Ships and Offshore Structures

ISSN: 1744-5302 (Print) 1754-212X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsos20

Numerical simulation of deterministic freak wave

sequences and wave-structure interaction

Ningbo Gao, Jianmin Yang, Wenhua Zhao & Xin Li

To cite this article: Ningbo Gao, Jianmin Yang, Wenhua Zhao & Xin Li (2016) Numerical
simulation of deterministic freak wave sequences and wave-structure interaction, Ships and
Offshore Structures, 11:8, 802-817, DOI: 10.1080/17445302.2015.1073864

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2015.1073864

Published online: 30 Sep 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 539

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsos20
Ships and Offshore Structures, 2016
Vol. 11, No. 8, 802–817, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2015.1073864

Numerical simulation of deterministic freak wave sequences and wave-structure interaction

Ningbo Gaoa , Jianmin Yanga,∗ , Wenhua Zhaob and Xin Lia
a
State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, P.R. China; b Faculty of Engineering,
Computing and Mathematics, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
(Received 16 December 2014; accepted 14 July 2015)

Freak wave, with nonlinear characteristic, has posed great challenge in the design of ships and offshore structures. This
challenge necessitates a better understanding of freak waves. In this study, a freak wave is numerically regenerated and
studied using computational fluid dynamics. A numerical wave tank is developed based on the commercial finite volume
package FLUENT. Based on a linear wave superposition theory, a deterministic freak wave sequence is modelled at specified
site and time. Through the comparison with field data, the developed model shows good capability in generating freak
waves. Furthermore, the interaction of a freak wave with a fixed cylinder has been studied, which will lead to more practical
applications for the design of offshore structures.
Keywords: Navier–Stokes equations; freak wave; NewWave; New Year Wave; transfer function

1. Introduction
Green water and wave-induced loads on deck have been
major concerns in the design of offshore structures. Freak
wave is one type of extreme wave which may occur on
calm sea and reach very high amplitudes (at least twice of
the significant wave height). Considering their unexpected-
ness and abnormal features, these waves can pose devas-
tating damage on ships and marine structures despite their
low probability of occurrence (Nikolkina and Didenkulova
2012).
There have been some assumptions on the genera-
tion mechanism of freak wave, such as linear disper-
sive focusing, wave–current interaction, bottom topography
influence–wind force on free surface, self-focusing due to
boundary instability, and nonlinear wave–wave interaction,
and so on (Kharif and Pelinovsky 2003). Linear dispersive
focusing model, which shows a good predictability through
pre-defining the size and shape of an abnormal wave, has
been widely used as an efficient method to reproduce freak
wave in both numerical and experimental studies.
Tromans et al. (1991) proposed NewWave methodol-
ogy as an efficient approach to simulate extreme wave. Sta-
tistically, NewWave uses the summation of N component
waves to create an isolated wave peak. Essentially, it is a
special case of transient wave group. Baldock et al. (1996)
reproduced focused wave group experimentally, and drew
the conclusion that a significant energy was transferred
into both higher and lower harmonics during the formation
of NewWave group. A limitation of NewWave theory lies
in that it can only simulate a local wave series which is
almost calm before and after it. An extension theory is the
constrained NewWave which embeds NewWave into a ran-
dom wave (Cassidy et al. 2001). Cui et al. (2012) applied
the constrained NewWave theory in the simulation of freak
waves and studied the bottom influence on propagation of
freak waves. Clauss and Steinhagen (2000) introduced an
optimised method to simulate deterministic freak wave se-
quences, in which a tailed abnormal wave can be reproduced
within a random sea. Alford and Troesch (2009) applied
the optimisation technique to find a target extreme wave
which causes a particular extreme ship response within a
short time series. Bennett et al. (2013,2014) experimentally
produced a target abnormal wave within a random sea by
utilising the optimisation technique, and investigated the
influence of abnormal waves on a vessel travelling with dif-
ferent forward speed. Sekhar and Nallayarasu (2013) inves-
tigated wave slamming and air gap on non-circular offshore
structures under predicted maximum wave crests which is
due to extreme freak wave.
Considering the harsh sea state that freak waves oc-
cur, rare real freak wave sequences are recorded. In this
article, a situ recorded freak wave sequence is reproduced
numerically. Furthermore, its interaction with a cylinder has
been studied, which will lead to the practical applications
of wave force on semi-submersibles, spars, and other types
of offshore structures.
This paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, the
numerical model is presented. Grid and time-step conver-
gence analysis are discussed in Section 3. Furthermore,
a recorded freak wave series is reproduced in Section 4.

