Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Vortex dynamics and air entrainment in dam break wave impacting on vertical walls: A multiphase lattice Boltzmann study

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A multiphase lattice Boltzmann study of dam-break waves hitting a vertical wall argues that the large air cavity often seen in simulations during run-down is a numerical artifact of free-slip wall treatment, not a real flow feature.

desk verdict Solid, honest DNS study of dam-break impact with a plausible central claim about the large air cavity being a free-slip artifact—but the evidence is a single low-Re comparison without grid convergence, so the claim is conditional, not definitive. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.25433 v1 pith:6R24M6FK submitted 2026-07-28 physics.flu-dyn physics.comp-ph

Massimiliano Mustè , Andrea Montessori , Pietro Prestininzi This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dynphysics.comp-ph
keywords dam-breakwaveverticalwallimpactairentrainmentcavityartifactlatticeBoltzmannmethodAllen–Cahninterfacecapturingno-slipboundaryconditionpressurepeaks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper uses high-resolution multiphase lattice Boltzmann simulations of a dam-break wave hitting a vertical wall to argue that the large, smooth air cavity commonly reported in simulations of the run-down phase is not a physical flow feature. By comparing otherwise identical simulations with no-slip and free-slip wall boundary conditions, the authors show the cavity appears only when near-wall shear is absent. They conclude that wall friction triggers jet breakup and air–water mixing, and that under-resolved boundary treatments that behave like free-slip create the artifact. If correct, this shifts how the second pressure peak is interpreted and makes resolving the boundary layer essential for reliable impact-load predictions.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a high-resolution, 3D multiphase lattice Boltzmann solver (thread-safe, D3Q27, with a conservative Allen–Cahn interface-capturing equation) used to run two dam-break simulations that differ only in the wall boundary condition—no-slip versus free-slip—at the same Reynolds number (2.2×10^3). This controlled comparison isolates the role of near-wall shear: the resolved boundary-layer vorticity (a clockwise corner vortex and secondary counter-clockwise vorticity) is the physical mechanism that breaks the jet and mixes air into the water, and its absence in the free-slip case produces the artifact cavity.

What would settle it

A no-slip dam-break simulation at Reynolds number close to 10^5 with a fully resolved boundary layer that still produces a single coherent air cavity during run-down would falsify the artifact claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the coherent, macroscopic air cavity that appears between the reflected jet and the incoming flow during the run-down phase of dam-break wall impact is a numerical artifact caused by free-slip wall treatment, not an intrinsic flow feature. In otherwise identical simulations at the same Reynolds number, the no-slip case produces a corner vortex that destabilizes the jet, breaks it into droplets, and disperses air into a mixture—matching experiments—while the free-slip case keeps the jet intact and traps a smooth cavity. The paper further shows that this artifact is responsible for spurious pressure oscillations on the wall and that air compressibility is not needed t

Load-bearing premise

The artifact conclusion rests on a low-Reynolds-number comparison (Re=2.2×10^3) and the untested premise that the boundary-layer-induced jet breakup seen at this scale also occurs at experimental Reynolds numbers (10^5–10^6).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Simulations that under-resolve the boundary layer and effectively behave as free-slip at the wall will generate spurious large air cavities and over-estimated pressure oscillations during run-down.
  • Accurately capturing the no-slip condition is needed to predict the first pressure peak: the corner vortex deflects the wave front and moves the point of maximum pressure away from the wall base.
  • Air compressibility plays a secondary role for the second pressure peak; an incompressible 3D model with proper near-wall resolution avoids the spurious peaks seen in 2D and free-slip simulations.
  • The corner vortex is a persistent source of finely mixed air that feeds the upward jet, so air entrainment begins near the bottom corner rather than only in run-up and run-down.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension is a partial-slip boundary scan: varying the degree of wall slip in the same setup should produce a continuous transition from a coherent cavity to a mixed jet, which would test the artifact interpretation directly.
  • If the artifact claim transfers to engineering-scale Reynolds numbers, it implies that RANS wall-function treatments applied outside their valid range (effectively slip-like) may systematically mispredict the second force peak on walls.
  • The analogy drawn by the authors between the free-slip cavity and plunging-wave air entrapment suggests a quantitative comparison with breaking-wave entrainment scaling could refine the explanation of cavity dynamics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents three-dimensional multiphase lattice Boltzmann simulations (TSLB) of dam-break waves impacting a vertical wall, using a recursive-regularized D3Q27 lattice Boltzmann solver coupled with a conservative Allen–Cahn interface-capturing scheme. The model is validated against two experimental datasets (Lobovský et al. 2014 and Tan et al. 2023) with good reported agreement for free-surface evolution, water levels, pressure histories, and velocity fields. The authors then compare no-slip and free-slip wall boundary conditions at Re = 2.2×10^3 (Case III, Table I) and observe that only the free-slip run develops a large, smooth, coherent air cavity during the run-down phase; the no-slip run instead exhibits jet breakup, strong aeration, and damping of pressure oscillations. On this basis, the paper concludes that the large air cavity commonly reported in dam-break impact CFD is a numerical artifact of wall boundary treatment rather than a physical phenomenon, and that accurate no-slip boundary-layer resolution is essential for predicting impact pressures.

