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

• DOI: 10.17736/ijope.2021.jc820
• Publication Date: 2021-02-27T00:30:18Z
• Authors: Sriram Venkatachalam; Shagun Agarwal; Shiqiang Yan; Zhihua Xie; Shaswat Saincher; Torsten Schlurmann; Qingwei Ma; Thorsten Stoesser; Yuan Zhuang; Bo Han; Weiwen Zhao; Xiaotong Yang; Z Li; Decheng Wan; Yi Zhang; Bin Teng; Dezhi Ning; Ningbo Zhang; Xing Zheng; Guochun Xu; Jiaye Gong; Yunbo Li; Kangping Liao; Wenyang Duan; Ronggui Han; Windiman Asnim; Zana Sulaiman; Zhongbing Zhou; Jianmin Qin; Yucheng Li; Zhiwei Song; Xiaofan Lou; Lin Lu; Changfu Yuan; Yuxiang Ma; Congfang Ai; Guohai Dong; Hanbing Sun; Qiang Wang; Zhi-Tao Zhai; Yan-Lin Shao; Zaibin Lin; Ling Qian; Wei Bai; Zhihua Ma; Pablo Higuera; Eugeny Buldakov; Dimitris Stagonas; Santiago Martelo ...; Aristos Christou; Pengzhi Lin; Yanyan Li; Jinshu Lu; Sa Young Hong; Yoon-Jin Ha; Kyong-Hwan Kim; Seok-Kyu Cho; Dong-Min Park; Wojciech Laskowski; Claes Eskilsson; Mario Ricchiuto; Allan P Engsig-Karup; Lin Cheng; Jinhai Zheng; Hanbin Gu; Guangnian Li
• Keywords: 0209 industrial biotechnology; hybrid modeling; Potential flow; 02 engineering and technology; Civil Engineering; 01 natural sciences; 0905 Civil Engineering; 510; Hybrid modeling; fixed cylinder; Validation; 0103 physical sciences; [PHYS.MECA.MEFL]Physics [physics]/Mechanics [physics]/Fluid mechanics [physics.class-ph]; validation; Navier–Stokes; moving cylinder; 620; potential flow; [SPI.MECA.STRU]Engineering Sciences [physics]/Mechanics [physics.med-ph]/Structural mechanics [physics.class-ph]; 0911 Maritime Engineering; Fixed cylinder; Moving cylinder; Comparative study; 0913 Mechanical Engineering

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.