∗
Corresponding author. Email: jmyang@sjtu.edu.cn


C 2015 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 Ships and Offshore Structures 803

Figure 1. Configuration of the numerical wave tank.

Forces on horizontal cylinder are given in Section 5. Fi- where αq is defined as volume fraction, representing the
nally, some conclusions are drawn in Section 6. volume fraction of a cell occupied by the qth fluid,

volume of qth fluid

αq = , (3)
2. Mathematical model total cell volume
2.1. Governing equations
• αq = 0: the cell is empty of the qth fluid;
We consider a 2D laminar flow field with a free surface.
• αq = 1: the cell is full of the qth fluid;
The governing equations include the following continuity
• 0 ≤ αq ≤ 1: the cell contains the interface.
and Navier–Stokes equations:

Geo-reconstruct scheme is available in FLUENT soft-

∇ · V = 0 ware package, and it is enabled to capture the free surface.
∂ V 1 μ
+ (V · ∇)V = − ∇p + ∇ 2 V + F , (1)
∂t ρ ρ
2.2. Geometric model
where V and t are velocity vector and time, respectively; The detailed configuration of the geometric model is shown
p and F are pressure and external force including gravita- in Figure 1. The wave tank length is 20 m, with a 5 m wave
tional force; ρ and μ are density and viscosity, respectively. absorbing zone. The water depth is 1 m with 0.5 m height
The volume of fraction (VOF) method (Hirt and Nichols above the initial free surface. A serial of wave gauges are
1981), which has been proved to be effective, is used to placed along the wave tank at the positions of x = 9–11 m
capture the free surface. Here, another governing equation with an interval of 0.5 m. Structured grids are used to get
is introduced as follows: smooth free surface in the domain. For saving calculating
resources as well as improving accuracy, refined mesh is
⎧ adopted near the free surface, and coarse mesh is used in
⎪ ∂αq 
⎨ ∂t + V · ∇αq = 0
⎪ the wave absorbing zone. The overview of grid model is
2
, (2) shown in Figure 2.
⎪
⎪ αq = 1, (q = 1, 2)
⎩
q=1

Figure 2. Sketch of grid model. (This figure is available in colour online.)

804 N. Gao et al.

Figure 3. Definition sketch of wavemaker.

2.3. Boundary conditions The general solution of Equation (5) is of the form
A wall boundary condition is set at wave board and wave ⎧ ⎫
 
tank bottom. At the top of the tank, a pressure boundary ag ⎨ cosh kj (y + h) i (kj x−ωt ) ⎬
∞

condition consistent with atmospheric pressure is used al-  (x, y, t) =

e + c.c.
ω ⎩ j =0 cosh kj h ⎭
lowing fluid flow through the boundary. At the end of the
tank, an absorbing damping zone is implemented to reduce (6)
wave reflection. In the damping zone, an attenuation co- ⎧ ⎫
efficient c(x) is introduced to increase the flow viscosity ⎨∞ ⎬
gradually to absorb the wave reflection. η (y, t) = a ei (kj x−ωt ) + c.c. , (7)
⎩ ⎭
j =0
x − xL
c (x) = 0.001003 + · 800.0, (4) where a is the wave amplitude, i is the imaginary unit,
xR − xL
η(y, t) is the wave elevation, and c.c. denotes the complex
where xL and xR are the starting and the ending coordinate conjugate of the preceding term, respectively. kj are the
of the damping zone, respectively. solutions of the dispersive relation,
For generating the flap wave board motion, dynamic

