Ocean Engineering 96 (2015) 8–20

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

The effect of dynamic amplification due to a structure's vibration

on breaking wave impact
Sung-Jin Choi a,b, Kwang-Ho Lee c,n, Ove Tobias Gudmestad a
a
Department of Mechanical and Structural Engineering and Material Science, University of Stavanger, Stavanger 4036, Norway
b
Offshore Structures Stavanger, DNV GL, Stavanger, Norway
c
Department of Energy Resources and Plant Engineering, Kwandong University, 24 579 bungil Bumil-load, Gangneung-si, Gangwon-do, Republic of Korea

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, breaking wave impact forces on vertical and inclined piles are studied by using a 3D
Received 19 November 2013 numerical model. A method for obtaining net breaking wave impact forces from the measured response
Accepted 30 November 2014 time history is also investigated. The computed forces are compared with the results of hydraulic model
Available online 8 January 2015
tests. However, because the piles installed in the numerical model are modeled as rigid objects, it is not
Keywords: possible to make a direct comparison between the CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamic) results and the
Breaking wave impact force experimental data. A force separation procedure is used for the experimental data. A low pass filter and
Dynamic amplification factor EMD (Empirical Mode Decomposition) are employed for removing the effect of dynamic amplification in
Low pass filter the experimental data, and the filtered results are compared with the numerical results. Based on the
EMD
results, DAFs (Dynamic Amplification Factor) are estimated for these particular structures. Moreover,
Duhamel integral
Duhamel integral is used to reproduce dynamic breaking wave forces (i.e., net breaking wave forceþthe
force which is the amplified component due to the structure's vibration) based on the breaking wave
forces calculated by the CFD model. The reproduced results are compared with the unfiltered
experimental data for the verification of the method stated above.
& 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction However, although many researchers have used experimental

To date, a large number of offshore jacket structures, which
consist of vertical and inclined slender cylindrical members, have
been planned or constructed. The stability of such structures is
dependent upon the wave forces acting on them. For the design of
an offshore structure installed in a non-breaking region, the Morison
equation has been commonly used to determine wave forces acting
on it. However, in the case where plunging breakers (or spilling
breakers) are incident on it, the structure is subjected to breaking
wave forces much larger than the forces calculated by the Morison
equation. Moreover, because the breaking wave forces normally act
in a very short time, this can cause a large dynamic response of the
structure. Several experimental studies have been performed over
the last four decades to investigate the breaking wave forces (Goda
et al., 1966; Honda and Mitsuyasu, 1974; Wiegel, 1982; Ochi and Tsai,
1984; Sawaragi and Nochino, 1984; Tanimoto et al., 1986; Appelt and
Piorewicz, 1987; Kyte and Tørum, 1996; Irschik et al., 2002; Irschik
et al., 2004; Wienke and Oumeraci, 2005; Irschik and Oumeraci,
2006; Arntsen et al., 2011).
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sung-jin.choi@dnvgl.com (S.-J. Choi),
klee@kd.ac.kr (K.-H. Lee), ove.t.gudmestad@uis.no (O.T. Gudmestad).
approaches to investigate the breaking wave impact forces, the
characteristics of these forces are not fully understood because the
breaking wave impact phenomenon is extremely complicated and
involves strong non-linear effects. For example, the slamming coef-
ficients yielded in previous experiments showed a considerable
degree of scatter (ranging from 3.14 to 6.28), and there was a great
variation in the maximum breaking wave forces from impact to
impact, even when all waves were nominally identical. Several rese-
archers have explained the reasons for those as follows. Firstly, the
magnitude of breaking wave force depends greatly on the bottom
geometry and the breaking wave shapes when the breaking waves
act on the structure. Peregrine et al. (2004) studied the sensitivity of
wave impact pressures to the breaking wave shapes and the bath-
ymetry using a 2D numerical model for compressible flow. They
showed that the magnitude of maximum wave impact can be
dramatically changed with a slight variation of the incident wave
height and the bottom geometry. Secondly, the characteristic of the
breaking wave impact force would be governed by the effect of
the entrapment of air pockets and the entrainment of air bubbles.
The water waves propagating from deep water to shallow water
during a storm may experience severe nonlinear wave deformation
on their propagation, and the waves generated toward the structure
may show unsymmetrical shapes and breaking patterns. The
breaker produced from such a process may trap an air pocket just

