Ocean Engineering 158 (2018) 78–98

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Numerical modeling of non-breaking, impulsive breaking, and broken wave

interaction with elevated coastal structures: Laboratory validation and
inter-model comparisons
Hyoungsu Park a, *, Trung Do b, Tori Tomiczek c, Daniel T. Cox a, John W. van de Lindt b
a
School of Civil and Construction Engineering, 101 Kearney Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, United States
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, United States
c
Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD 21402, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Quantitative CFD model validation and inter-model comparisons between IHFOAM and ANSYS-FLUENT were
Experiment performed for pressures and forces on an elevated structure using a 1:10 physical model. Non-breaking, impulsive
IHFOAM breaking, and broken wave conditions at the structure's location were simulated in IHFOAM and FLUENT. The
ANSYS FLUENT calculated time series of water surface elevation and horizontal and vertical pressures and forces were compared
Validation with the measured data. We introduced the impulse of residual to quantify the variation of the force and pressure
Force
time series. Results indicated that the numerical models performed differently depending on the wave conditions,
Pressure
even for the same initial set up. Non-breaking wave simulations showed the best agreement with experimental
data for both models, while broken wave trials showed the largest deviations. Bottom pressures and vertical forces
were less sensitive to wave breaking conditions. Results indicate that future benchmarking tests for an elevated
structure must consider both horizontal and vertical forces due to various wave breaking conditions. The accuracy
of simulated wave shoaling and breaking processes played a key role in precisely calculating the forces and
pressures on the structure, and it was difficult for the CFD models to simulate the exact wave breaking conditions
as the measurements.

1. Introduction
Hurricanes and typhoons generate elevated surge levels and strong
waves that can cause extensive damage to buildings and other coastal
infrastructure, especially those located in low-lying coastal regions. The
history of recorded damage on buildings near the shoreline from past
storms indicates that the intensity of storms and resulting damage has
increased over the past 30 years (Emanuel, 2005). For example, the
United States has been impacted by recent events such as Hurricanes
Katrina (2005), Ike (2008), and Sandy (2012). The 2017 Atlantic hurri-
cane season was one of the most active and costliest seasons in recorded
history. To withstand the high surge levels and waves induced from
hurricanes and typhoons, structures are commonly elevated above grade;
this structural design is a common building type in regions of low
elevation such as barrier islands on the East Coast and Gulf Coast of the
United States. However, the magnitude of damage is exacerbated in re-
gions that are characterized by aging infrastructure and buildings that
were built with outdated codes and standards, especially as coastal re-
gions are threatened by increasing storm intensity and global sea level
rise (e.g. Mori et al., 2013). Retrofitting a structure is one option to
mitigate damage during future storm events and thus increase the resil-
ience of coastal communities. However, to effectively mitigate damage,
these techniques require precise predictions of the wave climate and the
corresponding wave loads under various storm wave conditions.
Estimation of wave forces on elevated structures is available through
analytical solutions or empirical solutions based on physical experi-
mental results. Previous studies have mostly focused on coastal infra-
structure such as bridges and jetties rather than residential buildings.
Kaplan (1992) and Kaplan et al. (1995) predicted the time history of
impact loadings on offshore platforms and the wave impact force from
large incident waves based on momentum flux. Cuomo et al. (2007)
conducted a 1:25 scale model test of wave forces on exposed jetties and
developed new dimensionless predictive solutions. Cuomo et al. (2009)
also performed large scale (1:10) experiments on coastal highway bridges

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hyoungsu.park@gmail.com (H. Park).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.03.088
Received 1 September 2017; Received in revised form 22 January 2018; Accepted 31 March 2018
Available online 4 April 2018
0029-8018/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Park et al.
and determined the dynamics of wave loadings and the effects of open-
ings in bridge decks. Based on this work, they derived predictive methods
for both quasi-static and impulsive wave loads. Bradner et al. (2011)
investigated a 1:5 scale model of a reinforced concrete type coastal
bridge superstructure. They investigated the vertical and horizontal force
for an array of wave heights, periods, and water levels and found that the
vertical force could be greater than the horizontal force by a factor of
four.
Recently, ASCE/SEI (2016) published minimum design standards for
buildings as a design guideline for elevated structures, including meth-
odologies to calculate three wave loading types: non-breaking, breaking
and broken (Sections 5.4.2 to 5.4.5). FEMA (2011) also published a
design manual for residential coastal dwellings, which includes guidance
on both horizontal and vertical wave forces, similar to those presented in
the ASCE standard. However, those theoretical approaches are limited in
their applicability to real, complex, storm wave climates and the corre-
sponding wave forces. Wiebe et al. (2014) proposed an analytical solu-
tion to estimate the wave-induced force on an elevated structure by
modifying Goda's pressure formulae for a caisson breakwater (Goda,
1974, 2010) to include the effects of various freeboard conditions (air--
gap) and wave climates. They concluded that three types of breaking
conditions yielded different aspects of horizontal wave force as function
of wave height, period and freeboard.
As an alternative method, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
models have been widely developed and applied to estimate wave
induced pressures and forces; advances in recent years have been sup-
ported by an increase in computation power, which allows more detailed
calculations of the complex hydrodynamics associated with wave action.
However, the performance of CFD models must be validated or verified
through detailed comparisons with benchmark tests (e.g. analytic solu-
tions or physical experiments), and difficulties of pressure and force
calculations and their sensitivity to wave conditions were well reported
by previous studies (e.g. Mokrani and Abadie, 2016). In case of the wave
pressure (forces) on elevated structure, many recent numerical studies
have been performed with bridge decks (Xiao and Huang, 2008; Jin and
Meng, 2011; Hayatdavoodi et al., 2014, 2015; Seiffert et al., 2015; Wu
et al., 2016) and validated through the scaled physical experimental re-
sults. They mostly utilized solitary or cnoidal waves with constant depth
conditions for simple wave climate and focused on analyzing wave loads
on coastal bridge decks. Recently, Do et al. (2016) used the results of a
1:5 scale bridge experiment (Linton et al., 2012) to validate the ANSYS
FLUENT model (ANSYS, 2013). They then applied the model setup to a
vertical wall using a solitary wave.
Generally, differences in wave impacts result from the three breaking
types (non-breaking, breaking, and broken waves). Wave breaking is
highly dependent on the wave characteristics (e.g. wave height, period,
and surge levels), bathymetric and topographic conditions (e.g. cross-
shore beach profile, foreshore slope, and presence or absence of
offshore sandbars and dunes). Geometric conditions of the infrastructure
(e.g. community layout, beach hardening) are also important. In partic-
ular, the air gap, or the distance from the water level to the lowest chord
of the structure, can significantly affect the magnitude of the wave impact
Fig. 1. Profile view of the Large Wave Flume (LWF).
79
Ocean Engineering 158 (2018) 78–98
force on the elevated structure (e.g. Wiebe et al., 2014; Park et al., 2017).
Impulsive breaking waves (wave slamming) induce the highest hori-
zontal forces on vertical walls (e.g. Bea et al., 1999; Linton et al., 2012);
however, it is reported that the breaking wave itself could be separated
into three phases such as early breaking, late breaking, and perfect
breaking (Kirkg€ oz, 1995). Each phase creates a wave impact force of
different magnitude. Therefore, it is still a challenging task to model the
various types of wave deformations over a sloping beach and to calculate
the consequent wave pressure distributions and forces on elevated
structures for various types of wave breaking conditions.
The goals of the present paper are to: (1) validate two CFD models
(IHFOAM and FLUENT) with a scaled (1:10) experimental dataset of
waves impacting an elevated structure (Park et al., 2017) with a range of
surge levels, wave conditions, and air gaps; and (2) quantify the perfor-
mance of the two models for the wave induced horizontal and vertical
forces (pressures) on the elevated structure. We compare the perfor-
mance and sensitivity of the two CFD model results conditioned on the
three different wave impact conditions: non-breaking, breaking, and
broken. In particular, we compare the time-series of the water surface
elevations over the compound slope, as well as the front and bottom
pressures and vertical and horizontal force components on the elevated
structure, which was positioned on a flat region slightly inland of the
compound slope. Section 2 introduces the overall setup of the experiment
and dataset utilized in model validation including detailed instrumen-
tation and test conditions. Section 3 introduces the two CFD models
(IHFOAM and FLUENT) and details of each CFD model setup. Section 4
presents an overview of the two CFD model results, including the detailed
validation process. Section 5 discusses the quantitative comparison of the
two CFD models and the sensitivity of each model to different mesh size
conditions in calculations of the water surface elevation, pressure, and
force. Finally, Section 6 discusses the major conclusions of this work.
2. Experimental design
The physical model tests were conducted at the Large Wave Flume
(LWF) at Oregon State University's Hinsdale Wave Research Laboratory
(HWRL) and are described in detail in Park et al. (2017). The tests are
summarized here to provide a context for the numerical modeling in this
work. The experiment was designed to measure wave-induced pressures,
horizontal forces, and vertical forces separately on an elevated coastal
structure. Experiments were performed with a constant water depth and
bathymetry while varying the significant wave height and peak period
for each test. Three different wave conditions were tested including
regular (periodic), irregular (random), and transient (tsunami-like)
waves, and the specimen was elevated to different air-gap conditions to
measure the horizontal and vertical wave forces on the structure. The
model-data validations use the regular waves only.
2.1. Experimental setup
A profile-view sketch of the LWF including bathymetric conditions
and wave gage locations is presented in Fig. 1. The length, width and
H. Park et al. Ocean Engineering 158 (2018) 78–98