layering approach is introduced. A user-defined function ω2 = gkj tanh kj h . (8)

written in C language is employed to control the wave gen-
erator moving with specified velocity. Equation (8) is a linear dispersion relation generalised to
complex wave numbers, and the solutions not only consist
of the progressive real part solution k0 , but also have an
2.4. Wave generation theory infinity of purely imaginary solutions so-called evanescent
Figure 3 gives an overview of the combined flap and pis- modes kj (j = 1, 2, 3...). Evanescent modes have signifi-
ton type wavemaker. Viscosity and surface tension are ne- cant influence on second-order wave theory and have been
glected, and the simple harmonic wave motion is described. researched widely by Schäffer (1996). In this manuscript,
The wave generation process is characterised by the follow- only linear wave generation theory is applied.
ing control equations: The transfer function is a parameter related to the wave
height H of the progressive wave and the stroke of the
 = 0 in the region 0 ≤ x ≤ ∞, −h ≤ y ≤ 0 wavemaker S as follows:
∂
=0 on y = −h wave height H
∂y Tr = = . (9)
∂ wavemaker stroke S
ω2  + g =0 on y = 0 (5)
∂y
1 ∂ For different wavemakers, the shape function U (y) is
η= on y = 0 given by
g ∂t
∂
∂x
= U (y) sin (ωt) on x = 0,
U (y)
1
where (x, y, t) is the velocity potential, U (y) is the pre- Sω
piston wavemaker
= 21 .
defined horizontal velocity on the wavemaker, and ω is the 2
Sω 1 + yh flap wavemaker hinged at the bottom
circular frequency, respectively. (10)
 Ships and Offshore Structures 805

Figure 4. Comparison of transfer functions between piston and flap wavemaker. (This figure is available in colour online.)

The hydrodynamic transfer function has been deduced From wave-making theory, the velocity of flap wave-
by Biesel and Suquet (1951), and it was introduced in by maker at the static water level can be written as
Ursell et al. (1960) and written as follows:

⎧
⎪ 2 (cosh 2kh − 1)
⎪
⎨ for piston wavemaker
H sinh 2kh + 2kh
Tr = = , (11)
⎪
⎩ sinh kh kh sinh kh − cosh kh + 1
⎪
S 4
for flap wavemaker hinged at bottom
kh sinh 2kh + 2kh


N
ωi ai
where k is the wave number, h is the water depth, respec- u (t) = cos (ωi t + εi ) , (13)
tively. i=0
Tr
The transfer function Equation (11) is showed in
Figure 4, which describes the relation of H /S and
where T r is the transfer function associated with the ith
non-dimensional water depth. For flap wavemaker, non-
component of progressive wave, ωi and ai are the wave
dimensional water depth has much greater influences on
circular frequency and wave height, εi is the initial phase
transfer function compared with piston wavemaker which
angle.
means that flap wavemaker is much more suitable for deep
water wave generation.
In general, any time series of wave elevation can be
regarded as the combination of certain number of small 3. Convergence analysis
amplitude waves. Therefore, the wave elevation η(t) can be 3.1. Optimisation of the grid model
written as follows: In this section, the sensitivity of the wave elevation to the
grid refinement is checked under three grid models listed in

N
Table 1. The input wave height is 0.1 m and the wave period
η (t) = ai cos (ωi t + εi ). (12) is 1 s. According to the linear dispersive relation, the wave
i=0
length λ is 1.56 m. Thus, the regular wave simulation is in
depth water (h/λ > 0.5). All the simulations are single-core
806 N. Gao et al.

Table 1. Summary of parametric of grid model.