Significance. If correct, the central claim would overturn a common interpretation in the dam-break impact CFD literature, attributing the large run-down cavity to inadequate near-wall shear resolution rather than to physical air entrapment and compressibility. The paper also provides a substantial 3D validation exercise for the TSLB model on grids of approximately 10^8 nodes, including boundary-layer-resolved velocity profiles, and offers a plausible mechanism for the long-standing difficulty of predicting the first pressure peak near the wall corner. The clean no-slip/free-slip comparison at identical Reynolds number and geometry is a useful diagnostic. However, the significance is conditional: the artifact claim is drawn at Re = 2.2×10^3, below the validated cases and far below engineering-scale experiments, and the paper provides no grid-convergence or interface-parameter sensitivity study. The validation strengths are real, but they do not by themselves establish the scale-transferability of the central conclusion.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III A and Table I] The central claim of §V B—that the large run-down air cavity is a numerical artifact—rests entirely on a no-slip versus free-slip comparison at Re = 2.2×10^3 (Case III). Section III A explicitly states that strict Reynolds-number similarity with experiments is not enforced; the validated cases are Re = 6×10^3 (Case I) and Re = 5×10^3 (Case II). The proposed mechanism—wall shear amplifies interfacial perturbations and breaks up the jet—is plausible at low Re, where boundary layers are thick, but it is not demonstrated to transfer to engineering-scale Re (~10^5–10^6), where boundary layers are thin and turbulent entrainment is different. Please either restrict the conclusion to the computed Reynolds number or provide a scale analysis/higher-Re test (e.g., repeat Case III at Re = 5×10^3 with the same resolution) showing that no-slip cavity suppression persists.
  2. [Sections IV–V, Eqs. (29) and (31)] No grid-convergence study or sensitivity analysis for the diffuse-interface parameters D and δ is reported. The no-slip jet breakup and aeration in Case III could be influenced by numerical resolution or by the interface thickness/diffusivity, rather than solely by the boundary condition. Because the central claim is that the cavity seen in earlier simulations is an artifact, the no-slip result must be shown to be independent of these numerical choices. At minimum, provide a coarser/refined run for Case III and a variation of D (or δ) with the boundary condition fixed, and show that the cavity remains suppressed.
  3. [Section V B, Fig. 19] The no-slip versus free-slip comparison at Case III is not directly validated against experiment at the comparison Reynolds number. The two validation cases are at Re = 6×10^3 and 5×10^3, while Case III is at Re = 2.2×10^3. Figure 19 compares the no-slip and free-slip pressure histories with each other and with qualitative literature observations, but not with a measured pressure signal for this configuration. This leaves open whether the no-slip branch at Re = 2.2×10^3 is the experimentally relevant branch. Please add a quantitative comparison with an experimental dataset for Case III, or justify in more detail why this lower-Reynolds-number run is representative.
  4. [Section VI, conclusion 1] The inference from resolved no-slip DNS to under-resolved RANS wall-function behavior assumes that an under-resolved no-slip wall is dynamically equivalent to free slip. This is plausible and is supported by reference [42], but the manuscript does not demonstrate the equivalence (for example, with a partial-slip or wall-modeled test). The central conclusion would be better framed as 'in the present resolved simulations, free-slip produces a cavity; under-resolved no-slip may behave similarly' unless the link to wall-function RANS is made explicit.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV A 3, Fig. 4] The water-level comparison uses a density threshold of ρ = 5 for the primary wave and ρ = 0.3 for the secondary/return wave. This post-hoc threshold selection should be justified more rigorously, and a brief statement of sensitivity to the chosen threshold would help the reader assess the validation.
  2. [Section IV A 4, Eq. (50)] The mixture classification 0.02 < ρmix < 10 is arbitrary. Since the air-fraction time history is presented as a quantitative result, please provide a sensitivity check or a reference justifying this choice.
  3. [Section V B 2, Fig. 19] The statement that the no-slip condition produces a smoother profile 'showing better agreement with experimental evidence' is qualitative. Overlay an experimental pressure trace in Fig. 19, or cite the specific dataset used for that comparison.
  4. [Section IV A 2] Typo: 'istantaneous' should be 'instantaneous'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central artifact claim rests on a controlled no-slip/free-slip comparison, not on fitted inputs or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that the large run-down air cavity is a numerical artifact—is supported by a controlled comparison of no-slip and free-slip wall treatments at identical Reynolds number (Section V B, Figs. 14, 19, 20). This is a difference-of-conditions experiment, not a fit to the target quantity: the no-slip result independently reproduces experimentally observed jet breakup and mixing ([14], [23]; Section IV), while the free-slip result produces the cavity. The multiphase solver accLB is self-cited ([19]-[22]), but the governing equations are given in full (Eqs. 1-44) and the code is benchmarked against external experiments (Sections IV A and IV B), so the self-citation is method attribution, not the load-bearing justification. The only post-processing degree of freedom is the choice of density iso-surface thresholds for water levels (Section IV A 3: rho=5 vs rho=0.3), which is a diagnostic representation of a strongly mixed free surface, not a fitted parameter in the dynamics and not used in the no-slip/free-slip comparison. The paper explicitly acknowledges 'Strict Reynolds-number similarity with the experiments is not enforced' (Section III A) and provides no grid-convergence study; these are scale-transferability and resolution-robustness limitations, not circular reductions. No equation or prediction in the paper reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim does not introduce new physical entities, but it leans on several modeling choices — most importantly the low Reynolds number and the chosen interface parameters — that are not matched to the experiments. The post-hoc density thresholds are a clear instance of data-dependent calibration.

free parameters (5)
  • Reynolds number for boundary-condition comparison = 2.2e3
    Chosen for numerical stability and affordability (Case III), not matched to experimental Re; central to the free-slip vs no-slip comparison.
  • Interface diffusivity D and interface thickness δ = not reported
    Appear in the Allen-Cahn equation (Eq. 29-31); values not given for the simulations, yet they control interface sharpness and breakup.
  • Lattice density ratio ρ_l/ρ_g = 500 (10 vs 0.02)
    Chosen for the diffuse-interface model; lower than the physical water-air ratio (~1000).
  • Lattice gravity g_n = 1e-7 to 1e-6
    Numerical parameter to keep Mach number small (Eq. 47).
  • Post-hoc density thresholds for water level = 0.3 and 5
    Chosen after comparing to experimental water levels to represent primary vs secondary wave interfaces.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The lattice Boltzmann scheme recovers variable-density incompressible Navier-Stokes equations
    Underlying kinetic theory assumption in Section II A.
  • domain assumption The conservative Allen-Cahn equation with γ=4D/δ accurately captures air-water interface dynamics including entrainment
    Interface-capturing model is used to simulate air entrainment; accuracy is assumed from prior validation.
  • domain assumption The flow is effectively incompressible; air compressibility has only marginal influence on pressure peaks
    Used to justify incompressible 3D model; supported by agreement with experiment but not directly tested.
  • domain assumption Froude scaling is the dominant similarity; Reynolds number need not match experiments
    Explicitly stated in Section III A; central to transferring conclusions to experimental scale.
  • domain assumption No-slip wall with resolved boundary layer represents the experimental wall condition
    The no-slip simulation is taken to be the physical reference to which free-slip is compared.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vortex dynamics and air entrainment in dam break wave impacting on vertical walls: A multiphase lattice Boltzmann study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6R24M6FK

