Manchester Metropolitan University's Research Repository

A Comparative Study on the Nonlinear Interaction Between a Focusing Wave and Cylinder Using State-of-the-art Solvers: Part A

Venkatachalam, Sriram and Agarwal, Shagun and Yan, Shiqiang and Xie, Zhihua and Saincher, Shaswat and Schlurmann, Torsten and Ma, Qingwei and Stoesser, Thorsten and Zhuang, Yuan and Han, Bo and Zhao, Weiwen and Yang, Xiaotong and Li, Z and Wan, Decheng and Zhang, Yi and Teng, Bin and Ning, Dezhi and Zhang, Ningbo and Zheng, Xing and Xu, Guochun and Gong, Jiaye and Li, Yunbo and Liao, Kangping and Duan, Wenyang and Han, Ronggui and Asnim, Windiman and Sulaiman, Zana and Zhou, Zhongbing and Qin, Jianmin and Li, Yucheng and Song, Zhiwei and Lou, Xiaofan and Lu, Lin and Yuan, Changfu and Ma, Yuxiang and Ai, Congfang and Dong, Guohai and Sun, Hanbing and Wang, Qiang and Zhai, Zhi-Tao and Shao, Yan-Lin and Lin, Zaibin and Qian, Ling and Bai, Wei and Ma, Zhihua and Higuera, Pablo and Buldakov, Eugeny and Stagonas, Dimitris and Martelo Lopez, Santiago and Christou, Aristos and Lin, Pengzhi and Li, Yanyan and Lu, Jinshu and Hong, Sa Young and Ha, Yoon-Jin and Kim, Kyong-Hwan and Cho, Seok-Kyu and Park, Dong-Min and Laskowski, Wojciech and Eskilsson, Claes and Ricchiuto, Mario and Engsig-Karup, Allan P and Cheng, Lin and Zheng, Jinhai and Gu, Hanbin and Li, Guangnian (2021) A Comparative Study on the Nonlinear Interaction Between a Focusing Wave and Cylinder Using State-of-the-art Solvers: Part A. International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering, 31 (1). ISSN 1053-5381


Download (5MB) | Preview


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.

Impact and Reach


Activity Overview

Additional statistics for this dataset are available via IRStats2.


Actions (login required)

View Item View Item