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-
racterized by a vertical confinement between a solid
boundary beneath and a free surface above the flow.
These kinds of flows are common in oceanic shelves,
estuaries, and rivers and they are generally referred to
as shallow flows. The prediction of shallow flows is
important for practical applications in coastal and civil
* Project supported by the National Natural Science Foun-
dation of China (Grant No.10702042), the Non-profit Industry
Financial Program of MWR (Grant No. 201401027) and the
National Key Basic Research Development Program of China
(973 Program, Grant No. 2014CB046200).
Biography: ZHANG Jing-xin (1975-), Male, Ph. D.,
Associate Professor
the management of waterways and for the prevention
of natural disasters as floods and accidental spills.
Numerical modeling is one of the primary tools
used in engineering practice for the prediction of sha-
llow flows. The shallow flow models are mostly based
on the hydrostatic assumption for the pressure distri-
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
vertical momentum equation and the relatively low
computation costs. However, there are situations when
the assumption about the hydrostatic pressure distribu-
tion might not be valid for physical processes and the
computations would involve large errors.
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,
f = 2ω sin φ is the Coriolis term, φ is the latitude,
ω is the Earth’s angular velocity, and ζ is the free
surface elevation. When the non-hydrostatic pressure
pn is ignored, the vertical momentum equation should
also be neglected, and the system (1)-(4) then degene-
rates to the conventional shallow water equations with
two horizontal momentum equations and the continui-
ty equation.
1.2 Turbulence model
To close the system the eddy viscosity concept is
employed in the model and the vertical eddy viscosity
coefficient ν tV is determined by solving the one-equa-
tion Spalart-Allmaras (SA) model[11]. The transport
equation for ν is
2
Dν  ν  1
= cb1Sν − cw1 f w   + {∇ ⋅ [(ν + ν )∇ν ] +
Dt d
  σ 2
where ch is an arbitrary Smagorinsky constant, var-
ying in the range of 0.01-0.5[12].
1.3 Numerical scheme
1.3.1 Outline of the numerical scheme
In the numerical method, a semi-implicit scheme
is used, with a parameter θ . The importance of the
value of θ was shown in previous papers[5,13]. The
value of θ is taken as 0.5 in the following computa-
tions. The computational domain is meshed by the un-
structured grids and the flow variables are taken at the
cell centers thus giving the method a name of the CC
scheme. For the advection terms, the TVD (Total Va-
riation Diminishing) scheme is used to calculate the
cell face flux. An arbitrary variable ϕ
f
at the cell
face is calculated with a second order TVD scheme
1
f
ϕ = ϕc + ψ (rf )(ϕ D − ϕC ) (9)

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

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 +
( y + = yu∗ / ν ) , which is required by the non-slip wall
condition. Then the vertical grid is stretched with a
ratio 1.15 upward until about 0.025 m equal to the ho-
rizontal mesh size. The integration time step is
0.0001s, and the total simulation takes about 30T
(wave peroid).
Measured and computed time series of the water
surface elevation are compared for seven characteris-
tic locations, as shown in Fig.3. Both models simulate
the approaching waves quite accurately (Location 1)
even when the waves become slightly asymmetrical
due to the interaction with the bar (Location 2). As the
519
shape of the waves becomes more sharp-crested
(Locations 3-7), the computations of the hydrostatic
model near the crests start to develop spurious oscilla-
tions while the non-hydrostatic model is still capable
of the accurate simulation of the wave’s pattern.
One of the principal assumptions in the shallow
flow approach in the hydrostatic modeling is that the
vertical acceleration can be ignored due to the insigni-
ficant size of the flow depth compared to the horizon-
tal extensions. In the present case, the ratio h / λ (the
water depth to the wave length) is about 0.1 in front of
the bar and the results of the hydrostatic modeling
agree well with the measurements (Location 1). The
shoaling of the waves on the bar is concomitant with
520
the increase of the wave amplitude and the decrease of
the wave length, though the ratio h / λ is insignifican-
tly enlarged when the wave approaches the crest of the
bar. Thus despite the fact that the shallowness crite-
rion holds true, the behavior of the waves in this en-
vironment is considerably nonlinear. The non-hydro-
static pressure term introduced in the momentum
equations enhances the model’s ability to capture the
wave dispersion[9]. On the other hand, the hydrostatic
model follows the shallow water dispersion rule, i.e.,
c = gh . As one can guess the sharpness of the wave
near the crest, one can then estimate the convective
acceleration of the fluid in the vertical direction and
compare its value with the gravity acceleration. When
this convective acceleration is significant, the mode-
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
steep lee sides. They affect the flow similarly to steps
and the flow structure downstream their crests often
exhibits a separation of the flow, a recirculation zone,
and a reattachment of the flow on the stoss side.
