PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 6, 2026Physics of Fluids0 citations

Assessment of interface capture schemes in simulating spilling breakers

View Full Paper
ZLZhe-hui LinXWXuchen WangYLY. LIU

Key Points

  • This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of different numerical methods in capturing wave breaking behaviors on coastal slopes.
  • Investigated two spilling breaker conditions on a 1:15 slope.
  • Performed comparative analysis using IsoAdvector and MULES methods in numerical wave flumes.
  • Utilized measurements from ultrasonic wave gauges and particle image velocimetry to assess free surface elevation and flow fields.
  • Categorized the breaking process into four phases: pre-breaking deformation, aerated surface layer, bubble development, and fragmentation.
  • IsoAdvector maintained a sharp interface while achieving a higher refined index of agreement with experimental results.
  • MULES demonstrated greater computational efficiency, although it produced a diffuse interface with mesh sensitivity.
  • Increased wave height intensified nonlinear interactions, leading to earlier breaking and broader energy distribution.

Abstract

Wave breaking on coastal slopes drives critical nearshore processes, yet resolving its multiphase dynamics remains challenging due to interface smearing in numerical models and measurement limitations in aerated regions. This study investigates the hydrodynamics of two spilling breaker conditions on a 1:15 slope, with emphasis on propagation behavior, interface evolution, and spectral energy transfer. A comparative analysis of wave morphology between the geometric reconstruction-based IsoAdvector and the algebraic compression-based Multi-dimensional Universal Limiter for Explicit Solution (MULES) methods was conducted using numerical wave flumes, supported by synchronous high-resolution measurements of free surface elevation and flow fields via ultrasonic wave gauges and particle image velocimetry. The breaking process was categorized into four sequential phases: pre-breaking deformation, aerated surface layer formation, bubble-laden interface development, and fragmented free-surface stabilization. Comparative analysis revealed distinct methodological performances: IsoAdvector maintained a sharp interface (2 cells thick) with low mesh sensitivity and achieved a higher refined index of agreement (dr) with experimental surface elevation, accurately capturing crest curvature, jet dynamics, and bubble formation. In contrast, MULES produces a diffuse interface (2 cells thick) with mesh-dependent phase shift; however, it offered approximately 4.7 % higher computational efficiency in fine-mesh simulations. Accordingly, IsoAdvector is recommended for high-fidelity interface-resolved studies, while MULES is suitable for large-scale applications prioritizing computational economy. Spectral analysis further showed that increased wave height intensifies nonlinear interactions, resulting in earlier breaking, broader energy distribution, and enhanced dissipation. These findings provide key insight into nearshore wave transformation and guidance for selecting numerical approaches in breaking wave simulations.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Lin et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/698586238f7c464f2300a1d8https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0309329
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper