIX C. TEST CASE SETTINGS: WAVE
Airy waves
Grid wave Inviscid Quick
Grid GridA 050808 (finest)

INVISCID
Wave Properties Airy
H=0.01 ; L=5m ; T=1.79s
Time Discretization Scheme TIME THREE TIME LEVEL
Timestep 0.01
Outer Loop 20
Momentum Equations
Relaxation factor 0.25
CF Discretization Scheme QUICK
Pressure Equations
Free Surface Equations
kf 1.0
71
Grid wave Inviscid Cicsam

INVISCID
Wave Properties Airy
H=0.01 ; L=5m ; T=1.79s
Timestep 0.01
Outer Loop 20
Momentum Equations
Pressure Equations
CF Discretization Scheme CICSAM
kf 1.0
72 APPENDIX C. TEST CASE SETTINGS: WAVE
Stokes waves
Grid wave Inviscid Stokes
LAMINAR
Wave Properties Stokes (second order)
H=0.1 ; L=5m ; T=1.79s
Timestep 0.01
Outer Loop 20
Momentum Equations
Pressure Equations
73
Grid wave Laminar Stokes

LAMINAR
Wave Properties Stokes (second order)
H=0.1 ; L=5m ; T=1.79s
Timestep 0.01
Outer Loop 20
Momentum Equations
Pressure Equations
Appendix D
Test case settings: Duncan foil
75
76 APPENDIX D. TEST CASE SETTINGS: DUNCAN FOIL
Grid2 Inviscid Unsteady
Grid Duncan foil Grid2 (45560 cells)

Inviscid Unsteady viscosity still switched on
Timestep 0.0075
Outer Loop 30
Momentum Equations
Pressure Equations
kf 1.0
Boundary Conditions
1 Inflow
2 Pressure hydrostatic pressure
3 Slip Wall
4 SlipWall
5 Pressure Pre f
77
Grid2 Laminar Unsteady QUICK

Laminar Unsteady
Timestep 0.0075
Outer Loop 30
Momentum Equations
Pressure Equations
Boundary Conditions
1 Inflow
3 Wall
4 SlipWall
5 Pressure Pre f
Grid3 Laminar Unsteady CICSAM

Laminar Unsteady
Timestep 0.0025
Outer Loop 25
Momentum Equations
Pressure Equations
kf 1.0
Boundary Conditions
1 Inflow
3 Wall
4 SlipWall
5 Pressure Pre f
79
Grid Duncan foil Grid3 (80440 cells))

Laminar Unsteady
Timestep 0.0025
Outer Loop 25
Momentum Equations
Pressure Equations
Boundary Conditions
1 Inflow
3 Wall
4 SlipWall
5 Pressure Pre f

Laminar Unsteady
Timestep 0.0025
Outer Loop 25
Momentum Equations
Pressure Equations
Boundary Conditions
1 Inflow
3 Wall
4 SlipWall
5 Pressure Pre f
81

Laminar Unsteady
Timestep 0.0025
Outer Loop 25
Momentum Equations
Pressure Equations
Boundary Conditions
1 Inflow
3 Wall
4 SlipWall
5 Pressure Pre f

Laminar Unsteady
Timestep 0.0025
Outer Loop 25
Momentum Equations
Pressure Equations
Boundary Conditions
1 Inflow
3 Wall
4 SlipWallPressure
5 Pressure Pre f
Appendix E
Duncan foil: plots
83
84 APPENDIX E. DUNCAN FOIL: PLOTS
Effect of the viscosity
1.3
1.28
1.26
CoordinateY
1.24
1.22
1.2
Duncan Experiments
1.18
Duncan Experiments (Shifted)
Grid2 Inviscid CICSAM (TimeStep:3200)
Grid2 Laminar CICSAM (Timestep 3100)
1.16
0 2 4 6
CoordinateX
0.08
0.06
0.04
Cp
0.02
Cp - Grid2 Inviscid CICSAM (TimeStep:3200)

-0.02 Cp - Grid2 Laminar CICSAM (Timestep 3100)
0 5 10 15 20
CoordinateX
Figure E.1: Effect of the viscosity: Wave profile (left); C p at the free surface (right)
85
Effect of the grid refinement
1.3
1.28
1.26
CoordinateY
1.24
1.22
1.2
Duncan Experiments
1.18 Duncan Experiments (Shifted)
Grid2 Laminar QUICK (TimeStep:5000)
1.16
0 2 4 6
CoordinateX
0.08
0.06
Cp
0.04
0.02
Cp - Grid2 Laminar QUICK (TimeStep:5000)

