A RTEMIS

UserManual

Version v8p4
December 1, 2022
 Contents

1 Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2 Typing conventions used in this manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1 Situation of A R TEMIS within the TELEMAC modelling system 8
3.2 User programming 9

4 Theoretical Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1 Main symbols and units 11
4.2 Generals about waves 11
4.2.1 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.2 Statistical approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.3 Spectral Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.3 Theoretical modelling 15
4.3.1 Concept’s background. Basic assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3.2 Development of Berkhoff’s equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.3.3 Amended mild-slope equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.4 Formulation of the dissipation coefficient 22
4.4.1 Surf-breaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.4.2 Bottom friction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.5 Boundary conditions 26
4.5.1 Solid boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.5.2 Liquid boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.6 Treatment of random mono/multi directional waves 29
4.7 Radiation stresses; Wave-driven forcing terms 33
4.8 Digital solution through the finite element method 34
4.8.1 System of equations to be solved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.8.2 Variational formulation of the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.8.3 Digital solution algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.8.4 Matrix in the case of rapidly varying topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5 Inputs and outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.1 Preliminary remarks 40
5.2 The files 40
5.2.1 The steering file . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.2.2 The geometry file . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.2.3 The boundary conditions file . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.2.4 The results file . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.2.5 The printout listing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.2.6 The Fortran user file . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.2.7 The ancillary files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.2.8 The dictionary file . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.2.9 The libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5.3 File binaries 45

5.4 Bathymetric data 45

6 Initial conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6.1 Setting using key words 47
6.2 Setting using the subroutine CONDIH 47

7 Boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
7.1 Description of different types of condition 49
7.2 The boundary conditions file 50
7.3 Processing of solid boundaries (LIHBOR=KLOG) 51
7.4 Processing of liquid 52
7.4.1 Incident wave (LIHBOR=KINC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
7.4.2 Incident potential (LIHBOR=KPOT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
7.4.3 Free exit (LIHBOR=KSORT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
7.4.4 Modifications of « incident wave » boundary condition from V6P2 . . . . . . . 53

8 Physical parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
8.1 Monochromatic waves 55
8.2 Random waves 55
8.3 Period scanning. Resonance 56
8.4 Bathymetric breaking 56
8.5 Bottom friction 57
8.5.1 Determination of friction factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
8.5.2 Determination of dissipation coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

8.6 Rapidly varying topography 59

8.7 Other parameters 59
4

9 General parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

10 Numerical parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
10.1 Solver 61
10.2 Accuracy 62
10.3 Preconditioning 62
10.4 Handling of cases with energy dissipation 62

11 Programming of complex cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

11.1 Modification of bed elevation (corfon) 64
11.2 Modification of coordinates (corrxy) 64
11.3 Addition of new variables 64

12 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
12.1 Running an ARTEMIS computation 65
12.2 List of subroutines most frequently modified by users 67
12.3 Example of a steering file 67
12.4 Example of a user Fortran Fortran file 68

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
 1. Foreword

This manual has been drafted for the V6 software release.

The information given in this manual is subject to revision without notice. EDF-R&D disclaims
any responsibility for or in relation to the contents hereof.
No copy may be made of this document, either mechanically or electronically, without the prior
written consent of EDF-R&D.
The TELEMAC-2D, TELEMAC-3D, A RTEMIS, POSTEL-3D, S TBTEL, SISYPHE, TOMAWAC,
ESTEL-2D, ESTEL-3D, SPARTACUS-2D, SINUSX, EDAMOX,MATISSE and RUBENS pro-
grams are the property of EDF-R&D
The SIMAIL program is the property of SIMULOG.
The SUPERTAB program is the property of SDRC.
The TRIGRID program is the property of the Institute of Ocean Sciences, Canada.
The FASTTABS program is the property of Brigham Young University, USA.
Copyright 2009 EDF-R&D
 2. Typing conventions used in this man-
ual

The computational items (variable names, file names, etc.) are written in courier font.
The keywords are written in ITALIC BOLD CHARACTERS
The literature references are given between brackets [ ].
 3. Introduction

The A RTEMIS code (Agitation and Refraction with TELEMAC on a MIld Slope) solves the
Elliptic mild slope equation [4] using finite element techniques inside the TELEMAC modelling
system structure. This equation is obtained from the Navier-Stokes equations according a set of
hypothesis (low value of wave steepness, low value of bottom slope). The main results at each
node of the computational mesh are the height, the phase and the direction of the wave. The
main application of A RTEMIS concerns the wave agitation in harbours or small bays. ARTEMIS
is able to take into account the following phenomena :

• Wave reflection by an obstacle,

• Wave diffraction behind an obstacle,

• Wave refraction by bottom variation,

• Regular wave,

• Monodirectional or multidirectional random wave,

• Bottom friction,

• Bathymetric breaking.

• Taking into account of the dissipation by breaking and/or bottom friction,

• Improvement of boundary conditions taking into account incidence angle on a solid

boundary, and input/output angle in a liquid boundary,

However, the actual version of the software is unable to take into account the following phe-
nomena:

• Wave refraction by current,

• Dry area inside the domain (tidal flats).

The application domains of the software are various. In particular, it offers the possibility to
study wave agitation in harbour or bay, to appreciate the impact of harbour equipment (pier,
dike), to evaluate the wave agitation behind a breach, the wave decay behind an island or flat,
seiching in a channel, etc.
 8 Chapter 3. Introduction

A RTEMIS was developed by the National Hydraulics and Environnement Laboratory (Labora-
toire National d’Hydraulique et d’Environnement - LNHE) of the Research and Studies Direc-
torate of the French Electricity Board (EDF-R&D). The program complies with EDF-DER’s
Quality Assurance procedures for scientific and technical programs [10]. This sets out rules for
developing and checking product quality at all stages. In particular, a program covered by Qual-
ity Assurance procedures is accompanied by a Validation File that describes a set of test cases
(see reference [26]). This document can be used to determine the performance and limitations
of the software and define its field of application. The test cases are also used for developing
the software and are checked each time new versions are produced. Description sheets for each
test case have been updated for the version 6.2 of the code.

3.1 Situation of A R TEMIS within the TELEMAC modelling system

The A RTEMIS software is part of a complete set of computational software and their associ-
ated pre- and post-processors, the TELEMAC system. This offers all the modules required for
constructing a model and using it to simulate 2D and 3D hydrodynamic phenomena (wave and
current), water quality and sedimentology.
The TELEMAC system comprises the following modules:

• The MATISSE software designed, using the bathymetric and/or topographic data, to gen-
erate a mesh consisting of triangular elements,

• The S TBTEL software designed to retrieve the file from a mesh generator, possibly in-
terpolate a bathymetry, and generate a geometry file in the SELAFIN format that can be
read by the simulation modules as well as the RUBENS software. S TBTEL also conducts
a number of mesh coherence checks,

• The TELEMAC-2D software designed to perform the hydrodynamic simulation in two

horizontal space dimensions. In addition, TELEMAC-2D can simulate the transport of
dissolved tracers,

• The TELEMAC-3D software itself, designed to carry out the hydrodynamic simulations
of flows in three space dimensions. Besides, TELEMAC-3D can simulate the transport
of tracers. The SEDI-3D library contains of the relevant subroutines for the simulation of
non-cohesive sediment transport. The implementation of the TELEMAC-3D software is
the subject matter of this document,

• The SISYPHE software designed to carry out the simulation the transport of sediment
through bed load traction and suspension.

• The A RTEMIS software designed to simulate the changes in the features of wave agitation
either in a coastal water body or a harbour,

• The TOMAWAC software designed to simulate, through a spectral method, the sea state
in permanent or transitory conditions,

• The ESTEL-2D software designed to simulate the underground flows in two vertical
space dimensions,

• The ESTEL-3D software designed to simulate the underground flows in three dimensions,

• The POSTEL-3D software designed to prepare the 2D cross sections in the 3D result file,
for a processing by the RUBENS graphics software,
 3.2 User programming 9

• The RUBENS software designed to graphically process the results of the various simula-
tion modes,

• The SPARTACUS-2D software designed to simulate the two-dimensional laminar and

turbulent flows through the SPH method.

As a complement to the TELEMAC chain, the FUDAA-PREPRO software (as developed from
the FUDAA platform by the CETMEF’s, Informatics and Modelling Research Department)
covers all the preprocessing tasks involved by the achievement of a digital hydraulic study.

3.2 User programming

When he uses a simulation module from the TELEMAC SYSTEM, the user may have to pro-
gram specific functions which are not provided in the code’s standard release. In particular, that
is made through a number of so-called « user » subroutines the sources of which are supplied
within the distribution.
The procedure to be carried out in that case comprises the steps of:

• Recovering the standard version of the user subroutine(s) as supplied in the distribution
and copying it into the current directory.

• Amending the subroutine(s) according to the model to be constructed.

• Concatenating the whole set of subroutines into a single Fortran file which will be com-
piled during the A RTEMIS launching process.

During that programming stage, the user can gain access to the various variables of the software
through the Fortran 90 structures.
All the data structures are gathered within Fortran files, which are known as modules. For
ARTEMIS, the file name is DECLARATION_ARTEMIS. To gain access to the ARTEMIS data,
just insert the command USE DECLARATIONS_ARTEMIS into the beginning of the subrou-
tine. Adding the command USE BIEF may also be necessary in order to reach the structure in
the BIEF library.
 4. Theoretical Aspects

This report is the theoretical note of the scientific software A RTEMIS, version 3.0. ARTEMIS
deals with the modelling of wave propagation towards the coast and wave agitation in harbours.
This software is integrated in the TELEMAC system, and is developed following the Quality
Assurance procedures in effect in the Research Division of Electricité de France.

After a few words about the statistical and spectral approaches of the wave description, we
present the theoretical model of monochromatic waves as used by A RTEMIS, which is based
on the Berkhoff’s or mild slope equation verified by the velocity potential. Then, we describe
how non-linear dissipative processes have been included in the initial linear model. The vari-
ous formulations implemented in the software to quantify the wave energy dissipation through
surf-breaking and bottom friction are explained. The treatment of liquid and solid boundaries
is realized through Neumann conditions, and enables to model incident waves (radiation condi-
tion), free wave-output, full or partial reflectionsreflection. A specific methodology, presented
in the report, has been developed in A RTEMIS to take into account directional spreading and
frequency distribution of the wave energy (random waves). Finally, we describe the numer-
ical algorithm implemented to solve the mathematical model, as expressed through the finite
element formulation, using functions developed in the BIEF library of the TELEMAC system.
 4.1 Main symbols and units 11

4.1 Main symbols and units

Φ m2 s−1 velocity potential
φ m2 s−1 reduced velocity potential
A m2 s−1 amplitude of reduced potential: φ = Aeiβ
β rad phase of reduced potential: φ = Aeiβ
H m wave height
H1/3 m significant wave height (statistical approach)
Hrms m RMS wave height (statistical approach)
Hm0 m significant wave height (spectral approach)
He m wave energy height (spectral approach)
Hmax m maximum wave height
Hm m critical wave height at breaking point
T s wave period
TH1/3 s significant wave period
Tp s wave peak period
Qb - breaking rate
fw - friction coefficient

E(f,θ ) kg s−1 wave energy spectrum

S(f,θ ) m2 wave variance spectrum
Hz−1
ω rad s−1 wave pulsation
f Hz wave frequency
fp Hz peak frequency (in random waves)
k m−1 wave number
h m water depth
m - bottom slope
L m wave length
C m s−1 phase velocity
Cg m s−1 group velocity
g m s−2 gravity acceleration (g = 9.81 m/s2 )
E kg s−2 wave energy per unit area
ρ kg m−3 seawater density
AIPCN Association Internationale Permanente des
Congrès de Navigation
AIRH Internationale Association of Hydraulics Research
BIEF BIbliothèque Eléments Finis (système TELEMAC)

4.2 Generals about waves

4.2.1 Definitions
Waves deserve their name! Defining a "wave" does call for special care when its specific phys-
ical variables are to be determined. A wave is defined by the deformation of the free surface
between two successive occurrences either of a zero up-crossing or a zero down-crossing in-
cluding a crest and a trough. Depending on which one of the above conventions is adopted, the
distribution of wave heights, as defined by the differences between the elevations of the wave
crests and troughs, may be different. The period of a wave can be defined using the symbol T.
The characteristics of the sea state (height, period. . . ) can be known from the free surface
 12 Chapter 4. Theoretical Aspects

deformation signal ζ (x,y,t) as a function of horizontal position (x,y) and time t, following two
kinds of approaches, namely statistical and spectral approaches.

4.2.2 Statistical approach

Once symbols are chosen for defining the wave height and period, all the recorded heights Hi
and periods of N waves can be computed from signal ζ (x,y,t). The following parameters are
then defined:
H : wave height average as defined by (rarely used variable):

1 N
H= ∑ Hi
N i=1

H1/n : height average in the upper (1/n)th percentile of the wave

height population
H1/3 : the significant height is particularly defined for n = 3
Hrms : root mean square value of wave heights Hi as defined by
s
1 N 2
H= ∑ Hi
N i=1

Hmax : maximum recorded heigh

TH1/3 : average of periods Ti in the upper third of the wave height
population

T1/3 : average of periods Ti in the upper third of the wave period

population
T̄ : average of all the wave periods Ti
It was found in deep water that the likeliness of a wave height H◦ exceeding a height H was
properly approximated by such a rule as:
2H −( H )2
Prob(H ◦ ≥ H) = e b (4.1)
b2
The related probability density is given by the following relation:
H 2
p(H) = e−( b ) (4.2)
It defines a so-called Rayleigh’s statistical distribution of waves. Parameter b characterizes the
population. It can be related, for example, to the root mean square value of wave height Hrms .
This is because:
Z ∞
2
Hrms = H 2 p(H)dH (4.3)
0

That integral can easily be computed: its value is b2 . The Rayleigh’s law is then finally written
as follows:

2H −( HH )2
p(H) = 2
e rms (4.4)
Hrms
The following relations are given by that wave height distribution law:
H1/10 = 1.27H1/3
H1/3 = 1.60H = 1.416Hrms
 4.2 Generals about waves 13

Note:
These results are obtained by computing the H1/n heights as follows: let H* be such that
Prob (H◦ >H*) = 1/n. Immediately, we have:
p
H∗ = ln(n)Hrms

H1/n is subsequently defined by:

1
Z ∞
H = H p (H) dH
n 1/n H∗

This integral is expressed as a function of Hrms and leads to the above mentioned relations.
That distribution can be highly modified in shallow water under the influence of dissipation
processes (primarily breaking). A truncated model of probability density incorporating the
concept of maximum boundary height can be adopted (cf. 4.4.1 below).
Other sea state parameters can also be set either through the statistical analysis or from each
individual wave. For further information, please refer to [1].

4.2.3 Spectral Approach

The initial step is the signal ζ (x,y,t) of free surface deformation in time over the horizontal do-
main being investigated. After submitting the signal ζ (x,y,t) to a generalized Fourier transform
combining time and space dependence of the free surface elevation, we can write, after Massel
[22]:
Z +F Z 2π
1
ζ (x, y,t) = ζ0 (x, y) + lim Ãx,y ( f , θ )eiψ̃x,y ( f ,θ ) ei[2ππ f −k(x cos θ −y sin θ )] d f dθ (4.5)
F→∞ F f =−F θ =0

wherein:
k is a function of f through a so-called "dispersion" relation that will be identified hereinafter
θ denotes a propagation direction with a positive counterclockwise orientation with respect to
an axis Ox
Ãx,y ( f , θ ) et ψ̃x,y ( f , θ ) are obtained through a generalized Fourier transform applied to the
three-dimension case [15], ,which is actually reduced to two dimensions because of the dis-
persion relation between two dimensions. In addition, Ãx,y (− f , θ ) is the conjugate complex of
Ãx,y ( f , θ ). Ã is expressed in meters.
ζ0 (x, y) is the average level of the free surface, with an assumed zero value all over the domain
being investigated.
The directional spectrum E(f,θ ) of wave energy at every point (x,y) in the domain is related to
Ãx,y ( f , θ ) by the following formal relation :

1 02
E( f , θ )d f dθ = ρgÃx,y ( f,θ) (4.6)
2
wherein ’x,y (f,θ ) = 2 x,y (f,θ )
The directional spectrum S(f,θ ) of wave action, as expressed in m2 .Hz−1 , is usually defined by

S( f , θ ) = E( f , θ )/(ρg) (4.7)

The following spectral wave parameters can be set from S(f,θ ) :

14 Chapter 4. Theoretical Aspects

mn : n-order moment of directional spectrum as defined by :

Z +∞ Z 2π
mn = f n S( f , θ )d f dθ
f =0 θ =0

m0 : especially for n = 0, the variance m0 of the free surface

difference of level is defined
Hm0 : significant spectral height, as defined by :
√
Hm0 = 4 m0

He : Spectral energy height as defined by the relation :

1
m0 = He2
8
Thus, He is related to Hm0 by :
Hm0
He = √
2

Tp : peak period as determined by the maximum value of spec-

trum S(f,θ )
θm : mean wave direction, as defined by the expression :
R 2π R +∞
0 f =0 θ S( f , θ )d f dθ
θm = R 2π R +∞
0 f =0 S( f , θ )d f dθ

T0,1 : First mean spectral wave periods defined by :

R 2π R +∞
m0 0 f =0 S( f , θ )d f dθ
T01 = = R 2π R +∞
m1 0 f =0 f S( f , θ )d f dθ

T0,2 : Second mean spectral wave periods defined by:

v
u R 2π R +∞
f =0 S( f , θ )d f dθ
r
m0 u 0
T02 = = t R 2π R +∞
m2 0
2
f =0 f S( f , θ )d f dθ

TM : Third mean spectral wave TM defined by:

R 2π R +∞
0 f =0 (1/ f )S( f , θ )d f dθ
TM = R 2π R +∞
0 f =0 S( f , θ )d f dθ

k̄ : Mean wave number, computed from the dispersion rela-

tionship using the mean pulsation ω̄ = 2π/T01
C̄ : Mean phase velocity C̄ = ω̄/k̄
C̄g : Mean group velocity C̄g = d ω̄/d k̄
As in the statistical analysis, other parameters can be computed from the energy spectrum (see
in [1]). If the height distribution complies with a Rayleigh’s law, then the statistical approach
and the spectral approach may correspond to each other:
 4.3 Theoretical modelling 15

Hm0 = H1/3
He = Hrms
These two approaches are not necessarily equivalent to each other in shallow waters where the
dissipation processes (mainly surf-breaking) and the non-linear transfers between frequencies
affect the distribution of wave heights (see in [15]).

