Proceedings of the Twenty-third (2013) International Offshore and Polar Engineering www.isope.

org
Anchorage, Alaska, USA, June 30–July 5, 2013
Copyright © 2013 by the International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE)
ISBN 978-1-880653-99–9 (Set); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set)

CFD Simulation of Wave and Current Influences on Offshore Substructures

Tae-Jin Kang, Seul-Ki Yeom and Warn-Gyu Park
School of Mechanical Engineering, Pusan National University
Geumjeong-gu, Busan, Korea

results (Dixon et al, 1979). Venugopal et al. (2009) experimentally

ABSTRACT
In the present study, CFD simulation was performed for waves and
currents with a 3D fixed cylinder. In order to simulate a 3D
incompressible viscous flow in a numerical wave tank with a cylinder,
Ansys Fluent based on the finite volume method was used in the present
study. Volume-Of-Fluid (VOF) scheme is used to capture the two phase
interface. In the numerical wave tank, the wave maker is controlled by
the inlet boundary condition using Airy’s wave theory. The outgoing
wave is dissipated in an artificial damping zone at the end of the tank.
The wave characteristics are inspected for different wave lengths and
amplitudes. In addition, a fixed cylinder is calculated with wave and
uniform current. The experimental and computed wave amplitude
slightly differs as the wave steepness increases. The computed results
show that the wave force increases as Froude number increases.
KEY WORDS: Regular wave, Wave absorber, Froude number,
Cylindrical cylinder, Airy’s wave theory, Vertical force, Run-up
elevation
examined the drag and inertia coefficient for a rectangular cylinder
based on changes in the aspect ratio. Mercier and Niedzwecki (1994)
experimentally examined a vertical fixed cylinder. Using the same
model, Park et al. (1999) and Celebi (2001) numerically studied first-,
second-, and third-order harmonics for wave elevation. The influence
of the current velocity was studied based on changes in Froude number.
Leen et al. (2007) investigated the wave run-up for various wave
conditions(steepness, height, and depth). Boo (2006) experimentally
studied higher harmonic wave forces through a comparison with the
Faltisen-Newman-Vinje (FNS) model. Park et al. (2011) studied the
force acting on the substructure induced by the wave and current. The
computed results were then compared to experimental and analytic
results using the Morison equation.
In the present study, a 2D numerical wave tank is constructed to
generate progressive regular waves. The results are compared to
progressive regular wave with changes in the current velocity. Through
expansion to 3D, horizontal and vertical fixed cylinders are used to
study the run up elevation and load acting on a substructure with
changes in the wave and current.

INTRODUCTION DESCRIPTION OF 2D NUMERICAL WAVE TANK

Recently, the necessity of using clean and renewable energy resources
has been highlighted due to the limitations of fossil energy and increase
in environmental pollution. Research on clean and renewable energy
resources such as wind power is the key subject of alternative energy
development. With the development of design techniques and increased
energy demand, wind turbine rotors are gradually being enlarged. Also,
the installation area is being extended into the deep seas with richer
wind energy resources than the shores.
One of the main roles of the wind turbine substructure is to support and
control the wind turbine generator. However, complex waves, currents,
and marine environment in the deep sea mean that design techniques
need to be more precise. In order to obtain better design techniques,
load analysis needs to include flow analysis.
The substructure has been studied by many researchers. The horizontal
fixed cylinder was experimentally examined by Dixon et al. (1979)
with changes in progressive regular waves. Using the same geometry
and wave conditions, Westphalen et al. (2009) and Jonas (2011)
performed numerical studies for comparison with the experimental
Prior to analysis of the fixed cylinder, a 2D numerical wave tank was
constructed to generate progressive regular waves.
Geometry and boundary conditions
The wave conditions and geometry of the numerical wave tank used in
the present study are the same as those of the numerical wave tank used
by Park et al. (2011). The horizontal length is 7 m, and the vertical
length is 3 m. The water depth is 2 m and the height of the air region
above the free surface is 1 m. The computational domain was
discretized to a structure grid. In the wave absorption region, grid is set
up 20 cells to horizontal direction. Grid of the wave absorption region
was used to generate numerical diffusion obtained by grid clustering
(Fig. 1). Generation of the geometry and grid are performed using the
commercial pre-processor program Gambit. Fig. 1 shows the
computational domain. In order to generate progressive regular waves,
a wave maker is used to develop the velocity profile at the inlet. This
velocity profile were obtained using Airy’s wave theory (Robert and

