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

Venkatachalam, Sriram, 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 ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9716-2342, Bai, Wei, Ma, Zhihua, Higuera, Pablo, Buldakov, Eugeny, Stagonas, Dimitris, Martelo Lopez, Santiago, 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 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

Preview

Accepted Version Download (5MB) | Preview

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.