Solution verification of WECs: comparison of methods to estimate numerical uncertainties in the OES wave energy modelling task

C. Eskilsson, Alex Abolfazl Shiri, E. Katsidoniotaki
{"title":"Solution verification of WECs: comparison of methods to estimate numerical uncertainties in the OES wave energy modelling task","authors":"C. Eskilsson, Alex Abolfazl Shiri, E. Katsidoniotaki","doi":"10.36688/ewtec-2023-426","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"High-fidelity models become more and more used in the wave energy sector. They offer a fully nonlinear simulation tool that in theory should encompass all linear and nonlinear forces acting on a wave energy converter (WEC). Studies using high-fidelity models are usually focusing on validation of the model. However, a validated model does not necessarily give reliable solutions. Solution verification is the methodology to estimate the numerical uncertainties related to a simulation. In this work we test four different approaches: the classical grid convergence index (GCI); a least-square version (LS-GCI); a simplified version of the least-square method (SLS-GCI); and the ITTC recommended practice. The LS-GCI requires four or more solutions whereas the other three methods only need three solutions. We apply these methods to four different high-fidelity models for the case of a heaving sphere. We evaluate the numerical uncertainties for two parameters in the time-domain and two parameters in the frequency domain. It was found that the GCI and ITTC were hard to use on the frequency domain parameters as they require monotonic convergence which sometimes does not happen due to the differences in the solutions being very small. The SLS-GCI performed almost as well as the SL-GCI method and will be further investigated.\n ","PeriodicalId":201789,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference","volume":"211 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36688/ewtec-2023-426","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

High-fidelity models become more and more used in the wave energy sector. They offer a fully nonlinear simulation tool that in theory should encompass all linear and nonlinear forces acting on a wave energy converter (WEC). Studies using high-fidelity models are usually focusing on validation of the model. However, a validated model does not necessarily give reliable solutions. Solution verification is the methodology to estimate the numerical uncertainties related to a simulation. In this work we test four different approaches: the classical grid convergence index (GCI); a least-square version (LS-GCI); a simplified version of the least-square method (SLS-GCI); and the ITTC recommended practice. The LS-GCI requires four or more solutions whereas the other three methods only need three solutions. We apply these methods to four different high-fidelity models for the case of a heaving sphere. We evaluate the numerical uncertainties for two parameters in the time-domain and two parameters in the frequency domain. It was found that the GCI and ITTC were hard to use on the frequency domain parameters as they require monotonic convergence which sometimes does not happen due to the differences in the solutions being very small. The SLS-GCI performed almost as well as the SL-GCI method and will be further investigated.  
wcs的解验证:OES波能模拟任务中数值不确定性估算方法的比较
高保真模型在波浪能领域得到越来越多的应用。他们提供了一个完全非线性的模拟工具,理论上应该包含作用在波能转换器(WEC)上的所有线性和非线性力。使用高保真模型的研究通常侧重于模型的验证。然而,经过验证的模型并不一定能给出可靠的解决方案。解验证是估计与模拟有关的数值不确定性的方法。在这项工作中,我们测试了四种不同的方法:经典网格收敛指数(GCI);最小二乘版本(LS-GCI);简化版的最小二乘法(SLS-GCI);和ITTC推荐的做法。LS-GCI需要四个或更多的解,而其他三种方法只需要三个解。我们将这些方法应用于四种不同的高保真模型,用于起伏球的情况。分别对时域和频域两个参数的数值不确定性进行了计算。发现GCI和ITTC在频域参数上很难使用,因为它们需要单调收敛,而有时由于解的差异很小而不会发生单调收敛。SLS-GCI的表现几乎与SL-GCI方法一样好,将进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信