0 Cp - Grid3 Laminar QUICK (TimeStep:8160)
-5 0 5 10 15 20
CoordinateX
Figure E.2: Effect of the viscosity: Wave profile (left); C p at the free surface (right)
Effect of the convection scheme
1.3
1.28
1.26
CoordinateY
1.24
1.22
1.2
Duncan Experiments
Duncan Experiments (Shifted)
1.18
Grid2 Laminar Quick
Grid2 Laminar CICSAM
1.16
-2 0 2 4 6
CoordinateX
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
Cp
0.04
0.02
0
Cp - Grid2 Laminar QUICK
Cp - Grid2 Laminar CICSAM
-0.02
0 5 10 15 20
CoordinateX
Figure E.3: Effect of the convection scheme: Wave profile (left); C p at the free surface (right)
87
Effect of the Inflow BC
1.3
1.28
1.26
CoordinateY
1.24
1.22
1.2
Duncan Experiments
1.16
0 2 4 6
CoordinateX
0.08
0.06
Cp
0.04
0.02

0 Cp - Grid4 Laminar QUICK (TimeStep:9600)
-5 0 5 10 15 20
CoordinateX
1.3
1.28
1.26
CoordinateY
1.24
1.22
1.2
Duncan Experiments
1.16
0 2 4 6
CoordinateX
0.1
0.08
0.06
Cp
0.04
0.02
0
-0.02
-5 0 5 10 15 20
CoordinateX
89
1.3
1.28
1.26
CoordinateY
1.24
1.22
Duncan Experiments
1.18 Grid6 Laminar QUICK (TimeStep:8640)
1.16
-8 -6 -4 -2 0
CoordinateX
0.025
0.02
Cp
0.015
0.01
-8 -6 -4 -2 0
CoordinateX
Effect of the Seabed BC
1.3
1.28
1.26
CoordinateY
1.24
1.22
1.2
Duncan Experiments
1.16
0 2 4 6
CoordinateX
0.1
0.08
0.06
Cp
0.04
0.02
0
-0.02
-5 0 5 10 15 20
CoordinateX
Figure E.7: Effect of the BC applied at the seabed: Wave profile (left); C p at the free surface (right)
91
Steadiness of the flow
1.3
1.28
1.26
CoordinateY
1.24
1.22
1.2
Duncan Experiments
1.16
0 2 4 6
CoordinateX
0.1
0.08
0.06
Cp
0.04
0.02
0
-0.02
-5 0 5 10 15 20
CoordinateX
Figure E.8: Effect of the BC applied at the seabed: Wave profile (left); C p at the free surface (right)
Appendix F
Test case settings: transom-stern flow
Grid 8 Blocks
Grid 8 Blocks
Inviscid Unsteady
Timestep 0.01
Outer Loop 15
Momentum Equations
Pressure Equations
93
94 APPENDIX F. TEST CASE SETTINGS: TRANSOM-STERN FLOW
Grid 7 Blocks
Grid 7 Blocks
Inviscid Unsteady
Timestep 0.005
Outer Loop 15
Momentum Equations
Pressure Equations
95
Figure F.1: Oscillation of the still water line

96 APPENDIX F. TEST CASE SETTINGS: TRANSOM-STERN FLOW
Grid 9 Blocks
Grid 9 Blocks
Inviscid Unsteady
Timestep 0.0025
Outer Loop 15
Momentum Equations
Pressure Equations
97
Figure F.2: Interaction of the air streamlines with the water part and its effect on the C p curve
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Cp
0.1
-0.1
-0.2 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10
CoordinateX
Figure F.3: Effect of the interaction of the air streamlines with the water part on the C p curve
List of Figures
1.1 Relation between solutions, errors and properties of a numerical method . . . . . . 13
2.1 Control volume (CV) [1] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.2 Stress components on a CV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3 Difference between long-crested waves (left) and short-crested waves (right) [2] . . 19
2.4 Notations herein used (Left) ; Wave theories (Right) [3] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.1 General notations used in F RE SC O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.2 Implicit (left) and Explicit (right) euler time discretization schemes [17] . . . . . . . 25
3.3 Velocities and volume fraction prescribed at the inlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.4 Configuration of cells near the outflow boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.1 schema (left) and grid (right) of the first case studied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.2 Neumann boundary condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.3 Free-surface data for different inlet velocities and simulation times: non-dimensional
spurious y-velocities at the free-surface (left); wave profile (right) . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.4 Non-dimensional spurious y-velocities for different simulation times: before that
the solution for Neumann BC inconsistency is implemented (left); after that the
solution is implemented (right). Bottom pictures:density and velocity vectors . . . 35
4.5 grid used for the study of wave generation and propagation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.6 Comparison of the wave profiles of the 3 grids with the case: Stokes Laminar Quick 37
4.7 Zoom on a wave length to show the dissipation and dispersion phenomena . . . . 37
4.8 Comparisons between numerical and theoretical wave profile for the two cases
(left). C p at the free surface (right) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.9 Propagation of the inviscid Airy waves for three close timesteps . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.10 Stokes wave generation and propagation. Left: movie of the propagation with
density contours displayed. Right: Cn ; Pressure; Net x-velocity=x-velocity - ucurrent ;
y-velocity; velocity vectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.11 Stokes validation results for inviscid (left) and laminar (right) computations.Wave
profile (top) - C p at the free surface (middle) - Convergence plots (bottom) . . . . . 43
99
100 LIST OF FIGURES
4.12 Cp curves depending on the interpolation scheme used and the iso-α line selected
to define the free surface. Laminar Stokes (left); Inviscid Airy (right) . . . . . . . . 45
5.1 Grid used for the Duncan foil validation test case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.2 Duncan Grid6 - Left: Wave profile for different times ; Right: Courant number,
Pressure, Streamlines, Convergence plot, Convergence plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.3 Grid 8 Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.4 Grid 7 Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.5 The interaction of the air streamlines with water spoils the waves . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.6 Transom Stern computation for the 7Blocks grid and the transpiration velocity. . . 57
5.7 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
A.1 Steady and Unsteady scalar values in a turbulent flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