@misc{pith2026260725433,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vortex dynamics and air entrainment in dam break wave impacting on vertical walls: A multiphase lattice Boltzmann study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6R24M6FK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25433}
}
read the original abstract

Air entrainment often plays a crucial role in determining impact loads exerted by free-surface wave flows interacting with structures, yet its modelling is often oversimplified in numerical approaches. In this study a two-phase numerical model, based on the Lattice Boltzmann Method coupled to a conservative Allen--Cahn interface-capturing equation is employed to perform direct numerical simulations of dam-break waves propagating over a dry bed and impacting on vertical walls. Access to high-resolution simulations enables a detailed assessment of how accurately resolving both air--water and solid--water interfaces affects local and overall dynamics, as well as quantities of extreme engineering interest. Indeed, the magnitudes and locations of the pressure peaks are strongly affected by wave front deflection and local aeration induced by a small corner vortex. Additionally, comparisons between no-slip and free-slip implementations suggest that the large air cavity formation, commonly observed as trapped inside the reflected jet falling back onto the incoming flow, may be the result of modeling assumptions rather than intrinsic flow physics, again highlighting the key role of near-wall shear in jet breakup dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25433 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematic representation of the experimental domain (Case I). Side view of the tank [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Comparison between snapshots of the experiments by [23] (top) and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5: Temporal evolution of the air fraction in the mixture. Aeration process during [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Pressure peaks for Sensor 1 from 100 experimental tests by [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Schematic representation of the experimental domain (Case II), dimensions in mm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Comparison of the free-surface profiles at different times: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Comparison of the velocity magnitude mapping at different times: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Detailed view of the dimensionless velocity gradients within the boundary layer, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Comparison of vertical velocity profiles along the impact wall between the TSLB [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Formation of the counterclockwise vortex during the run-up phase of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Comparison between no-slip (left) and free-slip (right) conditions of the velocity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_14.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Further evidence of these distinct impact dynamics is confirmed by comparisons between the experimental pressure distributions measured by [44] and the theoretical predictions of [45], as well as by the numerical results of [9]. In particular, the latter demonstrated …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: TSLB numerical density maps: comparison between no-slip (left) and free-slip [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: Pressure distribution along the vertical wall during the initial stages of wave tip [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_16.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18: Mechanism of generation of secondary counterclockwise vorticity at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19: Temporal distributions of pressure in the two different conditions of no-slip and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20: Nondimensional pressure field at different time instants during the run-down phase, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_20.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references

  1. [42]

    Kr¨ uger, H

    T. Kr¨ uger, H. Kusumaatmaja, A. Kuzmin, O. Shardt, G. Silva, E. M. Viggen, The lattice Boltzmann method, Vol. 10, Springer, 2017

    2017

  2. [1]

    2 for different time instants

    Free-surface profile The qualitative comparison of the free-surface profiles between the experimental test and the numerical model is reported in Fig. 2 for different time instants. Both the propagation and the run-up phases are reproduced remarkably well, as shown in the first snapshots of Fig. 2, as well as the plots in Fig. 3. Although the height of th...

  3. [2]

    Wave front evolution The temporal evolution of the wave front position and velocity prior to impact is reported in Fig. 3. The numerical front position is assumed to be the largest x location of the average iso-density in the domain. The velocities of both the experimental and the numerical wave fronts, extracted at the symmetry plane, are computed using ...

