Anda di halaman 1dari 11

512

2014,26(4):512-522
DOI: 10.1016/S1001-6058(14)60058-5

Non-hydrostatic versus hydrostatic modelings of free surface flows*

ZHANG Jing-xin (张景新)


MOE Key Laboratory of Hydrodynamics, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China
Key Laboratory of Estuarine and Coastal Engineering, Ministry of Transport, Shanghai 201201, China
School of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240,
China, E-mail: zhangjingxin@sjtu.edu.cn
SUKHODOLOV Alexander N.
Department of Ecohydrology, Institute of Fresh-water Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Berlin 12587, Germany
LIU Hua (刘桦)
MOE Key Laboratory of Hydrodynamics, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai 200240, China
School of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240,
China

(Received December 7, 2012, Revised May 15, 2014)

Abstract: The hydrodynamics of geophysical flows in oceanic shelves, estuaries, and rivers are often studied by solving shallow
water equations under either hydrostatic or non-hydrostatic assumptions. Although the hydrostatic models are quite accurate and
cost-efficient for many practical applications, there are situations when the fully hydrodynamic models are preferred despite a larger
cost for computations. The present numerical model is implemented by the finite volume method (FVM) based on unstructured grids.
The model can be efficiently switched between hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic modules. The case study shows that for waves pro-
pagating along the bar a criterion with respect to the shallowness alone, the ratio between the depth and the wave length, is insu-
fficient to warrant the performance of shallow flow equations with a hydrostatic approach and the nonlinearity in wave dynamics can
be better accounted with a hydrodynamic approach. Besides the prediction of the flows over complex bathymetries, for instance, over
asymmetrical dunes, by a hydrodynamic approach is shown to be superior in accuracy to the hydrostatic simulation.

Key words: hydrostatic, non-hydrostatic, TVD scheme, non-orthogonal grid

Introduction engineering in the designs of nautical constructions,


The flows in natural environments are often cha- the management of waterways and for the prevention
racterized by a vertical confinement between a solid of natural disasters as floods and accidental spills.
boundary beneath and a free surface above the flow. Numerical modeling is one of the primary tools
These kinds of flows are common in oceanic shelves, used in engineering practice for the prediction of sha-
estuaries, and rivers and they are generally referred to llow flows. The shallow flow models are mostly based
as shallow flows. The prediction of shallow flows is on the hydrostatic assumption for the pressure distri-
important for practical applications in coastal and civil bution which allows considerable simplifications[1].
An advantage of these simplifications is the high ef-
ficiency of the models because of the neglecting of the
* Project supported by the National Natural Science Foun- vertical momentum equation and the relatively low
dation of China (Grant No.10702042), the Non-profit Industry
computation costs. However, there are situations when
Financial Program of MWR (Grant No. 201401027) and the
National Key Basic Research Development Program of China the assumption about the hydrostatic pressure distribu-
(973 Program, Grant No. 2014CB046200). tion might not be valid for physical processes and the
Biography: ZHANG Jing-xin (1975-), Male, Ph. D., computations would involve large errors.
Associate Professor To improve the predictions of shallow flows, mo-
dels were developed to account for a non-hydrostatic
pressure. Casulli[1,2] proposed a model with full hydro-
513

