Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 87 references

Comparison of wave-structure interaction dynamics of a submerged cylindrical point absorber with three degrees of freedom using potential flow and computational fluid dynamics models

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Potential-flow models for submerged wave-energy buoys overpredict heave and surge amplitudes, predict almost no pitch, and miss the slow drift that fully resolved CFD captures.

desk verdict Useful but uneven CFD-vs-potential-flow study; the slow-drift and 'optimal' damping claims need more support before the headline conclusions hold. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04981 v4 pith:WZBH6FIB submitted 2019-08-14 physics.flu-dyn physics.comp-ph

Panagiotis Dafnakis , Amneet Pal Singh Bhalla , Sergej Antonello Sirigu , Mauro Bonfanti , Giovanni Bracco , Giuliana Mattiazzo This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dynphysics.comp-ph
keywords submergedpointabsorberwaveenergyconverterCumminsequationpotentialflowtheoryBrinkmanpenalizationfictitiousdomainmethodslowdriftPTOdampingtuning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tests how well a standard linear potential-flow model predicts the motion of a fully submerged, tethered cylindrical wave-energy converter that can move in heave, surge, and pitch. It claims that the potential model overpredicts the amplitudes of heave and surge, predicts essentially no pitch for the axisymmetric body, and misses the slow horizontal drift of the buoy, while a fully resolved viscous CFD model captures all three. The consequence matters for design: if true, cheap linear models are not conservative for sizing PTO hardware or mooring lines, and reliable tuning for moderate or steep waves needs viscous simulation. The paper goes on to show with CFD that the PTO damping recommended by linear resonance theory is too low for steeper waves, that lighter buoys create higher permanent tether tension, and that efficiency falls as wave height grows.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a comparison between two motion models of the same tethered buoy. The potential-flow side is the Cummins equation, a time-domain integro-differential equation in which the fluid memory of radiated waves enters as a convolution of a radiation impulse response function with the body velocity; the paper approximates that convolution in state-space form. The CFD side is the fictitious domain Brinkman penalization method, a fully Eulerian technique that treats the solid as a region of vanishing permeability inside the fluid mesh, which lets the same PTO stiffness, damping, and torque act directly on the body. A third piece of machinery is the PTO and mooring model itself: a linear spring-damper tether that resists heave, surge, and pitch and converts the absorbed mechanical power to a damping term $b_{PTO}(d\Delta l/dt)^2$. The comparison is completed by forcing the two models with different wave inputs, fifth-order Stokes waves in the CFD tank and first-order Airy excitation in the potential model, which is also the point where the two models are not driven identically.

What would settle it

Force both models with identical wave kinematics: feed the fifth-order Stokes free-surface elevation and velocity field into the Cummins model, or run a fully nonlinear potential-flow solver, and compare the mean surge drift and the heave and surge amplitudes. If the potential model then reproduces the CFD drift, the claimed viscous origin of the drift is wrong; if the drift gap persists, the claim is supported. A physical wave-tank experiment with the same buoy, tether stiffness, and damping, measuring mean drift over many wave periods, would settle the same question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the time-domain Cummins potential-flow model, despite being the standard fast tool for wave-energy converter design, gives a systematically different picture of a fully submerged cylindrical point absorber than fully resolved Navier-Stokes simulation. For the same buoy, tether, and wave, the potential model overpredicts heave and surge oscillation amplitudes and predicts an insignificant pitch angle, because the pressure forces on an axisymmetric body pass through its center of mass and linear theory has weak cross-mode coupling. The CFD model additionally shows a slow surge drift that the potential model under-predicts at the small wave-steepness parameter $ka$ of the test, and this drift is important for mooring design. In the CFD parametric study, the paper finds that reactive-control PTO damping $B_{33}(\omega)$ from linear theory is sub-optimal for moderate and high wave steepness; raising the damping coefficient improves absorption efficiency at all tested frequencies. It also finds that lower buoy density raises permanent PTO and mooring tension and shifts the resonance period range, and that absorption efficiency decreases as wave height increases.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes the two models see the same wave, but the CFD model is driven by a fifth-order Stokes wave while the potential model is driven by a simpler linear wave, so part of the difference could come from the wave description rather than from viscosity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, linear BEM/Cummins models overestimate heave and surge amplitudes and the associated PTO power, so motion and load estimates from these models are not conservative for engineering design.
  • Mooring systems designed from potential-flow drift predictions would be under-sized, because the slow surge drift that sets the tether's mean load is largely invisible to linear theory.
  • Reactive-control PTO damping should be treated as a lower bound for moderate and steep waves; the CFD results show that a damping coefficient several times larger than $B_{33}(\omega)$ improves absorption efficiency across the tested frequency range.
  • Buoy density is a design variable with structural consequences: lower density increases permanent tether tension and shifts the resonance period range, so density and PTO stiffness must be chosen together.
  • Absorption efficiency degrades with increasing wave height, implying either larger PTO and device sizing or deliberate efficiency-cost trade-offs for energetic sea states.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not isolate whether the slow-drift difference is caused by viscosity alone or by the different wave-order inputs, fifth-order Stokes in the CFD tank versus first-order Airy in the potential model; forcing the Cummins model with the fifth-order Stokes kinematics would settle that.
  • The insignificant-pitch conclusion is specific to an axisymmetric body under pressure forces that pass through the center of mass; for non-axisymmetric hulls or PTO geometries that apply torque, the pitch mode could matter even at small steepness.
  • An obvious testable extension is to repeat the parametric study in three dimensions or in irregular waves, where the drift and vortex-shedding patterns found here in two dimensions may change quantitatively.
  • The efficiency gain from raising PTO damping above $B_{33}(\omega)$ is probably device- and sea-state-specific; a useful next step would be a response-surface sweep over stiffness and damping for each wave height to map how far the optimum moves.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript compares a linear potential-flow model based on the Cummins equation with a fully resolved CFD model based on fictitious-domain Brinkman penalization (FD/BP) for a submerged cylindrical point absorber with heave, surge, and pitch degrees of freedom. The comparison is performed for one, two, and three DOFs, and the paper reports that the potential model over-predicts heave and surge amplitudes, produces negligible pitch, and misses a slow surge drift that the CFD model captures. The paper then uses the CFD model to vary PTO stiffness and damping, buoy density, and wave height, concluding that PTO coefficients from linear theory are suboptimal for moderate-to-steep waves, that low-density buoys increase PTO and mooring tension, and that absorption efficiency decreases with wave height. The authors present this as the first application of the FD/BP method to wave-energy devices.