A.2 Typical velocity profile for a turbulent boundary layer [24] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
E.1 Effect of the viscosity: Wave profile (left); C p at the free surface (right) . . . . . . . . 84
E.2 Effect of the viscosity: Wave profile (left); C p at the free surface (right) . . . . . . . . 85
E.3 Effect of the convection scheme: Wave profile (left); C p at the free surface (right) . . 86
E.7 Effect of the BC applied at the seabed: Wave profile (left); C p at the free surface
(right) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
E.8 Effect of the BC applied at the seabed: Wave profile (left); C p at the free surface
(right) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
F.1 Oscillation of the still water line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

F.2 Interaction of the air streamlines with the water part and its effect on the C p curve 97
F.3 Effect of the interaction of the air streamlines with the water part on the C p curve . 97
List of Tables
4.1 Dispersion errors for the Airy wave propagation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

4.2 Dissipation errors for the Airy wave propagation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.3 Dispersion errors for the Stokes wave propagation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.4 Dissipation errors for the Stokes wave propagation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.1 Major parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

5.2 BCs used for the different grids studied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.3 Transom-stern: the three different grids studied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
101
Bibliography
[1] B. A BEIL . Validation of a RANS code in the handling of free surface flows. Master’s The-
sis, MARIN, 2007.
[2] V. B ERTRAM . Practical Ship Hydrodynamics. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000.
[3] S.K. C HAKRABARTI . Handbook of offshore engineering. Elsevier, 2005.
[4] J.H. D UNCAN . An experimental investigation of breaking waves produced by a towed hydrofoil.
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 377, pp 331-348, 1981.
[5] J.H. D UNCAN . The breaking and non breaking wave resistance of a two-dimensional hydrofoil.
Journal of fluid mechanics, vol 126, pp 507-520, 1983.
[6] J.H. F ERZIGER AND M. P ERIC . Computational methods for fluid dynamics. Springer-
Verlag, 2002.
[7] P. G ALLAGHER . Numerical Seakeeping Tank - Wave Generation - Implementation in CFX.

VIRTUE - The Virtual Tank Utility In Europe, Project 516201 TIP5-CT-2005-516201, 2006.
[8] M. H OEKSTRA ET AL . Free-Surface Flow Modelling with Interface Capturing Techniques . EC-
COMAS Marine Engineering, Barcelona, 2007.
[9] T. K LEEFSMAN . Water Impact Loading on Offshore Structures. PhD Thesis, Rijksuniver-
siteit, Groningen, 2005.
[10] B.E. L AUNDER AND B.I. S HARMA . Application of the Energy Dissipation Model of Turbulence
to the Calculation of Flow near a Spinning Disc. Letters in Heat and Mass Transfer, vol 1(2), pp
131-138, 1974.
[11] K.J. M AKI . Transom-Stern Hydrodynamics. PhD Thesis, The University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, 2006.
[12] K.J. M AKI ET AL . The transom-stern modeled as a backward facing step. 26th Symposium on
Naval Hydrodynamics, Rome, 2006.
103
104 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[13] F. M ENTER . Performance of popular turbulence models for attached and separated adverse pressure
gradients flows. AIAA Journal, vol 30(8), pp 2066-2072, 1992.
[14] F. M ENTER . Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA
Journal, vol 32, pp 1299-1310, 1994.
[15] C. M ONROY. A RANSE Based study of the flow behind a cylinder. A first step towards riser flow.
Master’s Thesis, Ecole Centrale et Universite de Nantes, Nantes, 2007.
[16] I. O RLANSKI . A simple boundary condition for unbounded hyperbolic flows. Journal of Com-
putational Physics, vol 21, pp 251-269, 1976.
[17] M. S CHAFER . Computational Engineering - Introduction to numerical methods. Springer, 2006.
[18] P. S PALART AND S. A LLMARAS . A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamics flows.
Proceedings of AIAA 30th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada,AIAA Paper 92-
0439, 1992.
[19] B. S TARKE AND W. VAN R EES . CFD casts new light on transom stern design. Report
MARIN, no.94, Wageningen, 2008.
[20] B. S TARKE ET AL . Computation of transom-stern flows using a steady free-surface fitting

