8

8.1

Third order expansions

General

As something new we will introduce third order terms in the boundary element model. So from here let the perturbation expansions of  and  be of the form  = "1 + "22 + "33 + O"4   = "1 + "22 + "33 + O"4  8.1 8.2

These rede nitions of the expansions of  and  do not contradict the former de nitions 2.44 and 2.44. Thus the results obtained in the previous parts of this work are still valid, but they may be improved by the introduction of third order terms. It is easily shown that the third order potential, 3, must satisfy the Laplaceequation, and thus the boundary integral equation 2.49 is valid for the third order potential. Analytically this is written as

@G , G @ 3 ds =   x 8.4 3 @n 3 0 @n0 ,0 In discrete form the boundary integral equations obtained for 3 will have the same coe cients as the equations for 1 and 2 as described in section 4.5. This means that the calculation time per time step will be increased by roughly 50 by introducing third order terms. For very weakly nonlinear waves it may not be worth the extra calculation time to obtain the third order potential, but for waves of intermediate nonlinearity the third order terms may make this model feasible, and this model will still be a lot faster than a full nonlinear BEM.
8.2 Free surface and open boundary conditions

+Z

r23 = 0


8.3

8.2.1 General

The most demanding task by introducing third order terms in the BEM, is the evaluation of new boundary conditions based on the dynamic 3.31 and kinematic 3.32 free surface boundary conditions modi ed by dissipative terms for a sponge layer, for instance given by 3.42. 68

Taylor expanding the kinematic boundary condition from z = 0 we get

@ , @  + @  @ +  x @t @z @x @x 2 2 @ 3 3 @ @ 2 @  + 1  2 @  @  , @z2 +  @x@z @x , 1 2 @z3 2 @x@z2 @x  3 @ 1 @ @ @  @ 3 + 6 @z3 @z , @t , @x @x = O4 , at z = 0 8.6 Similarly from the dynamic boundary condition we get @  + g + 1 jrj2 +  x @t 2   @ @  1 2 + @z  @t + g + 2 jrj +  x 1 @ 2 @  + g + 1 jrj2 +  x +2 2 @z2  @t 2  3 1 @ @  1 2 3 + 6 @z3 @t + g + 2 jrj +  x = O4 , at z = 0 @  + g + 1 jrj2 +  x @t 2 2 , @  + 1  @ jrj2
+  x @  + @t@z 2 @z @z 3 2 , 2
@ 1 @ 1 @ 1 + 2 2 @t@z2 + 4 2 @z2 jrj2 + 2  x2 @z 2   3 1 @ @  1 2 3 + + g + jrj +  x = O4 , at z = 0 6 @z3 @t 2
69
 

@ , @  + @  @ +  x @t @z @x @x   @ @  @  @ @ + @z @t , @z + @x @x +  x  2  @ @ @  @  @ 1 2 + 2 @z2 @t , @z + @x @x +  x  3  @ 1 @ @  @  @ 3 + 6 @z3 @t , @z + @x @x +  x = O4 , at z = 0 8.5

8.7

8.8

Perturbation expanding  and  in 8.6 and keeping only terms of third order in " we get @3 , @ 3 +  x = , @ 1 @2 , @ 2 @1 +  @ 22 +  @ 21 3 @t @z @x @x @x @x 1 @z2 2 @z2 2 @ 3 1 @ @ 1 1 2 , 1 @x@z @x + 2 1 @z31 8.9

Similarly perturbation expanding 8.8 and keeping only terms of third order we get @ 3 + g +  x = , @ 1 @ 2 , @ 1 @ 2 ,  @ 22 ,  @ 21 3 3 @t @x @x @z @z 1 @t@z 2 @t@z @ ,jr j2
,  x @ 2 ,  x @ 1  ,1 1 1 1 2 2 @z @z @z 3 2 1 2 @ 1 , 1  x2 @ 1 8.11 ,2 1 @t@z 2 1 @z 2 2

@3 , @ 3 +  x = , @ 1 @2 , @ 2 @1 ,  @ 22 ,  @ 21 3 @t @n0 @x @x  @x @x 1 @x2 2 @x2 2 @ 1 , 1 2 @ @ 1 1 @ 8.10 , 1 @ @x @x @n0 2 1 @x2 @n0

@ 3 + g +  x = , @ 1 @ 2 , @ 1 @ 2 3 3 @t @x  @x @n0 @n0  @ @  2 ,  @ @ 1 , 1 @t 2 0 @n @t @n0 1 @ @ 1 +  @ 1 @ 21 , 1 @@x 1 @x @n0 @n0 @x2 2 ,  x @ 1 ,  x1 @ @n0 2 @n0  2 2 1 @ @ 1 @ 1 2 2 + 2 1 @t @x2 + 2  x1 @x21 8.12 The equations 8.9 and 8.11 show the terms as they will look directly after the expansion, while the equations 8.10 and 8.12 are rewritten to forms ready for implementation in a computer program.