dynamic pressure terms, in which the pressure is re- 1. Numerical model


presented as a sum of hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic
constituents. Jankowski[3] presented the details of a 1.1 Governing equations
predictor-corrector method for calculation of the pre- The shallow water equations form the basis of
ssure field. In this method, the predictor step is used to the present model. The non-hydrostatic pressure app-
calculate the hydrostatic pressure while the non-hy- roach is implemented in the model by representing the
drostatic pressure is calculated in the following corre- total pressure as a superposition of the hydrostatic pre-
ctor step. Li[4] simulated the water wave by directly ssure ph = ρ g (η − z ) and the non-hydrostatic pre-
solving Navier-Stokes equations using a similar de-
ssure pn [1]. In order to fit the free surface and the
composition scheme for the pressure and adopting a
fractional method to implement the numerical model. uneven bottom boundary, the vertical coordinate z is
Kocyigit et al.[5] and Chen[6] solved the three-dimen- transformed to the σ coordinate[10], and the transfor-
sional non-hydrostatic equations in the Cartesian coor- med equations can be rewritten as
dinate system. Fringer et al.[7] presented a non-hydro-
static model for ocean flows based on unstructured ∂ζ ∂ qx ∂ q y ∂ qσ
+ + + =0 (1)
grids with the finite volume method (FVM) and im- ∂t ∂x ∂y ∂σ
plemented it by highly efficient parallel computational
codes. Because of these improvements the non-hydro- ∂ qx ∂ qx u ∂ qx v ∂ qxω ∂ζ D ∂ pn
+ + + = − gD − +
static modelings become feasible for large scale chara- ∂t ∂x ∂y ∂σ ∂x ρ0 ∂x
cteristics of flows in natural environments.
An important aspect of the hydrodynamic mode-
∂  ∂ qx  ∂   ∂ qx ∂ q y  
ling is the accurate representation of the flow domain  2ν tH + ν tH  +  +
with computational grids. Although Cartesian grids ∂x  ∂x  ∂ y   ∂ y ∂x  
used in early models are highly efficient, they are un-
suitable for the accurate fitting of complex boundaries 1 ∂  ν tV ∂ qx 
(2)
with a stair-stepped resolution. The fitting of boun- D ∂σ  D ∂σ 
daries is more accurate with curvilinear orthogonal st-
ructured grids. Most flexible are fully unstructured ∂qy ∂qyu ∂qy v ∂ q yω ∂ζ D ∂ pn
grids which were implemented in more recent + + + = − gD − +
models [2,6-8]. ∂t ∂x ∂y ∂σ ∂ y ρ0 ∂ y
This short outline of the state of art in the mode-
ling of shallow flows indicates that a significant pro- ∂   ∂ q y ∂ qx   ∂  ∂qy 
gress has been achieved in modeling complex envi- ν tH  +  +  2ν tH +
∂x   ∂x ∂ y   ∂ y  ∂y 
ronmental flows over the last decade. However, the
applications of advanced non-hydrostatic models are
still few and far between due to a huge amount of 1 ∂  ν tV ∂ q y 
  (3)
computational resources[7]. Quite often in solving pra- D ∂σ  D ∂σ 
ctical problems engineers have to find a compromise
between the accuracy and the costs of modeling. ∂ qz ∂ qz u ∂ qz v ∂ qzω 1 ∂ pn
There is evidently a knowledge gap, when a more ad- + + + =− +
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂σ ρ0 ∂σ
vanced but costly non-hydrostatic models have to be
applied.
∂  ∂ qz  ∂  ∂ qz  1 ∂  ν tV ∂ qz 
The present study examines two typical shallow ν tH + ν tH +
flows with both the hydrostatic and the non-hydro- ∂x  ∂x  ∂ y  ∂ y  D ∂σ  D ∂σ 
static models and compares the results in order to cla- (4)
rify the essential features in or not in favor of the cost-
ly non-hydrostatic methods. For this purpose, a pre- where qx = Du , q y = Dv , qz = Dw , qσ = Dω , and
viously coded in-house numerical model[9] is expan- the vertical velocity in the σ coordinate is calculated
ded to a fully hydrodynamic model with an unstru- as
ctured horizontal grid and a vertical sigma-level grid.
This expansion of the model and the application of the qz qx  ∂D ∂η  q y  ∂D ∂η 
same basic codes suit best the aims of comparison bet- qσ = − σ +  − σ + −
D D  ∂x ∂x  D  ∂ y ∂ y 
ween the hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic approaches.
Both models have been used for examining the two
flow cases: the non-linear wave propagation over a  ∂D ∂η 
σ +  (5)
bar and a flow over an asymmetrical dune.  ∂t ∂t 
514

In the above equations, g is the gravity acceleration, where ch is an arbitrary Smagorinsky constant, var-
f = 2ω sin φ is the Coriolis term, φ is the latitude, ying in the range of 0.01-0.5[12].
ω is the Earth’s angular velocity, and ζ is the free
1.3 Numerical scheme
surface elevation. When the non-hydrostatic pressure
pn is ignored, the vertical momentum equation should 1.3.1 Outline of the numerical scheme
also be neglected, and the system (1)-(4) then degene- In the numerical method, a semi-implicit scheme
rates to the conventional shallow water equations with is used, with a parameter θ . The importance of the
two horizontal momentum equations and the continui- value of θ was shown in previous papers[5,13]. The
ty equation. value of θ is taken as 0.5 in the following computa-
tions. The computational domain is meshed by the un-
1.2 Turbulence model structured grids and the flow variables are taken at the
To close the system the eddy viscosity concept is cell centers thus giving the method a name of the CC
employed in the model and the vertical eddy viscosity scheme. For the advection terms, the TVD (Total Va-
coefficient ν tV is determined by solving the one-equa- riation Diminishing) scheme is used to calculate the
tion Spalart-Allmaras (SA) model[11]. The transport cell face flux. An arbitrary variable ϕ
f
at the cell
equation for ν is
face is calculated with a second order TVD scheme
2
Dν  ν  1 1
= cb1Sν − cw1 f w   + {∇ ⋅ [(ν + ν )∇ν ] +
f
ϕ = ϕc + ψ (rf )(ϕ D − ϕC ) (9)
Dt d
  σ 2

cb 2 (∇ν ) 2 } (6) where f denotes the cell face, ϕ D and ϕC are, re-
spectively, the cell-centered variables in the down-
where wind and upwind nodes around the face f . Using a
1/6 flux limiter function ψ (rf ) , which is simply a linear
ν  1 + c6 
χ ≡ , f w = g  6 w63  , g = r + cw2 (r 6 − r ) , function of rf , one can obtain a higher order TVD sc-
ν  g + cw3 
heme. The ratio rf is calculated by the method exten-
ν ν χ 3 ded by Darwish[14].
r≡ , S = S + 2 2 f v 2 , f v1 = 3 3 , On the cell faces a non-orthogonal horizontal

Sκ d
2 2
κ d χ + cv1
local coordinate (ξ , η ) is used to replace the Cartisan
coordinate ( x, y ) for the derivative calculations. From
χ 1  ∂u ∂u j 
fv 2 = 1 − , Si j =  i +  the chain rule of differentiations, one obtains
1 + χ f v1 2  ∂x j ∂xi 

1 1
and d is the distance to the solid wall. The model φx = (φξ yη − φη yξ ) , φ y = (φη xξ − φξ xη ) (10)
J J
constants include
where J = xξ yη − xη yξ , and ξ is directed from a
2
cb1 = 0.1355 , σ = , cb 2 = 0.622 , κ = 0.41 , control cell center to a neighbor cell center across the
3
common face, and η is directed from one vertex to
cb1 1 + cb 2 another on the same face anticlockwisely around the
cw1 = + , cw2 = 0.3 , cw3 = 2.0 , cv1 = 7.1 control cell center (Fig.1).
κ 2
σ

The eddy viscosity ν tV is computed as

ν tV = ν f v1 (7)

The horizontal eddy viscosity coefficient is deter-


mined by a Smagorinsky-type formulation
1/2
 ∂ u  2  ∂ v ∂u   ∂ v  
2 2
υtH = ch ∆ x ∆ y   + 0.5  +    
+
 ∂x   ∂x ∂ y   ∂ y  
(8) Fig.1 Local coordinate on the control volume
515

1.3.2 Predictor step with hydrostatic pressure ηi* − ηin KBM  ∂ q*x 
Firstly, the continuity equation is discretized as
∆t
+θ ∑  ∆σ k +
k =1  ∂ x i , k

ζ in +1 − ζ in KBM  ∂ qxn +1 
∆t
+θ ∑  ∆σ k +
k =1  ∂ x i , k
KBM 
∂ qn  KBM  ∂ q*
(1 − θ ) ∑  x  ∆σ k + θ ∑ 
y

 ∆σ k +
k =1  ∂ x i , k

k =1  ∂ y i , k
KBM  KBM  ∂ q n +1 
∂ qn 
(1 − θ ) ∑  x  ∆σ k + θ ∑  KBM  ∂ q n 
y
 ∆σ k +
(1 − θ ) ∑ 
y
k =1  ∂ x  ∂ y  ∆σ k = 0 (15)
i , k k =1  i , k 
k =1  ∂ y i , k

KBM  ∂ q n  and
(1 − θ ) ∑ 
y
  ∆σ k = 0 (11)
k =1  ∂ y i , k q*xi − qxin  ∂ζ *   ∂ζ n 
= Fqxin − gDθ   − gD (1 − θ )   +
∆t  ∂ x i  ∂ x i
and the discretized momentum equations are written
as
 ∂  ν tv ∂ q*x  
   (16)
qxin +1 − qxin  ∂ζ n +1   D ∂σ  D ∂σ   i
= Fqxin − gDθ   −
∆t  ∂ x i
q*yi − q yin  ∂ζ *   ∂ζ n 
= Fq yin − gDθ   − gD (1 − θ )   +
∆t  ∂ y i  ∂ y i
 ∂ζ n  D  ∂ pnn +1 
gD (1 − θ )   −   +
 ∂ x i ρ 0  ∂ x i  ∂  ν tv ∂ q*y  
    (17)
 ∂  ν tv ∂ q   n +1  D ∂σ  D ∂σ   i
x
   (12)
 D ∂σ  D ∂σ   i q*zi − qzin  ∂  ν tv ∂ q*z  
= Fqzin +    (18)
n +1 n
∆t  D ∂σ  D ∂σ   i
q yi −q yi  ∂ζ  n +1
= Fq yin − gDθ   −
∆t  ∂ y i Furthermore, discretizing the above equations, one ob-
tains
 ∂ζ n  D  ∂ pnn +1   ∂ζ * 
gD (1 − θ )   −   + q*xi , k ∆σ k = Fqxin , k ∆σ k − gD ∆t ∆σ kθ 
 ∂ y i ρ 0  ∂ y i  +
 ∂ x i

 ∂  ν tv ∂ q yn +1    ν tv  q*xi , k −1 − q*xi , k
    (13) ∆t  2  −
 D ∂σ  D ∂σ   i  D i , k −1/ 2 ∆σ k −1/ 2