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2014.11.012
0029-8018/& 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 S.-J. Choi et al. / Ocean Engineering 96 (2015) 8–20
before it impinges on the structure, and a large amount of air
bubbles with splashes may be entrained in the water after the waves
have broken. These can change the rise-time of the breaking wave
impact force (Prasad, 1994; Sarpkaya, 2010; ABS, 2011; Chella et al.,
2012), and the changed rise-time can result in a significant variation
in the magnitude of breaking wave impact. Hattori et al. (1994)
investigated the role of entrapped (and entrained) air on impact
forces and found that the highest impact was induced when the
smallest air bubbles were entrapped in the breaker. Meanwhile,
Lugni et al. (2006), Lugni et al. (2010), Lugni et al. (2010), Colagrossi
et al. (2010), and Abrahamsen and Faltinsen (2011) studied fluid-
structure interaction during wave impact with air-entrapment in a
sloshing tank and emphasized the role of the Euler number when
wave impact with air-entrapment occurs. Finally, the magnitude of
breaking wave impact is associated with the dynamic amplification
of the structure. Because breaking wave impact forces normally act in
a very short time, a large structural response will occur if the
breaking wave impact force duration is close to the natural frequency
of the structure, and the large response of the members due to the
impact forces can change the magnitude of the breaking wave
impact force. Tanimoto et al. (1986) stated that, when the breaking
wave impacts, measured data in the force transducers shows a larger
response at the beginning of the impact, and subsequent oscillations
due to the structure's vibration in its natural frequency. Tanimoto
et al. (1983), Irschik et al. (2004), and Arntsen et al. (2011) suggested
methods for obtaining the net breaking wave forces from the
measured response time history using a low-pass filter and single-
or two-degree-of-freedom systems.
Most studies reported in the literature have focused on the effect of
the bottom geometry, the breaking wave shape, and the entrainment
of air bubbles on the breaking wave impact. However, little informa-
tion is currently available in the literature on ‘how to determine the net
breaking wave impact forces and the amplified force components due
to the structural vibration from the measured response time history’.
The objective of this paper is to develop a 3D numerical model
which can estimate breaking wave impact forces on vertical and
inclined piles without the use of the semi-empirical formula (i.e.,
slamming equation) and also to study a method for obtaining the net
breaking wave impact forces from the measured response time
history. In order to achieve the aim of the present study, we use a
3D numerical model, based on solving the viscous and incompres-
sible Navier–Stokes equations for a two-phase flow (water and air)
model and the volume of the fluid method for treating the free
surface of the water. Breaking wave forces on vertical and inclined
piles are calculated, and the results are compared with the results of
the hydraulic model tests previously undertaken by Irschik et al.
(2004). However, because the vertical and inclined piles installed in
the numerical model are modeled as rigid objects, it is not possible to
make a direct comparison between the CFD results and the experi-
mental data. In order to make a quantitative comparison between
Fig. 1. Overall research approach used in this study.
9
the two results, a force separation procedure is used for the exper-
imental data (i.e., separation of the net breaking wave force and the
amplified force component due to the structure's vibration). A low
pass filter and EMD (Empirical Mode Decomposition) are employed
for removing the effect of dynamic amplification in the experimental
data, and the filtered results are compared with the numerical
results. Based on the results, DAFs (Dynamic Amplification Factor)
are estimated for these particular structures. Moreover, Duhamel
integral is used to reproduce the dynamic breaking wave forces (i.e.,
net breaking wave forceþthe force which is the amplified compo-
nent due to the structure's vibration) based on the breaking wave
impact forces computed by the CFD model (i.e., net breaking wave
force), and the reproduced forces are compared with the unfiltered
experimental data for the verification of the method stated above.
Fig. 1 shows the overall research approach used in this study.
2. Numerical model
Assuming that the two fluids are viscous, incompressible, and
immiscible, the fluid flow is governed by the continuity (Eq. 1) and
the modified Navier–Stokes equations (Eq. 2). The free surface is
governed by the volume of fluid (VOF) function (C) in Eq. 3, where C
represents the rate of volume in a cell occupied by the fluid to the
whole volume of the cell.
∂ðmvj Þ
¼ qn ð1Þ
∂xj
∂v
m∂v
∂t þ mvi ∂xj
i j
 m ∂p ∂
¼ ~ ij  τij Þ  Q i  βij vj þ f i
þ ð2νD ð2Þ
ρ~ ∂xi ∂xj
∂ðmCÞ ∂ðmvj CÞ
þ ¼ Cqn ð3Þ
∂t ∂xj
where t is the time; vi ¼ ½u; v; wT is the velocity vector; p is pressure;
xi ¼ ½x; y; zT is the position vector; m is the ratio of the fractional area
open to the flow; f i is the arbitrary body forces due to the effects of
gravity and surface tension; Dij ¼ ð∂vi =∂xj þ∂vj =∂xi Þ=2 is the strain
rate tensor; τij is the turbulent stress based on the Smagorinsky SGS
(sub-grid scale) model (Smagorinsky, 1963); βij ¼ βδi3 δj3 is the
dissipation factor matrix, in which β is the dissipation factor that
equals 0, except in the added dissipation zone; qn ¼ qðy; z; tÞ=Δxs is
the wave generation source, where qðy; z; tÞ is the source density
assigned only at the source position (x ¼ xs ) and Δxs is the mesh
width at the source position (Therefore, the continuity and momen-
tum equations satisfy the mass and momentum conservation.); ρ~ and
ν~ are the density and kinematic viscosity averaged over the compu-
tational grid, respectively, which is determined as a linear sum of the
local mass, using the VOF (volume of fluid) function of water, C.
10 S.-J. Choi et al. / Ocean Engineering 96 (2015) 8–20
ρ~ ¼ Cρw þ ð1  CÞρg
ν~ ¼ Cνw þð1 CÞνg
where the subscriptions indicate each fluid phase (w : water and
g: gas). The wave source vector Q i is formulated as follows:
2 ∂ðν~ qn Þ
Qi ¼ 
3 ∂xi
where qn is gradually increased for the initial three wave periods
using an exponential function (Brorsen and Larsen, 1987).
There is no need to apply the free-surface boundary conditions
because the water and the air phase are modeled as a fluid in the two-
phase flow model. For this reason, the dynamic boundary condition is
automatically satisfied, whereas the kinematic boundary condition is
satisfied by tracking the VOF function. An impermeable condition (for
normal velocities) and a free slip condition (for tangential velocities)
are imposed to treat the bottom boundary condition and the obstacle
boundary condition, respectively.
Finite difference approximations are used to calculate the
governing equations and the VOF advection equation. The velocity
components and the pressure at the new time step are estimated
using the discretized momentum equations and suitable boundary
conditions. However, the new time velocity components do not
generally satisfy the continuity equation in a controlled volume.
Therefore, the SMAC (simplified marker and cell) method (Amsden
and Harlow, 1970) is incorporated in order to iteratively adjust the
velocities and the pressure in each cell until the continuity
equation is reasonably satisfied. In using the SMAC method, the
pressure correction is obtained by solving a PPE (Poisson Pressure
Equation). Then, the correct velocities at the new time step are
updated using the pressure correction computed by the PPE. More
details on the numerical model are given in Choi et al. (2013).
3. Application of 3D numerical model
3.1. Experimental set-up
The experimental tests were performed in the Large Wave Flume
(GWK) of the Coastal Research Center in Hannover, Germany. The
length, width, and height of the flume were 309.0 m, 5.0 m, and 7.0 m,
respectively. The slope of the bottom was considered to be 1/10. The
Wave generator
Z
Wave
X
d =3.8 ~ 3.9 m
15.0 m
Open boundary
Y
Added dissipation zone
X
2L
Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of NWT (a) Cross section of Numerical Wave Tank (NWT) and (b) Plane view of Numerical Wave Tank (NWT).
ð4Þ water depths used in the experiments varied slightly between 3.8 m
and 4.5 m in front of the wave generator and between 1.5 m and 2.2 m
ð5Þ on the plateau. A cylindrical pile with a diameter of 0.7 m and a length
of 5.0 m (vertical pile: 01) was installed at the edge of the slope. At the
top, the cylindrical pile was fixed to a traverse structure. A total of five
different angles ( 451, 22.51, 01 (vertical pile), þ22.51, and þ451)
for the piles were employed (with the minus value representing the
ð6Þ
cylinder's inclination towards the wave direction and the plus value
representing the cylinder's inclination away from the wave direction).
Twenty wave gauges were used in order to measure the free surface
elevation on the sloping bottom, at the cylindrical pile, and behind the
cylindrical pile on the plateau. Sixteen pressure gauges (effective
diameter: 17.5 mm), which were flush with the model surface, were
uniformly distributed along the frontline of the cylinder with a spacing
of 0.2 m. The horizontal wave forces were measured by strain gauges
in the two bearings at the top and the bottom of the pile. The total
wave force was calculated as the sum of the forces measured in the
two bearings. All data were recorded with a sampling rate of 200 Hz.
Incident wave conditions (wave height: 1.2–1.7 m and wave period:
4–10 s) were considered in the experiments. Additional details of the
experimental set-up are given in Irschik et al. (2002) and Irschik et al.
(2004).
3.2. Model description
An NWT (Numerical Wave Tank) similar to an experimental
configuration is developed. Fig. 2 shows the schematic of the NWT
developed for this analysis. The length, width, and height of the
NWT are 54.0 m, 5.0 m, and 11.4 m, respectively. A grid refinement
test is performed in order to check the sensitivity of the grid
spacing. Three grid sizes are tested to check the convergence of the
results from the NWT, which are a coarse grid, a medium grid, and
a fine grid; see Table 1. A cylindrical pile with a diameter of 0.7 m
is located at the edge of the slope. Three different angles for the
piles are employed, as shown in Fig. 2. For Case 1, the cylinder is
vertical, i.e., the angle is zero. For Case 2, the cylinder is inclined
towards the wave direction at  22.51. For Case 3, the cylinder is
inclined away from the wave direction at þ 45.01. The water depths
for Cases 1 to 3 vary slightly between 3.8 m and 3.90 m in front of
the internal wave generator (d1) and between 1.5 m and 1.60 m on
the plateau (d2), as shown in Table 2. The slope of the bottom is
considered to be 1/10. Added fictitious dissipation zones are
- 22.5 Degree 0 Degree
+45.0 Degree
d =1.5 ~ 1.6 m H = 11.4 m
slope = 1 / 10
23.0 m 16.0 m
54.0 m
WG 11
D=0.7 m
W = 5.0 m
38.0 m 16.0 m 2L
 S.-J. Choi et al. / Ocean Engineering 96 (2015) 8–20 11

Table 1
Grid sizes (coarse, medium, and fine grid).

Coarse grid Medium grid Fine grid

Nearby cylindrical pile 0.1 m  0.1 m  0.1 m 0.06 m  0.05 m  0.08 m 0.05 m  0.04 m  0.05 m
At wave generator 0.2 m  0.2 m  0.4 m 0.2 m  0.2 m  0.2 m 0.2 m  0.2 m  0.2 m

Table 2
1.6
Incident wave conditions. EXP.
1.2 CAL.
Case Angle Water depth Wave height Wave Surf similarity
0.8
(1) (m) (m) period (s) parameter

η (m )
0.4
1 0 3.80 1.30 4.0 0.44
0.0
2  22.5 3.82 1.35 4.0 0.43
3 þ45.0 3.90 1.40 4.0 0.42 -0.4

-0.8

located to the left and right sides of the computational domain 26.0 28.0 30.0 32.0 34.0 36.0 38.0
with a thickness of 2L, with L being the wave length, in order to
t (sec)
absorb the wave energy. The internal wave generator (which can
generate a regular wave train using a stream function wave
1.6
theory) is located in front of the added fictitious dissipation zone, EXP.
which is situated at the left part of the computational domain. 1.2 CAL.
Three incident wave conditions are considered in the numerical 0.8

η (m )
analysis for making breaking waves at the structural position, as
0.4
shown in Table 2. For the wave conditions, the surf similarity
0.0
parameters are found to be around 0.42–0.44; i.e., the breaking
waves are subject to spilling breakers. Nineteen numerical wave -0.4
gauges are used to measure the water surface elevations. More- -0.8
over, 19 numerical pressure gauges, which are modeled as numer-
26.0 28.0 30.0 32.0 34.0 36.0 38.0
ical cells (cell volume: 0.05 m  0.04 m  0.05 m), are developed
based on the positions of the pressure gauges used in the t (sec)
experiments. Accurate positions are obtained from TU Braunsch-
1.6
weig. The breaking wave forces are obtained by the integration of EXP.
the pressure distribution over the wetted surface of the pile. The 1.2 CAL.

numerical models are run for 40 s (i.e., 10 wave periods).

η (m )

0.8

0.4

3.3. Results and discussion 0.0

-0.4
3.3.1. Free surface elevation
-0.8
Fig. 3(a)–(c) shows the comparisons between the calculated
and the measured free surface elevations at WG 11, for Cases 1–3. 26.0 28.0 30.0 32.0 34.0 36.0 38.0

As the waves move over the sloping bottom, the wave profiles are
transformed into typical shallow water waves (nonlinear effects
becoming stronger) such that the wave crests are steeper and
narrower with increased wave heights and the wave troughs are
longer and flatter. These characteristics are evident in Fig. 3(a)–(c).
For Case 1 (Fig. 3(a)), the slight ripples in the wave trough are
reproduced relatively well in the numerical results, although slight
phase discrepancies are observed. However, for Case 2 (Fig. 3(b)),
the calculated results at both the wave crest and trough are
overestimated compared with the measured results (crest: max-
imum 14.7% and trough: maximum 17.6%). Fig. 4 shows snapshots
of the spatiotemporal variations of an instantaneous water level
for Case 1 (time ¼31.06 s to 32.07 s). On the whole, the breaking
wave process is simulated reasonably well in front of the vertical
cylinder. It is observed that the wave front is approximately
parallel to the vertical cylinder.
3.3.2. Dynamic pressures
The three pressure gauges (P5 to P7) are located at the frontline of
the cylindrical pile with a spacing of 0.2 m, as shown in Fig. 5. The
dynamic pressures calculated by using the coarse grid, the medium
grid, and the fine grid, and the dynamic pressures measured in the
experiment for Case 1 are compared in Fig. 6(a)–(c). The mean values
t (sec)
Fig. 3. Comparisons of free surface elevations between experimental and CFD
results at WG11 for Cases 1–3. (a) Case 1 (Vertical pile, 0 degree); (b) Case 2
(Inclined pile, -22.5 degree) and (c) Case 3 (Inclined pile, + 45.0 degree).
of the measured breaking wave pressures are used for making a
comparison with the CFD results. However, very high or low values
measured in the total time series (EXP.) are excluded in the
calculation of the mean values. In all computations with the coarse
grid, the peak values are greatly underestimated compared with the
measured peak values in the experiment. The reason for this can be
explained as follows: in the experiments, the dynamic pressure is
measured using a pressure transducer having a small size (effective
diameter: 17.5 mm), which is located at position A (see Fig. 7), while,
in the numerical model, the dynamic pressure is computed at the
center of the cell (cell volume: 0.05 m  0.04 m  0.05 m), i.e., at
position B instead of position A. In a fine grid, the difference between
these two positions is small compared with in a coarse grid. Hence,
using a finer grid provides results which match better with the
experimental results. In order to check the sensitivity of the grid
spacing, the dynamic pressures calculated using the medium grid
and the fine grid are presented in the same figures. On the whole, the
12 S.-J. Choi et al. / Ocean Engineering 96 (2015) 8–20

