Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering |
| Volume | 31 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Publication status | Published - Mar 2021 |
Abstract
This paper presents ISOPE’s 2020 comparative study on the interaction between focused waves and a fixed cylinder. The paper discusses the qualitative and quantitative comparisons between 20 different numerical solvers from various universities across the world for a fixed cylinder. The moving cylinder cases are reported in a companion paper as part B (Agarwal, Saincher, et al., 2021). The numerical solvers presented in this paper are the recent state of the art in the field, mostly developed in-house by various academic institutes. The majority of the participants used hybrid modeling (i.e., a combination of potential flow and Navier–Stokes solvers). The qualitative comparisons based on the wave probe and pressure probe time histories and spectral components between laminar, turbulent, and potential flow solvers are presented in this paper. Furthermore, the quantitative error analyses based on the overall relative error in peak and phase shifts in the wave probe and pressure probe of all the 20 different solvers are reported. The quantitative errors with respect to different spectral component energy levels (i.e., in primary, sub-, and superharmonic regions) capturing capability are reported. Thus, the paper discusses the maximum, minimum, and median relative errors present in recent solvers as regards application to industrial problems rather than attempting to find the best solver. Furthermore, recommendations are drawn based on the analysis.
Keywords
- Comparative study, Fixed cylinder, Hybrid modeling, Moving cylinder, Navier–Stokes, Potential flow, Validation
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Engineering(all)
- Civil and Structural Engineering
- Engineering(all)
- Ocean Engineering
- Engineering(all)
- Mechanical Engineering
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering, Vol. 31, No. 1, 03.2021.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - A comparative study on the nonlinear interaction between a focusing wave and cylinder using state-of-the-art solvers
T2 - Part A
AU - Sriram, V.
AU - Agarwal, Shagun
AU - Yan, Shiqiang
AU - Xie, Zhihua
AU - Saincher, Shaswat
AU - Schlurmann, Torsten
AU - Ma, Qingwei
AU - Stoesser, Thorsten
AU - Zhuang, Yuan
AU - Han, Bo
AU - Zhao, Weiwen
AU - Yang, Xiaotong
AU - Li, Z.
AU - Wan, Decheng
AU - Zhang, Yi
AU - Teng, Bin
AU - Ning, Dezhi
AU - Zhang, Ningbo
AU - Zheng, Xing
AU - Xu, Guochun
AU - Gong, Jiaye
AU - Li, Yunbo
AU - Liao, Kangping
AU - Duan, Wenyang
AU - Han, Ronggui
AU - Asnim, Windiman
AU - Sulaiman, Zana
AU - Zhou, Zhongbing
AU - Qin, Jianmin
AU - Li, Yucheng
AU - Song, Zhiwei
AU - Lou, Xiaofan
AU - Lu, Lin
AU - Yuan, Changfu
AU - Ma, Yuxiang
AU - Ai, Congfang
AU - Dong, Guohai
AU - Sun, Hanbing
AU - Wang, Qiang
AU - Zhai, Zhi Tao
AU - Shao, Yan Lin
AU - Lin, Zaibin
AU - Qian, Ling
AU - Bai, Wei
AU - Ma, Zhihua
AU - Higuera, Pablo
AU - Buldakov, Eugeny
AU - Stagonas, Dimitris
AU - Lopez, Santiago Martelo
AU - Christou, Aristos
AU - Lin, Pengzhi
AU - Li, Yanyan
AU - Lu, Jinshu
AU - Hong, Sa Young
AU - Ha, Yoon Jin
AU - Kim, Kyong Hwan
AU - Cho, Seok Kyu
AU - Park, Dong Min
AU - Laskowski, Wojciech
AU - Eskilsson, Claes
AU - Ricchiuto, Mario
AU - Engsig-Karup, Allan P.
AU - Cheng, Lin
AU - Zheng, Jinhai
AU - Gu, Hanbin
AU - Li, Guangnian
N1 - Funding Information: The first author thanks the Alexander Von Humboldt Foundations and German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), DST-UKIERI (DST-UKIERI-2016-17-0029 and DST/INT/UK/P-122/ 2016) for the experiments and numerical model developments of MLPG and qaleFOAM.
PY - 2021/3
Y1 - 2021/3
N2 - This paper presents ISOPE’s 2020 comparative study on the interaction between focused waves and a fixed cylinder. The paper discusses the qualitative and quantitative comparisons between 20 different numerical solvers from various universities across the world for a fixed cylinder. The moving cylinder cases are reported in a companion paper as part B (Agarwal, Saincher, et al., 2021). The numerical solvers presented in this paper are the recent state of the art in the field, mostly developed in-house by various academic institutes. The majority of the participants used hybrid modeling (i.e., a combination of potential flow and Navier–Stokes solvers). The qualitative comparisons based on the wave probe and pressure probe time histories and spectral components between laminar, turbulent, and potential flow solvers are presented in this paper. Furthermore, the quantitative error analyses based on the overall relative error in peak and phase shifts in the wave probe and pressure probe of all the 20 different solvers are reported. The quantitative errors with respect to different spectral component energy levels (i.e., in primary, sub-, and superharmonic regions) capturing capability are reported. Thus, the paper discusses the maximum, minimum, and median relative errors present in recent solvers as regards application to industrial problems rather than attempting to find the best solver. Furthermore, recommendations are drawn based on the analysis.
AB - This paper presents ISOPE’s 2020 comparative study on the interaction between focused waves and a fixed cylinder. The paper discusses the qualitative and quantitative comparisons between 20 different numerical solvers from various universities across the world for a fixed cylinder. The moving cylinder cases are reported in a companion paper as part B (Agarwal, Saincher, et al., 2021). The numerical solvers presented in this paper are the recent state of the art in the field, mostly developed in-house by various academic institutes. The majority of the participants used hybrid modeling (i.e., a combination of potential flow and Navier–Stokes solvers). The qualitative comparisons based on the wave probe and pressure probe time histories and spectral components between laminar, turbulent, and potential flow solvers are presented in this paper. Furthermore, the quantitative error analyses based on the overall relative error in peak and phase shifts in the wave probe and pressure probe of all the 20 different solvers are reported. The quantitative errors with respect to different spectral component energy levels (i.e., in primary, sub-, and superharmonic regions) capturing capability are reported. Thus, the paper discusses the maximum, minimum, and median relative errors present in recent solvers as regards application to industrial problems rather than attempting to find the best solver. Furthermore, recommendations are drawn based on the analysis.
KW - Comparative study
KW - Fixed cylinder
KW - Hybrid modeling
KW - Moving cylinder
KW - Navier–Stokes
KW - Potential flow
KW - Validation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85104701372&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.17736/ijope.2021.jc820
DO - 10.17736/ijope.2021.jc820
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85104701372
VL - 31
JO - International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering
JF - International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering
SN - 1053-5381
IS - 1
ER -