AB (15 m) BC (5 m) CD (0.8 m) DE (0.4 m) EF (0.3 m) No. of elements Computational time (hour)

Grid-1 0.024(600) 20 20 0.010(40) 5 42138 12

Grid-2 0.018(800) 20 20 0.0068(60) 7 74226 20
Grid-3 0.015(1000) 30 30 0.0051(80) 7 112706 45

Figure 5. Comparison of wave elevations at x = 10 m with different grids models listed in Table 1, (a) overall (b) detailed. (This figure
is available in colour online.)

computed in a DELL workstation Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU
E5-2697 v2 with 32 GB available RAM.
To ensure numerical stability, an instructional guideline
is that a fluid particle should not pass more than half a
computational cell per time step, which means the Courant
number is no more than 0.5 (C = ut/l < 05, where u
is the velocity component, l indicates the minimum cell
size, t is the time step). Here, the Airy wave theory is
applied to give a reasonable analytical estimate value for
the maximum velocity inside a wave (ux,max = uy,maz =
aw exp(ak)). During the mesh sensitivity test, the time step
is 0.001 s. The Courant number in Grid-3 is the largest
one among the three grid model. The maximum Courant
numbers are Cx,max = 0.02 in the x-direction and Cy,max =
0.06 in the y-direction. Thus, the stability is ensured.
The simulated results are presented in Figure 5 and
compared with the second-order Stokes theory result. It
can be concluded that it shows fewer differences for the
three grid models in wave height, and the wave profiles
are quite steady. However, there is a slight phase shift for
Grid-1 model compared with the theoretical result. The
phase shift is also proposed by Paulsen et al. (2014) which
clearly indicates that this resolution is not insufficient to ac-
curately capture the physics. For Grid-3, it consumes much
more calculation resources, while the result presents little
improvement in comparison of Grid-2. The computational
time is presented in Table. 1. Considering the fact that a
recorded freak wave will be simulated, it is not quite strong
to prove that the Grid-2 is sufficiently effective based on
only one regular wave simulation. In Section 4, the three
grid models are applied to simulate the recorded freak wave
in order to prove that Grid-2 is sufficient to capture the free
surface.
3.2. Time-step interval convergence analysis
The proper setting of time-step interval can not only get
sufficiently accurate results, but also save many calcula-
 Ships and Offshore Structures 807

Figure 6. Comparison of wave elevations at x = 10 m with 3 time steps, (a) overall (b) detailed. (This figure is available in colour online.)

tion resources. In this study, calculations with three dif- Fourier decomposition (Liang et al. 2011). The extended
ferent time steps in Grid-2 are conducted, T /500, T /750, form ofEquation (12) can be written as follows:
and T /1000, respectively. The input wave height is 0.1 m
and the wave period is 1 s. Considering dissipation effects,
the simulating wave height must be smaller than 0.1 m. 
N
η (t) = ai cos (ωi t + εi )
The Courant number is maximum in Grid-2 when the time
i=0
step equals T /1000. The maximum Courant numbers are N (14)
Cx,max = 0.018 in the x-direction and Cy,max = = (ai cos εi cos ωi t − ai sin εi sin ωi t)
0.046 in the y-direction which the stability is still i=0
ensured. = Ai cos ωi t + Bi sin ωi t,
Figure 6 shows the comparison between numerical re-
sults and second Stokes theory result. It can be seen that where

there is an obvious phase shift when time step is T /500, Ai = ai cos εi
(15)
while the results show little difference for T /750 and Bi = −ai sin εi
T /1000. Thus, it is acceptable for time step locates be- 
tween T /750 and T /1000. In this article, the time step is ai = Ai 2 + Bi2 . (16)
0.001 s for all simulation.
Fourier series expansion is employed to derive Ai and
Bi .
⎧ 
⎪ 2 
T N
⎪
⎪
⎨ Ai = η (t) cos ωi tdt =
2
⎪ T
η (tn ) cos ωi tn
0 N n=1
i = 0, 1, 2, . . . , M; B0 = 0, (17)
⎪
⎪ 
N
⎪
⎪
⎩ Bi =
2
N
η (tn ) sin ωi tn
n=1

4. Numerical simulation of New Year Wave where ωi = i2π /(N t), N is the total number point of
In general, any time series of wave profile can be divided target wave series, t is the time interval, and M = N /2
into certain number of small-amplitude waves through must be satisfied in this equation. It is easy to get ai andεi .
808
Figure 7. New Year Wave recorded in North Sea, (a) overall (b) detailed (0–500 s in (a)). (This figure is available in colour online.)
The wave series propagates upstream to the location
of wave board. Through a linear wave theory, wave board
control signals are derived as follows:

N
ωi ai
u0 (t) = cos(ωi t − k(0 − xp ) + εi ),
i=0
Tr
where, xp represents the distance from wavemaker to the
location of freak wave.
Kriebel (1992, 1998) show that higher order effects
on wave forces are not as significant as those on wave
run-up. In this study, wave run-up and slamming are not
considered and thus a linear wave model is applied for the
purpose of simplifying the numerical model. In order to
get efficient simulating results, we adjust the component
wave phase angles εi and several duplicate simulations are
conducted to improve the results. The basic idea behind
this generation scheme is based on a method proposed by
Chaplin (1996). Given a target wave sequence at an assigned
position, the initial wave generation control signal can be
obtained easily. The wave train is recorded in the numerical
wave tank (NWT). The initial phase angle is adjusted by the
comparison of the recorded phase angle (εrecorded ) at target
location with the target phase angles (εtarget ) in frequency
domain as the following equation:
εnew = εold − 2 · (εtarget − εrecorded ),
N. Gao et al.
where εold phase angles of the initial or previous control
signal,
εnew new control signal phase angles,
εrecorded phase angles of the registration at target location,
εtarget phase angles of the target wave train at target location.
(18)
The most famous freak wave is “New Year Wave”
recorded in North Sea in 1995 (Haver 2004). The recorded
time series are shown in Figure 7. In this section, New Year
Wave is chosen as the target freak wave and simulated in the
NWT at a scale of 100. For saving calculation resources,
the first 500 s wave series are chosen as the target wave
(Figure 7b).
Figures 8 and 9 present the component wave height
ai and the initial phase angle εi , respectively. As can be
seen in Figure 8, the wave amplitudes of high frequency
components which the circular frequency is larger than
50 rad/s are negligible, so a limited number of wave com-
ponent is adopted in this work. Figure 10 shows the com-
parison between the recorded New Year Wave and the fast
Fourier transformation (FFT) decomposition result when
the wave component number is 300. The FFT decompo-
sition result agrees well with recorded wave. It also can
be seen that the trough-to-trough period is 1.3 s where the
corresponding wave length is 2.6 m based on the dispersive
relation. It is classified as intermediate depth water waves.
First, we simulate the New Year Wave in three grid
(19) models. The computational fluid dynamics (CFD) results
 Ships and Offshore Structures 809

Figure 8. Wave amplitude associated with each wave component.

are presented in Figure 11. It can be concluded that the
results of Grid-2 and Grid-3 show few differences. Thus,
it proves that the Grid-2 is suitable to model the recorded
wave.
Figure 12 shows wave propagations at different loca-
tions. It shows that an extreme wave group has appeared
ahead of the specified location. Further comparison is pre-
sented in Figure 13. The detailed differences between nu-
merical results and recorded wave series are presented in
Table 2. The numerical crest index CI = ηcrest /H is 0.65
and the recorded wave crest index CI = ηcrest /H equals
0.71. The CFD wave crest is 0.15 m while the recorded
wave crest is 0.178 m. Adcock et al. (2011) found that the
, (20)
New Year Wave can be resulted from two crossing wave
groups. Thus, one reason of the deviation could be from
the fact that the numerical wave is simulated in 2D wave
tank while the recorded data is three-dimensional. More-
over, the wavemaker control signal is derived based on the
linear wave theory which takes no consideration of nonlin-
Table 2. Differences between recorded and numerical results.
earity effects. Anyway, the CFD results agree well with the
recorded wave from the aspect of the wave evolution trend.
The detailed flow field information is given in Figure 14.
5. Interaction with a fixed cylinder
This section describes the numerical simulations of fixed
horizontal cylinders in regular wave and freak wave en-
vironments. The forces shown in all figures are non-
dimensional using the following formula:
F
F =
gρ π R 2
where F is the measured force on the cylinder, ρ is the
water density, and R is the cylinder radius, respectively.
First, regular wave forces on the cylinder are investi-
gated and compared with other numerical and experimental
results. Next, the cylinders with different submerged depths
under the freak wave are discussed in Section 5.2.

Recorded Numerical Percentage 5.1. A fixed horizontal cylinder in regular waves

results results difference The NWT geometry used here is the same as the above
RR (m) NR (m) (RR − NR)/RR (−)
model dimension. The wave period is 1.646 s and the wave
Wave height H 0.256 0.24 6.25% height is 0.25 m. The position of the cylinder was set about
Crest height ηC 0.178 0.15 15.3% 10 m from the wavemaker, and its axis is on the still water
level. Figure 15 shows the time histories of the relative
810 N. Gao et al.

Figure 9. Initial phase angle associated with each wave component.

Figure 10. Comparison of recorded wave series in North Sea and theoretical results, (a) overall (b) detailed. (This figure is available in
colour online.)
 Ships and Offshore Structures 811

Figure 11. Comparison of the CFD results of the New Year Wave in three grid models, (a) overall (b) detailed. (This figure is available
in colour online.)

Figure 12. Wave elevation at four different locations.

812
Figure 13. Comparison of recorded wave series in North Sea and CFD results, (a) overall (b) detailed. (This figure is available in colour
online.)
Figure 14. Wave contour at t = 25.7 s. (This figure is available in colour online.)
vertical force over one period, and comparison with
experimental results (Dixon et al. 1979) and other numeri-
cal results (Westphalen et al. 2012). It can be seen that the
results in this developed model show good agreement with
published numerical and experimental results, indicating
the reliability of the present model.
5.2. A fixed horizontal cylinder in freak wave
To identify the interaction of a freak wave and offshore
structures, which might be different with a normal ocean
wave, a cylinder with the diameter (D) of 0.1 m is located
at 10.5 m downstream from the wavemaker. Five different
cases are designed to test the forces on horizontal cylinder
with different submerging depths, which are distinguished
by the distance between the axis and the initial free surface,
N. Gao et al.
d = R, d = R/2, d = 0, d = −R/2, and d = −R. The con-
figuration and the grid model are presented in Figure 16.
The freak wave model used here is the same as that
in Section 4. As a fixed horizontal cylinder is set 10.5 m
downstream from wavemaker, the influence of the cylin-
der on wave evolution should be investigated first. Wave
elevations at two locations (1D ahead of the cylinder and
1D after the cylinder) are recorded. The comparison is pre-
sented in Figure 17. It can be seen from Figure 17a that the
wave height with the cylinder is higher than that without
the cylinder at the location of 1D ahead of the cylinder. It is
partially due to the reflection effect of the cylinder. Mean-
while, from Figure 17b, the wave height with the cylinder
is smaller than that without the cylinder at the location of
1D behind the cylinder. This is because part of the wave
energy has been reflected to the upstream of the cylinder.
The detailed information is presented in Table 3. Here, it
 Ships and Offshore Structures 813

Figure 15. Relative vertical forces on a fixed horizontal cylinder in regular wave. (This figure is available in colour online.)

Figure 16. Configuration and mesh model (d = R, d = 0, and d = −R).

is roughly regarded that the freak wave will occur in the can be seen that during the period of freak wave genera-
position of the cylinder. Thus, the forces on cylinder due to tion both horizontal and vertical forces bump up obviously.
freak wave can be investigated. Table 4 summarises the positive and negative maximum val-
Figures 18 and 19 present the time histories of the non- ues of the vertical and horizontal forces, as well as the corre-
dimensional horizontal and vertical forces, respectively. It sponding moment they appeared. The variations of positive
and negative maximum forces are given in Figures 20–
21. With the cylinder submerging into water, the positive
Table 3. Information about wave height and crest height.
maximum horizontal forces decrease, while the occurring
1D ahead 1D behind time is almost identical to the freak wave appearing time
in the case without the cylinder. The negative maximum
Without With Without With
horizontal forces show less variations compared with the
cylinder cylinder cylinder cylinder
negative maximum vertical forces. With the cylinder sub-
Wave height H (m) 0.240 0.254 0.223 0.182 merging into water, the value of negative direction vertical
Crest height ηC (m) 0.145 0.150 0.134 0.102 forces is increasing. For the cylinder fully submerged in
814 N. Gao et al.

