## 3 Results and Discussion
### Flow Behavior  
A comparison of the different variants is conducted using the measured wave height, averaged over the last 5 s, and the value for vorticity for the last iteration. The values for all simulations are summarized in Table 5. The \(\Psi_{z}\) value is particularly important as it indicates the vorticity of the recirculation zone and resulting tumble in the x and y planes (see Figure 7). Within the symmetric simulations, we see that different simulation setups do not yield identical \(\Psi_{y}\) values and wave heights across different simulation volumes. This variability is expected due to the non-identical and highly time-dependent flow fields. Geometric changes using a baffle significantly decrease the \(\Psi_{z}\) value. Simulations \(S_{C}^{2m}\) and \(S_{C}^{3m}\) reduce \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Sim.** & **Name** & **Wave Height (m)** & \(\mathbf{\
abla_{x}\) (\(\text{l/s}\cdot\text{m}^{3}\times 10^{6}\))} & \(\mathbf{\
abla_{y}\) (\(\text{l/s}\cdot\text{m}^{3}\times 10^{6}\))} & \(\mathbf{\
abla_{z}\) (\(\text{l/s}\cdot\text{m}^{3}\times 10^{6}\))} \\ \hline \multirow{9}{*}{SCB} & \(S_{D}\) & 0.64 & 1.27 & 1.05 & 4.28 \\  & \(S_{I}\) & 0.75 & 1.53 & 1.01 & 3.37 \\  & \(S_{I}^{1m}\) & 0.78 & 1.42 & 1.15 & 3.68 \\  & \(S_{I}^{2m}\) & 0.76 & 1.31 & 1.12 & 3.21 \\  & \(S_{I}^{3m}\) & 0.74 & 1.43 & 0.91 & 2.63 \\  & \(S_{I}^{5m}\) & **0.62** & **1.20** & **0.97** & **3.86** \\  & \(S_{C}^{5m}\) & 0.65 & 1.21 & 0.73 & 2.07 \\  & \(S_{C}^{5m}\) & 0.71 & 1.55 & 0.75 & 2.16 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{ACB} & \(S_{A}\) & **0.64** & **1.32** & **0.73** & **2.04** \\  & \(S_{VF}\) & 0.68 & 1.30 & 1.05 & 2.53 \\  & \(S_{VH}\) & 0.65 & 1.48 & 1.01 & 2.81 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{SCBW} & \(S_{W}\) & 0.70 & 1.25 & 0.87 & 3.78 \\  & \(S_{W}^{1m}\) & 0.69 & 1.14 & 0.86 & 3.66 \\ \cline{1-1}  & \(S_{W}^{2m}\) & 0.76 & 1.21 & 0.79 & 2.48 \\ \cline{1-1}  & \(S_{W}^{3m}\) & **0.71** & **1.44** & **0.70** & **1.96** \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Evaluation of all geometry variants with vorticity \(\Psi\) values of all three space dimensions x, y, z and the wave height. For the configurations, see Figure 3.  
Figure 7: Visualization of the localization of the sections for a further velocity flow field presentation. The sections are positioned at 25% (land), 50% (middle), and 75% (island) of the depth of the concrete canal. the \(\Psi_{z}\) value by half compared to the default \(S_{D}\) simulation, showing the greatest reduction at a baffle positioned at 2 m. Additionally, \(\Psi_{y}\) decreases for all variants except \(S_{l}^{1m}\) and \(S_{l}^{3m}\), while \(\Psi_{x}\) increases for all variants except \(S_{C}^{1m}\) and \(S_{C}^{2m}\). Most symmetric variants cause the wave height to be greater compared to the default configuration, with the exception of the \(S_{C}^{1m}\) simulation. The 0-1-0 inlay setup \((S_{l}^{1m},S_{l}^{2m},S_{l}^{3m})\) effectively reduces the \(\Psi_{z}\) value but also increases \(\Psi_{x}\) and \(\Psi_{y}\). Conversely, the 1-1-1 inlay setup with baffles \((S_{C}^{1m},\ S_{C}^{2m},\ S_{C}^{3m})\) significantly decreases the \(\Psi_{z}\) value with minimal impact on \(\Psi_{x}\). Although the wave height increases, it is not as pronounced as in the 0-1-0 inlay setup. Within the \(ACB\) and \(SCBW\) groups, most variations perform worse than the \(S_{C}^{2m}\) setup from the symmetric group. Asymmetric baffle configurations (\(S_{VF}\) and \(S_{VH}\)) on the inlay do not lead to improvements. The best performance is observed in the \(S_{W}^{3m}\) simulation, where a combination of baffles at the wall and on the inlay achieves the lowest \(\Psi_{z}\) value with a slight increase in \(\Psi_{x}\). The symmetric baffle configuration \((S_{A})\) setup also performs well in terms of \(\Psi_{z}\) but falls short regarding wave height.