4.3 Theoretical modelling

4.3.1 Concept’s background. Basic assumptions
All the wave propagation theories rely on the Newtonian fluid dynamics model as described by
the Navier-Stokes equations. These general equations can more or less be simplified according
to the extent of complexity as kept by the modelling hypothesis. We will consider how to set the
Berkhoff’s model [4] or in other word the "mid slope equation", describing the monochromatic
wave refraction and diffraction both by slowly spatially-changing bottoms and by obstacles.
Such processes as partial or total reflection, wave inflow or outflow, are governed by boundary
conditions to be specified hereinafter.
The fluid movement is located in an Oxyz Cartesian co-ordinate system whose axis z coincides
with the ascending vertical. The origin of axis Oz is taken at the free surface at rest. The free
surface elevation and the bottom depth are denoted ζ αvδ − h, respectively (h being the positive
or negative water depthwater depth at rest). H is the wave height, L is its wavelength (fig 4.2)

Figure 4.1: Illustration of used notationsMixing lengths versus depth.

The general modelling assumptions are as follows:

• the fluid (seawater) is assumed to be nonviscous

 16 Chapter 4. Theoretical Aspects

• the flow is assumed to be irrotational. Thus, one can introduce such a potential Φ as
∇Φ = → −
u , wherein →
−
u is the fluid particle velocity vector

• the fluid is assumed to be uncompressible

• the bottoms do not change in time

4.3.2 Development of Berkhoff’s equation

Forming the equations
Once the above assumptions and definitions are available, the momentum conservation and
continuity equations can be simplified as follows:

∇2 Φ = 0 (4.8)
 
∂Φ 1 2 p
∇ + (∇Φ) + + gz = 0 (4.9)
∂t 2 ρ
using the conventional notations, namely p for pressure, ρ for water density and g for gravity.
Equation 4.8 expresses the conservation of mass and Equation 4.9 expresses the conservation
of momentum (as written in the form of the Bernoulli’s equation). Pressure p is not hydrostatic
due to the wave action.
These two equations are associated to the boundary conditions both at the free surface (z = ζ )
and the bottom (z = -h); the boundary conditions are written as follows:

∂Φ ∂ζ ∂Φ ∂ζ ∂Φ ∂ζ
= + . + . (4.10)
∂z z=ζ (x,y,t) ∂t ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y

∂Φ ∂Φ ∂h ∂Φ ∂h
=− . − . (4.11)
∂z z=−h(x,y) ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y
Equation 4.10 expresses the free surface imperviousness and equationr 4.11 expresses the bot-
tom imperviousness.
In spite of their seemingly simple form, these two sets of equations, however, are still difficult
to solve, since they include non-linear terms :
(∇Φ)2 in eq 4.9, and ∂∂Φx . ∂∂ζx + ∂∂Φy . ∂∂ζy in eq (4.10).
Through assumptions about the wave and bottom characteristics, these equations will be lin-
earized and will then be solved more easily.

Linearization
That linearization is conducted under the following assumptions :

• Gentle steepness: ε1 = H/L << 1

• small wave height against depth: ε2 = H/h << 1

The solution Φ0 = 0 and ζ0 = 0 (i.e. rest) is a particular solution to the problem. Further solutions
disturbing that particular solution will be searched for. The following linear system is achieved
through a series development of the potential, only keeping 1-order terms in ε1 :

∇2 Φ = 0 (4.12)
∂Φ
en z = 0 + gζ = 0 (4.13)
∂t
4.3 Theoretical modelling 17

∂Φ ∂Φ
en z = 0 = (4.14)
∂z ∂t

∂Φ ∂Φ ∂h ∂Φ ∂h
en z = -h(x,y) =− . +− . (4.15)
∂z ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y
In order to derive Equation 4.13, the Bernoulli’s equation at the surface (Equation 4.9) was
written. Pressure is then the air pressure, i.e. a constant pressure. Thus, it disappears from the
equation, since its gradient is null
We have at the surface (i.e. in z = 0, since the free surface distortions are ignored to 0-order in
the series development in ε1 ):

∂Φ
∇( + gζ ) = 0
∂t
Or also:

∂Φ
+ gζ = λ (t)
∂t
wherein λ function is only time-dependent. That function can be introduced into the time
derivative of the potential. This is because the physical quantity herein is velocity, which re-
mains unchanged when a term that is only time-dependent is added to the potential.
By deleting ζ between equations 4.13 and 4.14, one finally comes to:

∇2 Φ = 0 (4.16)
∂ 2Φ ∂Φ
en z = 0 +g =0 (4.17)
∂ 2z ∂z
∂Φ ∂Φ ∂h ∂Φ ∂h
en z = -h(x,y) =− . +− . (4.18)
∂z ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y
The linear theory is derived from equations (4.16), (4.17) and (4.18), by separating t and z
variables as well as x and y variables.
Considering the problem to be solved, the vertical component z probably does not play the same
part as components x and y. Furthermore, since the equations are linear, every potential can be
broken down into a time Fourier series. One may only study the complex potential functions in
e−iωt . Φ will then be searched for as follows:

Φ(x, y, z,t) = f (z, h).φ (x, y, z).e−iωt (4.19)

A complex notation is used for computing the unknown functions. The return to physical quan-
tities takes place by taking the real part of the complex variables. It is noteworthy that if h is not
constant, f, like φ , depends on z, as well as of x and y through h.

Solution in case of a horizontal flat bottom

In case of an infinite, horizontal flat bottom, then f only depends on z and φ only depends on x
or y (e.g. x). The solution to the problem is in the following form:

gH ch(k(z + h)) i(k.x−ωt)

Φ(x, y, z,t) = −i . .e (4.20)
2ω ch(kh)
That potential describes the propagation of a monochromatic monodirectional wave (first-order
Stokes’ wave). Quantities k, h, g and ω are related to each other by the dispersion function (i.e.
Airy’s relation):
18 Chapter 4. Theoretical Aspects

ω2
= th(kh) (4.21)
gk
Note: so-called evanescent modes, which can play a significant part near the obstacles, are
solutions in the form cos[pn (z + h)](An e pn x + Bn e−pn x ) , which can be added to that general-
purpose solution. Parameters pn are then solutions to the following transcendent equation:

− ω 2 = gpn tan(pn h) (4.22)

Solution in case of a low variation bottom (Mild-slope equation)

In order to solve the problem resulting from linearized equations (4.16) to (4.18) in case of a
spatially-varying bottom, a further assumption will be made:

∆h/h
ε3 = << 1
h/L
Wherein ∆h denotes the bottom depth variation over a horizontal distance such as h (refer to the
diagram below).
It can be assumed from that inequality that the bottom slope tan α1 remains lower by an order
of magnitude than the slope as defined by the h/L = tan α2 ratio (refer to the diagram below):

Figure 4.2: Illustration of a low variation bottom

Through that additional assumption, Berkhoff [4], develops the solution of equations by looking
for such a solution as:

ch(k(z + h)
Φ(x, y, z,t) = φ (x, y)e−iωt (4.23)
ch(kh)
This is a product of three terms. The first one is related to function f ((refer to Equation (4.20).
It is the same as the solution achieved for a horizontal flat bottom, which is suitable in that case
since bottom changes slowly. The second term φ is looked for as independent from z to the first
4.3 Theoretical modelling 19

order in ε3 and is called a reduced potential. The third term means that time-periodic solutions
are being searched for.
On completion of computations, Berkhoff obtains a general-purpose equation as confirmed by
the reduced potential φ :

∇(CCg ∇φ ) +CCg k2 φ = 0 (4.24)

wherein:

• C and Cg denote the phase and group velocities, respectively

• k denotes the wave number: k=2π/L
• ∇ and ∇ denote the gradient and divergence operators, respectively, as restricted to the
horizontal co-ordinates

The unknown φ is an a priori complex number. Velocities are expressed from the theory as
achieved for the case of a horizontal bottom:
ω
C= (4.25)
k
 
1 2kh
Cg = 1+ C (4.26)
2 sh(2kh)
The mild-slope equation is a two-dimension model making to possible to take into account the
effects of refraction by bathymetry which is assumed to exhibit slow variations in space, as
well as the effects of diffraction by both above-water and under-water obstacles. The total or
partial reflection processes are taken into account in the imposed boundary conditions. Energy
should also be supplied to the flow domain, since there is no source term in Equation (4.24).
The boundary conditions make it possible to satisfy that requirement, as well as to freely release
the wave energy. That model represents the propagation of steady waves, what means that the
whole wave energy is contained in only one frequency. The way that mild-slope model of
monochromatic wave can be used for describing a random wave behaviour will be discussed
in 4.6.

Solution in case of rapidly varying topography

Since version 6.1, ARTEMIS can take into account effects of a rapidly varying topography in
the mild-slope equation.
ARTEMIS use the work presented in [3]. Second order terms from gradient and curvature are
integrated in the mild-slope equation. The refraction-diffraction equation becomes:

∇ (CCg · ∇φ ) +CCg k2 · (1 + f ) + ikµ φ = 0

with f = E1 (kh) · (∇h)2 + E2k(kh)

0
· ∆h
and k0 is the wave number for infinite depth.
The first term represents gradient effects and the second deals with curvature of the bottom. It
is possible for the user to only take into account gradient effects. One can also choose to take
into account only curvature effects (see 8.6).
Several expressions have been proposed for E1 and E2 functions, by different authors: Mas-
sel [21] Chamberlain and Porter [7], Chandrasekera and Cheung [8], Suh Lee and Park [27]. In
ARTEMIS, Chamberlain and Porter expressions have been considered, as recommended by [3].
x + 4x3 sinh(x) − 9 sinh(x) sinh(2x) + 3x (x + 2 sinh(x)) · cosh2 (x) − 2 cosh(x) + 3
 4

E1 (kh) =
6n (x + sinh(x))3
20 Chapter 4. Theoretical Aspects

{sinh(x) − x · cosh(x)}
E2 (kh) =
4n · cosh2 (x/2) · (x + sinh(x))
 
1 x
n= 2 1 + sinh(x)

x = 2kh
Return to physical quantities
Once the complex reduced potential φ (x,y) = φr + i.φi is computed from Equation (4.24), it
becomes possible to return to total potential Φ(x,y,z,t) and to derive all the wave characteristics
from it :
Wave height
Wave height is proportional to the φ module and is given by:

2ω
H= |φ | (4.27)
g
Wave phase
Wave phase ψ, define in ] − ∞; ∞] interval , is the argument in φ .It is obtained first by computing
the variable ψ∗:
 
∗ φi
Ψ arctan
φr

if φi < 0
Ψ = ψ∗ − π
if φr < 0

if φi > 0
Ψ = ψ∗ + π
if φr < 0
otherwise Ψ = Ψ∗
Free surface elevation
Free surface elevation is expressed by:

φ e−iωt
 
1
ζ = − Re ∂ (
g ∂t (4.28)
ω
= − (φi cos ωt − φr sin ωt)
g
Surface velocity
Surface velocity is expressed as the total gradient of the potential function, i.e.:
 
u
→
−  
V = v = Re(∇(φ . f .e−iωt ))
w
then:

∂ φr ∂ φi
u= cos ωt + sin ωt (4.29)
∂x ∂x
∂ φr ∂ φi
v= cos ωt + sin ωt (4.30)
∂y ∂y
ω2
w= (φr cos ωt + φi sin ωt) (4.31)
g
4.3 Theoretical modelling 21

Wave incidence
The hodograph of horizontal surface velocity at each point is in the form of a centered ellipse.
Comparing with the major axis, the minor axis is negligible in a rectilinear propagation area;
the ellipse is then nearly rectilinear. On the other hand, as soon as cross waves are observed, no
main propagation direction can be really distinguished any longer and the minor axis-to-major
axis ratio is no longer close to zero. It was decided in ARTEMIS to define the wave incidence
from the direction of the ellipse’s major axis, in the direction in which the free surface elevation
is positive.
A simple transformation is made in order to achieve a reduction to:

u = A cos(ωt − ϕ1 )
u = B cos(ωt − ϕ2 )
Two different cases are then considered:

• if |ϕ2 − ϕ1 | = 0 or π, then polarization is linear : the ellipse is nothing but a direction

segment whose tangent to axis (Ox) has a B/A value, to within the sign.

• otherwise, polarization is elliptical. Through a change in time origin made by setting the
equations can be written in the form :

u = A cos(t 0 )

u = B cos(t 0 − ϕ)

The direction of major axis is obtained by maximizing the square of velocity module. After
computing the derivative for determining the extrema, it can be found that the minimum and
→
−
maximum velocity module V (t 0 = t00 ) s obtained for phase t’0 verifying:

B2 sin 2ϕ
tan 2t00 =
A2 + B2 cos 2ϕ
That equation defines four possible phases t’0 corresponding in pairs to the major axis and the
minor axis, respectively. Only one solution per axis is kept with the relation:

B2 sin 2ϕ
 
0 1 π
t0 = arctan + n with n ∈ {0, 1}
2 A2 + B2 cos 2ϕ 2
and the square of velocity module is computed for these values of t’0 to clear up the uncertainty
about n by selecting the value for which there is a maximum velocity. Lastly, the incidence
direction is selected by prescribing a positive free surface elevation at time t corresponding to
phase t’0 .
Wave energy
Wave energy per unit horizontal free surface is expressed by the following formula:

1 1 ρω 2 |φ |2
E = ρgH 2 = (4.32)
8 2 g
One half of it consists of potential energy, whereas the other half comprises kinetic energy.
The mild-slope model is a linear model, since if φ0 is a solution to Equation (4.24), then A.φ0 is
also a solution ∀A ∈ R. This is an important feature that evidences the limitations of that model
when the bottoms have a small depth. This is because, if the bottoms come up, the shoaling
process will "swell" the wave heightwave height to such an extent that it will become inconsis-
tent with the variable water depth. In order to improve the domain validity and to broaden the
 22 Chapter 4. Theoretical Aspects

range of applications of A RTEMIS, we have amended the initial mild-slope equation in order
to take into account the prevailing dissipative processes in shallow water, namely bathymetric
breaking and bottom friction.

4.3.3 Amended mild-slope equation

In order to take into account the dissipative effects resulting from bathymetric breaking and
bottom friction, Booij [5] and De Girolamo et al. [11] suggest modifying the mild-slope Equa-
tion (4.17) by introducing an additional complex term:

∇(CCg ∇φ ) +CCg (k2 + ikµ)φ = 0 (4.33)

If the reduced potential is broken down in the form: Aeiβ (A being the potential amplitude and
β being the potential phase), the previous equation leads, through a distinction between real
part and imaginary part, to an eikonal equation that is verified by the phase:

∇.(CCg ∇A)
(∇β )2 = k2 + (4.34)
CCg A
and to a balance equation between the energy flow and the dissipation, in the following form :
 
2 ∇β
div A Cg = −µCg A2 (4.35)
|∇β |
It is an energy flow balance equation to within the "ρg/2" term. Coefficient µ is a dissipation
coefficient expressed in m−1 . The rate D of energy dissipation is expressed by the following
relation:

1
D = ρgA2 µCg (4.36)
2
Several models are provided in Section 4.4 for computing the dissipation coefficient µ, depend-
ing on whether wave energy is dissipated through breaking and/or bottom friction.

4.4 Formulation of the dissipation coefficient

4.4.1 Surf-breaking
Theoretical approaches
Surf-breaking occurs when the velocity of a water particle at the free surface exceeds the wave
propagation velocity. That criterion may result in the determination of a critical breaking height
Hm (Miche’s criterion [23]) :

0.88  γs 
Hm = th kh (4.37)
k 0.88
A critical wave height Hm is related to each water depthwater depth h. Coefficient γs takes the
bottom slope m into account. The following dependence can be suggested [15] :

a = 43.75(1 − e−19m )

b
γs = with : (4.38)
1 + a gTh 2 b = 1.56(1 + e−19.5m )

Coefficient γs is assumed to be constant in A RTEMIS; it is given by the user (typical value:

γs = 0.8)
Two theoretical approaches are proposed and incorporated into A RTEMIS for assessing the
wave-induced dissipation of energy
4.4 Formulation of the dissipation coefficient 23

• The former, as proposed by Dally et al. [9], is obtained from surf-breaking along a
sloping beach and subsequent wave propagation over a flat, horizontal bottom. It consists
in assuming that the divergence of wave energy flow can be assessed through :

∂ P ∂ (E.Cg ) (E.Cg )s − (E.Cg )

= = (4.39)
∂x ∂x ls
(3.39)
wherein x denotes the energy propagation direction. Index "s" corresponds to a stable
area at the end of a length ls beyond the surf-breaking area. That length is a priori not
known. The earlier authors proposed to write:

h
ls =
K
For a given water depth h, the more sloping is the bottom, the higher is K, and thus the
lower is ls . Then the authors suggest the following approximations:
(Cg )s ≈ Cg
(H)s ≈ Γ.h
In that case, dissipation D can be assessed:
"  2 #
1 2K γh
D = ρgCg FH 1− (4.40)
8 H H

and, lastly, the dissipation coefficient µ is given by :

"  2 #
K γh
µ= 1− (4.41)
H H

Dally et al. [9] recommend the following values for K and Γ according to the bottom
slope
bottom slope K γ
1/80 0.100 0.350
1/65 0.115 0.355
1/30 0.275 0.475
• The latter approach, as proposed by Battjes & Janssen [2], is based upon the analogy
between the surf-breaking area and the hydraulic jump.
The head loss related to the opposite
schematic jump is:

(h1 − h2 )3
∆h = (4.42)
4h1 h2
The power dissipation is then:

ε = ρg(∆h)Q

Wherein ∆h = h1 − h2
24 Chapter 4. Theoretical Aspects

Q is the flow rate through the jump per unit width of channel. From the jump conjugation
relation, we have: r
gh1 h2 (h1 + h2 )
Q= (4.43)
2
Assuming that h1 ≈ h2 ≈ h, and writing H = h1 − h2 , we finally have:
r
1 g
ε ≈ ρgH 3 (4.44)
4 h

When these results are applied to waves with a height H, a frequency f and a length L, the
power dissipation per unit area is:

ε 1 H3
D= ≈ ρg f (4.45)
L 4 h
thus:

H
µ = 2f (4.46)
hCg

Both models as described in this section are incorporated into A RTEMIS software.

Steady wave / random wave

When steady waves are processed using A RTEMIS, either abovementioned formulation for ex-
pressing the dissipation coefficient can be selected. That coefficient has to be incorporated into
the mild-slope equation (refer to Equation (4.33)).
In the case of random waves, the Battjes & Janssen’s formulation alone can be applied. Due to
surf-breaking, the distribution of wave heights does no longer follow such a Rayleigh’s prob-
ability distribution as that described in Section 4.2.2. Battjes & Janssen [2] suggest that the
Rayleigh’s distribution should be truncated from critical height Hm . The probability Qb that the
wave height should be equal to critical height Hm is given by the following implicit relation:

 
1 − Qb Hrms
=
ln Qs Hm
The rate of breaking Qb Qb is implicitly computed in A RTEMIS through an iterative procedure.
Peak frequency f p is chosen as the spectrum representative frequency. In addition, it is assumed
that Hm Hm ≈ h. Dissipation is then expressed as:
α
D= Qb f p ρgHm2 (4.47)
4
and the dissipation coefficient as :
 4.4 Formulation of the dissipation coefficient 25

 2
2αα p Qb Hm
µ= (4.48)
Cg Hrms
The value of coefficient α to be selected is one or so. It is set in A RTEMIS.