Fig. 4. Snapshots of the spatiotemporal variations of an instantaneous water level for Case 1 (time ¼31.06 s, 31.26 s, 31.47 s, 31.67 s, 31.87 s, and 32.07 s).

peak values calculated using the fine grid show a good agreement overall agreement. From the comparisons, it can be concluded that
with measured peak values, although somewhat overestimated at P5 the accuracy of the simulation results depends greatly on the cell
and P7. Moreover, although slight deviations can be observed resolution. In this paper, the fine grid is employed for all further
between the fine grid and the medium grid results, there is a good computations.
 S.-J. Choi et al. / Ocean Engineering 96 (2015) 8–20 13

z Cylinder zone 80000.0

EXP.
CAL. (Fine)
60000.0 CAL. (Medium)
CAL. (Coarse)

P (N/m 2)
40000.0

20000.0

0.0

-20000.0

31.05 31.10 31.15 31.20 31.25 31.30 31.35

t (sec)
d2=1.5 m
80000.0
EXP.
x 60000.0
CAL. (Fine)
CAL. (Medium)
CAL. (Coarse)

P (N/m 2)
40000.0
y
20000.0

0.0

-20000.0

x 31.05 31.10 31.15 31.20 31.25 31.30 31.35

t (sec)
Locations of pressure gauges
Fig. 5. Locations of pressure gauges P5, P6 and P7 in NWT (for vertical pile). 80000.0
EXP.
CAL. (Fine)
60000.0 CAL. (Medium)
Fig. 8 shows the comparison of the calculated and the measured
P (N/m 2)

CAL. (Coarse)
40000.0
dynamic pressure at P6 for Case 2. The magnitude of dynamic
pressure calculated by the CFD model agrees very well with the 20000.0
measured peak value. However, the computed rise-time is signifi-
0.0
cantly smaller than the measured rise-time, even though the
computed fall-time shows a reasonable agreement with the mea- -20000.0
sured fall-time. Similar results are also presented in Fig. 6(a) and (b).
31.05 31.10 31.15 31.20 31.25 31.30 31.35
In the experiment, measured values normally have a finite rise-
time, during which the breaking wave impact forces increase from t (sec)
zero to a peak value. Several factors, such as entrained air bubbles in Fig. 6. Comparison of the dynamic pressures using the coarse grid, the dynamic
the water, compressibility of water at the beginning of the impact, pressures using the medium grid, the dynamic pressures using the fine grid, and
cylinder roughness, cylinder inclination, and motion of cylinder, the measured dynamic pressures at P5, P6, and P7 for Case 1 (vertical pile: 01) (a)
would account for the finite rise-time (Prasad, 1994; Sarpkaya, Dynamic pressures at P5; (b) Dynamic pressures at P6 and (c) Dynamic pressures
at P7.
2010; ABS, 2011; Chella et al., 2012). However, because the
proposed CFD model is based on the incompressible momentum
equations (i.e., the CFD model cannot consider the effect of the
entrained air bubbles in the water and the compressibility of water
at the beginning of the slamming in the computation of the
Measured position
(Position A)
breaking wave impact) and because the cylindrical piles installed
in the NWT are modeled as rigid objects (i.e., the effect of the
structure's motion is not considered in the computation), the rise-
times could not be correctly calculated in the computations. Mono-pile

3.3.3. Breaking wave forces

The vertical and inclined piles are modeled as rigid objects in
the numerical model (see Fig. 9(a)), while the piles installed in the
experiments have to move in order to induce sufficient strain in
the force transducers (i.e., moving object; see Fig. 9(b)).
The DAF (Dynamic Amplification Factor) can be expressed, as
shown in Eq. (7):
F Unf ilteredðDynamicÞ
DAF ¼
F computedðStaticÞ
It can be shown theoretically that the DAF of the structure's
response under the breaking wave impact forces is governed by
the natural frequency of the structure, the breaking wave impact
duration, and its shape. For example, a maximum DAF ¼ 2 will
result when the impact duration is more than or equal to half of
Computed position
(Position B)
Fig. 7. Locations of measured position (position A) and computed position
(position B).
ð7Þ
the natural period of the structure in the case of a rectangular
pulse (Chopra, 2007).
Breaking wave impact force time series measured in the
experiment, when converted into the frequency domain, shows a
peak that corresponds to the natural frequency of the structure
(see black dash circle in Fig. 10). This is expected, as the structure
14 S.-J. Choi et al. / Ocean Engineering 96 (2015) 8–20
80000.0
60000.0
P (N/m 2)
40000.0
20000.0
0.0
-20000.0
30.75 30.80 30.85 30.90 30.95 31.00
t (sec)
Fig. 8. Comparison of the dynamic pressures using the fine grid, and the measured
dynamic pressures at P6 for Case 2 (Inclined pile:  22.51).
will vibrate in its natural frequency after it is hit by an impulsive
force (here, its large amplitude and short duration force), which
will eventually die out through the presence of damping. It can
also be mentioned here that Marino et al. (2011, 2013a, 2013b)
studied the effect of nonlinear waves on the structural response of
a fixed offshore wind turbine structure. They reported that the
significant resonant vibrations at the first natural frequency of the
tower, both springing and ringing, were induced by the interaction
of the structure with the breaking wave impact in the parked
condition. Moreover, steep non-breaking waves could be respon-
sible for the excitation of the first tower fore-aft natural frequency.
On the other hand, in the power production condition, the
resonant vibrations at the first natural frequency of the tower
were strongly reduced due to the large aerodynamic damping.
Therefore, the structure's response under the breaking wave
impact forces would be amplified or attenuated, depending on
its dynamic characteristics.
The unfiltered wave response forces (EXP.) and the numerical
results for Cases 1 to 3 are compared in Fig. 11(a)–(c). It is observed
that the breaking wave forces computed by the CFD model are
much smaller compared with the unfiltered experimental data.
Interestingly, the maximum values of the breaking wave forces
measured in the total time series show a considerable degree of
scatter, even though regular waves (e.g., vertical pile, H ¼1.30 m
and T ¼4.0 s) are used in the experiments. Moreover, the mea-
sured signals, unlike the computed results, show a larger response
at the beginning of the impact and subsequent oscillations for
all cases.
In order to investigate the difference in the peak values, the
lager responses, and the oscillations measured in the experimental
data, the measured breaking wave forces for Cases 1–3 are con-
verted into the frequency domain. Peaks that correspond to the
natural frequencies of the structures are observed, as shown in
Fig. 12(a)–(c). This implies that the measured results contain a
considerable amount of energy induced by the structure's respo-
nse. In order to verify this, the comparison between the natural
frequencies of the structure and the breaking wave impact force
durations is made in Table 3. Using the model presented by
Wienke and Oumeraci (2005), the breaking wave impact duration
can be calculated as:
13 R
td ¼ : for a vertical pile
32 V
where t d is the breaking wave impact duration, R is the radius of
the pile, and V is the water particle velocity at the breaking point.
The impact durations are estimated to be about 0.026 s, which is
close to half when compared with the natural periods of the
structures (0.050 to 0.072 s). Considering that a maximum DAF
occurs when the impact duration is more than or equal to half of
the natural period of the structure for a rectangular pulse, large
DAFs within the breaking wave impact durations would be
expected in such structures.
EXP.
CAL.
k
31.05 31.10
m
k
Fig. 9. Comparison of breaking wave impact force measurement method (a) CFD
model (Rigid object) and (b) Experiment.
1000.0
S (f)_N - sec 800.0
600.0
2
400.0
200.0
0.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
f (Hz)
Fig. 10. Measured breaking wave impact forces in frequency domain.
Thus, it is concluded that it is not possible to make a direct
comparison between the CFD results and the experimental data.
Hence, in order to make a comparison with the numerical results,
the breaking wave impact forces obtained from the experiment
have to be filtered to remove the effect of dynamic amplification
due to the structure's vibration. In the present paper, a force
separation procedure is used for the experimental data, as shown
in Fig. 13. An FFT low pass filter and EMD (Empirical Mode
Decomposition) developed by Huang et al. (1999) are employed
for removing the effect of the dynamic amplification in the
experimental data, and the filtered forces are compared with the
numerical results.
An FFT low pass filter is firstly employed. The cut-off frequen-
cies are chosen as the natural frequencies of the structures, to
remove the energy induced by the structure's response for Cases
1–3, and are listed in Table 4. Fig. 14(a)–(c) shows the comparisons
of the forces filtered by an FFT low pass filter (EXP.) and the forces
computed by the CFD model for Cases 1–3. In spite of the use of
the FFT low pass filter, residual responses still exist in the filtered
ð8Þ breaking wave impact forces (EXP.) (notice the oscillations after
the peak of breaking wave impact).
After filtering the measured data through the FFT low pass filter,
the net breaking wave forces (i.e., the effect of the dynamic amp-
lification is completely removed) are estimated by the use of EMD
(Empirical Mode Decomposition). In the EMD, the net breaking
wave force is estimated as follows: firstly, the local extremes on the
filtered experimental data (the gray lines in Fig. 15) are extracted.
Secondly, the upper envelope (black lines in Fig. 15) and the lower
envelope (blue lines in Fig. 15) are made by connecting the extracted
local extremes. Finally, the mean (red dash line in Fig. 15) is
 S.-J. Choi et al. / Ocean Engineering 96 (2015) 8–20 15