 ν tv  q*xi , k − q*xi , k +1
q −qn +1
1  ∂ p   ∂  ν tv ∂ qzn +1  
n n +1
∆t  2  (19)
= Fqzin − 
zi zi
 +  
n
 D i , k +1/ 2 ∆σ k +1/ 2
∆t ρ0  ∂σ i  D ∂σ  D ∂σ   i
(14)  ∂ζ * 
q*yi , k ∆σ k = Fq yin , k ∆σ k − gD ∆t ∆σ kθ   +
where F is an operator that includes the explicit dis-  ∂ y i
cretization of the convective terms, the horizontal vis-
cosity terms and the Coriolis term. ν  q*yi , k −1 − q*yi , k
∆t  tv2  −
Setting qx∗ , q∗y , qz∗ , qσ∗ , η ∗ as the temporary  D i , k −1/ 2 ∆σ k −1/ 2
flow variables controlled by the hydrostatic pressure
ph , the discretized continuity and momentum equa- ν  q*yi , k − q*yi , k +1
∆t  tv2  (20)
tions are written as:  D i , k +1/ 2 ∆σ k +1/ 2
516

∆t  q*zi , k −1 − q*zi , k Bi = [ gDin ∆ t ∆σ 1 ,  , gDin ∆ t ∆σ k ,  , gDin ∆ t ∆σ KBM ]T ,


q*zi , k ∆σ k = Fqzin , k ∆σ k + ν ti , k −1/ 2 −
Di 2  ∆σ k −1/ 2

Z1i = [∆ t ∆σ 1 ,  , ∆ t ∆σ k ,  , ∆ t ∆σ KBM ] ,

q*zi , k − q*zi , k +1 
ν ti , k +1/ 2  (21) Z 2i = [∆ t (1 − θ ) ∆σ 1 ,  , ∆ t (1 − θ ) ∆σ k ,  ,
∆σ k −1/ 2 
∆ t (1 − θ ) ∆σ KBM ]
Hence, the governing equations are summarized in
matrix notation as: Ai is a series of tri-diagonal matrixes.
For the discretizated Eqs.(23) and (24), the inter-
 ∂ Qx*   ∂ Q*y   ∂Qn 
ζ + Z1i 
i
*
 + Z1i   = ζ i − Z 2i  x  −
n mediate variables Qxi*− , Q*yi− are introduced, so
 ∂ x i  ∂y i  ∂ x i
Ain Qxi*− = Gxin (26)
 ∂Q n
y

Z 2i   (22)
 ∂y Ain Q*yi− = G yin (27)
 i

n  ∂ζ *  n n
The intermediate variables Qxi*− , Q*yi− can be di-
A Q =G −B 
ix
*
xi  xi i (23)
 ∂ x i rectly calculated by solving the linear tri-diagonal
equations. Subtracting Eqs.(26) and (27) into Eqs.(23)
and (24), respectively, one obtains:
 ∂ζ * 
Aiyn Q*yi = G yin − Bin   (24)
 ∂ y i  ∂ζ * 
Ain (Qxi* − Qxi*− ) = − Bin   (28)
 ∂ x i
Aizn Qzi* = Gzin (25)
 ∂ζ * 
The details of the matrixes are Ain (Q*yi − Q*yi− ) = − Bin   (29)
 ∂ y i
 ∆ tτ s Rewriting the governing Eq.(22)
Gxin =  Fqxin ,1∆σ 1 + , Fqxin , 2 ∆σ 2 ,  , Fqxin , k ∆σ k , 
 ρ
 ∂ (Qx* − Qx*− )   ∂ (Q*y − Q*y − ) 
ζ i* + Z1i   + Z 2i   = ζi −
n
Fq n
∆σ KBM ] , T
∂ x ∂ y
xi , KBM  i   i

 ∆ tτ sy ∂ Qxn ∂ Qyn ∂ Qxi*− ∂ Q*yi−


G yin =  Fq yin ,1∆σ 1 + , Fq yin , 2 ∆σ 2 ,  , Fq yin , k ∆σ k ,  Z 2i − Z 2i − Z1i − Z 2i (30)
 ρ ∂x ∂x ∂x ∂y

Fq yin , KBM ∆σ KBM ]T , Notating Qxi* − Qxi*− = Qxi′ , Q*yi − Q*yi− = Qyi′ in Eqs.(28)
and (29), and then substituting Eqs.(28) and (29) into
G = [ Fq ∆σ 1 , Fq
n n n
∆σ 2 ,  , Fq n
∆σ k ,  (30) to obtain
zi zi ,1 zi , 2 zi , k