    2014

  4. [3]

    4 shows the temporal evolution of the water levels obtained from the TSLB numerical modeling, compared with the experimental measurements reported by [23]

    Water level time histories Fig. 4 shows the temporal evolution of the water levels obtained from the TSLB numerical modeling, compared with the experimental measurements reported by [23]. The analysis is carried out at the vertical sections H1, H2, H3, and H4, located within the computational domain (as shown in Fig. 1), considering an initial water depth...

    2014

  5. [4]

    This allows for an accurate assessment of the air fraction entrained in the jet throughout the event

    Air fraction in the mixture As previously discussed, the TSLB numerical model effectively simulates air–water mixing during a dam-break impact against a vertical wall. This allows for an accurate assessment of the air fraction entrained in the jet throughout the event. A computational node is classified as belonging to the air–water mixture phase if its d...

  6. [5]

    Pressure histories Pressure histories obtained with the TSLB model were extracted at the sensor locations installed on the vertical impact wall, as shown in Fig. 1. Since the spatial extent of the pressure sensor exceeds the numerical grid spacing, an averaging procedure has been applied to the numerical results over the corresponding sensor area. A compa...

    2014

  7. [6]

    This issue was also analyzed in the work by [ 23], who conducted an extensive experimental campaign by repeating the same test 100 times under identical initial conditions

    Influence of impact dynamics on first pressure peak uncertainty The uncertainty in the prediction of pressure peaks at the base of the vertical impact wall, induced by a dam-break flow, represents a well-recognized problem investigated in various experimental studies [ 4], [39], [40]. This issue was also analyzed in the work by [ 23], who conducted an ext...

    2014

  8. [7]

    J. Shen, L. Wei, D. Wu, H. Liu, J. Huangfu, Spatiotemporal characteristics of the dam-break induced surge pressure on a vertical wall, Coastal Engineering Journal 62 (4) (2020) 566–581. 38

    2020

Show all 62 references
  1. [8]

    S. Liu, I. Nistor, A. Mohammadian, A. H. Azimi, Experimental investigation on the impact of dam-break induced surges on a vertical wall, Fluids 7 (8) (2022) 258

    2022

  2. [9]

    The dimensionless velocity magnitude in the X–Z plane is defined as V = √ U 2 +W 2

    Velocity magnitude mapping The velocity magnitude distribution, compared with experimental data, was obtained by nondimensionalizing the horizontal and vertical components as U = u/√gH and W = w/√gH . The dimensionless velocity magnitude in the X–Z plane is defined as V = √ U ...

  3. [10]

    Vertical velocity profile The comparison of the vertical velocity profiles, W = w/√gH , along the impact wall at different time instants is shown in Fig. 12. The numerical results obtained using the TSLB modeling framework should be interpreted as mean profiles, computed from ...

    2023

  4. [11]

    15 compares the impact dynamics yielded by a no-slip and free-slip simulations

    Shear-induced aeration and jet deflection Fig. 15 compares the impact dynamics yielded by a no-slip and free-slip simulations. The comparison highlights that the clockwise vortex developing at the bottom corner is absent under free-slip conditions. The absence of the boundary ...

  5. [12]

    :” denotes double contraction and “

    or in presence of overtopping flow [13]. In these configurations, the engineering response is not determined solely by the hydrody- namic properties of the flow, such as its kinematics [ 14], but also by the impact dynamics and the resulting fluid–structure interaction. These ...

  6. [13]

    A comparison of the temporal pressure distributions (Fig

    Air entrainment effect on pressure history The pressure response was analyzed using an ideal sensor positioned on the vertical wall at an elevation of 15 mm from the bottom. A comparison of the temporal pressure distributions (Fig. 19) reveals that the free-slip condition yiel...