25000.0 1000.0
Force by CFD Unfiltered force
20000.0 Unfiltered force (EXP.) 800.0 Filtered force_Cut-off : 20 Hz

S (f)_N - sec
15000.0
600.0
F (N)

2
10000.0
400.0
5000.0
200.0
0.0
0.0
-5000.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
30.4 30.6 30.8 31.0 31.2 31.4 31.6 31.8 32.0

t (sec) f (Hz)

1200.0
25000.0 Unfiltered force

S (f)_N - sec
Force by CFD 1000.0 Filtered force_Cut-off : 17.8 Hz
20000.0 Unfiltered force (EXP.)
800.0

2
15000.0
F (N)

600.0
10000.0
400.0
5000.0
200.0
0.0
0.0
-5000.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
30.4 30.6 30.8 31.0 31.2 31.4 31.6 31.8 32.0
f (Hz)
t (sec)
800.0
10000.0
Force by CFD Unfiltered force
S (f)_N - sec
8000.0 Unfiltered force (EXP.) Filtered force_Cut-off : 14 Hz
600.0
6000.0
F (N)

4000.0 400.0
2000.0
0.0 200.0

-2000.0
0.0
-4000.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
30.6 30.8 31.0 31.2 31.4 31.6 31.8 32.0 32.2
f (Hz)
t (sec)
Fig. 12. Comparisons of the unfiltered forces and the forces cut-off by an FFT low
Fig. 11. Comparisons of unfiltered forces (EXP.) and forces computed by the CFD pass filter in frequency domain (EXP.) for Cases 1–3 (a) Case 1 (Vertical pile: 0
model for Cases 1–3 (a) Case 1 (Vertical pile: 0 degree); (b) Case 2 (Inclined pile: - degree); (b) Case 2 (Inclined pile: - 22.5 degree) and (c) Case 3 (Inclined pile: + 45.0
22.5 degree) and (c) Case 3 (Inclined pile: + 45.0 degree). degree).

calculated based on the two envelopes. As shown in Fig. 15(a)–(c), Table 3

the residual responses in the filtered experimental data are com-
pletely removed by the use of EMD (see red dash lines in Fig. 15).
Fig. 16(a)–(c) shows the comparisons of the breaking wave impact
forces filtered by the FFT low pass filter and EMD (EXP.) and the
numerical results. The comparisons reveal that the time variations for
the computed wave forces are quite similar to the time variations for
the wave forces filtered by the low pass filter and EMD (EXP.).
However, in some details, for Cases 1 and 2, the calculated peaks
are slightly overestimated compared with the peaks of the filtered
experimental data, and the computed rise-times are rather delayed
compared with the rise-times of the filtered breaking wave impact
forces (EXP.). In the experiments, measured values normally have a
finite rise-time, during which the breaking wave impact forces
increase from zero to a peak value. The entrained air bubbles in the
water, compressibility of the water at the beginning of the impact,
surface irregularities, and water droplets on the surface of the cylinder
are some of the factors which could influence the finite rise-time
(Prasad, 1994; Sarpkaya, 2010; ABS, 2011; Chella et al., 2012). However,
in the numerical analysis, the breaking wave impact forces are
calculated to instantaneously reach a peak value of the breaking wave
impact and then decrease to zero due to the incompressibility
assumption. Hence, the computed rise-times are rather delayed
compared with the rise-times of the filtered experimental data, and
Comparisons between the natural frequencies of the structures and the breaking
wave impact force durations.
Case Natural period (t n ) (s) Impact duration (t d ) (s) Ratio between t d and t n
1 0.050 0.0254 0.509
2 0.056 0.0267 0.474
3 0.072 0.0256 0.358
the discrepancy would result in a slight difference between the peaks
of the breaking wave impact in the filtered experimental data and the
computed results. For Cases 1 and 3, the calculated wave forces on fall-
times are somewhat overestimated compared with the filtered break-
ing wave forces (EXP.). As previously mentioned by Hattori et al.
(1994), the entrained air on the breaking wave can give rise to a
significant variation in the magnitude of breaking wave impact. A
large number of air bubbles, which may be entrained in the water
after the waves are broken, can decrease the effective density of the
water and the corresponding velocity of sound in the water, and these
can lead to reduced wave forces on the fall-times. It is thought that the
discrepancy could be improved by using a 3D numerical model for
compressible flow. Despite these discrepancies, the overall results
show a reasonable agreement with the filtered experimental data, as
shown in Fig. 16(a)–(c). Moreover, even though the results for the
16 S.-J. Choi et al. / Ocean Engineering 96 (2015) 8–20

Fig. 13. Force separation procedure.