 ∂  n −1 n  ∂ζ *   
Fqzin , KBM ∆σ KBM ]T , ζ i* − Z1i  A B    −
 ∂x   ∂x    i

Qxin +1 = [qxin ,1 , qxin , 2 ,  , qxin , k ,  qxin , KBM ]T ,


 ∂   ∂ζ *   
Z1i   An −1 B n     = BBi (31)
Q n +1
yi = [q n
yi ,1 ,q n
yi , 2 , , q n
yi , k , q n
yi , KBM
T
] ,  ∂ y   ∂ y   i

Integrating (31) in the horizontal control volume


Qzin +1 = [qzin ,1 , qzin , 2 ,  , qzin , k ,  qzin , KBM ]T , based on Gauss theorem
517

f n +1 . Before the further step for the nonhydrostatic


NS
∂ζ *
ζ i* ∆ Si − Z1i ∑ Ain −1 Bin cos α is ∆ lis − flow, the tri-diagonal system (25) is firstly solved to
∂x
s =1 is obtain the variable Qz* .
f
NS
∂ζ * 1.3.3 Corrector step with non-hydrostatic pressure
Z1i ∑ A B i
n −1
i
n
sin α is ∆ lis = BBi (32) The fully discretized equations at time step n +1
s =1 ∂y is
following the resolved hydrostatic fluid flow can be
written as:
where the symbol f represents the cell face, ∆si is
the horizontal area of i th cell, ∆ lis is the length of qxin +1 − qxin  ∂ζ *   ∂ζ n 
= Fqxin − gDθ   − gD (1 − θ )   −
the sth face ( NS is the total number of faces), and ∆t  ∂ x i  ∂ x i
(cos α is , sin α is ) is the x - and y - projections of the
face normal unit. The derivative calculation on the cell D  ∂ pnn +1   ∂  ν tv ∂ q*x  
face in the Cartisan coordinate ( x, y ) is transformed   +   (35)
ρ0  ∂x i  D ∂σ  D ∂σ   i
to the local coordinate (ξ , η ) . The final discretized
equation of (32) is
q yin +1 − q yin  ∂ζ *   ∂ζ n 
= Fq yin − gDθ   − gD (1 − θ )   −
An −1 B n ∂ζ *
NS
∂ζ *
f
∆t  ∂ y i  ∂ y i
ζ ∆ si − Z1i ∑ i i
i
*
yη − yξ cos α is ∆lis −
s =1 J is ∂ξ ∂η is
D  ∂ pnn +1   ∂  ν tv ∂ q*y  
  +    (36)
NS
An −1 B n ∂ζ * ∂ζ *
f
ρ0  ∂ y i  D ∂σ  D ∂ σ   i
Z1i ∑ i i xξ − xη ⋅
n =1 J is ∂η ∂ξ is
qzin +1 − qzin 1  ∂ p n +1   ∂  ν tv ∂ q*z  
= Fqzin −  n  +   
sin α is ∆ lis = BBi (33) ∆t ρ0  ∂σ i  D ∂σ  D ∂σ   i
(37)
Equation (33) is simplified in a compact form as
By subtracting Eqs.(16), (17) and (18) from (35),
NS
(36) and (37), one obtains the following discretized
APiζ i* − ∑ APisζ is* = Bi (34)
s =1
equations in the corrector step for the flow induced by
the non-hydrostatic pressure pn
where
qxin +1 − q*xi D  ∂ p n +1 
Z1i A B y n −1 n n −1
Z1i A B x n =−  n  (38)
APis =
i i η is
cos α is ∆ lis −
i i η is
⋅ ∆t ρ 0  ∂ x i
J is ∆ξis J is ∆ξis
q yin +1 − q*yi D  ∂ pnn +1 
sin α is ∆ lis , =−   (39)
∆t ρ 0  ∂ y i
NS
APi = ∆ Si + ∑ APis
qzin +1 − q*zi 1  ∂ p n +1 
s =1
=−  n  (40)
∆t ρ0  ∂σ i
ζ is* is the variable located at the center of the s th nei-
ghbor cell, and the derivative calculation along η Although the predicted flow variables satisfy the
coordinate is treated explicitly and included in the depth-averaged continuity equation, it does not nece-
term Bi . ssarily satisfy the local continuity condition. Therefore,
the non-hydrostatic pressure enforces the corrected
The matrix system (34) is solved using the Bi- flow to satisfy the continuity condition. In the σ tran-
CGSTAB method, and Qxi* , Q*yi can be calculated by sformed frame, the continuity Eq.(1) contains no verti-
solving the tri-diagonal matrix systems (23) and (24). cal velocity qz , though another form of this equation
If the non-hydrostatic pressure is neglected, the new containing qz can be deduced as
variables are justly the final flow variables at time step
518