548
Robert, 1991) and Stokes 5th order wave provided by Ansys Fluent. The
bottom is assumed to be a slip wall, and the boundary condition of the
air region is prescribed to atmospheric pressure. The outlet of the water
region is prescribed to hydrostatic pressure. The volume of fraction
used in inlet and outlet is prescribed to air above free surface. Also, it is
prescribed to water below free surface. The velocity profile used in
inlet is as follows:
height, T is the wave period, and L is the wave length. The wave profile
used in the present study referred to the work done by Park et al.
(2011). The position of the wave probe is 2 m far from the inlet in the
horizontal direction. The position of the free surface is determined
where the volume of fraction is 0.5.
Table 1. Conditions of wave profile

cosh k (y + d ) Period(T) Amplitude(A) Steepness(H/L)

u = Aω cos(kx - ωt )
sinh kd (1) 0.6 0.03 0.11
sinh k (y + d ) 0.05 0.1
v = Aω sin(kx - ωt)
sinh kd (2) 0.8 0.04 0.08
where A is the wave amplitude, ω is the circular frequency, d is the 0.03 0.06
wave depth, and k is the wave number. 1.0 0.03 0.04
The dissipation zone is 2 m from the outlet (Fig. 1). The following
1.2 0.03 0.03
formula is added as the momentum source to dissipate the momentum
of wave.
First of all, the wave elevation was compared with change of wave
⎛ yb − y ⎞
2
⎛1 ⎞⎛ x − x s ⎞
⎜ ⎟ (3) steepness (H/L) and wave maker theory. Fig. 2 is wave elevation for 1-
S = −C ⎜ ρ V V ⎟⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝2 ⎠⎝ x e − x s ⎜ y b − y fs ⎟ period between 5 ~ 7 second. Fig. 2 (a) show more sharp wave
⎠ ⎝ ⎠ elevation when wave maker theory is Stokes 5th wave. But there is no
difference between 1-order and 5-order wave theory in Fig. 2 (b). This
where ρ is the water density and V is the velocity magnitude. The is because numerical error generated by H/L term increases as wave
subscripts s and e denote the start and end positions, respectively, of the steepness increase (Brorsen, 2007). In the current study, wave maker
dissipation zone in the x-direction; b and fs denote the bottom and free theory is used to Stokes 5th order wave except current velocity exists.
surface positions, respectively, of the dissipation zone in the z-
direction. C is the user-defined empirical coefficient. It is set to 10 in
the present study. The velocity profile, hydrostatic pressure, and
momentum source for the dissipation zone are determined according to
UDF (User Define Function) provided by Ansys Fluent. The above
information is provided in Fluent manual (Fluent, 2010).

a) Wave steepness = 0.11 b) Wave steepness = 0.03

Fig. 2 Comparison of Airy and Stokes 5th order wave for

1-period at 5 ~ 7 second

Fig. 1 Computational domain and boundary condition Table 2. Conditions of wave profile

Numerical method Cell no. per Cell no. per

Cell number
wave length wave amplitude
The CFD calculations shown here are based on simulated solutions
using the incompressible Navier-Stokes equation carried out using Grid1 29,700 35 20
Ansys Fluent. Volume-Of-Fluid (VOF) method is used to capture the Grid2 82,000 35 30
two-phase interface. The pressure-velocity coupling for incompressible
flow is derived using the SIMPLE (Semi-Implicit Method for Pressure- Grid3 126,000 35 40
Linked Equations). This method was developed by Patankar and
Spalding (1972). The momentum discretization uses QUICK
Second, wave elevation was investigated as grid size was changed.
(Quadratic Upwind Interpolation for Convection Kinetics) scheme.
Table 2 shows grid information used in grid test. A cell number per
Discretization of volume of fraction uses Geo-Reconstruct (Fluent,
wave length was fixed to 35. To capture the free surface accurately, the
2010).
grid is clustered near free surface. Then the cell number per wave
amplitude increased as shown Table 2. The wave profile used in grid
Parametric study for numerical wave tank test are T = 0.6s, A = 0.03m, and H/L = 0.11. Fig. 3 show that the wave
elevation converges as cell number increase. When the cell number is
To verify the numerical wave tank, a parametric study is conducted 126,000, Fig. 3 shows more exact result. But, to effectively calculate
with change in the wave period and wave amplitude. This result is used wave elevation, cell number was selected to middle grid size. Then grid
to verify the designed waveform in terms of space and time. Table 1 size of horizontal direction is 0.0175 and vertical direction is 0.001.
show the wave profile used in the parametric study. H is the wave