4.4.2 Bottom friction

Theoretical approach
Waves exert on the bottom a shear stress →
−
τ b that can be expressed in accordance with the
following quadratic law (Jonsson, [19]):

→
− 1 →
− → −
τ b = fw ρ| U b | U b (4.49)
2
wherein fw is a friction coefficient which depends on the nature of bottoms, is the instantaneous
orbital velocity just above the bottom boundary layer. The mean energy dissipation over a wave
period related to that stress is:
Z T
1 →
− →
−
D= τ b U b dt (4.50)
T 0

• For computing that integral, Kostense et alKostense et al. [20] linearised the expression
of bottom friction by introducing the dissipation coefficient µ, the water depth h and the
→
−
surface orbital velocity U b :

→
− →
−
τ b = ρ µCg h U (4.51)

From these two expressions of →

−
τ b , they derived a formulation of the dissipation coefficient for
friction:

1 fw
µ= Ue (4.52)
2 Cg cos2 (kh)
wherein Ue is an effective velocity representing the flow and being given by the following ration:
RT →−
| U |3
Ue = R0T →
− 2 (4.53)
0 |U |

Accurately computing the value of Ue is a heavy task. We have incorporated an approximate,

quick computation of that variable into A RTEMIS (see in [24]):
v "
u 
u1 2  2  2  2 #
∂ φ r ∂ φ i ∂ φr ∂ φi
Ue ≈ 1.2t + + + (4.54)
2 ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y

The error made through that approximation does not exceed 15 %.

• Putnam & Johnson [25] simplified the computation of dissipation by assuming that the
near-bottom orbital velocity Ub was suitably described by the results of Stokes’ waves
on a flat bottom (see in Section 4.3.2). An expression is easily derived for dissipation
coefficient µ :
 26 Chapter 4. Theoretical Aspects

2 fw Hω 3
µ= (4.55)
3π gCg sinh3 (kh)

(3.55)
Both above formulations are incorporated into A RTEMIS; the user chooses either formulation.
The friction coefficient fw fw is still to be determined. In the case of sandy bottoms, a number
of authors proposed assessment methods for the computation of fw fw . We have adopted for
A RTEMIS the Van Rijn’s approach [28] which consists in determining fw as a function of a
Reynolds number which is computed both from the excursion of a fluid particle over the bottom
and a relative roughness, which takes into account the grain (or skin) roughness, the shape
roughness if ripples appear, as well as from the excursion of fluid particles over the bottom.
When the bottoms are not sandy or if the user does not want to apply the above procedure,
the value of fw over the computational domain can be specified, whether a space-uniform or
space-variable value is chosen.
The typical values of fw are : 10−3 or so for a smooth concrete bottom ; 10−2 for a gravel bottom
; 10−1 for stones, rocks.
Note:

• Dissipation through bottom friction is low as compared with breaking-induced dissipation

and is exerted over long distances. Breaking-related dissipation is greater, but spatially
localized.

• Both for breaking and bottom friction, coefficient µ depends on height H, and then on
potential φ which is a priori unknown. That dependence cannot be implicitly solved
through a matrix system. We have therefore incorporated a new algorithm of such a
kind as the "firing procedure" algorithm provided for solving the potential when some
dissipation occurs. That algorithm is discussed in Section 4.8.

4.5 Boundary conditions

In order to be mathematically and physically well formulated, the problem to be solved should
take into account the prescribed conditions at the boundaries of the domain being investigated.
Physically, there can be two kinds of boundaries:

• either solid boundaries fully or partly reflecting the waves (breakwaters, quays, beaches. . . );

• or openings facing the open sea or an inner dock (liquid boundaries) through which waves
flow in or out.

These kinds of boundary conditions should mathematically be expressed in the computation

unknown, i.e. the reduced potential φ .

4.5.1 Solid boundaries

The instance when waves come against a wall and have a main direction of propagation which
makes an angle θ p to the normal outside the wall (refer to Fig 4.3 below) will now be contem-
plated:
4.5 Boundary conditions 27

Figure 4.3: Definition of reflexion angles

In front of that wall, incident waves and reflected waves, corresponding to potentials φinc and
φre f are superposed on each other. The reflection process is modelled through a relationship
between potentials φinc and φre f . Let the wall reflection coefficient, which is a priori complex,
be called Rei . Then it expresses not merely a loss of amplitude upon the reflection from the wall
(coefficient R), but also a wall-induced time lag (coefficient α).
At the wall, velocities and elevations of free surface incident and reflected waves are related by:

→
−
u re f .→
−
n = −Reiα →
−
u inc .→
−
n (4.56)

ζre f = Reiα ζinc (4.57)

→
−→−
or also, taking as the incident wave a traveling monodirectional wave in the form: ei( k x −ωt :

∂ φre f →
− →
− →
− − →
−
(car k inc .→
n = − k re f .→
−
∂ φinc
= −Reiα ei( k re f − k inc ) n) (4.58)
∂n ∂n
→
− →
−
φre f = Reiα ei( k re f − k inc ) φinc (4.59)

and, by replacing φre f with φ − φinc , we finally get:

∂φ 1 − Reiα
−i k. cos θ p = 0 (4.60)
∂n 1 + Reiα

Thus, three data, namely R, αandθ p are required for applying condition 4.60, which couples
the real and imaginary components, respectively φr and φi and prevents the equation from being
differently solved inφr and φi . If R is equal to 1 and α is equal to 2nπ(n being an integer), it can
be found that θ p has no action. The values of the coefficient R and - more hardly - of α can be
specified according to the kind of wall being investigated from references [6].
The angle θ p is a priori unknown. In some simple cases, however, it may be specified by the
user. An iterative procedure based upon a “prediction-correction” method could provide a more
accurate assessment of θ p . That option, however, was not adopted in A RTEMIS because of the
heavy computational cost involved by that technique. Thus, the user has either to specify that
angle of incidence "in the best possible way" in the available suitable sub-routine, or to make
iterations himself in order to define the values of θ p to be specified
 28 Chapter 4. Theoretical Aspects

4.5.2 Liquid boundaries

Incidente wave conditions or incident potential conditions
At the seaward-facing boundaries, the boundary condition should provide for the free outflow
of waves from the harbour and the inflow of waves from the open sea. At such a boundary, the
potential φ is obtained by superposing a known potential γ(resulting from the incident waves
and the waves reflected by the shore out of the computational domain) on an unknown potential
φ p (caused by the waves coming from the harbour):φ = γ + φ p .
Writing, at such a boundary:

∂φ ∂γ
− ik cos θ p φ = − ik cos θ p γ (4.61)
∂n ∂n
∂φ
does express thatφ = γ + φ p as long as ∂ np − ik cos θ p φ p = 0, i.e. as long as those waves making
up φ p are waves which travel out of the domain while making an angle θ p with the normal to
the boundary.

Figure 4.4: Illustration of incident wave boundaries

The potential γ is user-specified by means of keywords and programming in the BORH sub-
routine through the incident wave height and direction of propagation. In case of a random
wave computation, the incident wave height to be specified is the significant height. On the
other hand, the monochromatic wave height values obtained using ARTEMIS are to be com-
pared, as required, with such data as energy height (He ) or rms height (Hrms ) from random wave
experiments. Angle θ p is to be specified as much as possible. In most cases θ p is a priori un-
known. It is then recommended either to set θ p = 0, or to make iterations for assessing its value,
as suggested in the previous paragraph. It would also be possible to compute the difference
φ − γ after an initial computation giving a solution for φ , and to derive the wave outflow angle
corresponding to that difference φ − γ.

Free outflow
In that case, γ = 0 and the boundary conditions is written as:

∂φ
− ik cos θ p φ = 0 (4.62)
∂n
 4.6 Treatment of random mono/multi directional waves 29

Once again, the angle θ p is to be specified as best as possible, if the wave outflow direction is
known a priori (refer to the following Figure 5) If no proper angle θ p is specified, stray reflec-
tions contaminating the computational domain from the boundary will predictably be noticed.

Figure 4.5: Illustration of free outflow boundaries

4.6 Treatment of random mono/multi directional waves

An actual wave exhibits a random feature when its energy is determined neither by a single
wave period or frequency nor by a single direction of propagation (see in Section 4.2). It may
be interpreted as the superposition of several monodirectional waves with different periods and
random lags in relation to each other. The energy of an actual wave is the sum of monodirec-
tional wave energies making it up.
The waves whose frequencies range from f to f+df and whose directions of propagation range
from θ et θ +dθ , contribute to the total energy (to within the term ρg) up to S(f,θ ).df.dθ wherein
S(f,θ ) denotes the spectral density of variance as already introduced in Section 4.2.3).
There are various formulations for expressing the spectral density of variance according to
the wave features. The most commonly used formulation was developed from the JONSWAP
campaign in the North sea [16]. It assumes that the energy spectrum can be written in the form
of the following product:

S( f , θ ) = J( f ).G(θ ) (4.63)
The frequency dependency J(f) is expressed by:
  
f / f p −1 2
"  4 # 
fp exp −0.5
J( f ) = δ Hs2 f p4 exp −1.25
α
γ (4.64)
f

wherein:

• Hs is the significant wave height

• f p is the peak frequency corresponding to the spectral maximum

30 Chapter 4. Theoretical Aspects

• σ is a dimensionless parameter which is determined as follows:


if f ≤ f p σ = 0.07
if f > f p σ = 0.09

• γ is a real number usually ranging from 1 to 7. The spectrum is called a Pierson-

Moskowitz spectrum when the value is 1. Otherwise, it is called a JONSWAP spectrum.
This parameter determines the spectral frequency spreading.

• δ is a weight coefficient that depends on γ:

0.0624
δ= 0.185
0.230 + 0.0336γ − 1.9+γ

The trend of J(f) versus f/f p is given in Fig 4.6 for various values of γ.

Figure 4.6: Non dimensionnal theoretical JONSWAP spectrum

The directional distribution G(θ ) is often chosen in the following for (refer to [14]):

G = G0 cos2s [(θ − θ0 )/2] (4.65)

wherein:
• θ is the angle indicating the wave propagation direction

• θ0 denotes the main direction of wave propagation

• s is a positive real exponent of some tens (the higher s is, the less spread the directional
spectrum is).
4.6 Treatment of random mono/multi directional waves 31

• G0 is a constant as determined by normalizing function G:

Z θ max
Gdθ = 1
θmin

• θmin et θmax indicate the boundary propagation directions of the waves being studied.
The trend of function G for various values of the coefficient "s" is described in Fig. 4.7.

Figure 4.7: Directional distribution G(θ )

For A RTEMIS, a random mono/multi-directional wave computation will consist in discretizing

the axes of the incident wave energy spectrum into a sequence of values fi for frequencies and
θ j for directions (1 ≤ i ≤ imax and 1 ≤ j ≤ imax ), then making a steady wave computation for
each of these pairs by solving the mild-slope equation associated with the prescribed boundary
conditions, and lastly recombining the results for providing the random wave features.
We have adopted a frequency and direction discretization of spectra which divides each of the
spectra into equal energy bands. Thus, J( fi ).∆ fi and G(θ j ).∆θ j are constant for any i and j. The
maximum values of i and j, i.e. imax and jmax , are set by the user through keywords. The various
steady wave computations are then made with the same incident energy, the amount of which is
J(fi ).∆fi .G(θ j ).∆θ j . It is noteworthy that the constants being used in the expressions of J and G
(G0 , Hs . . . ) are purposeless for computing fi and θ j .
Frequency fi denotes the i band in the J(f) spectrum. It is computed so that fi divides the
i band into a couple of bands also of the same area. Practically, when it is desired to cut the
spectrum into imax bands of the same area, it is actually cut into 2imax bands while systematically
recording the frequencies at the limits of these bands. The fi values are obtained taking the 2nd ,
4th . . . recorded frequencies. The same procedure is applied to the directional spectrum G (θ ).
 32 Chapter 4. Theoretical Aspects

For each pair (fi , θ j ), the model provides a significant wave heightwave height Hm0,k (1 < k <
imax jmax ) at each node of the grid. Wave defined by (fi, θ j) at a node of the grid contributes to
the total energy up to 81 ρgHe,k 2 = 1 ρgH 2 , wherein H
4 m0 ,k e,k and Hm0 ,k denote the spectral energy
height and significant height, respectively, as computed for waves defined by (fi, θ j).
The total incident energy is 81 ρgHe,inc2 wherein He,inc is the is the energy height of incident
waves. Since each computation is made with the same energy (the bands cutting the spectrum
axes define the same volume), He,inc is identical for all the computations. The total energy at a
point in the domain is:

1 1 2
He,k (4.66)
8 imax . jmax ∑
ρg
k

The resulting energy height He is derived there from at each node of the grid:
s
1 2
He = He,k (4.67)
imax . jmax ∑
k

The significant wave height Hm0 can be derived from the energy height He through the relation
mentioned in Section 4.2.3:
√
Hm0 = 2He
That quantity is retrieved by A RTEMIS in the case of random wavesrandom waves. Assuming
that the distribution of wave heights follows a Rayleigh’s law, the spectral and statistical coef-
ficients, i.e (Hm0 ; He ) on the one hand and (H1/3 ; Hrms ) on the other hand, respectively, are
equivalent to one another.

4.7 Radiation stresses; Wave-driven forcing terms

Both in monochromatic and random modes, A RTEMIS enables to compute the radiation stresses
Sxx, Sxy and Syy, from the general following equation [13]
   
E ki k j 2Cg 2Cg
Si j = + − 1 δi j
2 k2 C C

with:

• E = 18 ρgHe2 (He is the energetic wave height)

• indexes i and j correspond to x or y

In regular mode (monochromatic wave), the energetic wave height He is the wave height di-
rectly given by A RTEMIS. In random
√ mode, this wave height He is roughly proportional to the
significant wave height:He ≈ Hs / 2. Other parameters involved in the previous general equa-
tion correspond to the mean values defined in the table given above: mean wave number, mean
celerities. . .
We can deduce from these radiation stresses the associated forcing Fx and Fy to be introduced in
a current model (for instance TELEMAC-2D), which will be able to compute the wave-driven
currents. These forcing terms are expressed as follows:
 
1 ∂ Sxx ∂ Sxy
Fx = − +
h ∂x ∂y
 4.8 Digital solution through the finite element method 33
 
1 ∂ Sxy ∂ Syy
Fy = − +
h ∂x ∂y
with: h the water depth at rest
Remark 1: Simulation of the wave-driven currents with the TELEMAC-2D software is per-
formed through an external coupling between A RTEMIS and TELEMAC-2D.
Remark 2: in the monochromatic mode, oscillations are often observed on the wave heights
results. They may be generated by (i) real reflections against solid obstacles which propagate
within the computational domain, or by (ii) undesired reflections due to boundary conditions
problems. These undesired reflections may greatly alter the computation of the wave forc-
ing terms. To avoid this problem, it is possible in release 6, for the monochromatic mode, to
impose an automatic smoothing of the wave heights field, in order to filter these oscillations,
whose characteristic « wave » length is half the « wave » length of the waves. To achieve this
smoothing, one has to activate the new key-word:
WAVE HEIGHTS SMOOTHING
whose mnemonic is LISHOU (default value : NO).
However, it is preferable to use A RTEMIS in random mode to get satisfactory estimation
of the wave forcing terms

4.8 Digital solution through the finite element method

4.8.1 System of equations to be solved
The differential system to be solved, the unknown of which is the reduced potential φ , comprises
the amended mild-slope equation as well as equations expressing the boundary conditions at
each boundary of the computational domain.

φ (x, y) = φr (x, y) + iφi (x, y) (4.68)

φr and φi being real functions depending on x and y, which are the real and imaginary compo-
nents of φ , respectively. That function φ will hereinafter be termed the potential by misuse of
language, though multiplying it by f (z)e−ωt is required for getting the total potential Φ.
The differential system to be solved is then as follows:

∇.(CCg ∇φ ) +CCg (k2 + ikµ)φ = 0




and according to the boundary conditions



∂φ 1−Reiω
∂n − i 1+Reiω
k cos θ p φ = 0 (solid wall) (4.69)
∂φ ∂γ
∂ n − ik cos θ p φ = ∂ n − ikcosθ p γ



 (incident wave)
 ∂φ
∂ n − ik cos θ p φ = 0 (free outflow)


4.8.2 Variational formulation of the problem

The mild-slope equation is elliptical and can only be solved through the finite element method.
The differential system 4.69 to be solved is then transformed through a variational formulation
of the problem.
If Ω is the computational domain, Γ its boundary and if Ψ denotes a basic function of class C1
on Ω, the variational formulation of the mild-slope equation is expressed as :
Z
∀ψ ∈ C1 (Ω), Ψ[∇.(CCg ∇φ ) +CCg (k2 + ikµ)φ ]dΩ = 0 (4.70)
Ω

Due to the properties of ψ, integration in parts is possible :

 34 Chapter 4. Theoretical Aspects

Z Z Z
∂φ
ΨCCg dΓ − CCg ∇Ψ.∇φ dΩ + CCg (k2 + ikµ)Ψφ dΩ = 0 (4.71)
Γ ∂n Ω Ω

The normal derivative of the potential at the boundary Γ of the domain will then come out. It
can be replaced by its expression as given by the boundary conditions, which is in the following
form:

∂φ
= (Aφi + Bφr ) + i(−Aφr + Bφi ) − E − iF (4.72)
∂n
wherein A, B, E and F are real numbers determined by the kinds of boundary conditions as
specified in all the parts of Γ.
The following system can be achieved by separating the real and imaginary parts:
 R R

 Γ ΨCCg (Bφr + Aφi )dΓ − Ω CCgR∇Ψ.∇φr dΩ
+ Ω CCg Ψ(k2 φr − kµφi )dΩ
R
= Γ ΨCCg EdΓ

R R (4.73)
 ΨCC
 Γ R g (−Aφ r + Bφi )dΓ − Ω CCRg
∇Ψ.∇φi dΩ
 2
+ Ω CCg Ψ(k φi − kµφr )dΩ = Γ ΨCCg FdΓ

4.8.3 Digital solution algorithm

Discretization. Setting into a matrix form
Linear basic functions are chosen on triangular elements. These functions are really functions
of class C1 . φr and φi are resolved on these basic functions.
(
φr = ∑NPOIN
j=1 φrj Ψej
(4.74)
φi = ∑NPOIN
j=1 φij Ψej

NPOIN is the total number of points in the grid. The ψ ej functions are linear at each element
with an e index and are null everywhere else.
By incorporating these expressions into the previously described set of equations, a matrix
system can be obtained in the following form:
     
AM BM φr CV1
. = (4.75)
−BM AM φi CV2
In order to obtain a positive diagonal along AM (the reason for it will be explained later), the
couple of previous equations have multiplied by -1. AM is a matrix provided with NPOIN x
NPOIN dimensions and having as a general term:
Z Z Z
AM jk = − Ψ j ΨkCCg BdΓ + CCg ∇Ψ j .∇Ψk dΩ + CCg k2 Ψ j Ψk dΩ (4.76)
Γ Ω Ω

BM is also a NPOIN x NPOIN-dimensioned matrix having as a general term:

Z Z
BM jk = − Ψ j ΨkCCg AdΓ + Ψ j ΨkCCg kµdΩ (4.77)
Γ Ω

φr and φi are a couple of NPOIN-dimensioned vectors comprising components.

CV1 and CV2 are a couple of vectors that are null everywhere but at the edge of the grid. The
NPTFR-dimensioned edge vectors have the following general terms:
R
CV1 = − RΓ ΨkCCg EdΓ
(4.78)
CV2 = − Γ ΨkCCg FdΓ
4.8 Digital solution through the finite element method 35

If the diagonal term in the AM matrix is positive, a suitable preconditioning will become appli-
cable to the system, what will make the resolution much faster. Regardless of the edge term,
AM jk has approximately the sign of 1/(∆x)2 − k2 (∆x denoting the mean size of the meshes).
As long as 1/(∆x) > k, i.e. as long as ∆x < L/2π, the diagonal term remains positive. Due to
that condition, the selected mesh size shall be smaller than L/7. It seems that at least 7 grid
nodes per wavelength are required.
In simple examples, however, we have tested coarser grids having 4-5 nodes per wavelength.
The results for these computational conditions remain satisfactory even though, in such a case,
no preconditioning is applied to the matrix system. With less than 4 nodes per wavelength, the
spatial resolution is too low and the information is deteriorated.

Computing the matrices

The AM and BM matrices as well as the CV1 and CV2 members are computed by the subrou-
tines of the finite element library BIEF [17]. These matrices are computed for one element at
a time. Only their diagonals are put together. For assisting computations, we have taken the
product CCg with P1 discretization on each of the triangles. The coefficients A, B, E and F are
taken as constants on each of the edge segments (P0 discretization).
C and Cg are computed from the wave number k as obtained through the Airy’s dispersion
relation:

ω2
= th(kh) (4.79)
gk
Taking x = kh and y = , the dispersion relation becomes y = xth(x). A precise, explicit form of
it is used at 0.5 10−3 :

  21 
 p1 = 0.6522
 2 = 0.4622
p


√  1 
x = y y+  avec  p3 = 0. (4.80)
 
5
1+ Σ pj yj p = 0.0864
 4


j=1

p5 = 0.0675

Solution of linear system

The dissipation process is taken into account by a new term in the BM matrix. That term is
related to a dissipation coefficient µ which is explained in Section 4.4 depending on whether
either or both of breaking and bottom friction are considered. The difficulty lies in that µ
always depends on H, i.e. on the unknown quantity φ in the problem. Thus, the linear system
cannot be solved directly. The solution that was adopted is a prediction-correction scheme.
A first assessment of the coefficient µ is made throughout the computational domain. The
linear system is then solved though one of the methods as proposed in the BIEF library of the
TELEMAC system

• Either using an iterative method: conjugate gradient, conjugate gradient on normal equa-
tion, GMRES solver. . . [17];

• Or using the direct solver.

A first solution φ1 is obtained. It makes it possible to compute a second assessment of dissi-

pation µ2 . That second assessment is used for solving again the linear system and obtaining a
solution φ2 . The process is interrupted when the user thinks that the difference between the two
successive solutions is sufficient or when the number of such repeated subiterations has reached
a boundary value which is also set by the user. A sub-relaxation was prescribed for that process
36 Chapter 4. Theoretical Aspects

in order to assist the convergence of the method. That relaxation coefficient is specified by the
user..
The overall solution algorithm is summarised in the diagram below:

Figure 4.8: Directional distribution G(θ )

It seems that the most suitable iterative resolver for the linear system being considered is the
direct solveur. That resolver is taken by default by the model. The matrix may previously be
diagonally preconditioned. The user, however, may freely choose any other resolver and any
other preconditioning as proposed through keywords in BIEF (see A RTEMIS reference manual).
As regards random waves, the previously described algorithm will be followed as many times
as necessary because of the energy spectrum discretization (i.e. imax *jmax times). In order to
improve the wave computation time corresponding to the pairs (fi+1 , θ j ), (fi , θ j+1 ), and (fi+1 ,
θ j+1 ), however, those values which were previously computed for the pair (fi , θ j ) are used for
initializing the unknowns and the dissipation coefficient.
Practically, it appears that the number of iterations implied by the resolver convergence is sub-
stantially the same as the number of nodes in the NPOIN grid. Since the required time for an
iteration (consisting in a product of a matrix by a vector) is proportional to the number of nodes,
the time for a computation by A RTEMIS is globally proportional to the square of the number of
nodes. The proportionality coefficient depends, among others, on the king of computational do-
main boundaries, on bathymetry and on the computing machine. The more numerous the liquid
boundaries are, the smaller it is. The greater the depths are, the higher it is. This is because, as
it is well known, a diffusion matrix can more hardly be inverted than a mass matrix. Now, the
greater the depth is, the higher the phase and group velocities are. The diffusion matrix then
 4.8 Digital solution through the finite element method 37

becomes increasingly prevailing in relation to the mass matrix. The required number of sub-
iterations for providing the convergence of the computation of the dissipation terms is usually
4 or 5.

4.8.4 Matrix in the case of rapidly varying topography

Here we explain how rapidly variying topoghrapy is computed, and how the extended mild-
slope equation is taken into account.
Variational formulation of the problem
With the same idea we used in 2.8.2 (wrong link), the variational formulation becomes for a
basic function ψ (C1):
Z
ψ · ∇ (CCg · ∇φ ) +CCg k2 · (1 + f ) + ikµ φ dΩ = 0


Ω

An integration in parts gives :

Z Z Z
∂φ
CCg k2 · (1 + f ) + ikµ · φ · ψ · dΩ = 0


ψ ·CCg · · dΓ − CCg · ∇φ · ∇ψ · dΩ +
Γ ∂n Ω Ω

The boundary conditions can be expressed as :

∂φ
= (Aφi + Bφr ) + i · (−Aφr + Bφi ) − E − iF
∂n
Separating imaginary and real parts (f is real) :
Z Z Z Z
2


ψ ·CCg ·(Bφr + Aφi )·dΓ− CCg ·∇φr ·∇ψ ·dΩ+ CCg k · (1 + f ) · φr − kµ · φi ·ψ ·dΩ = ψ ·CCg ·E ·dΓ
Γ Ω Ω Γ
Z Z Z Z
CCg k2 · (1 + f ) · φi − kµ · φr ·ψ ·dΩ = ψ ·CCg ·F ·dΓ


ψ ·CCg ·(−Aφr + Bφi )·dΓ− CCg ·∇φi ·∇ψ ·dΩ+
Γ Ω Ω Γ

Matrix
Matrix AM, expressed in 4.76 is modified. BM doesn’t change and the second member (CV1
and CV2) is unchanged too.
Z Z Z
AM jk = ψ j ψk ·CCg · B · dΓ − CCg · ∇ψ j · ∇ψk · dΩ + CCg · k2 · (1 + f ) · ψ j · ψk · dΩ
Γ Ω Ω

Computation and implementation

The user include the keyword «RAPIDLY VARYING TOPOGRAPHY » in the case file. This
keyword can take the value 0, 1, 2 or 3.Default value is 0.

• 0: correspond to classical mild-slope equation.

• 1: gradient effects are taken into account.

• 2: curvature effects are taken into account.

• 3: both gradient and curvature effects are taken into account.

This value is red in the BERKHO routine. Is the value is different from 0 routine PENTCO is
called. In PENTCO we compute the term « f » in the whole domain. Depending on the user’s
choice, Matrix AM is modified in BERKHO.
To get the value of « f », PENTCO calls to functions:
38 Chapter 4. Theoretical Aspects

FCTE1.f, for gradient terms:

x + 4x3 sinh(x) − 9 sinh(x) sinh(2x) + 3x (x + 2 sinh(x)) · cosh2 (x) − 2 cosh(x) + 3

 4

E1 (kh) =
3 (x + sinh(x))4

With x = 2kh
If x is too small (lower à 10-3), the value of the function is simply:

E1 (kh) = −1/6

FCTE2.f, for curvature terms.

{tanh(x)−x}·cosh(x)
Ẽ2 (kh) =
x·(x+sinh(x))2
If x is too small (lower à 10-3), the value of the function is simply:
Ẽ2 (kh) = −1/12
We note that

E2 (kh)
= 2h · Ẽ2 (kh)
k0

At the end, PENTCO computes:

• RAPIDLY VARYING TOPOGRAPHY = 1

f = E1 (kh) · (∇h)2

• RAPIDLY VARYING TOPOGRAPHY = 2

f = 2h · Ẽ2 (kh) · ∆h

• RAPIDLY VARYING TOPOGRAPHY = 3

f = E1 (kh) · (∇h)2 + 2h · Ẽ2 (kh) · ∆h

In any other case, the value of f is 0.

 5. Inputs and outputs

5.1 Preliminary remarks

During a computation, the A RTEMIS software uses a number of input and output files, some of
which are optional.
The input files are the following:

• The geometry file

• The steering file

• The boundary conditions file

• The bottom topography file

• The FORTRAN file

• The binary data files

• The formatted data files

The output files are the following:

• The results file

• The printout listing

• The formatted data file

• The binary data file

5.2 The files

5.2.1 The steering file
This is a text file created by FUDAA-PREPRO or directly by the text editor. In a way, it
represents the control panel of the computation. It contains a number of keywords to which
values are assigned. If a keyword is not contained in this file, A RTEMIS will assign it the default
value defined in the dictionary file. If such a default value is not defined in the dictionary file,
40 Chapter 5. Inputs and outputs

the computation will stop with an error message. For example, the command "wave period=10."
enables the user to specify that the wave period is 10 seconds.
A RTEMIS reads the steering file at the beginning of the computation.
The dictionary file and steering file are read by a utility called DAMOCLES, which is included
in A RTEMIS. Because of this, when the steering file is being created, it is necessary to comply
with the rules of syntax used in DAMOCLES (this is done automatically if the file is created
with FUDAA-PREPRO). They are briefly described below and an example is given in Appendix
8.
The rules of syntax are the following:

• The keywords may be of Integer, Real, Logical or Character type.

• The order of keywords in the steering file is of no importance.

• Each line is limited to 72 characters. However, it is possible to pass from one line to the
next as often as required, provided that the name of the keyword is not split between two
lines.

• The signs ":" or "=" can be used indiscriminately as separator for the name of a keyword
and its value. They may be preceded or followed by any number of spaces. The value
itself may appear on the next line. For example:

wave period = 10.

or
WAVE PERIOD: 10.
or again
WAVE PERIOD =10.

• Characters between two "/" on a line are considered as comments. Similarly, characters
between a "/" and the end of line are also considered as comments. For example:

SOLVER = 3 / Conjugated gradient on normal equation

• A line beginning with "/" is considered to be all comment, even if there is another "/" in
the line. For example:

/ The geometry file is "./mesh/geo"

• A line beginning with "/" is considered to be all comment, even if there is another "/" in
the line. For example:

/ The geometry file is "./mesh/geo"

• When writing integers, do not exceed the maximum size permitted by the computer (for
a computer with 32-bit architecture, the extreme values are -2 147 483 647 to + 2 147
483 648. Do not leave any space between the sign (optional for the +) and number. A full
stop is allowed at the end of a number.

• When writing real numbers, the full stop and comma are accepted as decimal points, as
are E and D formats of FORTRAN. ( 1.E-3 0.001 0,001 1.D-3 represent the same value).

• When writing logical values, the following are acceptable: 1 OUI YES .TRUE. TRUE
VRAI and 0 NON NO .FALSE. FALSE FAUX.
 5.2 The files 41

• Character strings including spaces or reserved symbols ("/",":", "=", "&") must be placed
between apostrophes (’). The value of a character keyword can contain up to 144 charac-
ters. As in FORTRAN, apostrophes in a string must be doubled. A string cannot begin or
end with a space. For example :

TITLE = ´ ’CAS DE L’ ´’
´EPI’ ´
In addition to keywords, a number of instructions or meta-commands interpreted during se-
quential reading of the steering file can also be used:

• Command &FIN indicates the end of the file (even if the file is not finished). This means
that certain keywords can be deactivated simply by placing them behind this command in
order to reactivate them easily later on. However, the computation continues.

• Command &ETA prints the list of keywords and the value that is assigned to them when
DAMOCLES encounters the command. This will be displayed at the beginning of the
printout listing (see Section 5.2.5).

• Command &LIS prints the list of keywords. This will be displayed at the beginning of
the printout listing (see Section 5.2.5).

• Command &IND prints a detailed list of keywords. This will be displayed at the beginning
of the printout listing (see Section 5.2.5).

• Command &STO stops the program and the computation is interrupted.

• The name of this file is given by using the keyword:STEERING FILE.

5.2.2 The geometry file

It is a SELAFIN-formatted binary file which can then be read by RUBENS or FUDAA-PREPRO
and is generated either by the MATISSE software or by the S TBTEL module (from the file(s)
originating from of mesh generator). The SELAFIN format structure is described in Appendix
11.
This file contains all the information concerning the mesh, i.e. the number of mesh points
(NPOIN variable), the number of elements (NELEM variable), the number of nodes per el-
ement (NDP variable), arrays X and Y containing the coordinates of all the nodes and array
IKLE containing the table of connectivities.
This file can also contain bottom topography information at each mesh point, if such bottom
topography has been interpolated during the running of module S TBTEL (for more information,
see the User’s Manual for this software).
ARTEMIS stores information on the geometry at the start of the results file. Because of this,
the computation results file can be used as a geometry file if a new simulation is to be run on
the same mesh.
The name of this file is given with the keyword: GEOMETRY FILE
In order to reach a good accuracy, it is necessary to build a mesh using at least 3 points by wave
length. In addition, during the numerical treatments, a mesh with 7 points by wave length leads
to matrices with non zero diagonals that allows the use of preconditioning in order to improve
the computation speed.
When using random waves, a good method is to build a mesh using 7 points by wave length for
the peak period. When considering the lowest period, the preconditioning will be probably not
usable, but the refinement of the mesh will not be under the criteria of 3 points by wave length.
 42 Chapter 5. Inputs and outputs

5.2.3 The boundary conditions file

This is a formatted file generated automatically by S TBTEL. It can be modified with a standard
text editor. Each line of the file is dedicated to one point on the mesh boundary. The numbering
used for points on the boundary is that of the file lines. First of all, it describes the contour of
the domain trigonometrically, starting from the bottom left-hand corner (X + Y minimum) and
then the islands in a clockwise direction.
See Section 7 for a fuller description of this file.
The file name is given with the keyword:BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FILE.

5.2.4 The results file

This is the file in which A RTEMIS stores information during the computation. It is normally
in Selafin format. It contains first of all information on the mesh geometry, then the names of
the stored variables. It then contains the period for each computed period and the values of the
different variables for all mesh points.
Its content is dependent on the value of the following keywords:

• GRAPHIC PRINTOUT PERIOD: fixes the period for outputs when using computation
over multiple periods (for example, case of period scanning to search resonance period).
• VARIABLES FOR GRAPHIC PRINTOUTS : this is used to specify the list of variables
to be stored in the results file. Each variable is identified by an identifier (string with up
to 8 characters); these are listed in Appendix 4 with the description of this keyword.

The name of this file is given with the keyword: RESULTS FILE

5.2.5 The printout listing

This is a formatted file created by A RTEMIS during the computation. It contains a report on
the execution of ARTEMIS. Its content varies in accordance with the values of the following
keywords:

• LISTING PRINTOUT PERIOD : this fixes the period between two periods output when
calculating several wave periods (period scanning). The given value is the number of
periods. For example, the following sequence:

LISTING PRINTOUT PERIOD = 2

will produce a listing printout every 2 wave periods. Moreover, irrespective of the period indi-
cated by the user, the last period is systematically printed.

• LISTING PRINTOUT: this cancels the listing printout if the value is NO (the listing print-
out then only contains the program heading and normal end indication). However, this is
not advisable in any circumstances.
• VARIABLES TO BE PRINTED : this is used to specify the list of variables for which
all values will be printed at each mesh point. This is a debugging option offered by
ARTEMIS that should be handled with caution so as to avoid creating an excessively
large listing printout.
• INFORMATION ABOUT SOLVER: if this is required, at each printed period the user will
have the number of iterations necessary to achieve the accuracy required during the mild
slope equation calculation, or by default that reached at the end of the maximum number
of iterations authorised. In addition, the user will obtain the number of sub-iterations
necessary to take into account the dissipation phenomena.
 5.2 The files 43

The name of this file is managed directly by the A RTEMIS start-up procedure. In general, it has
the name of the steering file associated with the suffix ".sortie". A short example of a listing
printout is given in Appendix 10.

5.2.6 The Fortran user file

The FORTRAN file contains all the A RTEMIS subroutines modified by the user and those that
have been specially developed for the computation.
This file is compiled and linked so as to generate the executable program for the simulation.
The name of this file is given with the keyword:FORTRAN FILE
An example of a FORTRAN file is given in Appendix 9.

5.2.7 The ancillary files

Other files may be used by A RTEMIS.

• One or two binary data files, specified by the keywords BINARY DATA FILE 1 and BI-
NARY DATA FILE 2. These files can be used to provide data to the program, data reading
being of course managed by the user within the Fortran program. The logical units af-
fected to this two files are respectively 24 and 25.

• One or two formatted data files, specified by the keywords FORMATTED DATA FILE 1
and FORMATTED DATA FILE 2. These files can be used to provide data to the program,
data reading being of course managed by the user within the Fortran program. The logical
units affected to this two files are respectively 26 and 27.

• A binary results file specified by the keyword BINARY RESULTS FILE. This file can be
used to store additional results. Write operations on the file are managed by the user in
the Fortran program. The logical units affected to this file is 28.

• A formatted results file specified by the keyword FORMATTED RESULTS FILE. This
file can be used to store additional results. Write operations on the file are managed by
the user in the Fortran program. The logical units affected to this file is 29.

Read and write operations on these files must be managed completely by the user. Management
can be done from any point accessible to the user. For example, using a file to provide the
initial conditions will mean managing it with the subroutine CONDIH. Similarly, using a file
to introduce boundary conditions can be done in the BORH subroutine.

5.2.8 The dictionary file

This file contains all information on the keywords (name in French, name in English, default
values, type, documentation on keyword, information required by FUDAA-PREPRO). This file
can be consulted by the user but must under no circumstances be modified.

5.2.9 The libraries

When a computation is started, the main program written by the user is compiled and then
linked to standard libraries in order to generate the program that is then run.
During the link phase, the following libraries are used:

• Library A RTEMIS: this library contains the subroutines that are specific to the ARTEMIS
computation code.
 44 Chapter 5. Inputs and outputs

• Library bief: this library contains all the computation modules concerning operations of
the finite-element type (operations on matrices and vectors). It is common to all the simu-
lation codes developed by the Laboratoire National d’Hydraulique within the TELEMAC
structure (“bief” stands for “BIbliothèque d’Eléments Finis” - Finite Elements Library).

• Library damo: this library contains the subroutines that manage the reading of key words
stored in the steering file.

• Library special: this library contains the subroutines that manage the clean interrupt of
the computation by the user during a simulation.

• Library parallel: this library contains the subroutines that manage exchanges between
sub-models during parallel computation. All the calls to MPI functions are located in this
library

• Library paravoid: this library contains the same subroutines as library parallel but these
subroutines are empty in order to allow a scalar computation

5.3 File binaries

The binary of a file is the method used by the computer for storing the information physically
on the disk (in contrast to storage in ASCII form, which is used by the formatted files). The
file binary parameters may be defined using a number of keywords. A RTEMIS recognises three
types of binary: the standard binary of the computer on which the user is working, the IBM
binary enabling a file created on an IBM computer to be re-read, and the IEEE binary that can
be used, for example, to generate a file on a Cray computer that can be read by a workstation
(provided that the appropriate subroutines are included when ARTEMIS is installed on the
computer).
The following keywords can be used:

• GEOMETRY FILE BINARY, for the geometry file,

• RESULTS FILE BINARY for the results file.

In either case, the default value specified in the dictionary file is ‘STD’ (default binary of the
computer that is being used).

5.4 Bathymetric data

Bathymetric data may be supplied to A RTEMIS at three levels:

• Either directly in the geometry file by a bathymetry value associated with each mesh node.
In this case, the bathymetric data are processed when the S TBTEL module is run before
ARTEMIS is started. STBTEL reads the information in one or more bottom topography
files (5 at most) and interpolates at each point in the domain.

• Or in the form of a cluster of points with elevations that have no relation with the mesh
nodes, during the ARTEMIS computation. ARTEMIS then makes the interpolation di-
rectly with the same algorithm as STBTEL. The file name is provided by the keyword
BOTTOM TOPOGRAPHY FILEBOTTOM TOPOGRAPHY FILE. In contrast to S TBTEL,
ARTEMIS only manages one bottom topography file. This may be in SINUSX format or
more simply a file consisting of three columns X,Y,Z.
5.4 Bathymetric data 45

• Or directly in the Fortran file using the CORFON subroutine. This way is in particular
used when building schematic test cases

In all cases, ARTEMIS offers the possibility of smoothing the bottom topography in order
to obtain a more regular geometry. The smoothing algorithm can be iterated several times
depending on the degree of smoothing required. The keyword BOTTOM SMOOTHING then
defines the number of iterations carried out in the subroutine CORFON. The default value of
this keyword is 0 (see also programming of the user subroutine CORFON in § 10.1).
 6. Initial conditions

The purpose of the initial conditions is to define the state of the model at the time the simulation
begins. The initial state must be defined by the user. This is done by using key words in simple
cases, or by programming in more complex ones.

6.1 Setting using key words

In all cases, the nature of the initial conditions is fixed by the key word INITIAL CONDITIONS.
This may have any of the following four values:

• "ZERO ELEVATION": Initialises the elevation of the free surface at 0. The initial depths
of water are therefore calculated from the bottom elevation.

• ‘CONSTANT ELEVATION’: Initialises the elevation of the free surface at the value sup-
plied by the key word INITIAL ELEVATION. The initial depths of water are therefore
calculated by taking the difference between the free surface elevation and the bottom
elevation.

• ‘CONSTANT DEPTH’: Initialises depths of water at the value supplied by the key word
INITIAL DEPTH.

• ‘PARTICULAR’: The initial conditions are defined by the subroutine CONDIH (see §
5.2). This solution must be used whenever the initial conditions of the model do not
correspond to one of the three cases above.

It is important to stress that the initial state must not contain any dry area in the computational
domain. If this is the case, A RTEMIS displays an error message on the control printout.

6.2 Setting using the subroutine CONDIH

The subroutine CONDIH must be programmed whenever the key word INITIAL CONDITIONS
has the value ‘PARTICULAR’.
The subroutine CONDIH initialises successively the depth of water, the wave number, the phase
velocity and the group velocity. The part of the subroutine concerning depth initialisation is
divided into two zones, the first corresponding to “simple” initial conditions (defined by key
word) and the second to “particular” conditions.
6.2 Setting using the subroutine CONDIH 47

By default, the standard version of the subroutine CONDIH causes the calculation to stop if
the key word INITIAL CONDITIONS is set at “PARTICULAR” without the subroutine actually
being modified.
The user is free to fill in this subroutine as he wishes. For example, he may reread information
from a formatted or binary file, using the key words FORMATTED DATA FILE or BINARY
DATA FILE offered by A RTEMIS.
 7. Boundary conditions

Boundary conditions are given for each of the boundary points.

Physically speaking, the boundaries of a domain may be of two types: either solid walls (dikes,
piers, beaches) that reflect the waves to varying degrees, or else seaward or landward openings
through which the waves enter or leave.
Like all modules of the TELEMAC system, A RTEMIS uses a local numbering system for bound-
ary points. This is done as follows: starting from the lower left boundary point of the model (X
+ Y minimum), the entire outer boundary is numbered trigonometrically, and then the islands
are numbered clockwise.
The boundary conditions (wall, liquid boundary, etc.) apply to segments, but the user assigns
the type of condition to boundary points. To apply a condition to a segment, it is necessary to
configure the point at the start of the segment. It should be noted that this convention is valid
for all the simulation modules of the TELEMAC system (see also the example given in § 6.2).
The type of boundary condition (solid or liquid boundary) is read from the boundary conditions
file. In contrast, the type of waves that are to be processed (for example, mono-directional
or multi-directional) and the possible assigned values (if there is one, e.g. the height of the
incident waves) can be given in the file of parameters or in the Fortran file (programming of the
subroutine BORH for example).
In simple cases, boundary conditions may be imposed using key words. However, if the values
are complex ones, it is necessary to carry out programming with the subroutine BORH.

7.1 Description of different types of condition

The type of boundary condition at a given point is specified in the boundary conditions file.
The structure of this file is identical to that used by the other codes of the TELEMAC system.
However, in the case of A RTEMIS, only three columns are used, the first one and the last two.
The type of boundary condition is defined by the variable LIHBOR situated in the first column
of the file. This variable may take the following values:

• Liquid boundary of incident wave type: LIHBOR=1 (KINC)

• Liquid boundary of incident potential type: LIHBOR=7 (KPOT)

• Liquid boundary of free exit: LIHBOR=4 (KSORT)

• Solid boundary (wall): LIHBOR=2 (KLOG)

 7.2 The boundary conditions file 49

The prescribed wave type boundary is in fact of very limited use, such as for example in the case
of a wave generator that receives no reflected waves. Thus, this option is no longer available in
ARTEMIS.
In most cases, it is possible to fix the type of boundary in the mesh generator, by setting a colour
code. Each colour code corresponds to a particular type of boundary (wall, liquid boundary with
prescribed waves, etc.).

7.2 The boundary conditions file

This file is normally supplied by MATISSE, S TBTEL or FUDAA-PREPRO, but it can be cre-
ated and modified with a text editor. Each line of the file is devoted to one point of the mesh
boundary. The edge points are numbered in the same way as the lines of the file. The contour
of the domain is first numbered trigonometrically and then the islands in the opposite direction.
The following values are given for each point:
LIHBOR, LIUBOR, LIVBOR, HBOR, UBOR, VBOR, AUBOR, LITBOR, TBOR, ATBOR,
BTOR, N, K
LIHBOR is the code for the type of boundary. It is described in § 6.1.
N represents the general number of the edge point.
K represents the point number in the edge point numbering system.
The other values are not taken into account in ARTEMIS, and are ignored during the calculation.
The Fig 7.1 and tab 7.1 below shows a file of boundary conditions for a schematic case.

Figure 7.1: Schematic domain illustrating boundary condition coding

 50 Chapter 7. Boundary conditions

1st column Penultimate Last column

Type of boundary condi- column Boundary node
tion General num- number
ber
1 ... ... 1
2 ... ... 2
2 ... ... 3
2 ... ... 4
2 ... ... 5
4 ... ... 6
4 ... ... 7
4 ... ... 8
2 ... ... 9
2 ... ... 10
2 ... ... 11
2 ... ... 12
1 ... ... 13
1 ... ... 14
1 ... ... 15
1 ... ... 16
2 ... ... 17
2 ... ... 18
2 ... ... 19

Table 7.1: Example of boundary conditions file for the schematic case

7.3 Processing of solid boundaries (LIHBOR=KLOG)

A solid boundary may reflect waves to varying degrees. It is therefore necessary to characterise
the wall reflection coefficient and also the possible phase shift of the reflected waves in relation
to the incident waves, produced by the wall.
It must be stressed that in the case of a solid, the user must estimate beforehand and as well as
possible the angle of incident wave (or of main incident wave constituent), even if this value is
calculated by A RTEMIS.
All the characteristics of the wall are determined in the subroutine BORH. The values of the
following parameters are specified for each solid boundary (identified by the number of the
boundary nodes):

• RP : Reflection coefficient (between 0 and 1, with 1 corresponding to a perfectly reflecting

wall, and 0 to a completely absorbing one)

• TETAP : Angle of incident wave attack in relation to the outward normal, expressed in
degrees in the clockwise direction. It should be noted that the sign of this value is of no
importance, since it only appears in the calculation in cosine form.

• ALFAP : Value of the phase shift produced by the wall (positive if the reflected wave is
delayed in relation to the incident wave), expressed in degrees. If ALFAP=0, the coef-
ficient RP corresponds exactly to the definition of the reflection coefficient, i.e. Htotale =
Hincidente (1 + RP).
 7.4 Processing of liquid 51

In the absence of any special programming in BORH, solid walls are all considered as being
perfectly reflecting and do not produce any phase shift (RP=1, TETAP=ALFAP=0).
The following example shows a definition of two solid boundaries. The first is a wall with pure
reflection, and the second one that is partially reflecting, generating a delay of 45◦ when the
incident wave has an angle of 30◦ .

DO 10 I =1 ,20
RP ( I ) = 1 . D0
10 CONTINUE

DO 20 I =32 ,40
RP ( I ) = 0 . 5 D0
TETAP ( I ) = 3 0 . D0
ALPHAALFAP( I ) = 4 5 . D0
20 CONTINUE
The user may consult [12] for an estimate of the various parameters.

7.4 Processing of liquid

Liquid boundaries can be of two types:

• incident wave type

• incident potential type

• free exit type.

7.4.1 Incident wave (LIHBOR=KINC)

An incident wave type boundary allows waves arriving from offshore to enter and waves from
inside the domain to exit freely. From the theoretical standpoint, the potential at such a boundary
is a known potential (incident waves) superimposed on an unknown potential (exiting waves).
In ARTEMIS, incident wave type boundaries enable waves arriving with an angle TETAP
to leave the domain (N.B. this should not be confused with the angle of the incident waves
TETAB).
From the point of view of the user, it is therefore necessary to provide the characteristics of the
incident wave and the value of the angle TETAP.
The characteristics of the incident wave are performed through the variables HB, TETAB and
TETAP in the BORH subroutine:

• HB: Wave height (monochromatic wave, see § 7.1) or significant wave height (random
wave, see § 7.2)

• TETAB: Propagation direction expressed in degrees in the trigonometric direction from

the X-axis. This value can be imposed as space constant overall the domain through the
keyword DIRECTION OF WAVE PROPAGATION in the steering file.

• ALFAP: Phase of the wave at the considered node, in degreessteering file. The user has to
choose a reference point where the phase is zero. If the full boundary is perpendicular to
the propagation direction, then ALFAP will be zero for the whole boundary nodes. A way
to specify ALFAP can be found in some test cases (BTWI,CREOCEAN,ILE_PARA) or
in section 6.4.4.
 52 Chapter 7. Boundary conditions

• TETAP: Output direction of waves reflected inside the domain (a priori unknown). TETAP
defines the non-oriented angle between the forecast output direction of the wave and the
boundary normal. This value is between 0 and π/2 and must be given in degres.

7.4.2 Incident potential (LIHBOR=KPOT)

An incident potential type boundary allows specifying a more general form of the reduced
potential, waves from inside the domain can still exit freely. From the theoretical standpoint,
the potential at such a boundary is a known potential superimposed on an unknown potential
(exiting waves). In ARTEMIS, incident potential type boundaries enable waves arriving with
an angle TETAP to leave the domain.
From the point of view of the user, it is therefore necessary to provide the characteristics of the
incident wave and the value of the angle TETAP.
The characteristics of the incident potential are performed through the variables (given in the
BORH subroutine):

• PRB: Real part of the incident potential

• PIB: Imaginary part of the incident potential

• DDXPRB: Real part of the derivative of incident potential with respect to X

• DDYPRB: Real part of the derivative of incident potential with respect to Y

• DDXPIB: Imaginary part of the derivative of incident potential with respect to X

• DDYPIB: Imaginary part of the derivative of incident potential with respect to Y

• TETAP : Output direction of waves reflected inside the domain (a priori unknown).
TETAP defines the non-oriented angle between the forecast output direction of the wave
and the boundary normal. This value is between 0 and π/2 and must be given in degrees.

Note that this option has been validated in regular waves only. Considering the actual configu-
ration of ARTEMIS, It should work in non-regular waves also, but no test has been performed
yet.

7.4.3 Free exit (LIHBOR=KSORT)

This type of boundary allows waves to leave freely. However, this type of exit is only free
in ARTEMIS in the case of waves attacking the boundary at an angle TETAP. It is therefore
necessary for the user to estimate the angle of attack of exiting waves beforehand.
TETAP is programmed in the subroutine BORH. The default value (TETAP=0) enables waves
normal to the boundary to exit.

7.4.4 Modifications of « incident wave » boundary condition from V6P2

From version V6P2 of ARTEMIS, the user needs to define the phase of the incident wave
by himself. This operation was done automatically by the code until V6P1. The reasons for
changing are the following:

• From a physical point of view, the automatic phase calculation is not satisfying. In par-
ticular when the wave number and the water depth are variable in space.

• From a computing point of view, the automatic calculation in not really compatible with
parallel computation.
7.4 Processing of liquid 53

Thus, the user has to give the phase in the ALFAP table, for each point of « incident wave» type
(LIHBOR%I=KINC). Users will find bellow some examples of how to calculate the phase.
Example 1: incident wave normal to the boundary

In that case, the phase can be set to 0 on the

whole boundary.
Example 2: incident wave not normal to the boundary, constant bathymetry

In that case, the phase at point I can be calculated using

the following formula (users need to choose a reference
point A):
ϕI = k · cos θ · (xI − xA ) + k · sin θ · (yI − yA )
Example 3: incident wave not normal to the boundary, variable bathymetry
The automatic calculation done by Artemis until version V6P1 used an incremental formulation
on the boundary (see test cases BTWI or CREOCEAN) from a given point A:

I−1
ϕI = ∑ k(P) · cos θ · (xP+1 − xP ) + k(P) · sin θ · (yP+1 − yP )
P=A

Another option is to choose a characteristic water depth of the boundary, then to calculate a
characteristic wave number kre f and to use the formula (see parallel version of test BTWI):

ϕI = kre f · cos θ · (xI − xA ) + kre f · sin θ · (yI − yA )

Example 4: Variation in wave direction.

This case is not really recommended, or should at least need a specific attention. The best option
is probably to perform several computations with random phases and to consider mean values.
As a conclusion, it is recommended to define an “incident wave” boundary as representative
as possible of a far field wave field, so to respect the following recommendations for each
boundary:

• Reasonable topography variations on the boundary.

• No variation in the waves direction

• Incident wave condition applied near a solid boundary in the interest area, or in a corner,
can generate local effects on the results. The interest area has to be far from those local
effects.
 8. Physical parameters

Physical parameters are introduced essentially to characterise the type of calculation that is to
be performed (regular waves, random waves, period scanning) and the dissipation phenomena
taken into account (breaking, bottom friction).
The detailed list of keywords used by A RTEMIS, and classified by alphabetical order, is supplied
in Appendix 4.

8.1 Monochromatic waves

The simplest type of calculation of course concerns monochromatic wavesmonochromatic waves.
In this case, the user supplies the height of the incident waves in metres (HB) and their direc-
tion identified by the angle TETAB (in degrees) made between the incident wave vector and
the X-axis (reckoned positively in a clockwise direction). This definition must be entered in the
subroutine BORH. The wave period, expressed in seconds, is supplied with the key word WAVE
PERIOD.
If the user only wishes to specify a single incident wave direction (or when there is only one
incident wave boundary), the data can be supplied more easily with the key word DIRECTION
OF WAVE PROPAGATION In this case, this value is assigned to all the boundaries concerned.
It should also be noted that the wave height is fixed by default at 1m for all boundaries.
In the case of several boundaries with different incident wave directions, it is necessary to use
the subroutine BORH.

8.2 Random waves

In reality, waves are random. This can be interpreted as the superimposition of several monochro-
matic waves of different periods that are randomly out of phase with one another. In this case,
the real wave energy is the sum of the energies of the component monochromatic waves. The
curve showing energy density as a function of frequency is referred to as the “energy spectrum”
(see § 3.6).
Numerically speaking, the principle adopted in A RTEMIS involves discretizing the energy spec-
trum into a number of bands of equal energy in order to perform a calculation in regular wave
conditions for each of the characteristic frequencies of each band. ARTEMIS then recombines
the various results in order to determine the overall wave height.
In the case of multi-directional waves, the principle is the same. The direction spectrum is
broken down into bands of equal energy.
 8.3 Period scanning. Resonance 55

The random character of the waves is taken into account by activating the key words MONODI-
RECTIONAL RANDOM WAVE and MULTIDIRECTIONAL RANDOM WAVE, as the case may
be.
In order to discretize the energy spectrum, it is necessary on the one hand to fix the energy
spectrum peak period (given by the key word PEAK PERIOD, and the number of bands of equal
energy that the user wishes to use (given by the key word NUMBER OF PERIODS, which has
a default value of 5). Moreover, the two key words MINIMUM SPECTRAL PERIOD (default
value 0.02) and MAXIMUM SPECTRAL PERIOD (default value 200) are used to specify the
limits of the spectrum. The key word GAMMA is used to specify the value of the coefficient γ
involved in Goda’s formula (cf. § 3.6). This key word can have values of between 1 and 7. The
value 1 corresponds to a spectrum of the Pierson-Moskowitz type, and 3.3 (default value) to a
mean Jonswap spectrum.
In the case of a multi-directional waves, the user must provide the boundaries of the direction
spectrum (using the key words MINIMUM ANGLE OF PROPAGATION and MAXIMUM AN-
GLE OF PROPAGATION ), together with the number of bands using the key word NUMBER
OF DIRECTIONS (default value 5). The maximum value of the exponent s involved in the
expression giving the directional distribution of the wave energy (cf. § 3.6) is specified with the
key word S EXPONENT (default value 20).

8.3 Period scanning. Resonance

ARTEMIS offers the possibility of performing a calculation in monochromatic wave conditions
by varying the wave period over a range of values defined by the user. This technique is used
more particularly when searching for resonance frequencies (for example when introducing a
wave into a closed basin).
This option is activated with the logical key word PERIOD SCANNING. The user must also
provide the boundaries of the scanning range using the real key words BEGINNING PERIOD
FOR PERIOD SCANNING and ENDING PERIOD FOR PERIOD SCANNING. The scanning
step is specified with the key word STEP FOR PERIOD SCANNING. All these values are fixed
at zero by default.
In this case, ARTEMIS performs a calculation for each of the periods specified. The results
are stored in the results file (with period sampling if the key word GRAPHIC PRINTOUT PE-
RIODword GRAPHIC PRINTOUT PERIOD is used).

8.4 Bathymetric breaking

ARTEMIS offers the possibility of including dissipation due to bathymetric wave breaking, for
example when the waves reach a beach (bathymetric breaking is used in opposition to offshore
white-capping.
ARTEMIS offers two formulations for regular wave breaking: that of Battjes and Janssen, and
that of Dally. Only the first is available for random waves.
This phenomenon is taken into account by activating the logical key word BREAKING (default
value NO). The formulation to be used (cf. § 3.4.1) is then specified with the key word BREAK-
ING LAW, which may have the value 1 (Battjes and Janssen) or 2 (Dally) (default value 1).
Lastly, the value of the coefficient γs in the breaking height criterion (cf. § 3.4.1.1) is given with
the key word GAMMAS (default value 0.88), which is not to be confused with the key word
GAMMA in the energy spectrum formula (cf. § 3.6).
In the case of Dally’s formula, the coefficients Γ and K are provided with the key words
GDALLY (default value 0.4) and KDALLY (default value 0.1). In the case of Battjes and
Janssen’s formula, the coefficient α is provided with the key wordALPHA (cf. § 3.4.1.2).
 56 Chapter 8. Physical parameters

In a calculation that takes into account breaking, the mnemonic QB is added in the list of the
key word VARIABLES FOR GRAPHIC PRINTOUTS in order to obtain the rate of breaking cal-
culated by the software. This rate, which is between 0 and 1, represents the percentage of waves
that break in the case of a random wave simulation. With monochromatic wave simulations, the
breaking rate is 1 or 0.

8.5 Bottom friction

ARTEMIS allows dissipation due to bottom friction to be taken into account. This is done by
using the formulation of Kostense et al. or that of Putnam and Johnson.
Bottom friction is a complex question involving many notions that are described in § 3.4.2.
The key word FRICTION (default value NO) is used to take this into account in the calculation.

8.5.1 Determination of friction factor

The friction factor is either supplied by the user or determined directly by ARTEMIS in the case
of a sandy bed.
In order to introduce the friction factor directly, it is necessary to activate the logical key word
FRICTION FACTOR IMPOSED. If this is spatially constant, the value may be specified simply
by using the key word FRICTION FACTOR (default value 0). If not, it is necessary to enter the
subroutine FWSPEC, and assign a friction factor value to the variable FW at each mesh node
(to do this, it is possible to use the subroutine FILPOL, which enables the value of any variable
to be prescribed inside a polygon).
If the keyword FRICTION FACTOR IMPOSED = FALSE (default value), ARTEMIS assumes
that the bed is sandy. In this case, the friction factor determination formulae built into ARTEMIS
are used. The main consideration is the hydraulic regime. Here again, the regime may be de-
termined automatically by ARTEMIS at each mesh point, or specified directly by the user. The
latter option is activated using the logic key word HYDRAULIC REGIME IMPOSED (default
value NO), and the type of regime is then given by the key word HYDRAULIC REGIME TYPE,
which may have any of the following values:

• 1 : laminar regime

• 2 : smooth turbulent regime

• 3 : rough turbulent regime

• 4 : transient regime

Depending on the hydraulic regime, the friction factor is calculated by means of various formu-
lae, in which the various parameters must be supplied using key words (see § 3.4.2).
In the case of a rough turbulent regime, the friction factor depends on the skin roughness, which
is connected with the size of the sediment particles, and on the shape roughness, which is
connected with the appearance of undulations on the ground referred to as ripples. ARTEMIS
enables the user to ignore shape roughness by activating the logic key word SKIN ROUGHNESS
ONLY (default value NO). In this case, the roughness value is taken to be equal to three times
the value supplied by the key word DIAMETER90 described below.
The other key words used to supply the physical parameters needed for ARTEMIS to take into
account friction on a sandy bed are the following:

• The key word FLUID KINEMATIC VISCOSITY (default value 10−6 m2 /s) provides the
viscosity of the water.
 8.5 Bottom friction 57

• Key words FLUID SPECIFIC MASS (default value 1000 kg/m3 ) and SEDIMENT SPE-
CIFIC WEIGHT (default value 2650 kg/m3 ) are used to supply the water and sand den-
sities for rough turbulent or transient hydraulic regimes.

The size of the sediment particles involved in determining the bottom friction factor is indicated
with the following key words:

• Key word DIAMETER50 (default value 0.1x10−3 ) indicates the maximum size of 50% of
the volume of sediment. The values generally used are:

– 0.66x10−3 for very coarse sand,

– 0.33x10−3 for coarse sand,
– 0.17x10−3 for medium sand,
– 0.083x10−3 for fine sand,
– 0.04x10−3 for very fine sand.

• Key word DIAMETER90 (default value 0.15x10−3 ) indicates the maximum size of 90%
of the volume of sediment. The values generally used are:

– 10−3 for very coarse sand,

– 0.5x10−3 for coarse sand,
– 0.25x10−3 for medium sand,
– 0.125x10−3 for fine sand,
– 0.062x10−3 for very fine sand.

• Key word RIPPLES COEFFICIENT (default value 0.7) indicates the value of the ripple
coefficient when shape roughness is taken into account. This key word can have the
following values:

– 1 for ripples only,

– 0.7 when the ripples are superimposed on sand waves.

8.5.2 Determination of dissipation coefficient

Once the friction factor has been determined, it is possible to calculate the value of the dissipa-
tion term associated with the bottom friction.
ARTEMIS can calculate the dissipation term by one of two different formulae, that of Kostense,
Meijer and Dingemans, or that of Putnam and Johnson.
The formula is chosen (cf. § 3.4.2) with the key word BOTTOM FRICTION LAW, which can
have the following values:

• 1 for Kostense et al.’s formula (default value)

• 2 for Putnam and Johnson’s formula.

 58 Chapter 8. Physical parameters

8.6 Rapidly varying topography

Since version 6.1, user can take into account second order bottom effects. To use this option,
the keyword « RAPIDLY VARYING TOPOGRAPHY » must appear in the case file.
The equation solved and the model choice is given in 1.3.1.3. The reader can find in 1.4.1 des
informations détaillées sur l’implémentation et l’utilisation de cette option.
The keyword « RAPIDLY VARYING TOPOGRAPHY » can take the values 0,1,2 or 3.

• 0: correspond to classical mild-slope equation.

• 1: gradient effects are taken into account.

• 2: curvature effects are taken into account.

• 3: both gradient and curvature effects are taken into account.

Defaut value: 0.

8.7 Other parameters

The key word GRAVITY ACCELERATION (default value 9.81) is used to specify the accelera-
tion due to gravity in m/s2 .
 9. General parameters

The general parameters for the calculation are indicated only in the parameters file (see Ap-
pendix 4).
The title of the calculation is specified with the key word TITLE.
If a vector computer is being used, it is necessary to specify the vector length with the key word
VECTOR LENGTH. The default value of this key word (1) corresponds to a scalar computer
(i.e. the case with workstations).
When generating an executable, the libraries used to edit the links and the version of the libraries
are specified with the key words LIBRARIES and RELEASE. When the software is installed on
a workstation, the default value of these key words is often sufficient.
 10. Numerical parameters

A number of key words enable the user to configure an ARTEMIS calculation from the numer-
ical standpoint (see Appendix 4).

10.1 Solver
Firstly, the integer key word SOLVER is used to choose the solver for the system of equations
processed by A RTEMIS. The possible values are:

• 1: Conjugated gradient,

• 2: Conjugated residual,

• 3: Conjugated gradient on normal equation,

• 4: Minimum error,

• 6: Conjugated gradient of CGSTAB type,

• 7: GMRES

• 8: Direct solver

By default, ARTEMIS uses the direct solver (option 8).

When option 7 is used, the size of the Krylov space is specified with the key word SOLVER
OPTION.
It should be stressed that:

• in the present state of development of ARTEMIS, the solver GMRES (option 7) does not
appear to give satisfactory results;

• The number of iteration require by the iterative solver to obtain a solution for the linear
system is often high. By consequence, using such method is less interesting than a formal
matrix inversion like with the direct solver;

• When you use the direct solver for large mesh sizes, you may need to increase the param-
eter MEMFACTOR in the new subroutine SD_SOLVE_1.f.
 10.2 Accuracy 61

10.2 Accuracy
When the linear system is solved by an iterative method. It is therefore necessary to define
the accuracy that one wishes to obtain during the calculation, and the maximum permissible
number of iterations, so as to avoid looping if the required level of precision is not attained.
The level of accuracy is specified with the key word SOLVER ACCURACY (default value 10−4 ).
The maximum number of iterations is specified with the key word MAXIMUM NUMBER OF
ITERATIONS FOR SOLVER (default value 60000).
The user may obtain information on the solver by activating the key word INFORMATION
ABOUT SOLVERINFORMATION ABOUT SOLVER (default value YES). This information is
supplied in the printout, and may be of two types:

• Either the process has converged before reaching the maximum permitted number of
iterations, and in this case ARTEMIS indicates the number of iterations actually run,
together with the precision attained.

• Or the process has not converged sufficiently quickly, the ARTEMIS then displays the
message “MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ITERATIONS REACHED” and indicates the pre-
cision actually attained.

10.3 Preconditioning
When the system of equations is solved by a conjugated gradient method, convergence may
often be speeded up by preconditioning.
ARTEMIS offers several preconditioning options. The key word PRECONDITIONING is used
to choose the type required:

• 0 : no preconditioning,

• 2 : diagonal preconditioning (default value),

• 3 : diagonal preconditioning with condensed matrix,

• 5 : diagonal preconditioning in absolute values,

• 7 : Crout’s preconditioning per element.

Certain types of preconditioning can be cumulated, such as the diagonals with the others. The
basic values are prime numbers, so that two types of preconditioning can be cumulated by as-
signing to the key word the product of the corresponding two prime numbers, e.g. 6 corresponds
to types 2 and 3.

10.4 Handling of cases with energy dissipation

When the calculation has to take into account dissipation phenomena (breaking, bottom friction
or both), A RTEMIS first of all runs a calculation without taking the dissipation into account. This
first solution is then used to determine an initial value of the dissipation term to be introduced
into the mild slope equation. ARTEMIS then runs a second calculation, taking into account
the new term. The process is then iterated until a satisfactory solution is obtained. As with the
precision of the general solver (see § 9.2), the user may configure the convergence criteria of
these iterations by using the key word SUB-ITERATIONS ACCURACY (default value 10-2) and
the maximum number of iterations using the key word MAXIMUM SUB-ITERATIONS (default
value 15).
62 Chapter 10. Numerical parameters

As with the general solver, ARTEMIS provides information concerning this process in the con-
trol printout if the key word INFORMATION ABOUT SOLVER is activated (default value YES).
In particular, A RTEMIS provides the maximum difference between each sub-iteration and the
previous one (expressed as a percentage).
Lastly, a relaxation coefficient is introduced at each iteration, when the dissipation coefficient
is calculated, in order to avoid oscillations in solver convergence. This coefficient is specified
by means of the key word DISSIPATION RELAXATION (default value 0.5). It is introduced in
the form:
MU2 = MU1 + RELAX*(MU2-MU1)
where

• MU2 is the dissipation term calculated during the current iteration,

• MU1 is the dissipation term calculated during the previous iteration,

• RELAX is the relaxation coefficient.

The user may need to reduce the value of the relaxation coefficient, particularly in the case of
regular waves.
 11. Programming of complex cases

11.1 Modification of bed elevation (corfon)

The sea bottom may be introduced at various levels, as indicated in § 4.4.
ARTEMIS offers the possibility of modifying the bottom at the start of the calculation, using
the subroutine CORFON. This subroutine is used to modify the value of the variable ZF at each
mesh point. To do so, the user can change a number of variables, such as, for example, the point
coordinates (X and Y), the area of the elements, the table of connectivities, etc.
By default, the subroutine CORFON performs LISFON bottom smoothing, i.e. as many as are
specified by the key word BOTTOM TOPOGRAPHY SMOOTHING (default value 0).

11.2 Modification of coordinates (corrxy)

ARTEMIS also offers the possibility of modifying the coordinates of the mesh points. In this
way it is possible to change, for example, the scale (transition from a scale model to real size),
make a rotation or lateral displacement, etc.
This is done by using the subroutine CORRXY, which is called up at the start of the calculation.
By default, this subroutine is empty and shows an example of programming concerning a change
of scale and origin, in the form of comment lines.

11.3 Addition of new variables

ARTEMIS allows the user to create new variables. The names of these new variables must be
declared in the subroutine NOMVAR in the form of a mnemonic of no more than 8 characters.
Secondly, the user must calculate the value of these new variables in the subroutine UTIMP.
To do this, he can use the tables PRIVE (dimension (number of points, NPRIV)) to transmit
information between the various user-accessible subroutines. When these tables are being used,
it is necessary to give their number (NPRIV value) in the main program.
 12. Other

12.1 Running an ARTEMIS computation

computation is started using the command A RTEMIS. This command activates the execution
of a unix script which is common to all the computation modules of the TELEMAC modelling
system.
The syntaxes of this command are as follows:
artemis [options] [cas]
Les options possibles sont:

• -s: When using in interactiv mode, generates a copy of the output listing on disk (by
default, the output listing is only displayed on screen)

• -D: Compilation and execution using a debugger.

• -t: The temporarily directory is not erased at the end of the computation

• -cl: Compilation and link without execution.

• -noautopar: parallel computation not enable (no partitioning of the model)

• -b: Compilation and execution in batch mode (immediate start).

• -n: Compilation and execution in deferred batch mode (start at 20h00).

• -d: Compilation and execution in deferred batch mode (start at the specified time).

• Cas: Name of steering file.

A RTEMIS –h | -H (short or long help).

If no name for the steering file is indicated, the procedure uses the name ‘cas’. By default, the
procedure executes the computation in interactive mode.
The following operations are carried out using this script:

• Creation of a temporary directory,

• Copy of the dictionary and steering file in this directory,

• Execution of DAMOCLES software in order to determine the name of the work files,
12.1 Running an ARTEMIS computation 65

• Creation of the script to start the computation,

• Allocation of files,

• Compilation of the FORTRANFORTRAN file and link edition (if necessary)

• Start of the computation,

• Restitution of the results files, and erasing of the temporary directory.

Procedure operation differs slightly depending on the options used.

A detailed description of this procedure may be obtained by using the command A RTEMIS -H.
 66 Chapter 12. Other

12.2 List of subroutines most frequently modified by users

• BORH Prescription of boundary conditions

• BORH_EX_COUPLING_TOMAWAC Exemple of prescription of boundary conditions

comming from a TOMAWAC result

• CONDIH Definition of initial conditions

• CORFON Modification of topography

• FWSPEC Space varying friction coefficient

• NOMVAR_ARTEMIS Definition of names of additional user variables

• SD_SOLVE1 Direct solver (to modify the MEMFACTOR parameter if it should be in-
crease)

• UTIMP Additional programming

12.3 Example of a steering file

/-------------------------------------------------------------------
/ ARTEMIS Version v6p2 juillet 2012
/ VALIDATION ARTEMIS - TEST Battjes \& Janssen 1978, RUN 15
/-------------------------------------------------------------------
/-------------------------------------------------------------------
/ INITIAL CONDITIONS EQUATIONS
/-------------------------------------------------------------------
INITIAL CONDITIONS =’CONSTANT ELEVATION’
INITIAL WATER LEVEL =0.
/-------------------------------------------------------------------
/ INPUT-OUTPUT,FILES
/-------------------------------------------------------------------
FORTRAN FILE =’art\_bj78-princi.f’
RESULTS FILE =’art\_bj78-scal.res’
REFERENCE FILE =’ref\_bj78.res’
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FILE =’geo\_bj78.cli’
GEOMETRY FILE =’geo\_bj78.slf’
/-------------------------------------------------------------------
/ INPUT-OUTPUT,GRAPHICS AND LISTING
/-------------------------------------------------------------------
VARIABLES FOR GRAPHIC PRINTOUTS=
’HS,ZF,QB,SXX,SXY,SYY,FX,FY,T01,T02,TM,INC,K,C,CG’
VALIDATION =YES
/-------------------------------------------------------------------
/ INPUT-OUTPUT,INFORMATION
/-------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE =’VALIDATION ARTEMIS 6.0 - TEST Battjes \& Janssen 1978, RUN 15’
/-------------------------------------------------------------------
/ NUMERICAL PARAMETERS
/-------------------------------------------------------------------
NUMBER OF PRIVATE VARIABLES =4
SOLVER = 8
/for parallel calculations using n processors
/add PARALLEL PROCESSORS : n
/replace SOLVER : 8 by SOLVER : 3
/-------------------------------------------------------------------
/ PHYSICAL PARAMETERS
/-------------------------------------------------------------------
 12.4 Example of a user Fortran Fortran file 67

BREAKING =YES
DIRECTION OF WAVE PROPAGATION =0.
MAXIMUM SPECTRAL PERIOD =8.
PEAK PERIOD =1.887
MONODIRECTIONAL RANDOM WAVE =YES
MINIMUM SPECTRAL PERIOD =0.75
GAMMA =3.3