Therefore, our second case study concerns the mode-
ling of the flow structure over a dune in the experi-
ments of Balachandar et al.[17] In these experiments a
train of dunes identical in geometry are physically
modeled in a laboratory flume and measurements are
performed over the 17th dune in the sequence. These
experiments become popular for modeling and were
already examined in several modeling studies[18-20].
Fig.4 Dune geometry and measurement locations
In this study the computational domain is restri-
cted to a single dune because of the periodicity of the
flow structure in a train. The geometry of the dune is
shown in Fig.4. The coordinate system with x in the
main stream direction, y in the spanwise direction,
and z in the upward direction is adopted here. The
Reynolds number is 5.7×104 calculated based on the
water depth and the free-surface velocity at the inlet of
the domain. The Froude number is 0.44 based on the
same flow parameters. The three-dimensional domain
covers the dune within an area of 0.4 m long and
0.2 m wide. The horizontal grid is uniform with a
scale of 0.0025 m while the vertical grid is stretched
from the bottom with a ratio 1.15. The point nearest to
the bottom is set within the viscosity boundary layer
of about 1.6z + . At the inlet, the discharge and the
eddy viscosity are provided by another simulation in a
long channel with a flat bottom to get a fully deve-
loped turbulent flow. A zero water level boundary
condition is set at the outlet. Simulations are carried
out with both hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic models.
The results of modeling are compared for six charac-
teristic locations in vertical profiles of the stream ve-
locities, as shown in Fig.4.
Fig.5 Comparison of local streamlines past dune crest
The comparison between simulations and mea-
surements shows that the performance of the hydro-
static modeling is especially poor in the area of flow
separation and recirculation x / h < 12 , −0.2 < z / L <
0.1, as shown in Fig.5. On the other hand, the results
of the non-hydrostatic modeling see a good agreement
with the measurements everywhere in the computa-
tional domain. It is worth noticing that the non-hydro-
static modeling is capable of accurately resolving the
separation flow with the recirculation. The patterns of
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-
sults of modeling with both approaches agree well
with the measurements, as shown in Fig.6.
Results of this case study suggest that a switch
from the hydrostatic modeling to the non-hydrostatic
one is necessary for micro-scale bedforms with steep
angles of lee sides. The precondition for the non-hy-
drostatic modeling is the necessity to resolve the
lower part of the water column with complex patterns
of flow separation and recirculation. The knowledge
of these complex features in the flow structure is vital
for the modeling of morphological processes.

Fig.6 Comparisons of stream velocity at different locations
3. Conclusions
A three-dimensional numerical model based on
the hydrostatic assumption is extended to a fully hy-
drodynamic model with additional non-hydrostatic
pressure terms. Two cases are investigated in order to
validate both hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic models
with the focus on the impact of the non-hydrostatic
pressure for the numerical simulation of shallow
flows.
The results of the study show that for waves pro-
pagating along the bar a criterion of shallowness alone,
the ratio between the depth and the wave length, is in-
sufficient to warrant the performance of the shallow
flow equations with a hydrostatic approach and the
dispersion in the wave dynamics can be better accoun-
ted with the non-hydrostatic modeling approach.
Beyond the laboratory scale, the hydrostatic
model is widely used in the simulation of natural
flows in oceans, estuaries and rivers because of the
lower computation cost and the higher efficiency.