Fig. 2. Diagrams of experimental specimen and instrumentation. (a) Top view of zoomed in wave flume with the locations of string (circles) and ultrasonic (triangle)
wave gages, (b) Specimen with frame, (c) Front, back, bottom and top views of specimen.

depth of the flume were 104 m, 3.66 m, and 4.6 m, respectively, with a 2.2. Experimental wave conditions
piston–type hydraulic actuator assembly wavemaker. A compound
slope was installed in the flume beginning 14.07 m from the wave- Regular wave trials consisted of 10 different combinations of sig-
maker. The first section was composed of a horizontal, 3.64 m long slab nificant wave heights and peak periods to model storm wave condi-
with a 0.15 m height, followed by a 10.98 m long section with a 1:11 tions. Table 1 shows regular wave conditions measured at wg1. Based
slope, giving a vertical rise of 0.99 m. This steeper slope was followed on observations and video analysis of the wave impact on the struc-
by a 14.64 m long section with a 1:24 slope, rising an additional 0.61 m, ture, we classify three types of wave impact conditions: non-breaking,
and finally followed by a 36.60 m long flat section starting at breaking, and broken. The non-breaking impact is generally observed
x ¼ 43.33 m with a constant 1.75 m elevation. The specimen, which was for relatively small wave heights and long wave period conditions. The
based on a 1:10 length scale model of a residential coastal structure, surface of sinusoidal wave transforms during the shoaling process,
was designed to measure vertical and horizontal forces and pressures approaching peaky, asymmetric sine curves. However, wave breaking
and was located at x ¼ 43.84 m, 0.51 m landward from the start of the does not occur, and thus the wave generates small run-up at the
flat section. specimen. Trials REG_X1, X2, and X6 were classified as non-breaking
Fig. 2 provides a detailed sketch of the instrumentation installed in wave impact conditions. The breaking wave condition is found when
the wave flume. Fig. 2a is a detailed overhead view of wave flume the shoaling wave height is over the breaking limits of depth or length
showing the experimental specimen and nearby wave gauges. Three (e.g. H/h ¼ 0.78 or H/L ¼ 0.14 tanh (kh)). The wave breaks near the
wire resistance wave gages were positioned at the beginning (wg1), specimen and creates a large jet of splashing water at the time of
middle (wg2), and end (wg3) of the slope to capture the trans- impact. Experimental trials REG_X3, X7, and X8 are classified as
formation as waves propagated along the sloping bathymetry. Fig. 2b
is a side view of the specimen. A frame was utilized to hold the
specimen in place at varying air gaps and to prevent lateral (y-direc- Table 1
tion) motion. The specimen has a box shape (1.02 m by 1.02 m square Regular wave conditions.
bottom with 0.61 m height) and it represents an idealization of an Exp. REG
elevated residential structure. This specimen was designed to measure
H (m) T (s) h (m) Dur. (min)
pressures on the front, bottom and rear sides; the rail connection to the
frame system allowed the simultaneous, independent measurements of X1 0.10 4.10 2.15 4.00
X2 0.21 4.10 2.15 4.00
the horizontal and vertical forces. Fig. 2c depicts the front, back,
X3 0.29 4.10 2.15 4.00
bottom and top views of the specimen, which show the locations of the X4 0.40 4.10 2.15 4.00
14 pressure gages and 5 load cells used in experiments. All pressure X5 0.50 4.10 2.15 4.00
gages and load cells recorded data at a frequency of 500 Hz, and data X6 0.16 2.52 2.15 2.50
was filtered using a low pass filter for frequencies above 50 Hz. More X7 0.23 2.98 2.15 3.00
X8 0.26 3.64 2.15 3.50
details of the coordinate locations of instruments are available in Park
X9 0.35 4.68 2.15 4.50
et al. (2017). X10 0.42 5.04 2.15 5.00

80
H. Park et al. Ocean Engineering 158 (2018) 78–98

breaking wave impact conditions. Lastly, relatively higher wave height 3. Numerical model
conditions result in the onset of wave breaking processes over the
slope and show a decrease of wave height with air entrainment at the 3.1. Model overview: IHFOAM and FLUENT
moment of impact. REG_X4, X5, X9, and X10 are classified as broken
waves in these experiments. The repeatability of wave maker and The first CFD model utilized in this study is IHFOAM 2.0 (Higuera
recording devices was tested, and results are described in the physical et al., 2013), which implemented a new solver, and boundary conditions
model study by Park et al. (2017). For all trials, the mean absolute for wave generation and absorption. IHFOAM was developed in the open
error was ~10% for pressure gages and less than 1% for water surface source platform of OpenFOAM® (Open Field Operation And Manipula-
elevation gages. For numerical model validation, we choose three tion). OpenFOAM solves the 3-D Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes
regular wave conditions: REG_X2, X8, and X4, which clearly show (RANS) equations for two incompressible phases using a finite volume
non-breaking, breaking, and broken wave conditions at the time the discretization and the volume of fluid (VOF) method. It also supports
wave reaches the specimen. For each trial, the breaking condition is several turbulence models such as κε, κω SST, and LES. The governing
verified based on both video recordings and pressure measurements on RANS equation includes conservation of mass (Eq. (1)) and momentum
the specimen. (Eq. (2)), which are
Fig. 3 provides snapshots from the video recordings of the wave
interaction on the specimen for (a) REG_X2, (b) REG_X8, and (c) r⋅!
u ¼0 (1)
REG_X4. In this study, we consider the case in which the base of the
structure was located at the still water level (giving an air gap, a, equal ∂ρ!u
 !
þ r⋅ðρ!
u!u Þ  r⋅ μeff ⋅r!
u ¼ rp*  !
g X ⋅rρ þ r!
u ⋅rμeff (2)
to zero), which was shown by Park et al. (2017) to induce the maximum ∂t
vertical force.
!
where each vector ! u, !
g , and X is velocity, acceleration of gravity and
position, respectively, and each scalar p* and μeff is pseudo-dynamic
pressure and efficient dynamic viscosity, which account for the molec-
ular dynamic viscosity plus turbulent effects (IHFOAM, 2017). The
density (ρ) is calculated as ρ ¼ αρwaterþ(1-α) ρair, where α indicates the
phase function, given by

∂α
þ r⋅! !αð1  αÞ
u α þ ru (3)
∂t c

In Eq. (3), !
uc is an artificial compression vector to preserve a sharp
interface between air and water (Maza et al., 2015). IHFOAM utilizes a
mixture of the PISO (Pressure Implicit with Splitting of Operators) and
SIMPLE (Semi-Implicit Method for Pressure-Linked Equations) algo-
rithms, which is called PIMPLE. The main structure of PIMPLE is
inherited from the original PISO, but it allows equation under-relaxation,
as in SIMPLE, to ensure the convergence of all the equations at each time
step (IHFOAM, 2017). The performance of IHFOAM was validated
through several benchmark studies such as run-up, wave breaking
(Higuera et al., 2013), coastal structures (Higuera et al., 2014) and 3-D
oscillating water columns (Iturrioz et al., 2015).
The second CFD model is FLUENT, a module in the ANSYS workbench
to solve for the fluid flow. FLUENT can interact with the mechanical
module in ANSYS to solve the two-way fluid-structure interaction;
however, this paper only focuses on one-way fluid-structure interaction
by using the FLUENT module only. Therefore, the structure can be
assumed to be a rigid boundary condition during the analysis. (Fluent
Inc., 2005).
The governing equations for Volume of Fluid (VOF) model for multi-
phase problem solving in Fluent are as below (Eqs. (4) and (5)) with the
assumption that temperature remains unchanged during the analysis
(ANSYS, 2009). The mass conservation equation is given as
   X
1 ∂
 n


αq ρq þ r: αq ρq !
vq ¼ m_ sq  m_ qs (4)
ρq ∂t s¼1

where ρq is the mass per unit volume of the phase q, t is time, r is the
differential operator, ! vq is velocity vector of phase q, αq is the volume
P
fraction of phase q with ns¼1 αq ¼ 1, m_ sq is mass transfer from phase s to
phase q, m_ qs is mass transfer from phase q to phase s, and n is the number
of phases.
The momentum conservation equation is used throughout the domain
as

∂ ! !
ðρ v Þ þ r⋅ðρ!
v!v Þ ¼ rp þ r:½μðr!
v þ r!
v Þ þ ρ!
T
g þ F (5)
Fig. 3. Photographs of wave impact conditioned on three different waves: (a) ∂t
non breaking, REG_X2, (b) breaking, REG_X8, and (c) broken, REG_X4.