  7. [14]

    In contrast, wall friction amplifies interfacial perturbations, promotes jet breakup, and accelerates the deaeration process before the main jet impacts the incoming flow

    Comparisons between simulations performed at the same Reynolds number ( Re) show that a large, smooth, coherent air cavity develops during the run-down phase only when a free-slip boundary condition is imposed at the wall. In contrast, wall friction amplifies interfacial pertu...

  8. [15]

    Air compressibility has only a marginal influence on the prediction of the second pressure peak. Although a coherent air cavity (free-slip case) generates pressure oscillations, these are significantly damped when jet breakup and the resulting air–water mixing occur under no-s...

  9. [16]

    Ecosistema dell’Innovazione—Rome Technopole

    During the impact process, the clockwise vortex developing near the lower corner of the wall governs the upward deflection of the incoming flow. An accurate representation of the no-slip boundary condition is therefore essential. Simulations employing a free-slip condition fai...

  10. [17]

    Z. Xu, B. Melville, C. Whittaker, N. Nandasena, A. Shamseldin, Mitigation of tsunami bore impact on a vertical wall behind a barrier, Coastal Engineering 164 (2021) 103833

    2021

  11. [18]

    La Rocca, S

    M. La Rocca, S. Miliani, P. Prestininzi, Discrete boltzmann numerical simulation of simplified urban flooding configurations caused by dam break, Frontiers in Earth Science 8 (2020) 346

    2020

  12. [19]

    Kleefsman, G

    K. Kleefsman, G. Fekken, A. Veldman, B. Iwanowski, B. Buchner, A volume-of-fluid based simulation method for wave impact problems, Journal of computational physics 206 (1) (2005) 363–393

    2005

  13. [20]

    Aureli, S

    F. Aureli, S. Dazzi, A. Maranzoni, P. Mignosa, R. Vacondio, Experimental and numerical evaluation of the force due to the impact of a dam-break wave on a structure, Advances in Water Resources 76 (2015) 29–42

    2015

  14. [21]

    Ozmen-Cagatay, S

    H. Ozmen-Cagatay, S. Kocaman, Dam-break flow in the presence of obstacle: experiment and cfd simulation, Engineering applications of computational fluid mechanics 5 (4) (2011) 541–552

    2011

  15. [22]

    O. O. Adekoya, K. S. Erduran, Combined influence of pier geometry and downstream bed slope on tsunami-surge impact forces, Physics of Fluids 38 (1) (2026)

    2026

  16. [23]

    and the numerical simulations of [32], [33], [34]

  17. [24]

    Mokrani, S

    C. Mokrani, S. Abadie, Conditions for peak pressure stability in vof simulations of dam break flow impact, Journal of Fluids and Structures 62 (2016) 86–103

    2016

  18. [25]

    Rozki, S

    M. Rozki, S. Abadie, D. Morichon, Physical processes explaining the second force peak generated during a surge impact on a vertical wall, Coastal Engineering 197 (2025) 104664

    2025

  19. [26]

    Del Gaudio, G

    A. Del Gaudio, G. La Forgia, G. Constantinescu, F. De Paola, C. Di Cristo, M. Iervolino, A. Leopardi, A. Vacca, Modelling the impact of a dam-break wave on a vertical wall, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 49 (7) (2024) 2080–2095

    2024

  20. [27]

    Z. Huo, H. Liu, Experimental study of the surge-and bore-induced impact pressure on a vertical wall and its foundation, Physics of Fluids 35 (1) (2023)

    2023

  21. [28]

    Rozki, S

    M. Rozki, S. Abadie, D. Morichon, First and second force peaks generated by a surge impact on a wall with and without overtopping, Journal of Fluids and Structures 137 (2025) 104380

    2025

  22. [29]

    T. Tan, Y. Ma, J. Zhang, X. Niu, K.-A. Chang, Experimental study on flow kinematics of dam-break induced surge impacting onto a vertical wall, Physics of Fluids 35 (2) (2023)

    2023

  23. [30]