549
 Fig. 5 shows the variation in wave elevation with changes in the wave
period or wave amplitude. Fig. 5(a) shows the variation in the wave
elevation at T=0.6, 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2 s when incident wave amplitude is
fixed to 0.03 m. Fig. 5(b) shows the variation in the wave elevation at
A=0.03, 0.04, and 0.05 m when incident wave period is fixed to 0.8 s.
As shown in Figs 5(a) and (b), the wave period agrees well with the
incident wave period. However, the wave amplitude shows a few
differences compared to the incident wave amplitude. Fig. 5 shows that
the wave amplitude became less than the incident wave amplitude as
the wave steepness increases. This is due to the wave breaking
phenomenon generated at the inlet (wave maker) when the wave
steepness is relatively high (Park, 2011).
Next, the interactions between the wave and current are investigated.
Fig. 3 Time history of wave elevation with change of Robert and Robert (1991) modified Airy’s wave theory with the
cell number at x=2 m uniform current velocity as given by

ω = Vc k + gk tanh(kd ) (4)
φ = −Vc k + B cosh k (d + z ) cos(kx − ωt ) (5)
gH (6)
B=
2ω (1 − Vc / C ) cosh (kd )

where Vc is the current velocity, ф is the velocity potential, and C is

Fig. 4 Spatial profile and volume fraction(air) of regular
wave for a wave period of 0.8 s
Fig. 4 shows the wave elevation and volume fraction (air) over space.
Also, Fig. 4 shows that, at x = 5-7 m from the wave absorber, the wave
amplitude declines suddenly.
wave speed. When Vc is 0, Eqs. 4~6 become Airy’s wave theory
without current. Fig. 6 shows the wave elevation with change in the
current velocity. The current velocity is represented using Froude
number, Fr = Vc / gd . In the current study, the wave amplitude
increases and wave period decreases as Froude number increases.

(a) Wave amplitude = 0.03 m

Fig. 6 Time history of wave elevation at x=2 m for

changes in current velocity

STUDY FOR FIXED CYLINDRICAL SUBSTRUCTURE

WITH NUMERICAL WAVE TANK

Analysis of horizontal fixed cylinder with changes in wave

condition

First, a horizontal fixed cylinder is used to investigate changes in the

wave condition. The computed results are compared to experimental
results obtained by Dixon et al. (1979). The specifications of the
numerical wave tank in the present study are given below. The
(b) Wave period = 0.8 s horizontal length is 6 m, and the vertical length is 1.8 m. The water
depth is 0.9 m, and the height of the air region above the free surface is
Fig. 5 Time history of wave elevation at x=2 m 0.9 m. The diameter of the horizontal fixed cylinder is 0.1 m, and the

550
transverse length is 1 m. Table 2 shows the wave profile used in the cylinder for d′=0. At d′=0, the wave amplitude and radius of the
current study. cylinder is 0.05 m. Therefore, when the wave elevation is trough, the
cylinder must not be submerged under the free surface. However, the
The relative wave force is computed based on the change in the current results show that the cylinder is slightly submerged at T=0.73.
cylinder depth below the free surface. The relative wave force is This disagreement appears because the wave elevation of the current
defined as results is slightly higher than the incident wave elevation at trough. The
F
y (7) vertical force is larger than experimental result due to more buoyant
' F =
⎛ πD 2l ⎞ force.
ρg⎜ ⎟
⎜ 4 ⎟
⎝ ⎠
where Fy, l, ρ, g, and D represent the vertical force, transverse length,
water density, acceleration of gravity, and diameter of the cylinder,
respectively. Fig. 7 shows the free surface with changes in the cylinder
depth(d′). In the present study, the cylinder depth(d′) are 0, 0.03, and
0.06 m. Table 3 show the wave profile used in the current study.