81
H. Park et al.
! the physical model. Both the water and air phases were simulated with
where p is the static pressure, and each ρ! g and F are the gravitational
and external body forces, respectively, and μ is the molecular viscosity. In
order to account for the turbulent effects, realizable k-ε model (ANSYS,
2009) was applied with the other two variables (k-turbulent kinetic en-
ergy, and ε-turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate). In the next step,
implicit scheme is selected for discretize those governing equations, and
the pressure-based coupled algorithm is obtained to solve the discretized
equations for pressures, velocities, and other scalar equations.
3.2. IHFOAM model setup
There are two mesh tools in OpenFOAM: ‘blockMesh’ and ‘snappy-
HexMesh’. The blockMesh tool creates the geometry of each block, which
is generally defined by 8 vertices and 6 boundary faces, one at each
corner of a hexahedron (cube). It requires information of the mesh
vertices, faces, and correct numbering to generate the mesh; thus, rela-
tively simple geometry conditions are preferred when using this tool.
However, the snappyHexMesh tool generates 3-D meshes, creating
hexahedra and split-hexahedra automatically from triangulated surface
geometries given in StereoLithography (STL) format, so it supports the
generation of mesh with complex geometry conditions. In this study, we
utilize the blockMesh tool and generate a 1:1 scale model of the flume
used for the physical model study, including the specimen (painted or-
ange as shown in Fig. 3), but not the gray supporting frame, with set of
hexahedrons (cubes). We utilize a prism-shaped block, which is
composed of 6 vertices and 4 boundary faces to reproduce the sloped
bathymetry. The piston-type wavemaker is not directly modeled. Instead
IHFOAM allows users to choose various wave input conditions based on
wave theory (e.g. Stokes, solitary, and irregular) and wavemaker theory
(piston-type, flap-type). Here we utilize the piston-type wavemaker
boundary condition (inlet) to replicate the wave input using the
measured time-series of displacement and free surface elevation at the
wavemaker. We assign the no-slip wall boundary condition for both
bottom slope and around the specimen, and leave as an empty boundary
the lateral walls. The bathymetry of the flume was designed to dissipate
waves through the natural beach at the end of the flume. Therefore, we
did not implement a radiation boundary condition or sponge layer at the
end of the flume, so that our simulation would replicate the conditions in
Fig. 4. (a) Sketch of wave flume in the IHFOAM model, and the mesh configuration for (b) front view and (c) top view.
82
Ocean Engineering 158 (2018) 78–98
density (ρ) set to 998 kg/m3 and 1.20 kg/m3, respectively, and kinematic
viscosity (ν) set to 1.0  106 m2/s and 1.48  105 m2/s, respectively.
We utilized the default solver setups, described in the IHFOAM example
(IHFOAM, 2017) and both the κε and the κω SST turbulence equations
were considered. The default parameters of kε (e.g. Launder and
Sharma, 1974) and κω SST turbulence models (Wilcox, 2008) were
utilized in this study, and we utilize kε equations in the final validation
results.
The sketch of the numerically modeled 3-D wave flume is presented in
Fig. 4a. We treat the specimen and frame as located at the center of the
flume and cut the flume in half in the y-direction to reduce computation
time. Three different sized meshes, coarse (M1), medium (M2), and fine
(M3) were utilized in this study, each of which had a variable mesh size
depending on the location in the flume. Fig. 4b and c show the sketches of
the front and top views of the flume, giving detailed information for the
fine mesh size (M3) and showing the variation in the mesh size in the
flume. The finest mesh (0.02 m) on the x-axis was concentrated near the
specimen (L1), and the finest mesh (0.02–0.025 m) on z-axis was around
the region of the free surface elevation (Z2 and Z3) to capture the non-
linear wave deformation including shoaling, reflection, and breaking
processes during propagation over the slope. We set the mesh size at
0.02 m at the specimen on the y-axis, and gradually increased the mesh
size to 0.05 m at the lateral wall of the flume.
The smallest mesh sizes for M1 and M2 were 0.08 and 0.04 m,
respectively, and the maximum mesh size for both configurations was
limited to 0.2 m. The total number of grid elements increased by 2.6
times from M1 to M2 and by 6.2 times from M1 to M3. Table 2 sum-
marizes the mesh types and lists the total number of elements utilized in
each of the mesh types. Regular wave conditions were simulated for a
duration of 50 s through a single desktop with i7-4770 (3.4 GHz) and 64G
RAM with 4-core parallel. Since we have set the maximum Courant
Number (Co) to 0.5 for all model runs, different computation times were
required for the different wave hydrodynamic conditions. The average
computation times for a 4-core computer are 1.1, 15.2, and 127.2 h for
the M1, M2, and M3 meshes. Generally, the computation time increased
by roughly 1.3 times for the breaking condition (REG_X8), and 1.9 times
for the broken wave condition (REG_X4) compared to the non-breaking
wave calculations (REG_X2).
H. Park et al. Ocean Engineering 158 (2018) 78–98

Table 2 because there is essentially no noise in the IHFOAM pressure and force
Mesh configuration for IHFOAM. results due to extremely small frequency components.
Mesh Types

M1 M2 M3 (fine) 3.3. FLUENT model setup

(coarse) (medium)

dx (m) 0.08 ̶ 0.2 0.04 ̶ 0.2 0.02 ̶ 0.1

dz (m) 0.08 ̶ 0.2 0.04 ̶ 0.2 0.02 ̶ 0.1
dy (m) 0.08 ̶ 0.16 0.04 ̶ 0.08 0.02 ̶ 0.05
Number of elements 505,125 1,306,971 3,149,370
Co 0.5 0.5 0.5
Computation time of REG_X2 (hr) 0.8 9.9 82.3
Computation time of REG_X8 (hr) 1.0 16.2 131.5
Computation time of REG_X4 (hr) 1.3 19.5 167.8
Average computation time of three wave 1.1 15.2 127.2
conditions (hr)
The sampling rate and filtering of output results (surface elevation,
pressure, or forces) for model validation is also a critical issue for the
pressure and force comparison. We utilize the function ‘Probes,’ which is
added at the end of the ‘controlDict’ text file that sets the simulation time
and data input/output control in OpenFOAM. The Probes function allows
us to extract any calculated values (e.g. velocity, pressure, k, and ε) at the
specific x, y, and z location with a varying frequency. We apply the
Probes function for the 14 pressure gages and 9 wave gages, and extract
each datum with the same time of model calculation. To set up the wave
gages in IHFOAM, we define a series of x, y, and z points along the z-axis
with 0.02 m resolution at each wave gage location. To obtain the surface
elevation result, we take the sum of all α values along the z-axis at each
wave gage location and multiply by the resolution (0.02 m). Here, α is
defined as the quantity of water per unit of volume at each cell; thus if
α ¼ 1, the cell is full of water and if α ¼ 0, the cell is full of air. To estimate
the horizontal and vertical forces acting on the front and bottom faces of
the specimen, respectively, we set up a different patch for each the front
and the bottom face in the blockMeshDict, and then applied ‘libforces.so,’
which is the intrinsic function implemented in OpenFOAM to extract
corresponding forces at a given patch wall with three Cartesian di-
rections. To validate the performance of ‘libforces.so’, we compared the
results of ‘libforces.so’ to the integrated force, interpolated from multi-
pressure points (36) at the front and bottom with normal direction,
and they showed good agreement.
Fig. A1 in the appendix provides the computation frequencies of M1,
M2, and M3 during the 20–50 s simulation. As we mentioned earlier, the
extraction time of all surface elevation, pressure and force data is the
same as the computation time step (Fig. A1), and the computation time is
governed by designating a maximum Courant Number (Co ¼ 0.5), which
varies depending on the velocity and size of mesh. The computation time
step is small enough to compare with the measurements, and ranges from
300 Hz to 1000 Hz at the moment of wave impact for the non-breaking
wave condition (M3). Although the measurement results were pro-
cessed using a low pass filter for frequencies more than 50 Hz (Park et al.,
2017), the IHFOAM results do not include any filtering in this study
Because of symmetry, one half of the wave flume and the specimen
were modeled in FLUENT as was done in IHFOAM. The specimen was
modeled as fixed walls, meaning no dynamic effects were considered for
the box during analysis. All wall boundaries were assumed split free. A
multiphase volume of fluid model was employed to model water and air
phases. The realizable k  ε viscous model was selected for the solver. By
adding a new turbulent viscosity formulation and dissipation rate
transport equation, this realizable kε model is more accurately pre-
dicted for both planar and round jets compared to the standard kε
model (ANSYS, 2009). An enhanced wall treatment function was intro-
duced for the near-wall region by blending the laminar and turbulent
law, and combining with the reliable kε model to produce better results
for this type of problem (ANSYS, 2009). Output time steps were
controlled by a Courant number of 0.5. The convergence criteria for
continuity and velocity components was 1E-6. Calculations for κ, ε and
the volume fraction were defined to converge at 1E-3 or repeated for a
maximum 50 iterations, at which point the analysis continued for
computational efficiency. An advantage of FLUENT is that the wave-
maker can be treated as the moving boundary at the inlet so that the
“numerical flume” has the same boundary conditions as the physical
wave flume with the piston-type wavemaker. The displacement of the
physical wavemaker was recorded during the experiments and was used
as the input for the numerical wave flume. Remeshing every time step
was necessary for the area close to the inlet boundary to remain consis-
tent with the initial element size, with a split and collapse factor of 0.4.
The wave gauges were modeled by creating flat column with a height
equal to that of the wave flume and width of 0.05 m at the wave gauge
locations as shown in Fig. 5a. Wave height was measured by integrating
the water phase then dividing by the width of the column. This technique
works well with a solid wave but typically underestimates the splash
compared to regular string wave gauges (wg) or ultrasonic wave gauges
(uswg). Pressures were collected by creating points at pressure gauge
(PG) locations along the sides of the box as shown in Fig. 5b. PG1 to PG9
represent pressure on the front side of the box, and PG11 to PG14
represent the pressure at the bottom of the box. The total horizontal and
vertical forces were computed from the drag and lift coefficient at all
faces of the box divided by the reference values.
For comparison with IHFOAM, the mesh configurations also should
be consistent. The cut-cell mesh method was used to obtain the maximum
number of “square blocks,” which have the best element quality. The
overall minimum and maximum element size was set to be
0.02 m–0.16 m. Element size increased the block edge by a factor of two
from fine resolution (M3) to medium resolution (M2) and from medium
resolution to coarse resolution (M3), as shown in Table 3. The total
number of elements increased by a factor of 2.7 from M1 to M2 and by a
factor of 6.3 from M1 to M3. To evaluate the element quality of the M3

Fig. 5. (a) The mesh sketch of wave flume (M2), and (b) instrument locations on the specimen.