RANS method. 9th International Conference on Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics, Ann Ar-
bor, Michigan, 2007.
[21] R.H. S TEWART. Introduction to physical oceanography. eBook, 2007.
[22] G. VAZ AND M.H OEKSTRA . Theoretical and numerical formulation of F RE SC O. Technical Re-
port. MARIN, 2006.
[23] D. W ILCOX . Reassessment of the scale-determining equation for advanced turbulence models.
AIAA Journal, vol 11, pp 1299-1310, 1988.
[24] D.C. W ILCOX . Turbulence modeling for CFD. DCW Industries, 2nd Ed, 1998.
[25] J.F. W ILSON ET AL . Dynamics of offshore structures. John Wiley & Sons, 2nd Ed, 2002.
[26] V. YAKHOT AND S.A. O RSZAG . Renormalization group analysis of turbulence:1. Basic Theory.
Journal of Scientific Computing, vol 1, pp 3-51, 1986.
[27] R. W EMMENHOVE . Numerical Simulation of Two-Phase Flow in Offshore Environments. PhD

Thesis, Rijksuniversiteit, Groningen, 2008.

Jaouenf Archinav08

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jaouenf Archinav08

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Validation of the Free-Surface Modelling of

δ0.99 Thickness of the boundary layer [m]

ǫ Expansion factor [−]

ǫ Error (dispersion, dissipation) [−]

η Free surface height [m]

µ Dynamic viscosity [ N.s.m−2 ]

µt Dynamic turbulent viscosity [ N.s.m−2 ]

ν Kinematic viscosity [m2 .s−1 ]

νt Kinematic turbulent viscosity [m2 .s−1 ]

ω Water wave frequency [rd.s−1 ]

ωe Encountered water wave frequency [rd.s−1 ]

Φ Velocity potential [m2 .s−1 ]

τ stress [kg.m−1 .s−2 ]

Cg Wave group velocity [m.s−1 ]

d Water depth [m]

H Wave height [m]

h Wave amplitude [m]

L Wave lengh [m]

Pre f Reference pressure [ N.m−2 ]

T Wave period [s]

Td Transom draft [m]

Te Encountered wave period [s]

Ure f Reference velocity [m.s−1 ]

A URANS Equations and Turbulence 63

C Test case settings: wave 69

D Test case settings: Duncan foil 75

E Duncan foil: plots 83

F Test case settings: transom-stern flow 93

Modelling of free surface flows

F RE SC O: an URANSE code developped at MARIN

• 2005 : the development of F RE SC O starts.

Objectives of the present study

• investigating numerical capabilities of F RE SC O for waves

• identifying problems and future work

What does validation mean?

2.1 Navier-Stokes equations

Figure 2.1: Control volume (CV) [1]

Using the Green-Ostragradski theorem, the previous equation becomes:

Figure 2.2: Stress components on a CV

Conservation of a general scalar quantity

and the expression of source or sink flux of the scalar quantity is

and the coordinate free vector form of this equation is:

2.2 Calculation of the pressure

∇. (∇ p) = −∇. [∇. (ρUU)] (2.14)

2.3 Volume-of-Fluid model

2.4 Wave theories

ω are linked by the dispersion relation:

Potential flow formulas

3.1 General presentation

solve pressure correction equation (with an inner loop)

Figure 3.1: General notations used in F RE SC O

3.2 Spatial discretization

3.2.1 Approximation of volume integrals

3.2.2 Approximation of surface integrals

The midpoint rule, of second order accuracy if f k is exactly known, is implemented in F RE SC O

3.2.3 Discretization of the convective terms

3.2.4 Discretization of the diffusive terms

and according to [22],

3.2.5 Discretization of pressure terms and body forces

This yields to the following discretized equation:

This yields to the following discretized equation:

3.3 Time discretization