∂ qx ∂ q y ∂ qz ∂  ∂η At the solid wall and the bottom, a zero normal


+ + −  (1 + σ ) qx + gradient is imposed while at the free surface a zero
∂x ∂ y D ∂σ D ∂σ  ∂x
value of the non-hydrostatic pressure is specified.
When the Poisson-type equation is solved, the updated
∂η ∂η ∂h flow velocities are calculated.
(1 + σ ) qx + (1 + σ ) q y + σ qx +
∂x ∂y ∂x Finally the updated water surface is calculated at
the corrector step. Casulli[2] presented a method of
∂h  water surface updating after the second corrector pro-
σ qy  = 0 (41) cedure, and Zhang[9] implemented a third computa-
∂y  tional step similarly to the first for a more accurate up-
date of the water surface and the velocities.
A system of Poisson-type equations for the non-
hydrostatic pressure pnn+1 is derived by substituting
Eqs.(38), (39) and (40) into (41), 2. Case study and analysis
Two test cases are considered in this computa-
 ∂  D ∂ pnn +1  ∂  D ∂ pnn +1  tional study with the focus on: (1) calibration of the
 ∆ t   + ∆ t  + numerical models, (2) validation of the pressure terms,
 ∂x  ρ0 ∂x  ∂ y  ρ0 ∂ y 
(3) comparison between results of hydrostatic and
non-hydrostatic modelings, and (4) analysis of the ne-
∂  1 ∂ pnn +1    ∂ q*x   ∂ q*y  cessity of the non-hydrostatic modeling. The test cases
∆t
 
  =   + + include a nonlinear wave propagation over a bar, and
D ∂σ  ρ0 ∂σ   i , k  ∂x i , k  ∂ y i , k a flow over an asymmetric dune.

 ∂ q*z  ∂  ∂η * ∂η * 2.1 Nonlinear wave propagation over a bar


  −  (1 + σ ) q *
+ (1 + σ ) q*y +
 D ∂σ i , k D ∂σ  ∂ x
x
∂ y The bar represents a meso-scale morphologic
feature, ubiquitous in the shallow environments on
beaches, estuaries, and also in river channels. This
∂h * ∂h *  first case study of a series of tests is based on a data
σ qx + σ q y  (42)
∂x ∂y i, k set collected in a laboratory setup in which the propa-
gation of a train of nonlinear waves over a bar towards
where the cross-derivative terms of pnn+1 are ignored. a beach was examined by Beji and Battjes[15] and
Ohyama et al.[16]. The experiment was performed in a
The final discretized matrix system for Eq.(42) is su- flume of 30 m long and 0.4 m deep, as shown in Fig.2.
mmarized as A sinusoidal wave of 0.01 m in height with a period of
2.02 s (frequency f 0 ≈ 0.5 Hz ) propagates over an
APi , k pnin +1, k − APi ,Tk pnin +1, k −1 − APi ,Bk pnin +1, k +1 −
asymmetric bar of 0.3 high to a slope simulating a
NS
beach with a slope of 1:25. Behind the beach a coarser
∑ AP
s =1
s
i, k pnin +1, s = BPi , k (43) material is used to absorb the incidental waves.

where
f
D ∆ lis
APi ,sk = ∆ t ∆σ k (cos α is yη − sin α is xη ) ,
ρ0 J is ∆ξis

∆ t ∆ si ∆ t ∆ si
APi ,Tk = , APi ,Bk = ,
D ρ0 ∆σ k −1/ 2 D ρ0 ∆σ k +1/ 2
Fig.2 Experiment setup
NS
APi , k = ∑ AP + AP + AP s
i, k
T
i, k
B
i, k
s =1 In the numerical experiments the wave is genera-
ted by adding source terms in the governing equation.
pnin +1,s is the pressure in the s th neighbor cell, and To absorb the incident waves in the simulations a
dampening layer is set on the beach side of the com-
BPi , k is the integration of the right hand side of putational domain. The quadrilateral horizontal mesh
Eq.(42). resolution is 0.025 m, and the vertical first grid point
519

Fig.3 Measured and modeled time series of free surface at different locations over the bar

nearest to the bottom is adjusted to be about 1.5y + shape of the waves becomes more sharp-crested
(Locations 3-7), the computations of the hydrostatic
( y + = yu∗ / ν ) , which is required by the non-slip wall model near the crests start to develop spurious oscilla-
condition. Then the vertical grid is stretched with a tions while the non-hydrostatic model is still capable
ratio 1.15 upward until about 0.025 m equal to the ho- of the accurate simulation of the wave’s pattern.
rizontal mesh size. The integration time step is One of the principal assumptions in the shallow
0.0001s, and the total simulation takes about 30T flow approach in the hydrostatic modeling is that the
(wave peroid). vertical acceleration can be ignored due to the insigni-
Measured and computed time series of the water ficant size of the flow depth compared to the horizon-
surface elevation are compared for seven characteris- tal extensions. In the present case, the ratio h / λ (the
tic locations, as shown in Fig.3. Both models simulate water depth to the wave length) is about 0.1 in front of
the approaching waves quite accurately (Location 1) the bar and the results of the hydrostatic modeling
even when the waves become slightly asymmetrical agree well with the measurements (Location 1). The
due to the interaction with the bar (Location 2). As the shoaling of the waves on the bar is concomitant with
520