    Lugni, M

    C. Lugni, M. Brocchini, O. Faltinsen, Wave impact loads: The role of the flip-through, Physics of fluids 18 (12) (2006)

    2006

  24. [31]

    Bredmose, G

    H. Bredmose, G. Bullock, A. Hogg, Violent breaking wave impacts. part 3. effects of scale and aeration, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 765 (2015) 82–113

    2015

  25. [32]

    Colagrossi, M

    A. Colagrossi, M. Landrini, Numerical simulation of interfacial flows by smoothed particle hydrodynamics, Journal of computational physics 191 (2) (2003) 448–475

    2003

  26. [33]

    Y. Yang, J. Shao, Numerical simulation of fluid–structure interaction with sph method, The Journal of Engineering 2020 (14) (2020) 958–965

    2020

  27. [34]

    Lauricella, A

    M. Lauricella, A. Mukherjee, L. Brandt, S. Succi, D. Izbassarov, A. Montessori, acclb: A high-performance lattice boltzmann code for multiphase turbulence on multi-gpu architectures, Procedia Computer Science 267 (2025) 40–51

    2025

  28. [35]

    Lauricella, A

    M. Lauricella, A. Tiribocchi, S. Succi, L. Brandt, A. Mukherjee, M. La Rocca, A. Montessori, Thread-safe multiphase lattice boltzmann model for droplet and bubble dynamics at high density and viscosity contrasts, Physics of Fluids 37 (7) (2025)

    2025

  29. [36]

    Montessori, M

    A. Montessori, M. Lauricella, A. Mukherjee, L. Brandt, Breakdown of kolmogorov scaling and modified energy transfer in bubble-laden turbulence, Physical Review Fluids 11 (2) (2026) 39 024605

    2026

  30. [37]

    Montessori, M

    A. Montessori, M. La Rocca, G. Amati, M. Lauricella, A. Tiribocchi, S. Succi, High-order thread-safe lattice boltzmann model for high performance computing turbulent flow simulations, Physics of Fluids 36 (3) (2024)

    2024

  31. [38]

    Lobovsk` y, E

    L. Lobovsk` y, E. Botia-Vera, F. Castellana, J. Mas-Soler, A. Souto-Iglesias, Experimental investigation of dynamic pressure loads during dam break, Journal of Fluids and Structures 48 (2014) 407–434

    2014

  32. [39]

    Zhao-Li, Z

    G. Zhao-Li, Z. Chu-Guang, S. Bao-Chang, Non-equilibrium extrapolation method for velocity and pressure boundary conditions in the lattice boltzmann method, Chinese physics 11 (4) (2002) 366–374

    2002

  33. [40]

    Chikatamarla, S

    S. Chikatamarla, S. Ansumali, I. Karlin, Grad’s approximation for missing data in lattice boltzmann simulations, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 74 (2) (2006) 215–221

    2006

  34. [41]

    Latt, Choice of units in lattice boltzmann simulations, Freely available online at http://lbmethod

    J. Latt, Choice of units in lattice boltzmann simulations, Freely available online at http://lbmethod. org/ media/howtos: lbunits. pdf (2008)

    2008

  35. [43]

    Stansby, A

    P. Stansby, A. Chegini, T. Barnes, The initial stages of dam-break flow, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 374 (1998) 407–424

    1998

  36. [44]

    Lauber, W

    G. Lauber, W. H. Hager, Experiments to dambreak wave: Horizontal channel, Journal of Hydraulic research 36 (3) (1998) 291–307

    1998

  37. [45]

    Heller, Scale effects in physical hydraulic engineering models, Journal of Hydraulic Research 49 (3) (2011) 293–306

    V. Heller, Scale effects in physical hydraulic engineering models, Journal of Hydraulic Research 49 (3) (2011) 293–306

    2011

  38. [46]

    Heller, Self-similarity and reynolds number invariance in froude modelling, Journal of Hydraulic Research 55 (3) (2017) 293–309

    V. Heller, Self-similarity and reynolds number invariance in froude modelling, Journal of Hydraulic Research 55 (3) (2017) 293–309