8.2.2 Updating - Applying an implicit Adams method

As we have seen in the previous section 8.2.1 the third order expressions for the dynamic and kinematic free surface boundary conditions are quite 70

complicated, and thus to avoid complicating things even more, we will not Taylor expand these equations in time. Instead we will use an explicit AdamsBashforth method for the updating of k , and then use the kinematic boundk ary condition for nding new values of @ @t , as described in section 4.3.3. We have chosen an explicit Adams-Bashforth method of higher order than before ka = 3 according to 4.25  with the coe cients A0 = 55=24, A1 = ,59=24, A2 = 37=24 and A3 = ,9=24. So still letting indices m; j " refer to time t = tm and space x = xj , the new updating of  will be    55 @ 59 @ k k , 24 @t k;m+1;j = k;m;j +
t 24 @t m;j  m,1;j     37 @ 9 @ + 24 @tk , 24 @tk m,2;j  m,3;j  ; k 2 f1; 2; 3g 8.13 After some constructive conversations with Jesper Skourup, we chose to update  on the free surface by an implicit Adams method. This procedure is often attributed to Adams-Moulton, and this will also be done here, even though the formula is due to Adams. Similarly to the explicit AdamsBashforth methods an implicit Adams-Moulton method is of the form ym+1 = ym +
t B0fm+1 +


+ Bka fm+1,ka 8.14 Choosing ka = 3, we have the coe cients B0 = 9=24, B1 = 19=24, B2 = ,5=24 and B3 = 1=24. The method is often used as the corrector step in a predictor-corrector method, but we use the method for prediction of k only. The dynamic free surface boundary condition, with Fk as right hand side, can for k 2 f1; 2; 3g be written as  @ k @t m+1;j + gk;m+1;j +  xk;m+1;j = Fk;m+1;j 8.15  @  k in the equation for the implicit Adams-Moulton method Inserting @t m+1;j  we get " 
, 1 k;m+1;j = 1 +
t B  x k;m;j +
t B0 ,gk;m+1;j + Fk;m+1;j 0     @  @  @  +B1 @tk + B2 @tk + B3 @tk m;j  m,1;j  m,2;j  8.16 71

When k;m+1;j and k; m+1;j  are known, the dynamic surface boundary  @  to be used in the following time steps. conditions will provide @tk m+1;j  After having solved the boundaryintegral equations the kinematic free sur@ k face boundary conditions supply @t m+1;j at ,f 0. The method described above has been implemented and is hereafter used in the third order model, also for the rst and second order terms. The method seems stable and reliable when the Courant number is below unity, say Cr = 0:8. Since the model may turn out to be unstable when the Courant number is greater than unity, care should be taken to ensure that this does not happen. It should be noted that the Adams-Bashforth-Moulton methods are normally used in predictor-corrector methods, and since our method represents the predictor step only, stability can not be guaranteed. To improve stability a corrector step can be included in the model, but since this roughly would double the calculation time, and not improve the accuracy by much, we have not implemented a corrector step.
8.3 Piston boundary condition

A piston type wave-maker, see sections 3.3 and 3.4, can in mathematical terms be described by a boundary condition on the form 3.13 and @ @z = 0, @ =,@ . i.e. @n 0 @x Taylor expanding 3.13 from x = 0 we get  +  @ , @  + 1 2 @ 2 , @  ,@ 2 @x @x @x 2 @x @x  1 3 @ 3 , @  + O4  = V ; at , +6 n r10 8.17 @x3 @x Perturbation expanding  and  and keeping only terms of third order we get 3 ,  @ 22 ,  @ 21 , 1 2 @ 31 = V , @@x 8.18 1 2 n;3 @x2 @x2 2 1 @x3
   

72

1 = V and @ = 0 we get Using the Laplace-equation, @ @n0 n;1 @z       @ 31 = @ , @ 21 = , @ 2 @ 1 = @ 2 @ 1 0 @x3 @x @z2 @z2 @x @z2 @n  @ 2 V = @ 2 , @1 = , @ 2 @1 = 0 = @z 2 n;1 @z2 @t @z@t @z ; at ,r10 Thus 8.18 can be reduced to

8.19

@ 3 = V +  @ 22 +  @ 21 n;3 1 2 @n0 @x2 @x2 2 2 ,  @ 21 ; at , = Vn;3 , 1 @@z 2 r10 2 @z2

8.20

73