Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T00:17:58.939Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Forced small-amplitude water waves: a comparison of theory and experiment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2006

F. Ursell ,
R. G. Dean  and
Y. S. Yu
F. Ursell
Affiliation:
Faculty of Mathematics, University of Cambridge
R. G. Dean
Affiliation:
Hydrodynamics Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Y. S. Yu
Affiliation:
Hydrodynamics Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper describes an attempt to verify experimentally the wavemaker theory for a piston-type wavemaker. The theory is based upon the usual assumptions of classical hydrodynamics, i.e. that the fluid is inviscid, of uniform density, that motion starts from rest, and that non-linear terms are neglected. If the water depth, wavelength, wave period, and wavemaker stroke (of a harmonically oscillating wavemaker) are known, then the wavemaker theory predicts the wave motion everywhere, and in particular the wave height a few depths away from the wavemaker.

The experiments were conducted in a 100 ft. wave channel, and the wave-height envelope was measured with a combination hook-and-point gauge. A plane beach (sloping 1:15) to absorb the wave energy was located at the far end of the channel. The amplitude-reflexion coefficient was usually less than 10%. Unless this reflexion effect is corrected for, it imposes one of the most serious limitations upon experimental accuracy. In the analysis of the present set of measurements, the reflexion effect is taken into account.

The first series of tests was concerned with verifying the wavemaker theory for waves of small steepness (0.002 ≤ H/L ≤ 0.03). For this range of wave steepnesses, the measured wave heights were found to be on the average 3.4% below the height predicted by theory. The experimental error, as measured by the scatter about aline 3.4% below the theory, was of the order of 3%. The systematic deviation of 3.4% is believed to be partly due to finite-amplitude effects and possibly to imperfections in the wavemaker motion.

The second series of tests was concerned with determining the effects of finite amplitude. For therange of wave steepnesses 0.045 ≤ H/L ≤ 0.048, themeasured wave heights were found to be on the average 10% below the heightspredictedfrom the small-amplitude theory. The experimental error was again of the order of 3%.

It is considered that these measurements confirm the validity of the small-amplitude wave theory. No confirmation of this accuracy has hitherto been given for forced motions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , January 1960 , pp. 33 - 52
Copyright
© 1960 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bagnold, R. A. 1947 Inst. Civil Engng, 27, 447–69.Google Scholar
Barber, N. F. & Ursell, F. 1948 Phil. Trans. A, 240, 527–60.Google Scholar
Beach Erosion Board 1941 Beach Erosion Board Technical Memorandum No. 1.Google Scholar
Benjamin, T. B. & Ursell, F. 1954 Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 225, 505–15.Google Scholar
Biésel, F. 1948 Houille blanche, 3, 276–84.Google Scholar
Biésel, F. & Suquet, F. 1951 Houille blanche, 6, 475–96, 723–37.Google Scholar
Case, K. M. & Parkinson, W. C. 1957 J. Fluid Mech. 2, 172–84.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. I. B. & Longuet-Higgins, M. S. 1951 Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 206, 425–35.Google Scholar
Greslou, L. & Mahe, Y. 1954 Proc. Fifth Congr. Coastal Engineering, Grenoble, pp. 68–84.Google Scholar
Havelock, T. H. 1929 Phil. Mag., Series 7, 8, 569–6.Google Scholar
Herbich, J. B. 1956 Saint Anthony Falls Hydraulic Lab. Project Rep. no. 44, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Hunt, J. N. 1952 Houille blanche, 7, 836–42.Google Scholar
Ippen, A. T. & Eagleson, P. S. 1955 M.I.T.Hydrodynamics Laboratory Tech. Rep. no. 18, 35-46.Google Scholar
Lamb, H. 1932 Hydrodynamics, 6th ed. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Longuet-Higgins, M. S. 1953 Phil. Trans. A, 903, 535–81.Google Scholar
Miche, A. 1951 Ann. Ponts et Chauss. 121, 285–319.Google Scholar
Neyrpic 1952 Houille blanche, 8, 779–801.Google Scholar
Schuler, M. 1933 Zeit. angew. Math. Mech. 13, 443–6.Google Scholar
Stoker, J. J. 1957 Water Waves. New York: Interscience.Google Scholar
Suquet, F. 1951 Houille blanche, 6, 475–96, 723–737.Google Scholar
Suquet, F. & Wallet, A. 1953 Proc. Int. Hydraulics Convention, Minneapolis, pp. 173–91.Google Scholar
Tucker, M. J. & Charnock, H. 1955 Proc. Fifth Congr. Coastal Engineering, Grenoble, pp. 177–87.Google Scholar
Ursell, F. 1952 Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 214, 79–97.Google Scholar