Figure 17. Wave sequences with and without cylinder, (a) 1D ahead (b) 1D behind. (This figure is available in colour online.)

Figure 18. Non-dimensional horizontal forces due to the horizontal cylinder’s different submerged depths, (a) overall (b) detailed. (This
figure is available in colour online.)
 Ships and Offshore Structures 815

Figure 19. Non-dimensional vertical forces due to the horizontal cylinder’s different submerged depths, (a) overall (b) detailed. (This
figure is available in colour online.)

Figure 20. Positive maximum forces due to the horizontal cylinder’s different submerged depths. (This figure is available in colour
online.)
816 N. Gao et al.

Figure 21. Negative maximum forces due to the horizontal cylinder’s different submerged depths. (This figure is available in colour
online.)

Figure 22. Field flow when the horizontal cylinder fully submerged (d = −R). (This figure is available in colour online.)

Table 4. Positive and negative maximum forces due to the horizontal cylinder’s different submerged depths.

d=R d = R/2 d=0 d = −R/2 d = −R

Pos. max FH 0.68(t = 25.7 s) 0.64(25.7 s) 0.63(t = 25.7 s) 0.53(25.7 s) 0.38(t = 25.6 s)
Neg. max FH –0.34(t = 25.9 s) –0.22(26.0 s) –0.33(t = 26.0 s) –0.29(26.0 s) –0.31(t = 26.0 s)
Pos. max FV 0.71(t = 25.6 s) 0.63(25.6 s) 0.51(t = 25.6 s) 0.38(25.6 s) 0.31(t = 25.6 s)
Neg. max FV –0.07(t = 25.5 s) –0.24(25.5 s) –0.54(t = 26.6 s) –0.85(26.3 s) –0.89(t = 25.3 s)