(a) d′=0 (b) d′=0.03

(a) d′=0 (b) d′=0.03 (c) d′=0.06

Fig. 7 Cylinder depth(d′) for the three simulations

Table 3. Wave profile condition

Cylinder
Period(T) Amplitude(A) Steepness(H/L)
depth(d′)
0 0.9597 0.05 0.067
0.03 0.9775 0.02 0.027 (c) d′=0.06
0.06 0.9728 0.03 0.04
Fig. 9 Vertical force with change in cylinder depth(d′)
Fig. 8 shows the computational domain including boundary condition.
Boundary condition in three-dimension is the same as that in two-
dimensions. The computational domain is discretized into a structured
grid. The grid number is approximately 440,000. To capture the free
surface accurately, the grid is clustered near the free surface.

Fig. 8 Computational domain

Fig. 9 shows the relative vertical force for 1-period for a change in the
cylinder depth. The physical time of the computed results is
approximately 10 seconds. The results represented reasonable
agreement with the experimental results except the case d′=0.06. Fig. 10 Surface profile and vertical force around the cylinder
However, the computed results are slightly higher than the for 1-period in d′=0
experimental results at T=0.73. Fig. 10 represents the surface profile of

551
Analysis of vertical fixed cylinder with changes in the wave
condition

Second, a vertical fixed cylinder is used to investigate the changes in

the wave and current in the present study. The computed results are
compared to experimental results obtained by Kriebel (1992). The
specifications of the numerical wave tank used in the present study are
given as below. The horizontal length is 12-meter and the vertical
length is 1.8m. The water depth is 0.45 m, and the height of the air
region above the free surface is 0.9 m. The radius(a) of the horizontal
fixed cylinder is 0.1625 m, and the vertical length is 1.8 m. A depth-to- (a) kH=0.186 (b) kH=0.317
radius, d/a, is 2.77. Table 4 shows wave profile used in the current
study. The ka, kd, and kH used Table 3 are non-dimensional parameters. Fig. 13 Run-up elevation (R) for changes in the run-up angle
The wave period and length are obtained by a dispersion relation that and current velocity at kH=0.186 and 0.317
assumed the intermediate depth wave as kd = 1.332 (Robert, 1991).
Fig. 13 represents the run-up elevation for changes in the current
Table 4. Condition of wave profile velocity at kH=0.186 and 0.317. Overall, run-up elevation increases as
Froude number increases except when approximately αR=60°~105°.
The non-linearity of substructure causes a low run-up elevation at
ka kd Period(T) kH Steepness(H/L)
αR=60°~105°. The lower run-up elevation at αR=60°~105° is because an
0.186 0.0297 increase in the Froude number causes the run-up elevation to increase.
0.481 1.332 1.25
0.317 0.0505 Next, the horizontal wave force of the cylinder is investigated for
changes in the Froude number. The wave force(F) is defined as
In the current study, the run-up elevation of the wall is investigated
using the computed results. Fig. 11 represents the run-up position for Fx
F= (8)
changes in the angle. ρgAr 2

where Fx represents the horizontal force.

Fig. 11 Convention of run-up angle (αR)

Fig. 12 show the run-up elevation coefficients(2R/H) for changes in the

run-up angle (αR) at kH=0.186 and 0.317, where R is the run-up
elevation and H is wave height. The run-up elevation is obtained by
averaging the run-up elevations between 0 and 20 seconds. The
computed results is not similar to the experimental results at αR =
180°(Fig 12a). Also, the computed results is not similar to the
experimental results at αR = 90°. A non-linearity generated by the
interaction between the substructure and wave caused these results. In
addition, cause to calculate wrong boundary layer because flow was (a) kH=0.186
prescribed to laminar. Therefore boundary layer prediction was wrong.
Also, this disagreement appears because the wave amplitude of the
current results is slightly lower than the incident wave amplitude at
crest. However, the next study will examine the influences of the
current and wave because the computed and experimental results show
similar tendencies.

