Elsevier

Ocean Engineering

Volume 155, 1 May 2018, Pages 201-210
Ocean Engineering

An experimental comparison of velocities underneath focussed breaking waves

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.02.049Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The effect of the underlying focussing mechanism on the shape of the breaking wave and its velocity field is investigated.

  • Dispersive focussing and Nonlinear Schrödinger framework are used to generate a breaking rogue waves.

  • Wave velocities (PIV) are compared with standard engineering models.

Abstract

Nonlinear wave interactions affect the evolution of steep wave groups, their breaking and the associated kinematic field. Laboratory experiments are performed to investigate the effect of the underlying focussing mechanism on the shape of the breaking wave and its velocity field. In this regard, it is found that the shape of the wave spectrum plays a substantial role. Broader underlying wave spectra leads to energetic plungers at a relatively low amplitude. For narrower spectra waves break at higher amplitudes but with a less energetic spiller. Comparison with standard engineering methods commonly used to predict the velocity underneath extreme waves shows that, under certain conditions, the measured velocity profile strongly deviates from engineering predictions.

Introduction

Rogue waves threaten safety and survivability of marine structures. The mechanisms leading to the formation of such extreme waves have been investigated and probabilistic descriptions derived to provide improved design criteria (e.g. Perlin et al., 2013; Bitner-Gregersen and Toffoli, 2014; Toffoli et al., 2012; Alberello et al., 2016a). Breaking of large waves is the most hazardous condition in terms of wave forces on marine structures (Faltinsen, 1993; Grue, 2002; Kim, 2008; Alberello et al., 2017). However, it remains elusive how the mechanism leading the formation of a rogue wave affects the wave shape at the breaking and the associated kinematic field.

Measurements under deep water breaking waves have shown that wave velocities, and associated forces, exceed those predicted by the potential flow theory in the crest region. Using Laser Doppler Anemometry (lda) under plungers, Easson & Greated (Easson and Greated, 1984) report velocities two times larger than those predicted by linear theory and forces fives times larger than those of an equivalent 5th order Stokes wave. Analogous results are reported in Kim et al. (1992) for a spiller in random sea. Measured particle velocities in the crest region exceed those predicted using equivalent Stokes wave and linear superposition of the spectral components. Kim et al. (1992) argue that the asymmetric shape (crest higher than the troughs with forward leaning wave front) associated to large transient waves as a result of energy focussing might affect the accuracy of the estimation of the velocity field.

Breaking waves have also been experimentally investigated by means of Particle Image Velocimetry (piv). This technique, compared to lda, offers the advantage of obtaining fluid velocities over a plane (unlike pointwise lda measurements). Under plungers, Skyner (1996) recorded particle velocities higher than the phase speed of the waves. Observations of velocities exceeding the phase speed were also made by Perlin et al. (1996), even though the fluid flow presents a different topology compared to Skyner (1996). Difference in the flow structure are most certainly related to a different underlying wave spectrum. piv was systematically employed by Grue et al. (Grue et al., 2003; Grue and Jensen, 2006, 2012) to investigate breaking waves in deep water conditions. Monochromatic wave trains, unidirectional focussed wave groups and unidirectional random seas were all considered. However, the role played by different focussing mechanism on the velocity profile has not been assessed.

Grue et al. (2003) observed that all velocity profiles could be described by an universal profile if opportune dimensionless parameters were chosen. The velocity profile beneath a wave can be approximated by a third order monochromatic Stokes wave with the same period and amplitude using the so-called Grue method (Grue et al., 2003). The wavenumber k and the steepness ε (product of the wavenumber and the linear wave amplitude a) are obtained numerically solving the system of equations:{ω2gk=1+ε2kηM=ε+12ε2+12ε3

The angular frequency is computed linearly from the trough-to-trough wave period (i.e. ω=2π/TTT being TTT the distance between the troughs around the crest) and ηM is the maximum wave elevation. Once the solution is obtained the velocity profile has the exponential profile:uG=εgkexp(kη).

The Grue velocity profile matches previous breaking measurements reported in e.g. (Kim et al., 1992; Skyner, 1996; Baldock et al., 1996). Furthermore, the Grue method compares well with second order potential flow predictions (Stansberg et al., 2006; Johannessen, 2010). The good performance of the Grue method and its relative simplicity established it as one of the methods commonly accepted by industry standards to define the velocity profile under large waves (Stansberg et al., 2006).

Another method to estimate the velocity profile underneath a random wave field has been proposed by Donelan et al. (1992). The method is based on a superposition of wave components. Unlike traditional linear superposition, that has been found to overestimate crest velocities, in the Donelan method spectral wave components (surface and velocity corrections) are iteratively added to the perturbed solution. To compute the velocity profile the required steps are as follows. First a Fourier Transform algorithm is used to compute amplitudes, an, and phases, εn, of the surface elevation. A vertical grid is defined, i.e. z. The successive velocity and amplitude increments (δun and δηn respectively) are computed iteratively asδun=anωncos(ωnt+εn)exp(kn(zηn1)),un=un1+δun,δηn=ancos(ωnt+εn),ηn=ηn1+δηn.

Finally, the velocities for grid points outside the water domain have to be set to zero. From the iterative procedure it can be deduced that for the nth component the mean water level is the pre-existing wavy surface and the velocities are computed over a varying z. The Donelan method has been found to compare well with field data (Donelan et al., 1992), but it has not been applied to focussed breaking waves yet.

