Options
A comparative study on the nonlinear interaction between a focusing wave and cylinder using state-of-the-art solvers: Part A
Date Issued
01-01-2021
Author(s)
Indian Institute of Technology, Madras
Agarwal, Shagun
Yan, Shiqiang
Xie, Zhihua
Saincher, Shaswat
Schlurmann, Torsten
Ma, Qingwei
Stoesser, Thorsten
Zhuang, Yuan
Han, Bo
Zhao, Weiwen
Yang, Xiaotong
Li, Z.
Wan, Decheng
Zhang, Yi
Teng, Bin
Ning, Dezhi
Zhang, Ningbo
Zheng, Xing
Xu, Guochun
Gong, Jiaye
Li, Yunbo
Liao, Kangping
Duan, Wenyang
Han, Ronggui
Asnim, Windiman
Sulaiman, Zana
Zhou, Zhongbing
Qin, Jianmin
Li, Yucheng
Song, Zhiwei
Lou, Xiaofan
Lu, Lin
Yuan, Changfu
Ma, Yuxiang
Ai, Congfang
Dong, Guohai
Sun, Hanbing
Wang, Qiang
Zhai, Zhi Tao
Shao, Yan Lin
Lin, Zaibin
Qian, Ling
Bai, Wei
Ma, Zhihua
Higuera, Pablo
Buldakov, Eugeny
Stagonas, Dimitris
Lopez, Santiago Martelo
Christou, Aristos
Lin, Pengzhi
Li, Yanyan
Lu, Jinshu
Hong, Sa Young
Ha, Yoon Jin
Kim, Kyong Hwan
Cho, Seok Kyu
Park, Dong Min
Laskowski, Wojciech
Eskilsson, Claes
Ricchiuto, Mario
Engsig-Karup, Allan P.
Cheng, Lin
Zheng, Jinhai
Gu, Hanbin
Li, Guangnian
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.
Volume
31