the increase of the wave amplitude and the decrease of same flow parameters. The three-dimensional domain
the wave length, though the ratio h / λ is insignifican- covers the dune within an area of 0.4 m long and
tly enlarged when the wave approaches the crest of the 0.2 m wide. The horizontal grid is uniform with a
bar. Thus despite the fact that the shallowness crite- scale of 0.0025 m while the vertical grid is stretched
rion holds true, the behavior of the waves in this en- from the bottom with a ratio 1.15. The point nearest to
vironment is considerably nonlinear. The non-hydro- the bottom is set within the viscosity boundary layer
static pressure term introduced in the momentum of about 1.6z + . At the inlet, the discharge and the
equations enhances the model’s ability to capture the eddy viscosity are provided by another simulation in a
wave dispersion[9]. On the other hand, the hydrostatic long channel with a flat bottom to get a fully deve-
model follows the shallow water dispersion rule, i.e., loped turbulent flow. A zero water level boundary
c = gh . As one can guess the sharpness of the wave condition is set at the outlet. Simulations are carried
near the crest, one can then estimate the convective out with both hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic models.
acceleration of the fluid in the vertical direction and The results of modeling are compared for six charac-
compare its value with the gravity acceleration. When teristic locations in vertical profiles of the stream ve-
this convective acceleration is significant, the mode- locities, as shown in Fig.4.
ling will require a non-hydrostatic approach.

2.2 Flow over dune


Subaqueous dunes are the micro-scale features of
the natural environments which are common on ma-
rine beaches, estuarine bars, and on the riverbeds.
Dunes are asymmetric morphological structures with
Fig.5 Comparison of local streamlines past dune crest
steep lee sides. They affect the flow similarly to steps
and the flow structure downstream their crests often The comparison between simulations and mea-
exhibits a separation of the flow, a recirculation zone, surements shows that the performance of the hydro-
and a reattachment of the flow on the stoss side. static modeling is especially poor in the area of flow
Therefore, our second case study concerns the mode- separation and recirculation x / h < 12 , −0.2 < z / L <
ling of the flow structure over a dune in the experi- 0.1, as shown in Fig.5. On the other hand, the results
ments of Balachandar et al.[17] In these experiments a of the non-hydrostatic modeling see a good agreement
train of dunes identical in geometry are physically with the measurements everywhere in the computa-
modeled in a laboratory flume and measurements are tional domain. It is worth noticing that the non-hydro-
performed over the 17th dune in the sequence. These static modeling is capable of accurately resolving the
experiments become popular for modeling and were separation flow with the recirculation. The patterns of
already examined in several modeling studies[18-20]. streamlines simulated with hydrostatic and non-hydro-
static models are compared in Fig.5. The streamlines
of the flow in the hydrostatic modeling remain parallel
to the riverbed and indicate neither the flow separation
nor recirculation. The pattern of recirculation is well
captured by the non-hydrostatic model and the free
surface sees an increase in pressure, which is com-
monly reported for flows over dunes. It may be con-
cluded that the accuracy of the model with the non-
hydrostatic pressure is superior in comparison with the
hydrostatic modeling. However, in the downstream
part on the stoss side of the wave ( x / h > 12) the re-
Fig.4 Dune geometry and measurement locations sults of modeling with both approaches agree well
with the measurements, as shown in Fig.6.
In this study the computational domain is restri- Results of this case study suggest that a switch
cted to a single dune because of the periodicity of the from the hydrostatic modeling to the non-hydrostatic
flow structure in a train. The geometry of the dune is one is necessary for micro-scale bedforms with steep
shown in Fig.4. The coordinate system with x in the angles of lee sides. The precondition for the non-hy-
main stream direction, y in the spanwise direction, drostatic modeling is the necessity to resolve the
and z in the upward direction is adopted here. The lower part of the water column with complex patterns
Reynolds number is 5.7×104 calculated based on the of flow separation and recirculation. The knowledge
water depth and the free-surface velocity at the inlet of of these complex features in the flow structure is vital
the domain. The Froude number is 0.44 based on the for the modeling of morphological processes.
521