(b) kH=0.317
(a) kH = 0.186 (b) kH = 0.317
Fig. 14 Time history of horizontal wave force at kH=0.186 and 0.317
Fig. 12 Run-up elevation (R) for changes in the run-up angle
at kH=0.186 and 0.317

552
Fig. 14 represents that horizontal force increases as Froude number
increases. These results are similar to tendency of the wave elevation
with regard to changes in the Froude number as shown in Fig. 6.
CONCLUSIONS
In the present study, the wave force and elevation of a fixed cylinder
are investigated for the design of a complex wind turbine substructure
with regard to changes of in the wave and current. Horizontal and
vertical cylinders are used in the present study. The computed results
are compared to experimental results. The influence of the current is
then examined. For the horizontal cylinder, the computed vertical wave
force shows a significant difference at trough. This disagreement
appears because the wave amplitude of the current results is slightly
higher than the incident wave amplitude at trough. In addition, the run-
up elevation of the vertical cylinder is under estimated in relation to the
experimental results. This disagreement appears because the wave
amplitude of the current results is slightly lower than the incident wave
amplitude at crest. The computed results for the vertical cylinder show
that the horizontal force increases as Froude number increases. These
results are similar to the tendency of the wave elevation in relation to
changes in the Froude number.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by the New & Renewable Energy of the
Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and
Planning(KETEP) grant funded by the Korea government Ministry of
Knowledge Economy (No. 20113020020010).
REFERENCES
Ansys Fluent User’s Guide, 2010.
Bai, W, and Taylor, RE (2009). “Fully nonlinear simulation of wave
interaction with fixed and floating flared structures,” Ocean
Engineering, Vol 36, pp 223-236.
Boo, SY (2006). “Measurements of higher harmonic wave forces on a
vertical truncated circular cylinder,” Ocean Engineering, Vol 33,
pp 219-233.
Brorsen, M (2007). “Non-linear Waves,” DCE Lecture Notes No. 9
Celebi, MS (2001). “Nonlinear transient wave-body interactions in
553
steady uniform currents,” Computer methods in applied mechanics
and engineering, Vol 190(39), pp 5149-5172.
Dixon, AG, Greated, CA, and Salter, SH (1979). “Wave Forces on
Partially Submerged Cylinders,” Journal of the Waterway Port
Coastal and Ocean Division, Vol 105(5), pp 421-438.
Jonas, A (2011). “Simulation of Wave Induced Forces on Semi
Submerged Horizontal Cylinders Using OpenFOAM,” Chalmers
University of technology, Master’s Thesis, Goteborg, Sweden.
Kriebel, DL (1992). “Nonlinear wave interaction with a vertical
circular cylinder. Part 2,” Ocean engineering, Vol 19, pp 75-99.
Leen, DV, Peter, F, and Julien, DR (2007). “Wave run-up on
cylindrical and cone shaped foundations for offshore wind turbines,”
Coastal Engineering, Vol 54, pp 17-29.
Mercier, RS, and Niedzwecki, JM (1994). “Experimental measurement
of second-order diffraction by a truncated vertical cylinder in
monochromatic waves,” Proc of the 7th Int conf Behavior of Offshore
Structures, pp 265-287.
Park, YS, Chen, ZS, and Kim, WJ (2011). “CFD Application to
Evaluation of Wave and Current Loads on Fixed Cylindrical
Substructure for Ocean Wind Turbine,” Journal of Ocean
Engineering and Technology, Vol 25(2), pp 7-14.
Park, JC, Kim, MH, and Hideaki, M (1999). “Fully non-linear free-
surface simulations by a 3D viscous numerical wave tank,” int J
Numer Meth Fluids, Vol 29, pp 685-703.
Patankar, SV, and Spalding, DB (1972). “A Calculation Procedure for
Heat, Mass and Momentum Transfer in Three-Dimensional Parabolic
Flows,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, Vol 15, pp 1787.
Robert, GD and Robert, AD (1991). Water Wave Mechanics for
Engineers and Scientists, World Scientific.
Sumer, BM and Jorgen, F (2006). Hydrodynamics around Cylindrical
Structures, World Scientific.
Venugopal, V, Varyani, KS, and Westlake, PC (2009). “Drag and
inertia coefficients for horizontally submerged rectangular cylinders
in waves and currents,” Proceedings of IMechE, Vol 223.
Westphalen, J, Greaves, DM, Williams, CK, and Taylor, PH, Causon,
DM, Mingham, CG, Hu, ZZ, Stansby, PK, Rogers, BD, and
Omidvar, P (2009). “Extreme Wave Loading on Offshore Wave
Energy Devices using CFD: a Hierarchical Team Approach,”
Proceedings of the 8th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference,
Uppsala, Sweden.