|
[Sponsors] |
Regarding: Choosing the Right X 41 Value for floating body simulations in REEF3D |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
August 23, 2023, 10:09 |
Regarding: Choosing the Right X 41 Value for floating body simulations in REEF3D
|
#1 |
Member
Bhargav
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 30
Rep Power: 4 |
I'm working with REEF3D and I'm a bit confused about the X 41 parameter. The default value is 0.6, but in the ctrl.txt for heave decay of a sphere given in tutorial (user REEF3D guide), you used 2.1.
I tried both values for a cylinder's heave decay in a 2D wave tank, and the results are different. Any suggestions on which value I should use? Thanks you |
|
August 24, 2023, 06:15 |
|
#2 |
Super Moderator
Hans Bihs
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 403
Rep Power: 19 |
Please use 0.6. The old value was 2.1 for the old version of the direct forcing algorithm.
|
|
August 24, 2023, 06:16 |
|
#3 |
Super Moderator
Hans Bihs
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 403
Rep Power: 19 |
Will be updated in the upcoming release.
|
|
August 25, 2023, 10:32 |
|
#4 |
Member
Bhargav
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 30
Rep Power: 4 |
I've been continuously working on a heave decay simulation of a float using REEF3D, incorporating the valuable suggestions provided by the REEF3D team. The simulation setup closely follows the methodology outlined in the paper titled "Wendt, Fabian, Kim Nielsen, Yi-Hsiang Yu, Harry Bingham, Claes Eskilsson, Morten Kramer, Aurélien Babarit, Tim Bunnik, Ronan Costello, Sarah Crowley, and et al. 2019. 'Ocean Energy Systems Wave Energy Modelling Task: Modelling, Verification and Validation of Wave Energy Converters' (Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 7, no. 11: 379. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse7110379)."
Initially, I achieved promising agreement between the results. However, as the simulation progresses over time, I've observed a growing deviation between these two sets of results. To gain a better understanding, I performed a comparison using different values of X41, 2.1 in one case and 0.6 in another. The plotted data clearly indicates that X41 = 2.1 provides a better match than X41 = 0.6. For your convenience, I've attached the pertinent control, ctrl, and solid files that were utilized in the simulation. Additionally, I've included a comparative plot that highlights the observed differences. Your expert insights are invaluable, and if any discrepancies or potential errors are identified in my input files, please provide your guidance in addressing them. Thank you for your time and assistance. |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Two Way FSI of Highly Flexible Body | Sunny Chitti | Structural Mechanics | 0 | June 27, 2017 15:22 |
Looking for simple CFD tool for bluff body simulations | Jaydeep_Koradiya | Main CFD Forum | 1 | May 24, 2017 14:23 |
Mesh adaptation step for rigid body simulations? | A5729 | CFX | 0 | July 25, 2012 07:54 |
flow simulations around a car body | Arjun | FLUENT | 0 | August 15, 2007 02:54 |
Grid singularity in blunt body simulations | Stefan | Main CFD Forum | 8 | August 4, 2001 23:33 |