12.4 Example of a user Fortran Fortran file

C ***************
SUBROUTINE BORH
C ***************
C
C***********************************************************************
C
C ARTEMIS VERSION 6.2 07/12
C LINKED TO BIEF VERS. 6.2 J-M HERVOUET (LNH) 01 30 87 80 18
C
C***********************************************************************
C
C FONCTION: PREND EN COMPTE LES CONDITIONS AUX LIMITES
C DE L’UTILISATEUR
C ELLES SONT DONNEES PAR SEGMENT.
C
C CE SOUS-PROGRAMME PEUT ETRE COMPLETE PAR L’UTILISATEUR
C
C-----------------------------------------------------------------------
C ARGUMENTS
C .________________.____.______________________________________________.
C | NOM |MODE| ROLE
|
C |________________|____|______________________________________________|
C | RP |<-- | COEFFICIENTS DE REFLEXION DES PAROIS
|
C | TETAP |<-- | ANGLE D’ATTAQUE DE LA HOULE SUR LES LIMITES |
C | | | PAS SEULEMENT LES PAROIS, MAIS AUSSI LES
|
C | | | LES FRONTIERES LIQUIDES
|
C | | | (COMPTE PAR RAPPORT A LA NORMALE EXTERIEURE |
C | | | DANS LE SENS DIRECT)
|
C | ALFAP |<-- | DEPHASAGE INDUIT PAR LA PAROI ENTRE L’ONDE
|
C | | | REFLECHIE ET L’ONDE INCIDENTE (SI ALFAP EST |
C | | | POSITIF, L’ONDE REFLECHIE EST EN RETARD)
|
C | HB |<-- | HAUTEUR DE LA HOULE AUX FRONTIERES OUVERTES |
C | TETAB |<-- | ANGLE D’ATTAQUE DE LA HOULE (FRONT. OUV.)
|
C | | | (COMPTE PAR RAPPORT A L’AXE DES X DANS LE
|
C | | | SENS DIRECT)
|
68 Chapter 12. Other

C | H | -->| HAUTEUR D’EAU

|
C | K | -->| NOMBRE D’ONDE
|
C | C,CG | -->| VITESSES DE PHASE ET DE GROUPE
|
C | C | -->| CELERITE AU TEMPS N
|
C | ZF | -->| FOND
|
C | X,Y | -->| COORDONNEES DES POINTS DU MAILLAGE
|
C | TRA01,...,3 |<-->| TABLEAUX DE TRAVAIL
|
C | XSGBOR,YSGBOR | -->| NORMALES EXTERIEURES AUX SEGMENTS DE BORD
|
C | LIHBOR | -->| CONDITIONS AUX LIMITES SUR H
|
C | NBOR | -->| ADRESSES DES POINTS DE BORD
|
C | KP1BOR | -->| NUMERO DU POINT FRONTIERE SUIVANT
|
C | OMEGA | -->| PULSATION DE LA HOULE
|
C | PER | -->| PERIODE DE LA HOULE
|
C | TETAH | -->| ANGLE DE PROPAGATION DE LA HOULE
|
C | GRAV | -->| GRAVITE
|
C | NPOIN | -->| NOMBRE DE POINTS DU MAILLAGE.
|
C | NPTFR | -->| NOMBRE DE POINTS FRONTIERE.
|
C | KENT,KLOG | -->| CONVENTION POUR LES TYPES DE CONDITIONS AUX |
C | KSORT,KINC | | LIMITES
|
C | | | KENT : ENTREE (VALEUR IMPOSEE)
|
C | | | KLOG : PAROI
|
C | | | KSORT : SORTIE
|
C | | | KINC : ONDE INCIDENTE
|
C | PRIVE | -->| TABLEAU DE TRAVAIL (DIMENSION DANS PRINCI)
|
C |________________|____|______________________________________________|
C MODE : -->(DONNEE NON MODIFIEE), <--(RESULTAT), <-->(DONNEE MODIFIEE)
C
C-----------------------------------------------------------------------
C
C APPELE PAR : ARTEMI
C
C***********************************************************************
C
12.4 Example of a user Fortran Fortran file 69

USE BIEF
USE DECLARATIONS_TELEMAC
USE DECLARATIONS_ARTEMIS
C
IMPLICIT NONE
INTEGER LNG,LU
COMMON/INFO/LNG,LU
C
INTEGER I,JB
C
DOUBLE PRECISION PI,BID
PARAMETER( PI = 3.1415926535897932384626433D0)
C
INTRINSIC COS,SIN
C
C-----------------------------------------------------------------------
C
C CONDITIONS AUX LIMITES
C UN SEGMENT EST SOLIDE SI IL EST DE TYPE KLOG.
C UN SEGMENT EST ONDE INCIDENTE SI IL EST DE TYPE KINC.
C UN SEGMENT EST UNE ENTREE SI IL EST DE TYPE KENT.
C UN SEGMENT EST UNE SORTIE SI IL EST DE TYPE KSORT.
C
C TOUS LES ANGLES SONT EN DEGRES
C ------
C ---------------------------------------
C INITIALISATION DES VARIABLES PAR DEFAUT
C ---------------------------------------
TETAB\%R(:) = TETAH
TETAP\%R(:) = 0.D0
ALFAP\%R(:) = 0.D0
RP\%R(:) = 0.D0
HB\%R(:) = 1.D0
C

DO I=1,NPTFR
JB=BOUNDARY_COLOUR\%I(I)
C -----------------------------
C EXEMPLE DE CONDITIONS LIMITES :
C
C
C PAROIS SOLIDES
IF(JB.GE.2.AND.JB.LE.139)THEN
LIHBOR\%I(I) = KLOG
RP\%R(I) = 1.D0
TETAP\%R(I) = 90.D0
ALFAP\%R(I) = 0.D0
ENDIF
IF(JB.GE.146.AND.JB.LE.283)THEN
LIHBOR\%I(I) = KLOG
RP\%R(I) = 1.D0
TETAP\%R(I) = 90.D0
ALFAP\%R(I) = 0.D0
ENDIF
C
C
70 Chapter 12. Other

C PAROIS AUX FRONTIERES OUVERTES

C
IF(JB.GE.140.AND.JB.LE.145)THEN
LIHBOR\%I(I) = KSORT
TETAP\%R(I) = 0.D0
ENDIF
C
C
C FRONTIERE ONDE INCIDENTE
C
IF(JB.GE.284.AND.JB.LE.288)THEN
LIHBOR\%I(I) = KINC
HB\%R(I) = 0.202D0
TETAB\%R(I) = 0.D0
TETAP\%R(I) = 0.D0
ALFAP\%R(I) = 0.D0
ENDIF

IF(JB.EQ.1)THEN
LIHBOR\%I(I) = KINC
HB\%R(I) = 0.202D0
TETAB\%R(I) = 0.D0
TETAP\%R(I) = 0.D0
ALFAP\%R(I) = 0.D0
ENDIF

ENDDO
C
C POUR UN CALCUL EN HOULE ALEATOIRE MULTIDIRECTIONNELLE, LE CODE
C CALCULE LES DIRECTIONS DE PROPAGATION A PARTIR DES DONNEES DU FICHIER
C DES MOTS CLES.
C
C
C-----------------------------------------------------------------------
C
C
RETURN
END
C *****************
SUBROUTINE CORFON
C *****************
C
C***********************************************************************
C PROGICIEL : TELEMAC 5.0 01/03/90 J-M HERVOUET
C***********************************************************************
C
C USER SUBROUTINE CORFON
C
C FUNCTION : MODIFICATION OF THE BOTTOM TOPOGRAPHY
C
C
C-----------------------------------------------------------------------
C .________________.____.______________________________________________
C | NOM |MODE| ROLE
C |________________|____|_______________________________________________
C | ZF |<-->| FOND A MODIFIER.
12.4 Example of a user Fortran Fortran file 71

C | X,Y,(Z) | -->| COORDONNEES DU MAILLAGE (Z N’EST PAS EMPLOYE).

C | A |<-- | MATRICE
C | T1,2 | -->| TABLEAUX DE TRAVAIL (DIMENSION NPOIN)
C | W1 | -->| TABLEAU DE TRAVAIL (DIMENSION 3 * NELEM)
C | NPOIN | -->| NOMBRE DE POINTS DU MAILLAGE.
C | PRIVE | -->| TABLEAU PRIVE POUR L’UTILISATEUR.
C | LISFON | -->| NOMBRE DE LISSAGES DU FOND.
C |________________|____|______________________________________________
C MODE : -->(DONNEE NON MODIFIEE), <--(RESULTAT), <-->(DONNEE MODIFIEE)
C-----------------------------------------------------------------------
C
C PROGRAMME APPELANT :
C PROGRAMMES APPELES : RIEN EN STANDARD
C
C***********************************************************************
C
USE BIEF
USE DECLARATIONS_ARTEMIS
C
IMPLICIT NONE
INTEGER LNG,LU
COMMON/INFO/LNG,LU
C
INTEGER I
C
C+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
C
C
C+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
C
LOGICAL MAS
C
C-----------------------------------------------------------------------
C
C LISSAGES EVENTUELS DU FOND
C
IF(LISFON.GT.0) THEN
C
MAS=.TRUE.
CALL FILTER(ZF,MAS,T1,T2,AM1,’MATMAS ’,
* 1.D0,T1,T1,T1,T1,T1,T1,MESH,MSK,MASKEL,LISFON)
C
ENDIF
C
C-----------------------------------------------------------------------
C
DO 20 I = 1,NPOIN
IF (X(I).LT.-5.D0) THEN
ZF\%R(I) = -0.616D0
ENDIF
IF (X(I).GE.-5.D0.AND.X(I).LT.5.D0) THEN
ZF\%R(I) = -0.616D0 + 0.05*(X(I) + 5.D0)
ENDIF
IF (X(I).GE.5.D0.AND.X(I).LT.9.4) THEN
ZF\%R(I) = -0.116D0 -0.025*(X(I) - 5.D0)
ENDIF
72 Chapter 12. Other

IF (X(I).GE.9.4) THEN
ZF\%R(I) = -0.226D0 + 0.05*(X(I) - 9.4)
ENDIF
IF (ZF\%R(I).GT.-0.04D0) THEN
ZF\%R(I) = -0.04D0
ENDIF
20 CONTINUE
C
C-----------------------------------------------------------------------
C
RETURN
END
12.4 Example of a user Fortran Fortran file 73

• Example of printout listing

LISTING DE ARTEMIS -----------------------------------------------------------

AAA RRRR TTTTT EEEEE M M IIIII SSSS

A A R R T E MM MM I S
AAAAA RRRR T EEEEE M M M I SSS
A A R R T E M M I S
A A R R T EEEEE M M IIIII SSSS

VERSION 6.1 FORTRAN 90

***********************************************************
A LA LIGNE 2 LE MOT CLE SUIVANT : FORTRAN FILE EST INCONNU
***********************************************************

************************
* ARRET DE DAMOCLES *
************************

-----------------------------------------
- ERREUR DANS LE FICHIER DES PARAMETRES -
-----------------------------------------

DAMOCLE: TRYING ANOTHER LANGUAGE

DAMOCLE: TRYING ANOTHER LANGUAGE

DAMOCLE: TRYING ANOTHER LANGUAGE

DAMOCLE: TRYING ANOTHER LANGUAGE

DAMOCLE: TRYING ANOTHER LANGUAGE

DAMOCLE: TRYING ANOTHER LANGUAGE

DAMOCLE: TRYING ANOTHER LANGUAGE

DAMOCLE: TRYING ANOTHER LANGUAGE

DAMOCLE: TRYING ANOTHER LANGUAGE

DAMOCLE: TRYING ANOTHER LANGUAGE

VALUES OF THE KEY-WORDS:
GRAPHIC PRINTOUT PERIOD
MOTINT( 5)= 1
LISTING PRINTOUT PERIOD
MOTINT( 6)= 1
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ITERATIONS FOR SOLVER
MOTINT( 7)= 60000
74 Chapter 12. Other

PRECONDITIONING
MOTINT( 10)= 2
DISCRETIZATION IN SPACE
MOTINT( 15)= 1
GEOMETRY FILE STANDARD
MOTINT( 13)= 3
RESULTS FILE STANDARD
MOTINT( 14)= 3
SOLVER
MOTINT( 11)= 8
BOTTOM TOPOGRAPHY SMOOTHING
MOTINT( 9)= 0
NUMBER OF PERIODS
MOTINT( 8)= 5
NUMBER OF DIRECTIONS
MOTINT( 16)= 5
BREAKING LAW
MOTINT( 17)= 1
MAXIMUM OF SUB-ITERATIONS
MOTINT( 18)= 15
HYDRAULIC REGIME TYPE
MOTINT( 19)= 1
BOTTOM FRICTION LAW
MOTINT( 20)= 1
SOLVER OPTION
MOTINT( 12)= 3
VECTOR LENGTH
MOTINT( 1)= 1
LAW OF BOTTOM FRICTION
MOTINT( 2)= 0
MATRIX STORAGE
MOTINT( 3)= 3
MATRIX-VECTOR PRODUCT
MOTINT( 4)= 1
ORIGINAL DATE OF TIME
MOTINT( 21)= 0
ORIGINAL DATE OF TIME
MOTINT( 22)= 0
ORIGINAL DATE OF TIME
MOTINT( 23)= 0
ORIGINAL HOUR OF TIME
MOTINT( 24)= 0
ORIGINAL HOUR OF TIME
MOTINT( 25)= 0
ORIGINAL HOUR OF TIME
MOTINT( 26)= 0
NUMBER OF PRIVATE VARIABLES
MOTINT( 27)= 4
PARALLEL PROCESSORS
12.4 Example of a user Fortran Fortran file 75

MOTINT( 28)= 0
ORIGIN COORDINATES
MOTINT( 29)= 0
ORIGIN COORDINATES
MOTINT( 30)= 0
RAPIDLY VARYING TOPOGRAPHY
MOTINT( 31)= 0
WAVE PERIOD
MOTREA( 7)= 10.00000
DIRECTION OF WAVE PROPAGATION
MOTREA( 10)= 0.000000
GRAVITY ACCELERATION
MOTREA( 8)= 9.810000
ZERO
MOTREA( 11)= 0.1000000E-11
SOLVER ACCURACY
MOTREA( 4)= 0.1000000E-03
MINIMUM VALUE FOR H
MOTREA( 5)= 0.1000000E-06
INITIAL WATER LEVEL
MOTREA( 1)= 0.000000
INITIAL DEPTH
MOTREA( 6)= 0.000000
BEGINNING PERIOD FOR PERIOD SCANNING
MOTREA( 12)= 0.000000
ENDING PERIOD FOR PERIOD SCANNING
MOTREA( 13)= 0.000000
STEP FOR PERIOD SCANNING
MOTREA( 14)= 0.000000
PEAK PERIOD
MOTREA( 2)= 1.887000
GAMMA
MOTREA( 3)= 3.300000
MINIMUM ANGLE OF PROPAGATION
MOTREA( 15)= -180.0000
MAXIMUM ANGLE OF PROPAGATION
MOTREA( 16)= 180.0000
S EXPONENT
MOTREA( 17)= 20.00000
RELAXATION COEFFICIENT
MOTREA( 9)= 1.400000
SUB-ITERATIONS ACCURACY
MOTREA( 18)= 0.1000000E-01
DISSIPATION RELAXATION
MOTREA( 20)= 0.5000000
ALPHA
MOTREA( 21)= 1.000000
GAMMAS
MOTREA( 22)= 0.8800000
76 Chapter 12. Other

KDALLY
MOTREA( 19)= 0.1000000
GDALLY
MOTREA( 23)= 0.4000000
FLUID KINEMATIC VISCOSITY
MOTREA( 24)= 0.1000000E-05
DIAMETER90
MOTREA( 25)= 0.1500000E-03
DIAMETER50
MOTREA( 26)= 0.1000000E-03
SEDIMENT SPECIFIC WEIGHT
MOTREA( 27)= 2650.000
FLUID SPECIFIC MASS
MOTREA( 28)= 1000.000
FRICTION FACTOR
MOTREA( 29)= 0.000000
RIPPLES COEFFICIENT
MOTREA( 31)= 0.7000000
FRICTION COEFFICIENT
MOTREA( 30)= 0.000000
MINIMUM SPECTRAL PERIOD
MOTREA( 32)= 0.7500000
MAXIMUM SPECTRAL PERIOD
MOTREA( 33)= 8.000000
LISTING PRINTOUT
MOTLOG( 4)= T
INFORMATIONS ABOUT SOLVER
MOTLOG( 5)= T
PERIOD SCANNING
MOTLOG( 3)= F
MONODIRECTIONAL RANDOM WAVE
MOTLOG( 1)= T
MULTIDIRECTIONAL RANDOM WAVE
MOTLOG( 2)= F
BREAKING
MOTLOG( 6)= T
FRICTION
MOTLOG( 7)= F
FRICTION FACTOR IMPOSED
MOTLOG( 12)= F
HYDRAULIC REGIME IMPOSED
MOTLOG( 8)= F
SKIN ROUGHNESS ONLY
MOTLOG( 9)= F
WAVE HEIGHTS SMOOTHING
MOTLOG( 10)= F
VALIDATION
MOTLOG( 11)= T
TITLE
12.4 Example of a user Fortran Fortran file 77

MOTCAR( 3)= ARTEMIS VALIDATION - TEST Battjes & Janssen 1978, RUN 15
VARIABLES FOR GRAPHIC PRINTOUTS
MOTCAR( 6)= HS,ZF,QB,SXX,SXY,SYY,FX,FY,T01,T02,TM,INC,K,C,CG
VARIABLES TO BE PRINTED
MOTCAR( 7)=
USER CRAY
MOTCAR( 4)=
PASSWORD
MOTCAR( 13)=
GEOMETRY FILE
MOTCAR( 1) = NGEO-READ-01;ARTGEO;OBLIG;BIN;LIT;SELAFIN-GEOM ; geo_bj78.slf
FORTRAN FILE
MOTCAR( 8) = INUTILE;artfort.f;FACUL;ASC;LIT;FORTRAN ; art_bj78-princi.f
STEERING FILE
MOTCAR( 9) = INUTILE;ARTCAS;OBLIG;ASC;LIT;CAS ;
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FILE
MOTCAR( 10) = NLIM-READ-07;ARTCLI;OBLIG;ASC;LIT;CONLIM ; geo_bj78.cli
RESULTS FILE
MOTCAR( 11) = NRES-READWRITE-08;ARTRES;OBLIG;BIN;ECR;SELAFIN ; art_bj78-sca
RELEASE
MOTCAR( 12)= V6P2
LIBRARIES
MOTCAR( 14)= artemis,telemac,util,damo,bief,hp
CPU TIME
MOTCAR( 15)= 10
MEMORY SPACE
MOTCAR( 16)= 1500000W
BOTTOM TOPOGRAPHY FILE
MOTCAR( 17) = NFON-READ-23;ARTFON;FACUL;ASC;LIT;PARAL ;
BINARY DATA FILE 1
MOTCAR( 18) = NBI1-READ-24;ARTBI1;FACUL;BIN;LIT;SCAL ;
BINARY DATA FILE 2
MOTCAR( 19) = NBI2-READ-25;ARTBI2;FACUL;BIN;LIT;SCAL ;
FORMATTED DATA FILE 1
MOTCAR( 20) = NFO1-READ-26;ARTFO1;FACUL;ASC;LIT;SCAL ;
FORMATTED DATA FILE 2
MOTCAR( 21) = NFO2-READ-27;ARTFO2;FACUL;ASC;LIT;SCAL ;
BINARY RESULTS FILE
MOTCAR( 22) = NRBI-READWRITE-28;ARTRBI;FACUL;BIN;ECR;SCAL ;
FORMATTED RESULTS FILE
MOTCAR( 23) = NRBI-READWRITE-29;ARTRFO;FACUL;ASC;ECR;SCAL ;
PRIORITY
MOTCAR( 24)= JOUR
BIDON STRING
MOTCAR( 25)=
INITIAL CONDITIONS
MOTCAR( 5)= CONSTANT ELEVATION
GEOMETRY FILE BINARY
MOTCAR( 26)= STD
78 Chapter 12. Other