Table 4
20000.0
Cut-off frequencies chosen for filtering the
experimental data. 15000.0

Case Cut-off frequency (Hz)

F (N)
10000.0

1 20.0 5000.0
2 17.8
3 14.0 0.0

-5000.0

30.4 30.6 30.8 31.0 31.2 31.4 31.6 31.8 32.0

20000.0
t (sec)
15000.0

10000.0 20000.0
F (N)

5000.0 15000.0

0.0
F (N)

10000.0
-5000.0
5000.0
30.4 30.6 30.8 31.0 31.2 31.4 31.6 31.8 32.0
t (sec) 0.0

-5000.0

30.4 30.6 30.8 31.0 31.2 31.4 31.6 31.8 32.0

20000.0 t (sec)
15000.0

10000.0 10000.0
F (N)

8000.0
5000.0
6000.0
0.0
F (N)

4000.0
-5000.0 2000.0
30.4 30.6 30.8 31.0 31.2 31.4 31.6 31.8 32.0 0.0
t (sec) -2000.0
-4000.0
10000.0 30.4 30.6 30.8 31.0 31.2 31.4 31.6 31.8 32.0 32.2 32.4 32.6
8000.0
6000.0
t (sec)
F (N)

4000.0 Fig. 15. Net breaking wave forces filtered by the low pass filter and EMD (EXP.) for
2000.0 Cases 1–3 (a) Case 1 (Vertical pile: 0 degree); (b) Case 2 (Inclined pile: - 22.5
0.0 degree) and (c) Case 3 (Inclined pile: + 45.0 degree).
-2000.0
-4000.0
cases (inclined piles:  451 and þ 22.51) are not presented in this
30.4 30.6 30.8 31.0 31.2 31.4 31.6 31.8 32.0 32.2 32.4 32.6 paper, the calculated results also show a reasonable agreement with
t (sec) the filtered experimental data.
Fig. 14. Comparisons of the forces filtered by a FFT low pass filter (EXP.) and those
It is clearly observed that a large structural response occurs
computed by the CFD model for Cases 1–3 (a) Case 1 (Vertical pile: 0 degree); (b) because the breaking wave impact force duration is close to the
Case 2 (Inclined pile: - 22.5 degree) and (c) Case 3 (Inclined pile: + 45.0 degree). natural frequency of the structure, and the large response of the
 S.-J. Choi et al. / Ocean Engineering 96 (2015) 8–20 17

cylinder due to the impact forces can result in a significant variation in

20000.0 the magnitude of the breaking wave impact force. Meanwhile, it
Force by CFD should be noted that each peak value of the breaking wave forces
Filtered force (EXP.)+EMD
15000.0
filtered by the low pass filter and EMD (EXP.), unlike the unfiltered
F (N)

10000.0 experimental data, has almost the same magnitude in the total time
series for Cases 1 to 3. From the results, it is revealed that the breaking
5000.0
wave impact forces measured in the experiments comprise of two
0.0 force components: net breaking wave force and the force which is the
amplified component due to the structure's vibration.
-5000.0
The large difference between the peak responses in the un-
30.4 30.6 30.8 31.0 31.2 31.4 31.6 31.8 32.0 filtered experimental data and the computed results (or filtered
t (sec) results) shows the prominent effect of the dynamic amplification
due to the structure's vibration. The estimated DAFs for Cases 1 to
3 are presented in Table 5. This means that the maximum dynamic
20000.0 base shear forces are amplified by 1.37–1.56 times compared with the
Force by CFD
15000.0 Filtered force (EXP.)+EMD maximum static base shear forces due to the structure's vibration. This
shows the importance of studying the shape and the duration of the
F (N)

10000.0
breaking wave impact forces, which, along with the structure's natural
5000.0 frequency, govern the DAF in the structure's response. For example, in
a jacket structure, some of the members may have their local natural
0.0
frequency in the vicinity of the impact duration during a breaking
-5000.0 wave; this may cause large local vibrations in those members. On the
30.4 30.6 30.8 31.0 31.2 31.4 31.6 31.8 32.0
other hand, a large DAF would not be expected in the member that
the structure's natural frequencies stay away from the frequencies of
t (sec) the breaking wave impact forces. Therefore, the force which is the
amplified component due to the structure's vibration in the experi-
10000.0 mental data has to be removed in the case that the slamming
Force by CFD
8000.0 Filtered force (EXP.)+EMD
coefficients are estimated using only experimental data.
6000.0
F (N)

4000.0
2000.0
0.0
4. Verification
-2000.0
-4000.0
Duhamel integral is used to reproduce the dynamic breaking
30.4 30.6 30.8 31.0 31.2 31.4 31.6 31.8 32.0 32.2 32.4 32.6 wave forces (i.e., net breaking wave force þthe force which is the
t (sec) amplified component due to the structure's vibration) based on
the breaking wave forces computed by the CFD model (i.e., net
Fig. 16. Comparisons of the forces filtered by the FFT low pass filter and EMD (EXP. breaking wave force), and the reproduced forces are compared
and the forces computed by the CFD model for Cases 1–3) (a) Case 1 (Vertical pile:
with the unfiltered experimental data for the verification of the
0 degree); (b) Case 2 (Inclined pile: - 22.5 degree) and (c) Case 3 (Inclined pile: +
45.0 degree). method stated above. Fig. 17 shows the verification procedure.
The Duhamel integral, as shown in Eq. (9), can be used to
evaluate the response of a damped single-degree-of-freedom
Table 5
Estimated DAFs for Cases 1–3.
(SDOF) system with a mass m, a stiffness k, and a damping C, to
any form of dynamic loading (f ðτÞ). In the simplest model of the
Case DAF SDOF system, each of the physical properties (i.e., mass, stiffness,
and damping) is assumed to be concentrated in a single physical
1 1.56
element. The graphical sketch of such a system is shown in Fig. 18.
2 1.55
3 1.37 The calculated dynamic response (F dyn ðtÞ) can be obtained by the
integration of all the differential responses developed during the

Fig. 17. Verification procedure.