In this paper the predictive performances of the Grue and Donelan methods are tested against laboratory measurements of the velocity profile underneath breaking rogue waves. The formation of the breaking waves in the wave flume is controlled by wave focussing techniques, e.g. (Longuet-Higgins, 1974; Tromans et al., 1991). Two techniques commonly used in model tests are compared: the dispersive focussing (Longuet-Higgins, 1974; Tromans et al., 1991), using different underlying JONSWAP spectra, and the nonlinear Schrödinger equation (NLS) framework (Zakharov, 1968). Whereas the velocity field under breaking waves generated by dispersive focussing has been examined in the past, it is yet uncertain how it compares to the kinematic field of breaking events generated using breathers solutions of the NLS that more realistically replicate wave evolution at sea. Other physical mechanisms can trigger the formation of breaking rogue waves in the ocean (e.g. directional focussing, wave-current interaction and bathymetry, see Onorato et al., 2013a), but only unidirectional deep water waves are considered in the present study.

The paper is structured as follows. In the next Section we describe the experimental set-up. The wave generation mechanisms are presented in Section 3. The evolution in space of the wave group and its spectral properties are shown in the following Section. Description of the wave shape, velocity profiles and comparison with engineering methods are discussed in Section 5. Final remarks are reported in the Conclusions.

Section snippets

Experimental set-up

The purpose of the experiments is to monitor the spatial evolution of a steep wave group and measure water particle velocity at breaking. Experiments have been conducted in the Extreme Air-Sea Interaction facility (EASI) in the Michell Hydrodynamics Laboratory at The University of Melbourne (Australia). The wave flume is 60 × 2 m (length × width). The water depth was imposed to be 0.9 m. At one end of the tank a computer-controlled cylindrical wave-maker produces user-defined wave forms. At the

Wave generation

The location of the breaking event in the wave tank is controlled deterministically by means of wave focussing techniques. In deep water conditions, the dispersive focussing has been commonly used in the past. This method relies on the differential celerity of wave components of the wave spectrum, i.e. longer waves propagate faster than shorter waves. By defining an initial phase shift at the wave-maker for each spectral component, it is possible to synchronise wave components at a specific

Dispersive focussing

The time-series of the surface elevation are presented in Fig. 3. The groups become more compact in time as they approach the breaking point (probe 5). After the breaking, the wave groups broaden again, i.e. the envelope is elongated.

The dimensionless spectra corresponding to the various stages of evolution are reported in Fig. 4. A spectral transformation is observed as the group propagates along the tank. An energy downshift occurs during the wave focussing (i.e. up to the breaking point).

Dispersive focussing

Although the spectral evolution provides fundamental information about the nonlinear wave interactions, wave breaking is a highly localised mechanism that strongly relates to the time series rather than the spectral characteristics, e.g. Chalikov and Babanin (2012). The asymmetry parameters can be used as an indication of proximity to breaking (Chalikov and Babanin, 2012). Following Babanin et al. (2010), these are defined as:Sk=a1a21As=b1b21where a1 is the elevation of the crest, a2 the

Conclusions

Two different focussing techniques, dispersive focussing and nonlinear Schrödinger mechanisms have been used to generate a breaking rogue wave event in an unidirectional wave flume and to compare the associated wave field. These focussing techniques are the two main mechanisms leading to the wave growth and, eventually, breaking in the ocean. The evolution has been recorded and the associated velocity field measured at the breaking by means of optical measurements, i.e. Particle Image

Acknowledgements

A.A. and F.N. acknowledge support from the Swinburne University of Technology Postgraduate Research Award (SUPRA).

References (53)

  • T. Johannessen

    Calculations of kinematics underneath measured time histories of steep water waves

    Appl. Ocean Res.

    (2010)
  • M. Klein et al.

    Peregrine breathers as design waves for wave-structure interaction

    Ocean Eng.

    (2016)
  • M. Onorato et al.

    Rogue waves and their generating mechanisms in different physical contexts

    Phys. Rep.

    (2013)
  • H. Zhang et al.

    Modelling of the temporal and spatial evolutions of weakly nonlinear random directional waves with the modified nonlinear Schrödinger equations

    Appl. Ocean Res.

    (2016)
  • R. Adrian et al.

    Particle Image Velocimetry, No. 30

    (2011)
  • A. Alberello et al.

    The velocity field underneath linear and nonlinear breaking rogue waves

  • A. Alberello et al.

    Three dimensional velocity field underneath a breaking rogue wave

  • A. Babanin et al.

    Predicting the breaking onset of surface water waves

    Geophys. Res. Lett.

    (2007)
  • A. Babanin et al.

    Numerical and laboratory investigation of breaking of steep two-dimensional waves in deep water

    J. Fluid Mech.

    (2010)
  • T. Baldock et al.

    A laboratory study of nonlinear surface waves on water

    Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lon. Series A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci.

    (1996)
  • E. Bitner-Gregersen et al.

    Occurrence of rogue sea states and consequences for marine structures

    Ocean Dynam.

    (2014)
  • A. Chabchoub et al.

    Time-reversal generation of rogue waves

    Phys. Rev. Lett.

    (2014)
  • A. Chabchoub et al.

    Rogue wave observation in a water wave tank

    Phys. Rev. Lett.

    (2011)
  • D. Chalikov et al.

    Simulation of wave breaking in one-dimensional spectral environment

    J. Phys. Oceanogr.

    (2012)
  • K. Chang et al.

    Measurement of breaking waves using particle image velocimetry

    Coast. Eng. Proc.

    (1997)
  • J. Chaplin

    On frequency-focusing unidirectional waves

    Int. J. Offshore Polar Eng.

    (1996)
  • Cited by (44)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text