83
H. Park et al. Ocean Engineering 158 (2018) 78–98

Table 3 4. Validations and comparisons of numerical models

Mesh configuration for FLUENT.
Mesh Types In Section 4.1, we will present 3-D snapshots of modeling results for
the three wave conditions. In Sections 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4, we provide a
M1 M2 M3 (fine)
(coarse) (medium) detailed comparison of the numerically modelled water surface elevation
and pressure gauge time series to the experimental data at six wave gages
dx (m) 0.08 ̶ 0.16 0.04 ̶ 0.16 0.02 ̶ 0.16
dz (m) 0.08 ̶ 0.16 0.04 ̶ 0.16 0.02 ̶ 0.16
(wg2, wg3, uswg2, uswg4, uswg5, and uswg6) and six pressure gages
dy (m) 0.08 ̶ 0.16 0.04 ̶ 0.16 0.02 ̶ 0.16 (press1, press3, press6, press11, press12, and press14) for all wave
Number of elements 544,880 1,458,243 3,419,530 conditions. We also compare the time-series of the horizontal and vertical
Courant number 0.5 0.5 0.5 forces measured from five load cells on the specimen to the numerically
Computation time of REG_X2 (hr) 16.1 40.7 120.2
modelled results. Note that wg2 and wg3 were located at the middle and
Computation time of REG_X8 (hr) 17.5 62.4 178.2
Computation time of REG_ X4 (hr) 16.7 81.5 230.4 end of the slope, respectively, to capture wave shoaling and breaking,
Average computation time of three wave 16.7 61.5 176.3 and uswg 2, 4, 5, and 6 were positioned on the flat region to capture wave
conditions (hr) deformation around the specimen (Fig. 2a). The three ultrasonic wave
gages (uswg) were offset 0.53 m from the wall, with uswg2 uswg6, and
uswg5 positioned in front, at the middle, and behind the specimen,
mesh, the average element orthogonal quality (ranging from 0 to 1, closer respectively; uswg4 was also located behind the specimen but 1.83 m
to 1 is better) was determined as 0.99, with a minimum of 0.18. The offset from the wall (Fig. 2a). For comparisons of pressure time series,
average skewness (ranging from 0 to 1, closer to 0 is better) is 1.5E-3 with press6, press3, and press1 were located on the front face of the specimen,
maximum of 0.81. The average computation times for the three cases run and press11, press12 and press14 were located on the bottom of the
on a 12-core computer node in the Linux system (two Intel Xeon E5-2640, specimen (Fig. 2c).
2.5 GHz) are 16.7, 61.5, and 176.3 h for the M1, M2, and M3 meshes,
respectively. 4.1. Overview results of IHFOAM and FLUENT
By comparing Tables 2 and 3, we can see that the number of mesh
elements for IHFOAM and FLUENT were similar and vary by less than 5% Figs. 6 and 7 provide snapshots of the water surface field given by
for each of the mesh configurations. However, each model shows IHFAOM and FLUENT modeling at four time steps, including at the time
significantly different times of total computation. Those differences are of wave impact. Panels a, b, c, and d in each figure show the non-breaking
somewhat expected, because we could not perform both IHFOAM and wave condition; Panels e, f, g, and h show the breaking wave condition;
FLUENT runs under the exact same conditions, such as solvers, numerical and Panels i, j, k, and l show the broken wave condition.
schemes, parallelization tool, and computational resources. In this study, For IHFOAM, Fig. 6 a, e, and i show the wave surface about 1.5 s
IHFOAM has a relatively shorter computation time than FLUENT for M2 before the impact on the specimen, and each wave is a different shape
and M3, and a much shorter computation time for the coarse mesh depending on input conditions. Fig. 6 c, g, and k include the detailed
condition (M1). figures for non-breaking, breaking, and broken wave impacts on the front

Fig. 6. Numerical water surface field snapshots of IHFOAM for three wave conditions: REG_X2, nonbreaking, (a, b, c, and d), REG_X8, impulsive breaking (e, f, g, and
h), and REG_X4, broken (i, j, k, and l).

84
H. Park et al. Ocean Engineering 158 (2018) 78–98

Fig. 7. Numerical water surface elevation from FLUENT for the three wave conditions: REG_X2, nonbreaking, (a, b, c, and d), REG_X8, impulsive breaking (e, f, g, and
h), and REG_X4, broken (i, j, k, and l).

of the specimen. The frontal distributions of α for both non-breaking and
breaking waves are uniform, while the broken wave impact shows an
irregular distribution of α due to air entrapment. When the comparing
model output with the recorded videos of experiments, we observed that
the IHFOAM results for the breaking and broken wave conditions tend to
be less developed than waves generated in experiments (i.e. numerical
waves were not quite impulsively breaking or broke closer to the struc-
ture than experimental breaking and broken waves, respectively). Thus,
the numerical model results showed relatively less splash for the
breaking wave conditions and more splash for the broken wave
conditions.
Fig. 7 shows the same time range as Fig. 6 for the three wave con-
ditions modeled by FLUENT in 2D contours. We can observe the highest
wave height for the breaking wave condition (Fig. 7e), a smaller wave
height for the non-breaking wave condition (Fig. 7a) and the lowest wave
height for the broken wave condition (Fig. 7i). By inspecting Fig. 7 c, g,
and k, we can see that at the time of impact, the breaking condition
(Fig. 7g) shows the strongest water splash on the structure, followed by
the non-breaking and then the broken wave condition, respectively.
4.2. Nonbreaking wave (REG_X2)
Fig. 8 shows the model validation of the water surface elevation for
the non-breaking wave (REG_X2) condition. We compared the time series
of water surface elevation at six wave gages from 20 to 50 s of the
experimental simulation time, which includes the first regular wave
impacting the specimen and 7 continuous regular waves. As waves
propagate toward the specimen, their shapes transform and steepen from
wg2 to uswg2. Overall, the wave heights increase due to shoaling effects,
and they are almost near breaking at uswg2. After waves pass the spec-
imen, they keep the steep waveform, but in general, wave heights
decrease. Generally, both IHFOAM and FLUENT results show excellent
agreement to the measured surface elevation, but both models slightly
underestimate the positive surface elevation and show relatively high

Fig. 8. Comparisons of water surface elevation for the nonbreaking wave case, REG_X2: Experiment (solid black line), IHFOAM (red dashed line), and FLUENT (blue
dash dot line). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

85
H. Park et al.
deviations at uswg4 and uswg5, which are located behind of the spec-
imen. One interesting feature is that the first four waves of both IHFOAM
and FLUENT show excellent agreement at most of the wave gages, but the
models begin to show larger deviations for subsequent waves, especially
at wg3, uswg4, and uswg6. These disagreements could come from the
effects of wave reflection from the specimen and sidewalls or from wave-
structure interaction, which the numerical model cannot capture well
due to the rigid body assumption.
Fig. 9 shows the model validation of the non-breaking wave condition
for the front pressure gages. We compare the time series of pressure at
press6 (a), press3 (c), and press1 (e) and show the corresponding detailed
time series (t ¼ 32–35 s) at each pressure gage (b, d, and f). Generally,
both IHFOAM and FLUENT match well with the measured peak pres-
sures, but IHFOAM slightly underestimates the peak at press6, while
FLUENT underestimates the peak at press3 and press1. The overall
pattern of pressure distribution at the time of impact shows good
agreement, except for instances where the experimental gages recorded
negative pressures, which are found at press3 and press6. It is interesting
to note that only press3 and press6 recorded negative pressures among
whole time span of the three wave gages. Negative pressures were also
observed press3 for the breaking wave condition (REG_X8), but were not
observed at any pressure gage for the broken wave condition (REG_X4),
as seen in Figs. 12 and 16. This phenomenon could be caused by the large
jet of splashing water that is projected upward at the time of wave
impact, but the current mesh size (0.02 m) is not small enough to capture
it. The largest peak pressure is recorded at t ¼ 33 s for both the mea-
surement and calculations, which is the time of impact of the first wave
whose wave height is equivalent to our input condition (~0.2 m at wg1).
Fig. 9b, d, and f show the detailed time-series of pressure near the time of
the largest peak pressure. A reduction in peak pressures at all gages was
observed for subsequent wave impacts (t > 33 s) for both calculated and
measured data. This pressure reduction occurs despite the observed
surface elevation at uswg2 recording similar wave heights for subsequent
Fig. 9. Comparison of front pressure time series for press6, 3 and 1 for t¼20–50 s (a, c, and e) and detailed comparison for one wave, t ¼ 32–35 s (b, d, and f) for
nonbreaking wave case, REG_X2. Experiment (solid black line), IHFOAM (red dashed line), and FLUENT (blue dash dot line). (For interpretation of the references to
color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
86
Ocean Engineering 158 (2018) 78–98
waves (t > 33 s). The maximum reduction of peak pressure is observed at
press6, decreasing from 2.3 kPa to 1.0 kPa. This reduction highlights that
even minor changes of water surface elevation resulted in large peak
pressure changes (in this case, by over a factor 2) for both calculated and
measured data.
Fig. 10 shows the model validation of the non-breaking wave con-
dition (REG_X2) for the bottom pressure gages. We compare the time
series of pressure at press11 (a), press12 (c), and press14 (e) and show
the corresponding detailed time series of pressure for one wave (b, d, and
f). Both IHFOAM and FLUENT results could not capture the large peaky
pressures at the time of impact, but both models captured the pattern of
pressure distributions well. The short peaky pressures at the time of wave
impact had a relatively short frequency (~20 Hz), and may require much
finer mesh for the numerical model simulation to capture. In addition,
negative pressures are observed in both experimentally measured and
numerically modeled results. Relatively large negative pressures are
observed at press11, with smaller negative pressures at press12. Non-
negative pressures are seen at press14 for both measured data and
IHFOAM, but they are not clearly found in FLUENT. Each pressure gage
recorded a uniquely shaped time series of pressure depending on its
location, and both models capture this variation well for each pressure
gage. The major difference between the two models when compared with
the measurement is that IHFOAM results calculate a similar peak pressure
distribution after t ¼ 30 s of simulation time for all gages, but FLUENT
either could not capture the peak pressure or modeled a relatively smaller
peak, especially at press12 (Fig. 10d) and press14 (Fig. 10e). Generally,
the FLUENT results underestimated the peak pressure compared to the
IHFOAM results.
Fig. 11 shows the model validation of the horizontal force and vertical
force for the REG_X2 wave condition. Overall, the IHFOAM outputs show
good agreement with the measurements for both the peak and pattern of
wave forces, and FLUENT outputs show a slight overestimation of the
horizontal force. The measurement results show a clear damping of forces
H. Park et al. Ocean Engineering 158 (2018) 78–98