RESULTS FILE BINARY

MOTCAR( 2)= STD
ACCOUNT NUMBER
MOTCAR( 27)=
REFERENCE FILE
MOTCAR( 28) = NRBI-READ-22;ARTREF;FACUL;BIN;LIT;SELAFIN ; ref_bj78.res
GEOMETRY FILE FORMAT
MOTCAR( 29)= SERAFIN
RESULTS FILE FORMAT
MOTCAR( 30)= SERAFIN
REFERENCE FILE FORMAT
MOTCAR( 31)= SERAFIN
BINARY DATA FILE 1 FORMAT
MOTCAR( 32)= SERAFIN
BINARY DATA FILE 2 FORMAT
MOTCAR( 33)= SERAFIN
DESCRIPTION DES LIBRARIES
MOTCAR( 49)= artemis|arte_VVV|PPP|artemisMMMVVV.LLL
DESCRIPTION DES LIBRARIES
MOTCAR( 50)= bief|bief_VVV|PPP|biefMMMVVV.LLL
DESCRIPTION DES LIBRARIES
MOTCAR( 51)= damocles|damo_VVV|PPP|damoMMMVVV.LLL
DESCRIPTION DES LIBRARIES
MOTCAR( 52)= paravoid|paravoid_VVV|PPP|paravoidMMMVVV.LLL
DESCRIPTION DES LIBRARIES
MOTCAR( 53)= special|special_VVV|PPP|specialMMMVVV.LLL
DEFAULT EXECUTABLE
MOTCAR( 54)= artemis|arte_VVV|PPP|artemisMMMVVV.exe
DEFAULT PARALLEL EXECUTABLE
MOTCAR( 55)= artemis|arte_VVV|PPP|artemisMMMVVV_MP.exe
LIST OF FILES
MOTCAR( 35)= STEERING FILE
LIST OF FILES
MOTCAR( 36)= DICTIONARY
LIST OF FILES
MOTCAR( 37)= FORTRAN FILE
LIST OF FILES
MOTCAR( 38)= GEOMETRY FILE
LIST OF FILES
MOTCAR( 39)= BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FILE
LIST OF FILES
MOTCAR( 40)= RESULTS FILE
LIST OF FILES
MOTCAR( 41)= BOTTOM TOPOGRAPHY FILE
LIST OF FILES
MOTCAR( 42)= BINARY DATA FILE 1
LIST OF FILES
MOTCAR( 43)= BINARY DATA FILE 2
LIST OF FILES
12.4 Example of a user Fortran Fortran file 79

MOTCAR( 44)= FORMATTED DATA FILE 1

LIST OF FILES
MOTCAR( 45)= FORMATTED DATA FILE 2
LIST OF FILES
MOTCAR( 46)= BINARY RESULTS FILE
LIST OF FILES
MOTCAR( 47)= FORMATTED RESULTS FILE
LIST OF FILES
MOTCAR( 48)= REFERENCE FILE
DICTIONARY
MOTCAR( 34) = INUTILE;ARTDICO;OBLIG;ASC;LIT;DICO ; artemisV6P2.dico

**********************************************
* LECDON: *
* AFTER CALLING DAMOCLES *
* CHECKING OF DATA READ *
* IN THE STEERING FILE *
**********************************************

NAME OF THE STUDY : ARTEMIS VALIDATION - TEST Battjes \& Janssen 1978, RUN 15

OPENING FILES FOR ARTEMIS

*****************************
* MEMORY ORGANIZATION *
*****************************

READGEO1: TITLE=

NUMBER OF ELEMENTS: 1394

NUMBER OF POINTS: 842
MXPTEL (BIEF) : MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ELEMENTS AROUND A POINT: 7
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS AROUND A POINT: 7
CORRXY (BIEF):NO MODIFICATION OF COORDINATES

MESH: MESH ALLOCATED

*************************************
* END OF MEMORY ORGANIZATION: *
*************************************

ON ENTRE DANS LECLIM

80 Chapter 12. Other

ON SORT DE LECLIM
INBIEF (BIEF): NOT A VECTOR MACHINE (ACCORDING TO YOUR DATA)

FONSTR (BIEF): NO BATHYMETRY IN THE GEOMETRY FILE

AND NO BATHYMETRY FILE. THE BOTTOM
LEVEL IS FIXED TO ZERO BUT STILL
CAN BE MODIFIED IN CORFON.

STRCHE (BIEF): NO MODIFICATION OF FRICTION

THERE IS 1 SOLID BOUNDARIES:

BOUNDARY 1 :
BEGINS AT BOUNDARY POINT: 1 , WITH GLOBAL NUMBER: 1
AND COORDINATES: -7.000000 0.3469447E-17
ENDS AT BOUNDARY POINT: 1 , WITH GLOBAL NUMBER: 1
AND COORDINATES: -7.000000 0.3469447E-17

==============================================================
PERIOD 1/ 5 : 1.1915 SECONDS

ENTREE DANS BERKHO

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 1

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 100000000000.000

-----------------------------------------------

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 2

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 158.508129858354

-----------------------------------------------

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 3

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

12.4 Example of a user Fortran Fortran file 81

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 19.7225818392108

-----------------------------------------------

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 4

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 18.0086449918970

-----------------------------------------------

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 5

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 8.16245644738844

-----------------------------------------------

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 6

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 3.57310577948716

-----------------------------------------------

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 7

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 2.69184120592106

-----------------------------------------------

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 8

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

82 Chapter 12. Other

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 1.41928430383060

-----------------------------------------------

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 9

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 0.769994702197004

-----------------------------------------------

NUMBER OF SUB-ITERATIONS FOR DISSIPATION: 9

SORTIE DANS BERKHO

==============================================================
PERIOD 2/ 5 : 1.5961 SECONDS

ENTREE DANS BERKHO

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 1

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 100000000000.000

-----------------------------------------------

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 2

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 14.3464704179650

-----------------------------------------------

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 3

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

12.4 Example of a user Fortran Fortran file 83

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 16.4384819935568

-----------------------------------------------

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 4

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 7.33735248423355

-----------------------------------------------

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 5

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 3.46645695578686

-----------------------------------------------

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 6

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 1.61701457869949

-----------------------------------------------

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 7

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 1.05280246183841

-----------------------------------------------

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 8

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

84 Chapter 12. Other

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 0.396630245411991

-----------------------------------------------

NUMBER OF SUB-ITERATIONS FOR DISSIPATION: 8

SORTIE DANS BERKHO

==============================================================
PERIOD 3/ 5 : 1.7929 SECONDS

ENTREE DANS BERKHO

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 1

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 100000000000.000

-----------------------------------------------

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 2

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 3.82600329355549

-----------------------------------------------

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 3

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 3.72014963621480

-----------------------------------------------

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 4

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

12.4 Example of a user Fortran Fortran file 85

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 1.32240995375900

-----------------------------------------------

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 5

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 0.626645632339676

-----------------------------------------------

NUMBER OF SUB-ITERATIONS FOR DISSIPATION: 5

SORTIE DANS BERKHO

==============================================================
PERIOD 4/ 5 : 1.9148 SECONDS

ENTREE DANS BERKHO

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 1

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 100000000000.000

-----------------------------------------------

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 2

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 1.98559095565593

-----------------------------------------------

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 3

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

86 Chapter 12. Other

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 1.76526792026215

-----------------------------------------------

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 4

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 0.457544183887233

-----------------------------------------------

NUMBER OF SUB-ITERATIONS FOR DISSIPATION: 4

SORTIE DANS BERKHO

==============================================================
PERIOD 5/ 5 : 2.1220 SECONDS

ENTREE DANS BERKHO

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 1

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 100000000000.000

-----------------------------------------------

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 2

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 2.79299635675320

-----------------------------------------------

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 3

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 2.17841152079636
12.4 Example of a user Fortran Fortran file 87

-----------------------------------------------

SUB-ITERATION NUMBER : 4

LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVING (SOLVE)

DIRECT SYSTEM SOLVER

DIFF. BETWEEN TWO SUB-ITERATIONS (\%) 0.397816380899887

-----------------------------------------------

NUMBER OF SUB-ITERATIONS FOR DISSIPATION: 4

SORTIE DANS BERKHO

==============================================================
VALIDATION PROCEDURE
-------------------------------------------------------------

1) READING THE REFERENCE FILE :

------------------------------

TITLE OF PREVIOUS COMPUTATION: ARTEMIS VALIDATION - TEST Battjes \& Janssen 1

NAME: WAVE HEIGHT UNIT: M

NAME: BOTTOM UNIT: M
NAME: PHASE VELOCITY UNIT: M/S
NAME: GROUP VELOCITY UNIT: M/S
NAME: WAVE NUMBER UNIT: 1/M
NAME: T01 UNIT: S
NAME: T02 UNIT: S
NAME: TM UNIT: S
NAME: FORCE\_FX UNIT: M/S2
NAME: FORCE\_FY UNIT: M/S2
NAME: WAVE INCIDENCE UNIT: DEG
NAME: QB UNIT:
NAME: STRESS\_SXX UNIT: M3/S2
NAME: STRESS\_SXY UNIT: M3/S2
NAME: STRESS\_SYY UNIT: M3/S2

SUITE\_SERAFIN : READ OF RECORD 1

88 Chapter 12. Other

TIME OF RECORD: 1.887000 S

VARIABLE : BOTTOM M
IS IN THE FILE BUT WILL NOT BE READ

VARIABLE : PHASE VELOCITY M/S

IS IN THE FILE BUT WILL NOT BE READ

VARIABLE : GROUP VELOCITY M/S

IS IN THE FILE BUT WILL NOT BE READ

VARIABLE : WAVE NUMBER 1/M

IS IN THE FILE BUT WILL NOT BE READ

VARIABLE : T01 S
IS IN THE FILE BUT WILL NOT BE READ

VARIABLE : T02 S
IS IN THE FILE BUT WILL NOT BE READ

VARIABLE : TM S
IS IN THE FILE BUT WILL NOT BE READ

VARIABLE : FORCE\_FX M/S2

IS IN THE FILE BUT WILL NOT BE READ

VARIABLE : FORCE\_FY M/S2

IS IN THE FILE BUT WILL NOT BE READ

VARIABLE : WAVE INCIDENCE DEG

IS IN THE FILE BUT WILL NOT BE READ

VARIABLE : QB
IS IN THE FILE BUT WILL NOT BE READ

VARIABLE : STRESS\_SXX M3/S2

IS IN THE FILE BUT WILL NOT BE READ

VARIABLE : STRESS\_SXY M3/S2

IS IN THE FILE BUT WILL NOT BE READ

VARIABLE : STRESS\_SYY M3/S2

IS IN THE FILE BUT WILL NOT BE READ

2) READING THE RESULTS FILE :

--------------------------------
12.4 Example of a user Fortran Fortran file 89

TITLE OF PREVIOUS COMPUTATION: ARTEMIS VALIDATION - TEST Battjes \& Janssen 1

NAME: WAVE HEIGHT UNIT: M

NAME: BOTTOM UNIT: M
NAME: PHASE VELOCITY UNIT: M/S
NAME: GROUP VELOCITY UNIT: M/S
NAME: WAVE NUMBER UNIT: 1/M
NAME: T01 UNIT: S
NAME: T02 UNIT: S
NAME: TM UNIT: S
NAME: FORCE\_FX UNIT: M/S2
NAME: FORCE\_FY UNIT: M/S2
NAME: WAVE INCIDENCE UNIT: DEG
NAME: QB UNIT:
NAME: STRESS\_SXX UNIT: M3/S2
NAME: STRESS\_SXY UNIT: M3/S2
NAME: STRESS\_SYY UNIT: M3/S2

SUITE\_SERAFIN : READ OF RECORD 1

TIME OF RECORD: 1.887000 S

VARIABLE : BOTTOM M
IS IN THE FILE BUT WILL NOT BE READ

VARIABLE : PHASE VELOCITY M/S

IS IN THE FILE BUT WILL NOT BE READ

VARIABLE : GROUP VELOCITY M/S

IS IN THE FILE BUT WILL NOT BE READ

VARIABLE : WAVE NUMBER 1/M

IS IN THE FILE BUT WILL NOT BE READ

VARIABLE : T01 S
IS IN THE FILE BUT WILL NOT BE READ

VARIABLE : T02 S
IS IN THE FILE BUT WILL NOT BE READ

VARIABLE : TM S
IS IN THE FILE BUT WILL NOT BE READ

VARIABLE : FORCE\_FX M/S2

IS IN THE FILE BUT WILL NOT BE READ
90 Bibliography

VARIABLE : FORCE\_FY M/S2

IS IN THE FILE BUT WILL NOT BE READ

VARIABLE : WAVE INCIDENCE DEG

IS IN THE FILE BUT WILL NOT BE READ

VARIABLE : QB
IS IN THE FILE BUT WILL NOT BE READ

VARIABLE : STRESS\_SXX M3/S2

IS IN THE FILE BUT WILL NOT BE READ

VARIABLE : STRESS\_SXY M3/S2

IS IN THE FILE BUT WILL NOT BE READ

VARIABLE : STRESS\_SYY M3/S2

IS IN THE FILE BUT WILL NOT BE READ

3) COMPARISON:
--------------

VARIABLE: WAVE HEIGHT DIFFERENCE: 0.000000

-------------------------------------------------------------
END OF VALIDATION REPORT
==============================================================

CORRECT END OF RUN

COMPUTER TIME: 1 SECONDS

Duree du calcul : 1 secondes ( 0:0:1 ) (systeme=0.01 sec)

[18]
 [1] AIRH AIPCN. Paramètres des états de mer. Supplément au bulletin, 52 (Janvier).

[2] J.A. BATTJES and J.P.F.M. JANSSEN. Energy loss and set-up due to breaking of random
waves. In Proc. 16th Int. Conf. Coastal Eng., pages 569–587., 1978.

[3] Michel Benoit. Extension de l’équation de réfraction-diffraction de berkhoff pour traiter

des bathymétries rapidement variables. développement et validation d’un algorithme ap-
plicableaux cas monodimensionnels pour une houle linéaire. Technical Report HE-
42/99/049/A., EDF, 1999.

[4] J.C.W. Berkhoff. Mathematical models for simple harmonic linear water waves. Wave
diffraction and refraction. s.l. : Delft Hydraulics Lab Publication. 163., 1976.

[5] N. Booij. Gravity waves on water with non-uniform depth and current. Delft (Netherlands)
: PhD thesis Technical University of Delft, 1981.

[6] C.E.R.C. Shore protection manual. volumes i and ii, 4th ed. s.l. : US Army Corps of
Engineers, 1984.

[7] P.G. Chamberlain and D. Porter. The modified mild-slope equation. 1995. pp. 393-407.
Vol. 291.

[8] C.N. Chandrasekera and K.F. Cheung. Extended linear refraction-diffraction model. Jour-
nal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and ocean engineering, 123:280–286, 1997.

[9] Dean R.G. Dally, W.R. and R.A. Dalrymple. A model for breaker decay on beaches. s.l. :
Engineering, 19th International Conference on Coastal, 1984.

[10] Groupe Qualité de Coordination Génie Logiciel. Manuel assurance qualité de la der
pour les logiciels scientifiques et techniques. s.l. : EDF Rapport HB-01/93/41/A. HB-
01/93/41/A.

[11] Kostense J.K. De Girolamo, P. and M.W. Dingemans. Inclusion of wave breaking in a
mild-slope model. Venise : International Conference on Computer Modelling in Ocean
Engineering, 1988.

[12] Kadiri M. Dhellemmes, F. and J. Rabeau. Prise en compte des facteurs de réflexion des
ouvrages dans les codes de calcul d’agitation dans les ports. s.l. : EDF Rapport HE-
42/89.03.

[13] Radder Dingemans and De. Vriend. Computation of driving forces of wave-induced cur-
rents. 1987. pp. 539-563.
92 Bibliography

[14] Y. Goda. Random seas and design of maritime structures. s.l. : Univ. Tokyo Press, 2000.

[15] L. Hamm. Modélisation numérique bi-dimensionnelle de la propagation de la houle dans

la zone de déferlement. Grenoble I : Thèse Université Joseph Fourier, 1995.

[16] K. Hasselman. Measurements of wind-wave growth and swell decay during the joint north
sea wave project (jonswap). pp. 7-95. Vol. A8.

[17] J.-M. Hervouet. Guide to programming in the telemac system version 5.4. s.l. : EDF
report HP-75/04/006/A.

[18] J-M. HERVOUET. Hydrodynamics of free surface flows. Modelling with the finite element
method. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Paris, 2007.

[19] I.G. Jonsson. Wave boundary layer and friction factors. s.l. : 10th International Confer-
ence on Coastal Engineering, 1966.

[20] J.K Kostense and et. al. Wave energy dissipation in arbitrarily shaped harbours of variable
depth. Taïpei : 20th International Conference on Coastal Engineering, 1986.

[21] Massel. Extended refraction-diffraction equation for surface waves. Coastal Eng., 19:
97–126, 1993.

[22] S.R. Massel. Ocean surface waves : their physics and prediction. 1996.

[23] C.C. MEI. The applied dynamics of ocean surface waves., page 740. John Wiley & Sons,
New-York, 1983.

[24] D. Paugam. Modélisation d’un processus physique de dissipation d’énergie de la houle :

le frottement sur le fond. s.l. : ISITV Rapport de stage.

[25] J.A. Putnam and J.W. Johnson. The dissipation of wave energy by bottom friction. 1949.
pp. 67-74.

[26] Aelbrecht D. Sauvaget, P. and P. Lang. Logiciel artemis - version 3.0 - dossier de valida-
tion. s.l. : EDF-LNH Rapport HE-42/97/003. HE-42/97/003.

[27] Lee C. Suh, K.D. and W.S. Park. Time-dependent equations for wave propagation on
rapidlyvarying topography. 1997. pp. 91-117. Vol. 32.

[28] L.C. Van Rijn. Principles of sediment transport in rivers, estuaries and coastal seas. s.l. :
Aqua Publications, 1993.