Fig.6 Comparisons of stream velocity at different locations

3. Conclusions Forschungsgemeinschaft (Grant No. DFG SU 405/3,


A three-dimensional numerical model based on SU 405/4).
the hydrostatic assumption is extended to a fully hy-
drodynamic model with additional non-hydrostatic
pressure terms. Two cases are investigated in order to References
validate both hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic models
with the focus on the impact of the non-hydrostatic [1] CASULLI V. A semi-implicit finite fifference method
pressure for the numerical simulation of shallow for non-hydrostatic, free-surface flows[J]. Internatio-
nal Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 1999,
flows.
30(4): 425-440.
The results of the study show that for waves pro- [2] CASULLI V., ZANOLLI P. Semi-implicit numerical
pagating along the bar a criterion of shallowness alone, modeling of nonhydrostatic free-surface flows for envi-
the ratio between the depth and the wave length, is in- ronmental problems[J]. Mathematical and computer
sufficient to warrant the performance of the shallow modeling, 2002; 36(10): 1131-1149.
flow equations with a hydrostatic approach and the [3] JANKOWSKI J. A. A non-hydrostatic model for free
surface flows[D]. Doctoral Thesis, Hannover, Germany:
dispersion in the wave dynamics can be better accoun-
University of Hannover, 1999.
ted with the non-hydrostatic modeling approach. [4] LI B., FLEMING C. A. Three-dimensional model of
Beyond the laboratory scale, the hydrostatic Navier-Stokes equations for water waves[J]. Journal of
model is widely used in the simulation of natural Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering,
flows in oceans, estuaries and rivers because of the 2001, 127(1): 16-25.
lower computation cost and the higher efficiency. [5] KOCYIGIT M. B., FALCONER R. A. and LIN B.
Three-dimensional numerical modeling of free surface
However, the additional calculation of the Poisson
flows with non-hydrostatic pressure[J]. International
equation for the non-hydrostatic pressure costs much Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2002,
more CPU time, especially, for natural flows in a large 40(9): 1145-1162.
domain (commonly on the kilometer scale). A further [6] CHEN X. J. A fully hydrodynamic model for three-di-
development should probably focus on the develop- mensional, free-surface flows[J]. International Jour-
ment of a hybrid hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic nal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2003, 42(9):
929-952.
model based on a series of practical and credible swit-
[7] FRINGER O. B., GERRITSEN M. and STREET R. L.
ch conditions. An unstructured-grid, finite-volume, nonhydrostatic, pa-
rallel coastal ocean simulator[J]. Ocean modeling,
2006, 14(3): 139-173.
Acknowledgement [8] CASULLI V., ZANOLLI P. High resolution methods
This work was supported by the Deutsche for multidimensional advection-diffusion problems in
522

free-surface hydrodynamics[J]. Ocean modeling, 2005, [16] OHYAMA T., BEJI S. and BATTJES J. A. Experimen-
10(2): 137-151. tal verification of numerical model for nonlinear wave
[9] ZHANG Jing-xin, LIU Hua and XUE Lei-ping. A ver- evolutions[J]. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal,
tical 2-D mathematical model for hydrodynamic flows and Ocean Engineering, 1994, 20(6): 637-644.
with free surface in σ coordinatet[J]. Journal of Hy- [17] BALACHANDAR R., POLATEL C. and HYUN B.-S.
drodynamics Ser. B, 2006, 18(1): 82-90. et al. LDV, PIV, and LES investigation of flow over a
[10] PHILLIPS N. A. A coordinate system having some spe- fixed dune[C]. Sedientation and Sediment Transport:
cial advantages for numerical forecasting[J]. Journal of Proceedings of the Symposium Held in Monte Verta.
Meteorology, 1957, 14: 184-185. Monte Verita, Switzerland, 2002, 171-178.
[11] SPALART P. R. Strategies for turbulence modelling [18] YUE W., LIN C. L. and PATEL V. C. Large eddy si-
and simulations[J]. International Journal of Heat and mulation of turbulent open-channel flow with free sur-
Fluid Flow, 2000, 21(3): 252-263. face simulated by level set method[J]. Physics of fluids,
[12] ZHANG Q. Y., CHAN E. S. Sensitivity studies with the 2005, 17(2): 1-12.
three-dimensional multi-level model for tidal motion[J]. [19] YUE W., LIN C. L. and PATEL V. C. Large-eddy si-
Ocean Engineering, 2003, 30(12): 1489-1505. mulation of turbulent flow over a fixed two-dimensional
[13] CHEN C., LIU H. and BEARDSLEY R. C. An un- dune[J]. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE,
structured grid, finite-volume, three-dimensional, primi- 2006, 132(7): 643-651.
tive equations ocean model: Application to coastal [20] BALEN W. V., UIJTTEWAAL W. S. J. and BLAN-
ocean and estuaries[J]. Journal of Atmospheric and CKAERT K. Large-eddy simulation of a curved open-
Oceanic Technology, 2003, 20(1): 159-186. channel flow over topography[J]. Physics of Fluids,
[14] DARWISH M. S., MOUKALLED F. TVD schemes for 2010, 22(7): 1-17.
unstructured grids[J]. International Journal of heat
and Mass Transfer, 2003, 46(4): 599-611.
[15] BEJI S., BATTJES J. A. Experimental investigation of
wave propagation over a bar[J]. Coastal Engineering,
1993, 19(2): 151-162.