18 S.-J. Choi et al. / Ocean Engineering 96 (2015) 8–20

loading history.
Z t
k
F dyn ðtÞ ¼ f ðτÞe  ξωðt  τÞ sin ωd ðt  τÞdτ ð9Þ
mωd 0

where F dyn ðtÞ is the dynamic response, k is the stiffness, f ðτÞ is the
breaking wave impact force applied for an extremely short time
(τ), ωd is the damped natural frequency of the system, and ξ is the
damping coefficient. The major structural properties for Cases
1 and 2 are presented in Table 6. The mass is computed based on
the actual property of the cylinder. The cylinder is partly sub- 25000.0
merged. The added mass and entrapped water are also included;
20000.0
however, these are small as the submerged depth of the cylinder is

F (N)
small. The buoyancy is very small and ignored. The natural 15000.0
frequency of the structure and the damping coefficient are
10000.0
experimentally determined. The stiffness is estimated based on
the mass and natural frequency of the structure. 5000.0

0.0

4.1. Verification of Case 1 30.9 31.0 31.1 31.2 31.3 31.4 31.5

t (sec)
Fig. 19(a) shows the comparison of the dynamic breaking wave
impact forces reproduced by using the Duhamel integral and the
unfiltered breaking wave forces (EXP.) in the time domain for Case 1.
The reproduced forces agree reasonably well with the unfiltered 1400.0
experimental data, even though there is a small gap at the crest and S (f)_N - sec 1200.0
trough of the forces. Fig. 19(b) shows the comparison of the two 1000.0
2

breaking wave impact forces in the frequency domain for Case 1. A 800.0
peak that corresponds to the natural frequency of the stru- 600.0
cture is reproduced very well in numerical results, although the 400.0
maximum energy calculated in the numerical model is somewhat
200.0
overestimated compared with the unfiltered experimental data
0.0
because of the overestimated wave force on the fall-time.
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

u (t) f (Hz)
Fig. 19. Comparison of the dynamic breaking wave impact forces reproduced by using
the Duhamel integral and the unfiltered breaking wave forces (EXP.) for Case 1 (Vertical
pile: 01) (a) Time domain and (b) Frequency domain.

4.2. Verification of Case 2

k
A very good agreement between the reproduced dynamic breaking
f (t) m wave force and the unfiltered wave force (EXP.) for Case 2 is observed
in Fig. 20(a), although the rise-time computed in the numerical model
c is rather delayed compared with the measured result. Fig. 20(b) shows
the comparison of the two breaking wave impact forces in the
frequency domain for Case 2. Due to the delay of the rise-time, the
peak value of energy calculated in the frequency domain, unlike
the result in Fig. 19(b), is underestimated compared with the
unfiltered experimental data.

Fig. 18. Sketch of a SDOF oscillator with linear damping.

5. Conclusion

Table 6
In the present paper, the effect of the dynamic amplification
Major structural properties for Cases 1 and 2. due to the structure's vibration on the breaking wave impact is
studied. The free surface elevations, the dynamic pressures, and
Case 1 Case 2 the breaking impact forces acting on the vertical pile (01) and the
inclined piles (  22.51 and þ451) are calculated, and the results are
Diameter (m) 0.7 0.7
Thickness (m) 0.01 0.01 compared with the experimental data obtained by Irschik et al.
Length (m) 5.0 5.412 (2004). An FFT low pass filter and EMD (Empirical Mode Decom-
Natural frequency (Hz) 20.0 (125.66 rad/s) 17.8 (111.84 rad/s) position) are employed for removing the effect of the dynamic
Mass (ton) 1.442 1.528 amplification in the experimental data. Duhamel integral is used
Stiffness (N/m) 2.28E þ07 1.91E þ07
Damping coefficient 0.05 0.06
for the verification of the method. The major conclusions can be
summed up as follows:
 S.-J. Choi et al. / Ocean Engineering 96 (2015) 8–20 19

wave impact forces (t d ); i.e., t d /t n ¼0.358–0.509. The maximum

DAF, for these particular structures and input wave conditions, is
estimated to be 1.56.
(5) Duhamel integral is used to reproduce the dynamic breaking
wave forces based on the breaking wave forces calculated by
the CFD model. The reproduced dynamic wave forces agree
reasonably well with the unfiltered experimental results.
(6) The proposed 3D numerical model can be used to estimate the
breaking wave impact forces on the structures, e.g., mono-pile and
jacket structure, without the use of the semi-empirical formula.
25000.0
Reproduced_force (CFD)
20000.0 Unfiltered_force (EXP.)

15000.0
F (N)

10000.0 Acknowledgments
5000.0
This research is supported by the Research Council of Norway
0.0
(stipendiat-TN-2008) and the University of Stavanger. The
-5000.0
experimental data is provided by Lisham Bonakdar and Prof.
30.6 30.7 30.8 30.9 31.0 31.1 31.2 31.3 Hocine Oumeraci, TU Braunschweig, Germany. The AP-AMG
solver is provided by Chihiro Iwamura, Allied Engineering
t (sec)
Corporation, Japan.

1400.0
References
Reproduced_force (CFD)
S (f)_N - sec

1200.0
Unfiltered_force (EXP.)
1000.0 Abrahamsen, B.C., Faltinsen, O.M., 2011. The effect of air leakage and heat exchange
2