the water, the magnitude of the negative direction vertical 6. Conclusions

forces (FV = −0.89) is larger than that of the positive di-
rection vertical forces (FV = 0.31). The detailed flow from
t = 25.4 s to t = 26.4 s of the case d = −R is given in
Figure 22. This section presents the numerical results of
the freak wave forces on the horizontal cylinders with dif-
ferent submerged depths, which will be further validated in
comparison with experimental data in the future research.
Aiming to study the New Year Wave, an NWT model in 2D
has been developed based on commercial package FLU-
ENT. In the numerical model, a recorded freak wave is sim-
ulated. The CFD result shows acceptable agreement with
the field data of New Year Wave except that there is an
obvious difference for the wave crest. This is partially due
to the reason that the field data is short-crested wave while
 Ships and Offshore Structures
the CFD result is two-dimensional. Further efforts will be
focused on incorporating directional propagation effects.
Vertical forces on horizontal cylinder in regular wave
are calculated and compared with other numerical and ex-
perimental results. It shows very good agreement. New Year
Wave interactions with fixed cylinders submerged in differ-
ent depths are investigated. The tendency of vertical and
horizontal forces is presented, and the results suggest that
the largest value of vertical loads appears at the process of
the freak wave approaching which may cause severe vertical
responses on offshore structures. These numerical results
will be further validated in comparison to experiment data
in the future research.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr Sverre Haver from Statoil for
kindly providing the New Year Wave sequences. This work was
supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China
(Grant No. 51239007). Wenhua Zhao was supported by the Shell
EMI offshore engineering initiative at University of Western Aus-
tralia. These forces of support are gratefully acknowledged.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by the National Nature Science Founda-
tion of China [grant number 51239007].
References
Adcock TA, Taylor PH, Yan S, Ma QW, Janssen P. 2011. Did the
Draupner wave occur in a crossing sea. Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and En-
gineering Sciences; 2011 Aug 26. Oxford: The Royal Society.
Alford LK, Troesch AW. 2009. Generating extreme ship re-
sponses using non-uniform phase distributions. Ocean Eng.
36(9):641–649.
Baldock TE, Swan C, Taylor PH. 1996. A laboratory study of
nonlinear surface waves on water. Phil Trans R Soc London.
354(1707):649–676.
Bennett SS, Hudson DA, Temarel P. 2013. The influence of for-
ward speed on ship motions in abnormal waves: experimen-
tal measurements and numerical predictions. J Fluids Struct.
39:154–172.
Bennett SS, Hudson DA, Temarel P. 2014. Global wave-induced
loads in abnormal waves: comparison between experimen-
tal results and classification society rules. J Fluids Struct.
49:498–515.
817
Biesel F, Suquet F. 1951. Les appareils générateurs de houle en
laboratoire. La houille blanche. 2:147–165.
Cassidy MJ, Eatock Taylor R, Houlsby GT. 2001. Analysis of
jack-up units using a constrained NewWave methodology.
Appl Ocean Res. 23(4):221–234.
Chaplin JR. 1996. On frequency-focusing unidirectional waves.
Int J Offshore Polar Eng. 6(2):30–37.
Clauss G, Steinhagen U. 2000. Optimization of transient de-
sign waves in random sea. Proceedings of 10th International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference; 2000 May 28–
Jun 2. Seattle, WA: International Society of Offshore and
Polar Engineers.
Cui C, Zhang NC, Yu YX, Li JB. 2012. Numerical study on the
effects of uneven bottom topography on freak waves. Ocean
Eng. 54:132–141.
Dixon AG, Salter SH, Greated CA. 1979. Wave forces on par-
tially submerged cylinders. J Waterway Port Coast Ocean Div.
105(4):421–438.
Haver S. 2004. A possible freak wave event measured at the Draup-
ner jacket January 1 1995. Proceedings Rogue Waves 2004;
2004 Oct 20–22. Brest, France: IFREMER.
Hirt CW, Nichols BD. 1981. Volume of fluid (VOF) method for
the dynamics of free boundaries. J Comput Phys. 39(1):201–
225.
Kharif C, Pelinovsky E. 2003. Physical mechanisms of the rogue
wave phenomenon. Eur J Mech. 22(6):603–634.
Kriebel DL. 1992. Nonlinear wave interaction with a vertical cir-
cular cylinder. Part II: wave run-up. Ocean Eng. 19(1):75–99.
Kriebel DL. 1998. Nonlinear wave interaction with a vertical cir-
cular cylinder: wave forces. Ocean Eng. 25(7):597–605.
Liang XF, Yang JM, Li J, Li X. 2011. A numerical study on local
characteristics of predetermined irregular wave trains. Ocean
Eng. 38(4):651–657.
Nikolkina I, Didenkulova I. 2012. Catalogue of rogue waves
reported in media in 2006–2010. Nat Hazards. 61(3):989–
1006.
Paulsen BT, Bredmose H, Bingham HB, Jacobsen NG. 2014.
Forcing of a bottom-mounted circular cylinder by steep regu-
lar water waves at finite depth. J Fluid Mech. 755:1–34.
Schäffer HA. 1996. Second-order wavemaker theory for irregular
waves. Ocean Eng. 23(1):47–88.
Sekhar GR, Nallayarasu S. 2013. Experimental investigation of
the wave slam and slap coefficients for array of non-circular
section of offshore platforms. Ships Offshore Struct. 8(1):
15–28.
Tromans PS, Anaturk AR, Hagemeijer P. 1991. A new model
for the kinematics of large ocean waves- application as a
design wave. Proceedings of 15th International Offshore and
Polar Engineering Conference; 1991 Aug 11–16. Edinburgh,
UK: International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers.
Ursell F, Dean RG, Yu YS. 1960. Forced small-amplitude water
waves: a comparison of theory and experiment. J Fluid Mech.
7(1):33–52.
Westphalen J, Greaves DM, Williams Christopher JK, Hunt-Raby
AC, Zang J. 2012. Focused waves and wave–structure inter-
action in a numerical wave tank. Ocean Eng. 45:9–21.