Two-Layer Non-Hydrostatic Scheme for Simulations of Wave Runup
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are indisputable research supporting scientific argument that propagation of (tsunami) wave from intermediate depth towards shallower coastal area needs dispersive wave model. For tsunami wave simulation, efficiency of the numerical scheme is an important issue. In this paper, the two-layer non-hydrostatic model as developed previously in Pudjaprasetya et al. [2017] “A non-hydrostatic two-layer staggered scheme for transient waves due to anti-symmetric seabed thrust,” J. Earthquake Tsunami 11, 1–17, to study tsunami generation and propagation, is adopted. Restricting to 1+1 dimension, here, we focus on the performance of the scheme in simulating wave propagation in coastal areas, in particular predicting the run-up height. First, we conducted a simulation of harmonic wave over a sloping beach to conform the analytical shoreline motion by Carrier and Greenspan [1958] “Water waves of finite amplitude on a sloping beach,” J. Fluid Mech. 4, 97–109. The ability of the scheme in accommodating dispersion and non-linearity were shown via simulation of a solitary wave that propagates over a flat bottom. This solitary wave simulation provides an evaluation of the convergence aspect of the model. Further, several benchmark tests were conducted; a solitary wave over a sloping beach to mimic the experimental data by Synolakis [1986] “The run-up of solitary waves,” J. Fluid Mech. 185, 523–545, as well as solitary wave over a composite beach. Good agreement with laboratory data was obtained in terms of wave signal, whereas for relatively low amplitude, the solitary run-up height conforms the analytical formula. Moreover, the scheme is tested for simulating the Beji–Battjes experiment Beji, S. and Battjes, J. A. [1993] “Experimental investigation of wave propagation over a bar,” Coast. Eng. 19, 151–162. As well as wave focusing experiment by Kurnia et al. [2015] “Simulations for design and reconstruction of breaking waves in a wavetank,” Proc. ASME 2015 34th Int. Conf. Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Newfoundland, Canada, 31 May–5 June 2015, pp. 2–7.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".