800.0
600.0
400.0
200.0
0.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0
f (Hz)
Fig. 20. Comparison of the dynamic breaking wave impact forces reproduced by using
the Duhamel integral and the unfiltered breaking wave forces (EXP.) for Case 2 (inclined
pile:  22.51) (a) Time domain and (b) Frequency domain.
(1) The 3D numerical model performs well in modeling the breaking
wave phenomenon and producing reliable results (free surface
elevations, dynamic pressures, and breaking wave impact forces);
this could, in future, be a good replacement for expensive exper-
iments. However, more comparative studies are required to
increase the confidence level.
(2) It is clearly observed that the accuracy of estimating the break-
ing wave impact pressures depends on the grid resolution. The
dynamic pressures calculated by using a finer grid show a better
agreement with experimental data compared with a coarse grid.
(3) The computed breaking wave forces, and the experimental data
filtered by an FFT low pass filter and EMD, are found to be in
good agreement with each other, although the computed rise-
times are somewhat delayed and the wave forces on the fall-
times are somewhat over-predicted compared with the filtered
experimental data. The results reveal that the breaking wave
impact forces measured in the experiments comprise of two
force components: net breaking wave force and the force which
is the amplified component due to the structure's vibration.
(4) It is obvious that the peak response of the structure is dependent
on its natural frequency and the breaking wave impact force
duration, and the large response of the cylinder due to the impact
forces can give rise to a significant variation in the magnitude of
the breaking wave impact force. Therefore, the force which is the
amplified component due to the structure's vibration should not
be included in the estimation of the slamming coefficient.
In this study, large DAFs are estimated because the natural periods
of the structures (t n ) are close to the durations of the breaking
on the decay of entrapped air pocket slamming oscillations. Phys. Fluids
23 (10), 102107.
American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), 2011. Design Standards for Offshore Wind
Farms, Houston.
Amsden, A.A., Harlow, F.H., 1970. A simplified MAC technique for incompressible
fluid flow calculation. J. Comput. Phys. 6, 322–325.
Appelt, C.J., Piorewicz, J., 1987. Laboratory studies of breaking wave forces acting on
20.0 25.0 vertical cylinders in shallow water. Coast. Eng. 11, 263–282.
Arntsen, Ø., Ros, X., Tørum, A., 2011. Impact forces on a vertical pile from plunging
breaking waves. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Coastal
Structures, Yokohama, Japan.
Brorsen, M., Larsen, J., 1987. Source generation of nonlinear gravity waves with the
boundary integral equation method. Coast. Eng. 11, 93–113.
Chella, M.A., Tørum, A., Myrhaug, D., 2012. An overview of wave impact forces on
offshore wind turbine substructures. Energy Proc. 20, 217–226.
Choi, S.J., Lee, K.H., Hong, K., Shin, S.H., Gudmestad, O.T., 2013. Nonlinear wave
forces on an offshore wind turbine foundation in shallow waters. Int. J. Ocean
Syst. Eng. 3 (2), 68–76.
Chopra, A.K., 2007. Dynamics of Structures: Designed for Senior level and Graduate
Courses in Dynamics of Structures and Earthquake Engineering, third edition
Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Colagrossi, A., Colicchio, G., Lugni, C., Brocchini, M., 2010. A study of violent sloshing
wave impacts using an improved SPH method. J. Hydraul. Res. 48, 94–104.
Goda, Y., Haranaka, S., Kitahata, M., 1966. Study of impulsive breaking wave forces
on piles Report of Port and Harbor Research Institute, 6. Ministry of Transport,
Japan, pp. 1–30.
Hattori, M., Arami, A., Yui, T., 1994. Wave impact pressure on vertical walls under
breaking waves of various types. Coast. Eng. 22 (1–2), 79–114.
Honda, T., Mitsuyasu, H., 1974. Experimental study of breaking wave force on a
vertical circular cylinder. Coast. Eng. Jpn. 17, 59–70.
Huang, N., Zheng, E., Long, S.R., S., 1999. A new view of nonlinear water waves: the
Hilbert Spectrum. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 31, 417–457.
Irschik, K., Oumeraci, H., 2006. Effect of breaker types on breaking wave loads on a
slender vertical and inclined pile. In: Proceedings of the 30th International
Conference on Coastal Engineering, pp. 4520–4531.
Irschik, K., Sparboom, U., Oumeraci, H., 2002. Breaking wave characteristics for the
loading of a slender pile. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference
on Coastal Engineering, pp. 1341–1352.
Irschik, K., Sparboom, U., Oumeraci, H., 2004. Breaking wave loads on a slender pile
in shallow water. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on
Coastal Engineering, pp. 568–580.
Kyte, A., Tørum, A., 1996. Wave forces on vertical cylinders upon shoals. Coast. Eng.
27, 263–286.
Lugni, C., Brocchini, M., Faltinsen, O.M., 2006. Wave impact loads: the role of the flip
through. Phys. Fluids 18 (1), 122101.
Lugni, C., Brocchini, M., Faltinsen, O.M., 2010. Evolution of the air cavity during a
depressurized wave impact. II. The dynamic field. Phys. Fluids 22, 056102.
Lugni, C., Miozzi, M., Brocchini, M., Faltinsen, O.M., 2010. Evolution of the air cavity
during a depressurized wave impact. I. The kinematic flow field. Phys. Fluids 22,
056101.
Marino, E., Borri, C., Peil, U., 2011. A fully nonlinear wave model to account for
breaking wave impact loads on offshore wind turbines. J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn. 99 (4), 483–490.
20 S.-J. Choi et al. / Ocean Engineering 96 (2015) 8–20
Marino, E., Lugni, C., Borri, C., 2013a. A novel numerical strategy for the simulation
of irregular nonlinear waves and their effects on the dynamic response of
offshore wind turbines. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 255, 275–288.
Marino, E., Lugni, C., Borri, C., 2013b. The role of the nonlinear wave kinematics on
the global responses of an OWT in parked and operating conditions. J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 123, 363–376.
Ochi, M.K., Tsai, C-H., 1984. Prediction of impact pressure induced by breaking
waves on vertical cylinder in random seas. Appl. Ocean Res. 6, 3.
Peregrine, D.H., Bredmose, H., Bullock, G.B., Obhrai, C., Wolters, G., Muller, G., 2004.
Violent water wave impact on walls and the role of air. In: Proceedings of the
29th International Conference on Coastal Engineering, 4, pp. 4005–4017.
Prasad, S., 1994. Wave Impact Forces on a Horizontal Cylinder (PhD thesis).
University of British Columbia press, Vancouver.
Sarpkaya, T., 2010. Wave Forces on Offshore Structures, first edition Cambridge
University Press, New York.
Sawaragi, T., Nochino, M., 1984. Impact forces of nearly breaking waves on a vertical
circular cylinder. Coast. Eng. Jpn. 27, 249–263.
Smagorinsky, J., 1963. General circulation experiments with the primitive equation.
Month. Weather Rev. 91 (3), 99–164.
Tanimoto, K., Takahashi, S., Yoshimoto, Y., 1983. Estimation method of exciting
shock forces from a response in a linear damped vibration system Technical
Note of Port and Harbor Research Institute, 474. Ministry of Transport, Japan,
pp. 3–24.
Tanimoto, K., Takahashi, S., Kaneko, T., Shiota, K., 1986. Impulsive breaking wave
forces on an inclined pile exerted by random waves. In: Proceedings of the 20th
International Conference on Coastal Engineering, pp. 2288–2302.
Wiegel, R.L., 1982. Forces induced by breakers on piles. Coast. Eng., 1699–1715.
Wienke, J., Oumeraci, H., 2005. Breaking wave impact on a vertical and inclined
slender pile—theoretical and large-scale model investigations. Coast. Eng. 52,
435–462.