    2017

  39. [47]

    Lubin, S

    P. Lubin, S. Vincent, J.-P. Caltagirone, S. Abadie, Fully three-dimensional direct numerical simulation of a plunging breaker, Comptes Rendus Mecanique 331 (7) (2003) 495–501

    2003

  40. [48]

    Lubin, S

    P. Lubin, S. Vincent, S. Abadie, J.-P. Caltagirone, Three-dimensional large eddy simulation of air entrainment under plunging breaking waves, Coastal engineering 53 (8) (2006) 631–655

    2006

  41. [49]

    Landrini, A

    M. Landrini, A. Colagrossi, M. Greco, M. Tulin, Gridless simulations of splashing processes and near-shore bore propagation, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 591 (2007) 183–213

    2007

  42. [50]

    M. M. Kamra, N. Mohd, C. Liu, M. Sueyoshi, C. Hu, Numerical and experimental investigation 40 of three-dimensionality in the dam-break flow against a vertical wall, Journal of Hydrodynamics 30 (4) (2018) 682–693

    2018

  43. [51]

    Ritter, Die fortpflanzung der wasserwellen, Zeitschrift des vereines deutscher ingenieure 36 (33) (1892) 947–954

    A. Ritter, Die fortpflanzung der wasserwellen, Zeitschrift des vereines deutscher ingenieure 36 (33) (1892) 947–954

  44. [52]

    L. Peng, T. Zhang, Y. Rong, C. Hu, P. Feng, Numerical investigation of the impact of a dam-break induced flood on a structure, Ocean Engineering 223 (2021) 108669

    2021

  45. [53]

    Garoosi, A

    F. Garoosi, A. N. Mellado-Cusicahua, M. Shademani, A. Shakibaeinia, Experimental and numerical investigations of dam break flow over dry and wet beds, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 215 (2022) 106946

    2022

  46. [54]

    W. Xie, T. Shimozono, Water surge impingement onto a vertical wall: Laboratory experiments and stochastic analysis on impact pressure, Ocean Engineering 248 (2022) 110422

    2022

  47. [55]

    Martinez-Carrascal, P

    J. Martinez-Carrascal, P. E. Merino-Alonso, I. Mengual Berjon, M. A. San Gregorio, A. Souto- Iglesias, Experimental investigation of wave impact loads induced by a three-dimensional dam break, Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 14 (2) (2026) 199

    2026

  48. [56]

    H. T.-S. Ko, H. Yeh, On the splash-up of tsunami bore impact, Coastal engineering 131 (2018) 1–11

    2018

  49. [57]

    D. C. Wilcox, Turbulence modelling for CFD, DCW Industries, La Ca˜ nada, 1993

    1993

  50. [58]

    Del Gaudio, G

    A. Del Gaudio, G. Constantinescu, F. De Paola, C. Di Cristo, A. Vacca, Turbulent dam-break waves of newtonian and non-newtonian fluids, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 1019 (2025) A58

    2025

  51. [59]

    Kihara, Y

    N. Kihara, Y. Niida, D. Takabatake, H. Kaida, A. Shibayama, Y. Miyagawa, Large-scale experiments on tsunami-induced pressure on a vertical tide wall, Coastal engineering 99 (2015) 46–63

    2015

  52. [60]

    Cumberbatch, The impact of a water wedge on a wall, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 7 (3) (1960) 353–374

    E. Cumberbatch, The impact of a water wedge on a wall, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 7 (3) (1960) 353–374

    1960

  53. [61]

    Terrington, M

    S. Terrington, M. Thompson, K. Hourigan, Vorticity dynamics at partial-slip boundaries, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 980 (2024) A58

    2024

  54. [62]

    Michel, G

    J. Michel, G. Oger, D. Le Touz´ e, A. Colagrossi, S. Marrone, Efficient and flexible adaptive particle refinement for free-surface flows based on the regularized high-order diffusive smoothed particle hydrodynamics scheme, Physics of Fluids 37 (12) (2025). 41

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.