Fig. 10. Comparison of bottom pressure time series for press11, 12 and 13 for t¼20–50 s (a, c, and e) and detailed comparison for one wave, t ¼ 32–35 s (b, d, and f)
for nonbreaking wave case, REG_X2. Experiment (solid black line), IHFOAM (red dashed line), and FLUENT (blue dash dot line). (For interpretation of the references to
color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Fig. 11. Comparison of (a) horizontal and (c) vertical forces for nonbreaking wave case, Reg_X2 and the respective cases shown in detail for t¼32–35 s (b and d):
Experiment (solid black line), IHFOAM (red dashed line), and FLUENT (blue dash dot line). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

after wave impacts, especially for higher peak forces (t ¼ 33 and 37 s),
but those damping effects decrease as the magnitude of the peak force
decreases (t ¼ 41, 45, and 49 s). In contrast, IHFOAM and FLUENT results
do not predict any damping effects on forces because of the rigid body
assumption applied in the calculation. Comparing modelled and
measured vertical forces, we observe that the overall shape of forces and
the peaks generally match, while IHFOAM shows some deviation at the
tail of each wave impact, especially for negative forces after wave impact.
Even though we could not capture the peaky pressures recorded by
bottom pressure gages (Fig. 10), these deviations did not result in a
significant difference in the vertical force comparison for both IHFOAM
and FLUENT.
4.3. Breaking wave (REG_X8)
Fig. 12 shows the model validation for the breaking wave condition
(REG_X8) for water surface elevation. Both IHFOAM and FLUENT results
match well with the measured data at wg2 (Fig. 11a), but calculated data

87
H. Park et al.
Fig. 12. Comparisons of water surface elevation for the breaking wave case, REG_X8: Experiment (solid black line), IHFOAM (red dashed line), and FLUENT (blue
dash dot line). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
show some deviations to the measurements at the other wave gages.
Generally, both IHFOAM and FLUENT results underestimate wave height
at wg3 and uswg2. To be specific, IHFOAM results underestimate wave
heights at wg3 after t ¼ 35 s, and at uswg2 after t ¼ 40 s. These differ-
ences propagate to the other wave gages located behind the specimen.
FLUENT outputs show relatively better agreement at wg3. However,
FLUENT also underestimates wave height at uswg2 after t ¼ 37 s. These
patterns are similar to what we observed for the non-breaking wave
condition in that the numerical results showed good agreement to the
measurements until the wave height reached the target wave height
(0.35 m at wg1). However, once the experimental waves developed to
fully breaking (e.g. after t ¼ 35 s at uswg3), both model results match
experimental results relatively poorly. As a given wave passes the spec-
imen, the wave height generally decreases due to energy loss from wave
breaking and wave impact. IHFOAM results show better agreement to the
measured data, while FLUENT results underestimate the wave height at
uswg5 and uswg6. Also, a slight phase shift is observed at uswg2, uswg5
and uswg6 in IHFOAM, which is not seen for the non-breaking condition
or for FLUENT data.
The change in wave heights from wg2 to uswg2 indicate the effects of
wave shoaling and breaking processes over the compound slope. We
observe that the wave height decreases slightly from wg2 to uswg2 in the
measured data. IHFOAM wave heights are almost same or have slightly
increased, while FLUENT wave heights have clearly decreased between
the two wave gages. IHFOAM shows better agreement to the measured
data after the specimen at uswg5 and uswg6, while FLUENT results un-
derestimate wave height at these locations. Upon careful observation of
both the experimental and numerical model results including the snap-
shots in Figs. 6 and 7, we conclude that IHFOAM waves tend to break
later than the experimental data, while waves output by FLUENT tend to
break earlier along the compound slope compared with the measured
data. Overall, we find that both IHFOAM and FLUENT results differ from
the experimentally measured data; however, they show opposite patterns
of deviation, with IHFOAM waves breaking later and FLUENT waves
breaking earlier than experimental data. Deviations between modeled
and measured wave heights are larger for the breaking wave condition
than for the non-breaking wave condition. Errors may be induced due to
the limitations of the current numerical models' setups (e.g. mesh, default
solver, or turbulence model) and the complexity in simulating wave-
88
Ocean Engineering 158 (2018) 78–98
structure interaction and wall or specimen-induced reflection effects.
Fig. 13 shows the model validation for the breaking wave (REG_X8)
condition for the front pressure gages. We compare the time series of
pressure at press6 (a), press3 (c), and press1 (e) and show the detailed
time series of pressure for t¼33–36 s (b, d, and f). The overall patterns of
pressure impact times at each gage show good agreement for both
models. However, the IHFOAM results underestimate the front pressure
compared to FLUENT, and both models show larger deviations from the
measurement for the upper pressure gage, especially at press6 (Fig. 13a).
The underestimations of pressure in IHFOAM and FLUENT are somewhat
expected based on the underestimation of wave height at wg3 and uswg2
seen in Fig. 12. Generally, IHFOAM results indicate a weaker plunging
type of wave breaking at the specimen compared to the experimental
measurements. Consequently, the numerical model significantly un-
derestimates the peak pressure at press6. FLUENT results also underes-
timate the frontal pressure but show relatively better agreement to the
measurement for their peak pressure outputs. Still, FLUENT cannot
capture the peak pressures. In addition, as was seen for the non-breaking
REG_X2 case, negative pressures are measured at press3, and both
IHFOAM and FLUENT could not capture these negative pressures. The
largest peak pressure was recorded at t ¼ 33 s at press6, which is the
impact time of the first wave whose wave height was equal to the
intended wave height. Both model results predicted the largest peak
pressure for this wave.
Fig. 14 shows the model validation of breaking wave condition for
bottom pressure gages. We compare the time series of pressure at press11
(a), press12 (c), and press14 (e) and show the detailed time series near
the maximum peak pressure (b, d, and f). Overall, both IHFOAM and
FLUENT results show good agreement with the measurement. Frontal
peaky pressures are observed for all measured data. IHFOAM outputs did
not capture the first short peaks (e.g. at t ¼ 33.9 s in Fig. 14b); however, it
captures well the secondary peak pressure (e.g. at t ¼ 34.2 s in Fig. 14b).
FLUENT results capture relatively well the first peak pressure but could
not capture the secondary peak pressure. Overall, the absolute peak
pressure for each wave is similar to the measurement, but each model
shows different pressure distributions for the vertical pressures. As the
pressure gages move from the leading edge (press11) to the trailing edge
(press14) of the specimen, the peak pressure tends to decrease, and the
expanse of the positive pressure region increases. In addition, IHFOAM
H. Park et al.
Fig. 13. Comparison of frontal pressure time series for t¼20–50 s (press6, 3 and 1) and detailed time series of pressure for t¼33–36 s (b, d, and f) for the breaking wave
case, REG_X8: Experiment (solid black line), IHFOAM (red dashed line), and FLUENT (blue dash dot line). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
results show a phase shift at press14, similar to the phase shift for the
water surface elevation that we observed at uswg5 and uswg6 (Fig. 11e
and f).
Fig. 15 shows the model validation of the horizontal force and vertical
force for the REG_X8 wave condition. Overall, IHFOAM results under-
estimate the experimentally measured horizontal force but show better
agreement to the measured vertical force. FLUENT shows better agree-
ment to the measurement for the horizontal forces but greater deviation
from the measured vertical forces. Generally, the characteristics of the
wave at the moment of impact significantly affect the magnitude of the
horizontal force. To specify, IHFOAM results show good agreement to the
measurement for both horizontal and vertical forces at t ¼ 31 s. However,
IHFOAM significantly underestimates the horizontal force for the
following waves, while the vertical force shows slightly uniform results
after t ¼ 31 s for both IHFOAM and measurement. Upon careful obser-
vation of both the experimental and IHFOAM model results, we find that
the plunging shape of the wave as it impacted the front face of the
specimen in IHFOAM was not same as the shape of the experimental
wave. The measurement shows clear plunging impact on the specimen
while IHFOAM did not a show fully developed plunging wave impact.
This difference in wave shape causes the underestimation of the front
pressure and horizontal force after t ¼ 34 s. In addition, both model re-
sults were unable to capture the horizontal force measured at the impact
including the inertial force on the specimen, which consequently effected
the underestimation of the horizontal force. We also observe clear
damping effects in the measured horizontal force after the wave impact,
while there are no oscillations in either model result. Relatively small
damping effects are observed for the vertical force, and each vertical
force is generally uniform. In summary, we can conclude that the hori-
zontal force is sensitive to the shape of the breaking wave in the nu-
merical model results, while the vertical force is less sensitive to the
89
Ocean Engineering 158 (2018) 78–98
breaking wave shape; hence, numerical outputs of vertical force show
good agreement to the measurement.
4.4. Broken wave (REG_X4_a5)
Fig. 16 shows the model validation of the free surface for the broken
waves. Generally, IHFOAM results show good agreement with mea-
surement, capturing the shoaling and breaking processes recorded in the
experiment for first four waves (before 35 s at uswg2). However, it
overestimates the water surface elevation at uswg2, 5, and 6 for subse-
quent waves (after 35 s at uswg2), and we observe a slight phase shift in
IHFOAM water surface outputs. FLUENT tends to underestimate the
water surface elevation at most of wave gages except at uswg5, and
FLUENT results show a similar phase shift compared with the experi-
mental measurements. The different aspects of the water surface eleva-
tion between two models, especially at wg3 and uswg2, indicate that
IHFOAM and FLUENT each undergo different wave shoaling and
breaking calculations. These calculations are dependent on each model's
inherent differences or set up preferences, which we cannot define in
exactly the same way for this study (e.g. default model setups, numerical
solvers, and schemes). IHFOAM waves tended to break later compared
with measured results, in that the numerically modelled results indicated
that the wave broke closer to the front of the specimen compared to the
measurement. In contrast, waves modelled by FLUENT tended to break
sooner than the measured data. In summary, IHFOAM overestimate the
water surface elevations while FLUENT underestimates the water surface
elevations associated with broken waves. These trends propagate
through in comparisons between the experimental and numerical pres-
sure and force data.
Fig. 17 shows the model validation of the front pressure gages for the
broken waves. We compare the time series of pressure at press6 (a),
H. Park et al. Ocean Engineering 158 (2018) 78–98

Fig. 14. Comparison of bottom pressure time series for t¼20–50 s (press11, 12 and 14) and detailed time series of pressure for t¼33–36 s (b, d, and f) for breaking
wave case REG_X8: Experiment (solid black line), IHFOAM (red dashed line), and FLUENT (blue dash dot line). (For interpretation of the references to color in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Fig. 15. Comparison of (a) horizontal and (c) vertical forces for breaking wave case, Reg_X8 and the detailed time series for t¼33–36 s (b and d): Experiment (solid
black line), IHFOAM (red dashed line), and FLUENT (blue dash dot line). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the
Web version of this article.)

press3 (c), and press1 (e) and show the detailed time series of pressure
between t¼31–34 s (b, d, and f). In general, IHFOAM results overestimate
the frontal pressure after t ¼ 36 s, while FLUENT results tend to under-
estimate the pressures for the entire time series. The deviations of both
model results from measurements were somewhat expected based on the
comparison of water surface elevation results at wg3 and uswg2 (Fig. 16b
and c). IHFOAM results show that the wave broke closer to the front of
the specimen compared to the measurement, while FLUENT results show
that the wave broke further offshore of the specimen compared to the
measurement. Thus, IHFOAM results produced higher wave heights at

90
H. Park et al. Ocean Engineering 158 (2018) 78–98

Fig. 16. Comparison of water surface elevation for broken wave case REG_X4: Experiment (solid black line), IHFOAM (red dashed line), and FLUENT (blue dash dot
line). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Fig. 17. Comparison of frontal pressure time series for t¼20–50 s (press6, 3 and 1) and detailed time series of pressure for t¼31–34 s (b, d, and f) for the broken wave
case REG_X4: Experiment (solid black line), IHFOAM (red dashed line), and FLUENT (blue dash dot line). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

uswg2 and higher front pressures than the measurement, while FLUENT broken waves. We compare the time series of pressure at press11 (a),
results produced lower wave heights at uswg2 and smaller front press12 (c), and press14 (e) and detailed time series of pressure between
pressures. t¼31–34 s (b, d, and f). Generally, bottom pressure results given by the
Fig. 18 shows the model validation of the bottom pressure gages for models show better agreement to measurements than front pressures.

91
H. Park et al. Ocean Engineering 158 (2018) 78–98

Fig. 18. Comparison of frontal pressure time series for t¼20–50 s (press11, 12 and 14) and detailed time series of pressure for t¼31–34 s (b, d, and f) for the broken
wave case, REG_X4: Experiment (solid black line), IHFOAM (red dashed line), and FLUENT (blue dash dot line). (For interpretation of the references to color in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Still, we observe a similar pattern to the horizontal pressure validation in
that IHFOAM results overestimate pressure at press11 and FLUENT re-
sults underestimate pressure at press 11, 12, and 14. Fewer short peaky
pressures were observed in the measurement for REG_X4, and pressures
generally decrease as the wave passes by the specimen, similar to the
REG_X8 condition. In addition, both IHFOAM and FLUENT results show
phase shifts at press12 and 14; these are related to the phase shifts of
water surface elevations that we observed for both models at uswg5 and
6 (Fig. 16e and f).
Fig. 19 shows the model validation of the horizontal force and vertical
force for the REG_X4 wave condition. Generally, IHFOAM overestimates
both the horizontal and vertical forces, as was observed in comparisons of
both the front and bottom pressures, while FLUENT shows good agree-
ment to the measurements. One explanation for this large difference in
pressure but relatively small difference in the force is that the bore type
wave randomly impacts the front of the structure, creating wet and dry
conditions that are not the same in the physical and numerical models.
Consequently, peak pressures do not all occur at the same time. There-
fore, the magnitude of the peak pressure could vary significantly
depending on location of interest on the structure, and any peak pressure

Fig. 19. Comparison of (a) horizontal and (c) vertical forces for broken wave case Reg_X4: Experiment (solid black line), IHFOAM (red dashed line), and FLUENT
(blue dash dot line). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