However, the additional calculation of the Poisson
equation for the non-hydrostatic pressure costs much
more CPU time, especially, for natural flows in a large
domain (commonly on the kilometer scale). A further
development should probably focus on the develop-
ment of a hybrid hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic
model based on a series of practical and credible swit-
ch conditions.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Deutsche
521
Forschungsgemeinschaft (Grant No. DFG SU 405/3,
SU 405/4).
References
[1] CASULLI V. A semi-implicit finite fifference method
for non-hydrostatic, free-surface flows[J]. Internatio-
nal Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 1999,
30(4): 425-440.
[2] CASULLI V., ZANOLLI P. Semi-implicit numerical
modeling of nonhydrostatic free-surface flows for envi-
ronmental problems[J]. Mathematical and computer
modeling, 2002; 36(10): 1131-1149.
[3] JANKOWSKI J. A. A non-hydrostatic model for free
surface flows[D]. Doctoral Thesis, Hannover, Germany:
University of Hannover, 1999.
[4] LI B., FLEMING C. A. Three-dimensional model of
Navier-Stokes equations for water waves[J]. Journal of
Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering,
2001, 127(1): 16-25.
[5] KOCYIGIT M. B., FALCONER R. A. and LIN B.
Three-dimensional numerical modeling of free surface
flows with non-hydrostatic pressure[J]. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2002,
40(9): 1145-1162.
[6] CHEN X. J. A fully hydrodynamic model for three-di-
mensional, free-surface flows[J]. International Jour-
nal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2003, 42(9):
929-952.
[7] FRINGER O. B., GERRITSEN M. and STREET R. L.
An unstructured-grid, finite-volume, nonhydrostatic, pa-
rallel coastal ocean simulator[J]. Ocean modeling,
2006, 14(3): 139-173.
[8] CASULLI V., ZANOLLI P. High resolution methods
for multidimensional advection-diffusion problems in
522
free-surface hydrodynamics[J]. Ocean modeling, 2005,
10(2): 137-151.
[9] ZHANG Jing-xin, LIU Hua and XUE Lei-ping. A ver-
tical 2-D mathematical model for hydrodynamic flows
with free surface in σ coordinatet[J]. Journal of Hy-
drodynamics Ser. B, 2006, 18(1): 82-90.
[10] PHILLIPS N. A. A coordinate system having some spe-
cial advantages for numerical forecasting[J]. Journal of
Meteorology, 1957, 14: 184-185.
[11] SPALART P. R. Strategies for turbulence modelling
and simulations[J]. International Journal of Heat and
Fluid Flow, 2000, 21(3): 252-263.
[12] ZHANG Q. Y., CHAN E. S. Sensitivity studies with the
three-dimensional multi-level model for tidal motion[J].
Ocean Engineering, 2003, 30(12): 1489-1505.
[13] CHEN C., LIU H. and BEARDSLEY R. C. An un-
structured grid, finite-volume, three-dimensional, primi-
tive equations ocean model: Application to coastal
ocean and estuaries[J]. Journal of Atmospheric and
Oceanic Technology, 2003, 20(1): 159-186.
[14] DARWISH M. S., MOUKALLED F. TVD schemes for
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.
[16] OHYAMA T., BEJI S. and BATTJES J. A. Experimen-
tal verification of numerical model for nonlinear wave
evolutions[J]. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal,
and Ocean Engineering, 1994, 20(6): 637-644.
[17] BALACHANDAR R., POLATEL C. and HYUN B.-S.
et al. LDV, PIV, and LES investigation of flow over a
fixed dune[C]. Sedientation and Sediment Transport:
Proceedings of the Symposium Held in Monte Verta.
Monte Verita, Switzerland, 2002, 171-178.
[18] YUE W., LIN C. L. and PATEL V. C. Large eddy si-
mulation of turbulent open-channel flow with free sur-
face simulated by level set method[J]. Physics of fluids,
2005, 17(2): 1-12.
[19] YUE W., LIN C. L. and PATEL V. C. Large-eddy si-
mulation of turbulent flow over a fixed two-dimensional
dune[J]. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE,
2006, 132(7): 643-651.
[20] BALEN W. V., UIJTTEWAAL W. S. J. and BLAN-
CKAERT K. Large-eddy simulation of a curved open-
channel flow over topography[J]. Physics of Fluids,
2010, 22(7): 1-17.