92
H. Park et al.
at a point provides a relatively small contribution to the total force. For
example, the maximum horizontal force in IHFOAM is greater than the
measurement by a factor of 2 at t ¼ 40 s, while the numerically output
front pressure is greater than the measured by a factor of 5 at press6. The
observed points considered in comparisons with measurements (press1,
3, and 6) could not capture the complete pattern of the pressure distri-
bution and the corresponding horizontal force of the bore type wave.
5. CFD model residual comparison and sensitivity test
5.1. Residual comparison of two CFD models
Time series comparisons between IHFOAM, FLUENT, and measured
free surface elevations, pressure time series, and force time series were
performed in previous section. Note that both the peak value and dura-
tion of wave-induced pressures (forces) are important factors that can
affect structural damage (e.g. Bullock et al., 2007). Therefore, it is
necessary to determine the uncertainty not only in the peak pressure, but
also throughout the time series of a given wave impact. To quantify the
uncertainty of time series data, we determine the residual between the
calculations and measurements, Residual (R) ¼ Measurement – Calcula-
tion. Fig. 20 shows an example of the measured and calculated pressure
and the resulting R using IHFOAM with 0.01 s resolution for the three
wave conditions. A negative residual indicates overestimation by the
model.
To quantify the residuals over a given time duration, we integrate the
absolute value of residual over the time domain:
t smallest RJ is observed for the non-breaking wave condition. As observed
JR ¼ ∫ t21 jRjdt
Fig. 20. Examples of the residual of pressure at press2 for (a) REG_X2, (b)
REG_X8, (c) REG_X4. Each solid line, red dash line, and dotted indicates the
measurement, calculation, and corresponding residual with 0.01 s resolution.
(For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the Web version of this article.)
Ocean Engineering 158 (2018) 78–98
where JR is the impulse of absolute residual at the specific time range
from t1 to t2. We choose t1 and t2 as the simulation time of numerical
model (50 s), but we exclude the initial three waves for ramp up which do
not satisfy our input condition. Thus, t1 is the time at which the fourth
wave reaches uswg2, and t2 is the time at which the next four waves have
propagated past uswg2. For example, we observe the fourth wave of
REG_X2 at uswg2 at t ¼ 32 s. Therefore, t1 is 32 s and t2 is 48 s (32 s þ 4
waves  4 s (wave period)). Note that the wave period in both REG_X2
and REG_X4 is 4 s, and the wave period in trial REG_X8 is 3.5 s.
We normalize JR with the impulse of absolute force, or force per unit
area (pressure), given by
t
JX ¼ ∫ t21 jXjdt (7)
where JX is the impulse of force or force per unit area (pressure) at the
specific range of time. Finally, the normalized form of ratio of impulse
(RJ) is represented as
JR
RJ ¼ (8)
JX
Fig. 21 shows the IHFOAM results of the ratio of impulse for all front
and bottom pressure gages and horizontal and vertical forces for the
three wave conditions considered. Each filled and void symbol indicates
the results of pressure and force, and each red circle, blue square, and
black triangle indicates the results of non-breaking (REG_X2), breaking
(REG_X8) and broken wave conditions (REG_X4), respectively. Generally,
the highest RJ is observed for the broken wave condition, and the
(6)
in Section 4, the best agreement between measured and calculated
pressure, FH, and FV is found for the non-breaking wave condition. In
addition, a relatively larger RJ is observed at lower frontal pressure gages
(e.g. at press1) for all three wave conditions. Non-breaking wave con-
ditions also show the smallest RJ for bottom pressures; however, for this
wave condition, the ratio of impulse is larger for bottom pressures than
for front pressures. The calculated RJ values for the bottom pressures in
the breaking and broken wave conditions were relatively more consistent
than those calculated for frontal pressures (except at press11). We can
conclude that the horizontal force and frontal pressures are more sensi-
tive to the wave breaking condition than the vertical force and bottom
pressures. The residual of surface elevation is also evaluated in a similar
manner, but we find that generally the RJ for surface elevation is a factor
103 smaller than the pressure and force results. Note that because of the
Fig. 21. Quantitative IHFOAM comparison of the ratio residual impulse for
pressures and forces with the three wave breaking conditions. Each red circle,
blue square, and black triangle indicates the results of non-breaking, breaking
and broken wave conditions, respectively. (For interpretation of the references
to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of
this article.)
93
H. Park et al.
definitions used in Eq. (6)–(8), particularly the time intervals used, the
resultant RJ is not a direct measure of the absolute error in the model, so
RJ ¼ 0.01 should not be interpreted as an error of 1%. However, since the
time intervals are the same for all comparisons in this section, the values
can be used to show the relative errors between the computed outputs of
pressure and force and between the two numerical models (e.g.
comparing Figs. 21 and 22).
In a similar manner, we perform the quantitative comparison for
FLUENT. Fig. 22 shows the ratio of impulse for FLUENT results of all
pressure gages (except for the rear gage, press10) and horizontal and
vertical forces for the three wave conditions. Similar to IHFOAM re-
sults, the highest RJ is, in general, observed for the broken wave con-
dition, and the smallest RJ is observed for the non-breaking wave
condition. Also, a relatively larger RJ is observed at lower frontal
pressure gages (e.g. at press1) for all three wave conditions. However,
FLUENT results show the highest RJ for both horizontal and vertical
forces at the breaking wave condition. In contrast, the RJ for both non-
breaking and broken wave conditions are similar and significantly
smaller than that calculated for the breaking wave condition. This
pattern follows our observation in Fig. 19 that FLUENT results showed
good agreement to the measurement for the both horizontal and ver-
tical forces for the broken wave condition. Even though the frontal
pressures show a higher RJ at the bottommost pressure gages for broken
wave condition, both IHFOAM and FLUENT results show a relatively
smaller RJ for the total horizontal force.
5.2. Sensitivity of mesh size (IHFOAM)
The three mesh resolutions (M1, M2, and M3) described in Section 3
were tested with IHFOAM for the three wave conditions to evaluate the
sensitivity of outputs of water surface elevation, pressure and forces to
mesh size. Fig. 23 shows the comparison of water surface elevation re-
sults at two representative wave gages. Fig. 23a and b show the com-
parison of results at wg2 and uswg2 for the non-breaking wave condition,
Fig. 23c and d show the comparison of results at wg2 and uswg2 for the
breaking wave condition, and Fig. 23e and f show the comparison of
results at wg2 and uswg2 for the broken wave condition. Line colors
indicate results of the measurement (solid black), M1 (red dash dot), M2
(blue dot), and M3 (black dash) results. Generally, the peak and shape of
each mesh condition show similar results among the three mesh condi-
tions, while M1 shows relatively smaller wave heights compared with the
other two. Relatively small differences between modelled and measured
water surface elevations are observed for all three mesh conditions at
Fig. 22. Quantitative FLUENT comparison of the ratio residual impulse for
pressures and forces for the three wave breaking conditions. Each red circle,
blue square, and black triangle indicates the results of non-breaking, breaking
and broken wave conditions, respectively. (For interpretation of the references
to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of
this article.)
94
Ocean Engineering 158 (2018) 78–98
wg2, and larger deviations are observed at the peak and tail of the water
surface elevation time series at uswg2, which was located closer to the
specimen.
The detailed comparisons of the front and bottom pressures are
shown in Fig. 24. We focus on the same time duration of the fourth wave
impacting the structure that was used for the pressure comparisons in
Section 4. Fig. 24a and b show the comparison of results for the non-
breaking wave at press2 and press12. Fig. 24c and d show the compari-
son of results for the breaking wave at press2 and press12, and Fig. 24e
and f show the comparison of results for the broken wave at press2 and
press12. All mesh sizes M1, M2, and M3 show a similarly shaped non-
breaking wave-induced pressure distribution for front and bottom gages.
The finest mesh produces relatively higher pressure outputs over the
duration of the wave and also shows slightly shorter duration of pressure
compared to the two coarser mesh conditions. For the breaking wave
condition, M1 clearly underestimates the pressure for both front and
bottom pressures compared with the other two mesh conditions. For the
broken wave condition, both and M2 and M3 capture the frontal peak
pressure, while M1 could not capture it. Generally, all mesh resolutions
tested show similar results for bottom pressure.
The detailed comparisons of pressures at representative gages provide
the complete temporal pattern of pressure distributions and indicate the
sensitivity of pressure outputs to different mesh sizes. However, it is
difficult to compare outputs at all pressure gages in the experiment.
Therefore, the conclusion we have made here may not represent all
pressure characteristics of mesh dependence, and they could generate
biased results due to systematic errors, for example, at pressure gages
located lower on the structure. For better quantitative comparison of the
sensitivity of mesh sizes, we apply the ratio of residual impulse (RJ) to
evaluate mesh sensitivity. Fig. 25 shows RJ of the three mesh conditions
determined for (a) non-breaking, (b) breaking, and (c) broken wave
conditions. Each red circle, blue triangle, and black square represents the
RJ from M1, M2, and M3.
For the non-breaking wave condition (Fig. 25a), RJ for all pressure
gages is less than 0.01. Overall, there are minor differences among three
mesh conditions, with M3 showing a slightly smaller RJ for all pressures
and horizontal force. M3 results clearly show the lowest RJ for all
bottom pressures, but not for the vertical force. For the breaking wave
condition, the overall RJ is less than 0.015. M2 and M3 results show
similar RJ values while M1 results show higher RJ for front pressures.
All mesh conditions show a similar RJ for the horizontal force. As in the
non-breaking condition, M3 results clearly show a smaller RJ for bottom
pressures, but not for vertical force. Broken wave trials resulted in a
much higher RJ than other wave conditions at pressure gages but not at
the load cell. To be specific, the difference between the M1 and M3
condition is a factor of 1.7 at press2. We can also observe a decrease of
RJ with elevation above the base of the structure (from press1 to press9)
for all mesh conditions. This reduction makes sense in the context of the
major contact area of bore type waves on the specimen. The deviation
observed for the broken wave condition is especially large for coarser
mesh (M1) simulations, which could result from the difficulty in
simulating the same conditions of air entrainment and water and air
density at the time of wave impact. Although there are relatively higher
RJ values for front pressures, the ratios of residual impulses for the
horizontal force for all three meshes are quite small. Bottom pressures
show a similar pattern to front pressures. Finer mesh results in a smaller
RJ, and a higher RJ is observed at press11, with a sharp decrease moving
inland (from press11 to press14). In general, the horizontal and vertical
forces are less sensitive to mesh size for all wave conditions, while front
and bottom pressures show the significant sensitivity to mesh size,
especially for the broken wave condition. This result is meaningful
when considering CFD modeling for the structural design, because the
total forces are less sensitive to mesh and wave conditions than pressure
gages. Thus, significant computational expense may be saved by using a
coarser mesh resolution in a CFD model while still achieving a reliable
estimate of the total force.
H. Park et al. Ocean Engineering 158 (2018) 78–98

Fig. 23. Surface elevation comparison at (a) wg2 and (b) uswg2 for non-breaking wave condition, (c) wg2 and (d) uswg2 for breaking wave condition, and (e) wg2
and (f) uswg2 for broken wave condition. Line colors indicate results of the measurement (solid black), M1 (red dash dot), M2 (blue dot), and M3 (black dash). (For
interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Fig. 24. Mesh sensitivity at press2 and press12 for three wave conditions. Each color indicates the results of measurement (solid black), M1 (red dash dot), M2 (blue
dot), and M3 (black dash). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

95
H. Park et al.
Fig. 25. Comparison of IHFOAM with three mesh conditions for pressures and
forces conditioned on (a) non-breaking, (b) breaking, and broken (c)
wave conditions.
6. Conclusions and discussion
The validation of two CFD models for the wave-induced force on an
elevated structure were performed, including quantitative compari-
sons of pressures and forces to experimentally measured data. We
simulated IHFOAM and FLUENT for three regular wave conditions
which generated non-breaking, breaking, and broken wave impacts on
the structure. The following general conclusions were found from this
study:
1. The performance of numerical models varied depending on the wave
condition. For the same CFD model set up, non-breaking wave con-
ditions generally showed the best agreement for both FLUENT and
IHFOAM results, and the broken wave conditions showed the worst
agreement.
2. Generally, the free surface comparisons were excellent for both the
IHFOAM and FLUENT models, and horizontal and vertical forces of
96
Ocean Engineering 158 (2018) 78–98
both models showed better agreement to the measured data despite
calculated pressures showing relatively high deviations from the
short peaky pressures recorded in the measurement.
3. Front pressures and horizontal forces were sensitive to wave
breaking types, while bottom pressures and vertical forces were
less sensitive. This result highlights that numerical model bench-
mark tests for wave loads on an elevated structure should include
both horizontal force (frontal pressures) and vertical force (bottom
pressures).
4. In general, as one would anticipate, a finer mesh provided
improved numerical simulation results, and non-breaking and
breaking wave impacts showed minor sensitivity to mesh size.
Broken wave results are significantly sensitive to the mesh condi-
tions (IHFOAM).
5. The horizontal and vertical force were less sensitive to mesh size for
all wave conditions. This result is meaningful when considering CFD
modeling for structural design, because the total force is less sensitive
to mesh and wave conditions than the pressure gages. Significant
computational expense may be saved by using a coarser mesh reso-
lution in a CFD model while still achieving a reliable estimate of the
total force
As noted earlier, we applied the same turbulence coefficient for the
κ-ε turbulence model in both IHFAOM and FLUENT for model consis-
tency. In the IHFOAM model, we also tested the simulation using the
κω SST turbulence model (Wilcox, 2008) and compared the two model
results. Both turbulence models generate slightly different aspects of
wave deformation during propagation over the slope, but yield signif-
icant differences in pressure and force calculations. The difference in
results from the respective turbulence models was similar to that
observed between IHFOAM and FLUENT using the κ-ε model. When
using κω SST in IHFOAM, the simulated wave tends to shoal and break
further offshore over the sloped bathymetry. Consequently, κω SST
results slightly overestimated pressures and forces for non-breaking
waves, and underestimated the measurement for both breaking and
broken wave conditions. However, as observed in Section 4, the results
of the κ-ε model show good agreement with non-breaking wave--
induced pressures and forces while tending to underestimate those
produced by breaking waves and overestimate those produced by
broken waves.
The Courant number (Co) is also a significant variable for model
stability and computation time. We set a constant Co ¼ 0.5 as the
default for both IHFOAM and FLUENT simulations, but evaluate the
sensitivity of Co by applying various Co such as Co ¼ 1.0, 0.5, 0.25, and
0.1 for M2 in IHFOAM. The results show that the computation time
increased as Co decreased. This is expected, but there are not even
minor changes of surface elevation, pressure and forces for all three
wave conditions in IHFOAM. Therefore, the computation time step
utilized in the model (Co  1.0) was small enough to achieve the
highest resolution for the current model set up. This result implies that
other disagreements between modeled and measured data such as the
negative pressure (Fig. 9) and short peaky pressures at bottom face of
the specimen (e.g. Fig. 10) were not induced from computation time
parameters. As a future work, we will evaluate the effects of finer mesh
(~0.01 m) and different turbulence models (e.g. LES) for model
validations.
Acknowledgment
This study is based upon work supported by the National Science
Foundation under Award Number 1519679. Any opinions, findings, and
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of
the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Sci-
ence Foundation. Finally, the authors would like to address appreciation
to reviewers.
H. Park et al. Ocean Engineering 158 (2018) 78–98

Nomenclature

Symbol Descriptions Unit

Co Courant number –
F External Force MLT2
FH Horizontal force MLT2
FV Vertical force MLT2
g Gravity acceleration LT2
H Wave height L
h Water depth L
JR Impulse of residual force or pressure MLT1 or ML1T1
JX Impulse of force or pressure MLT1 or ML1T1
L Wave length L
P Pressure ML1T2
p* Pseudo pressure ML1T2
R Residual of force or pressure ML1T2 or MLT2
RJ Ratio of Impulse –
T Wave period T
t Simulation time T
u Velocity (in OpenFOAM) LT1
v Velocity (in Fluent) LT1
α Quantity of water per unit of volume –
η Surface elevation L
μ Molecular viscosity ML1T1
μeff Efficient dynamic viscosity ML1T1
ν Kinematic viscosity of water L2T1
ρ Density ML3
ρwater Density of water ML3
ρair Density of air ML3
jj Absolute value –

Appendix

Fig. A1Frequency of calculation time step of each mesh conditions for X2 (non-breaking wave, IHFOAM).

References Cuomo, G., Tirindelli, M., Allsop, W., 2007. Wave-in-deck loads on exposed jetties. Coast.
Eng. 54 (No. 9), 657–679.
Cuomo, G., Shimosako, K., Takahashi, S., 2009. Wave-in-deck loads on coastal bridges
ANSYS, 2009. ANSYS Fluent Theory Guide. ANSYS, Inc., Canonsburg, PA, 12th release.
and the role of air. Coast. Eng. 56 (No. 8), 793–809.
ANSYS, 2013. ANSYS Fluent Tutorial Guide. ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg, PA.
Do, T., van de Lindt, J.W., Cox, D., 2016. Performance-based design methodology for
ASCE/SEI (ASCE/Structural Engineering Institute), 2016. Minimum Design Loads for
inundated elevated coastal structures subjected to wave load. Eng. Struct. 117,
Buildings and Other Structures. ASCE/SEI 7-16, Reston, VA.
250–262.
Bea, R.G., Xu, T., Stear, J., Ramos, R., 1999. Wave forces on decks of offshore platforms.
Emanuel, K., 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years.
J. Waterw. Port, Coast. Ocean Eng. 125 (3), 136–144.
Nature 436 (7051), 686.
Bradner, C., Schumacher, T., Cox, D., Higgins, C., 2011. Experimental Setup for a large-
FEMA, 2011. Coastal Construction Manual: Principles and Practices of Planning, Siting,
scale bridge superstructure model subjected to waves. J. Waterw. Port, Coast. Ocean
Designing, Constructing, and Maintaining Residential Buildings. FEMA s.l.
Eng. 137 (1), 3–11.
Fluent INC, 2005, August, 18. Simulation of Wave Generation in a Tank. Retrieved from.
Bullock, G.N., Obhrai, C., Peregrine, D.H., Bredmose, H., 2007. Violent breaking wave
http://willem.engen.nl/uni/fluent/documents/external/wave.pdf.
impacts. Part 1: results from large-scale regular wave tests on vertical and sloping
walls. Coast. Eng. 54 (2007), 602–617.

97
H. Park et al.
Goda, Y., 1974. New Wave Pressure Formulae for Composite Breakwater. Copenhagen.
ASCE, pp. 1702–1720.
Goda, Y., 2010. Random Seas and Design of Maritime Structures, third ed. World
Scientific. S.1.
Hayatdavoodi, M., Seiffert, B., Ertekin, R.C., 2014. Experiments and computations of
solitary-wave forces on a coastal-bridge deck. Part II: deck with girders. Coast. Eng.
88, 210–228.
Hayatdavoodi, M., Seiffert, B., Ertekin, R.C., 2015. Experiments and calculations of
cnoidal wave loads on a flat plate in shallow-water. J. Ocean Eng. Mar. Energy 1 (1),
77–99.
Higuera, P., Lara, J.L., Losada, I.J., 2013. Realistic wave generation and active wave
absorption for Navier–Stokes models: application to OpenFOAM®. Coast. Eng. 71,
102–118.
Higuera, P., Lara, J.L., Losada, I.J., 2014. Three-dimensional interaction of waves and
porous coastal structures using OpenFOAM®. Part I: formulation and validation.
Coast. Eng. 83, 243–258.
IHFOAM, 2017. Physics. Retrieved from. http://ihfoam.ihcantabria.com/model/physics/
. cnoidal wave loads on a coastal-bridge deck with girders. Eur. J. Mech. B-Fluids 52,
Iturrioz, A., Guanche, R., Lara, J.L., Vidal, C., Losada, I.J., 2015. Validation of
OpenFOAM® for oscillating water column three-dimensional modeling. Ocean. Eng.
107, 222–236.
Jin, J., Meng, B., 2011. Computation of wave loads on the superstructures of coastal
highway bridges. Ocean. Eng. 38.
Kaplan, P., 1992. Wave impact forces on offshore structures: Re-examination and new
interpretations. Houston, Texas. In: Offshore Technology Conference, pp. 79–86.
Kaplan, P., Murray, J.J., Yu, W.C., 1995. Theorectical analysis of wave impact forces on
platform deck structures. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, pp. 189–198.
Kirkg€ oz, M.S., 1995. Breaking wave impact on vertical and sloping coastal structures.
Ocean. Eng. 22 (1), 35–48.
98
Ocean Engineering 158 (2018) 78–98
Launder, B.E., Sharma, B.I., 1974. Application of the energy-dissipation model of
turbulence to the calculation of flow near a spinning disc. Lett. heat mass Transf. 1
(2), 131–137.
Linton, D., Gupta, R., Cox, D., van de Lindt, J., Oshnack, M.E., Clauson, M., 2012.
Evaluation of tsunami loads on wood-frame walls at full scale. J. Struct. Eng. 139 (8),
1318–1325.
Maza, M., Lara, J.L., Losada, I.J., 2015. Tsunami wave interaction with mangrove forests:
a 3-D numerical approach. Coast. Eng. 98, 33–54.
Mokrani, C., Abadie, S., 2016. Conditions for peak pressure stability in VOF simulations of
dam break flow impact. J. Fluids Struct. 62, 86–103.
Mori, N., Shimura, T., Yasuda, T., Mase, H., 2013. Multi-model climate projections of
ocean surface variables under different climate scenarios—future change of waves,
sea level and wind. Ocean. Eng. 71, 122–129.
Park, H., Tomiczek, T., Cox, D., van de Lindt, J.W., Lomonaco, P., 2017. Experimental
modeling of horizontal and vertical wave forces on an elevated coastal structure.
Coast. Eng. 128, 58–74.
Seiffert, B.R., Hayatdavoodi, M., Ertekin, R.C., 2015. Experiments and calculations of
191–205.
Wiebe, D.M., Park, H., Cox, D.T., 2014. Application of the Goda pressure formulae for
horizontal wave loads on elevated structures. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12205-014-0175-1.
Wilcox, D.C., 2008. Formulation of the k–x turbulence model revisited. J. Am. Inst.
Aeronautics Astronautics 46 (11), 2823–2838.
Wu, Y.L., Stewart, G., Chen, Y., Gullman-Strand, J., Lv, X., Kumar, P., 2016. A CFD
application of new wave theory to wave-in-deck simulation. Int. J. Comput. Methods
13, 2.
Xiao, H., Huang, W., 2008. Numerical modeling of wave runup and forces on an idealized
beachfront house. Ocean. Eng. 35 (1), 106–116.