Significance. If fully substantiated, the results would be practically significant for wave-energy converter design: linear BEM/Cummins models would be non-conservative for motion amplitude, drift, and mooring loads, and would misguide PTO tuning in steeper waves. The paper has genuine strengths: the FD/BP formulation is described in detail, the solver is based on the open-source IBAMR library, the damped-oscillator tests provide analytical validation, and a grid-convergence study is included for heave. However, the evidence for the most consequential claims is incomplete, and one ingredient of the potential-flow model is unreported, so the main comparison is not yet reproducible.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1, Eqs. (12)–(14)] The values of the viscous drag coefficients Cx, Cy, and Cθ in the Cummins model are never given, even though these coefficients are part of the potential-flow model that is compared against CFD. Without them the comparison in Figs. 11–13 cannot be reproduced, and the claimed over-prediction of heave and surge amplitudes may depend on how these empirical coefficients were chosen. Please report the values, cite their source, and show the sensitivity of the Cummins results to them.
  2. [§4.2, Fig. 12(c)] The statement that the CFD model 'is able to capture' slow surge drift reliably is not supported by the evidence presented. The only wave-driven grid-convergence test is for heave amplitude (Sec. 3.6.2, Fig. 10); the drift signal in Fig. 12(c) is of order millimeters over a few seconds and is exactly the kind of low-frequency quantity sensitive to numerical tank effects, including the top-boundary artifacts and bottom no-slip layer that the authors acknowledge in Sec. 4.4. In addition, the CFD is forced by fifth-order Stokes waves while the Cummins model uses first-order Airy excitation; because drift is a nonlinear wave property, part of the difference could reflect wave-model order rather than viscous versus potential modeling. Please provide drift convergence with spatial resolution, tank length, and damping-zone length, or an independent experimental or benchmark confirmation, before claiming reliable drift capture.
  3. [§5.1, Fig. 19] The paper calls bPTO = 80.64 N·s/m the 'optimal control damping' and uses it to claim that linear-theory PTO coefficients are sub-optimal, but no optimization sweep is shown; the text states only that further increases 'did not enhance the performance significantly (data not shown).' This makes the optimality claim effectively in-sample: the value was selected from the same CFD efficiency curves used to demonstrate the improvement. At most the data support the weaker statement that a fourfold larger damping improves efficiency for the tested frequencies. Please show the bPTO sweep or an optimization procedure, or revise the claim accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.1] The unit of bPTO is written as 'N·m/s' both in the optimal-control bullet list and in the paragraph following Fig. 19; the correct unit for a translational PTO damper is N·s/m, and the text should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 16 caption] The caption lists 'T = 0.909 m' for the wave period; this should be seconds, not meters.
  3. [§3.6.2] The grid-convergence statement would be more convincing if it reported the converged heave amplitude values and a convergence rate rather than a visual comparison; the visual agreement in Fig. 10 is suggestive but not quantified.
  4. [Data availability statement] The data availability statement points to the IBAMR repository, which contains code rather than the results behind Figs. 11–21; please either deposit the actual simulation data or clarify that code, not data, is shared.
  5. [§4.2, Fig. 12(d)] The high-pass filter used to remove slow drift from the CFD surge signal is not described in terms of cutoff frequency and filter order; without this information the 'drift-free' surge amplitude comparison in Fig. 12(d) is not fully reproducible.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

CFD-vs-potential comparison is an independent benchmark, but the 'optimal' bPTO=80.64 claim is selected from the same CFD data used to demonstrate it.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 5.1, 'PTO coefficients', Fig. 19]
    "Optimal control coefficients: kPTO =ω2 (M +A33(ω)) and bPTO = 80.64 N· m/s. ... This optimal value of bPTO increases the absorption efficiency of the buoy for all wave frequencies, which suggests that the reactive control damping coefficients predicted by the linear wave theory do not lead to an optimal performance. Further increasing bPTO value did not enhance the performance of the converter significantly (data not shown)."

    bPTO=80.64 is not obtained from an independent optimization; it is the same damping value already fixed in the baseline heave-validation and model-comparison runs (Secs. 3.6.2 and 4). The 'improvement' is then demonstrated by running the same CFD solver at this pre-selected value and comparing with the linear-theory value B33(ω). Thus the optimality claim is in-sample: the value is labelled 'optimal' from the data that also serves as the evidence, and the statement that further increases do not help is not shown. This does not invalidate the potential-vs-CFD comparison, but it makes the 'linear theory is sub-optimal / higher damping is better' conclusion a post-hoc selection rather than an independent prediction.

full rationale

The central wave-structure comparison is not circular: the Cummins/potential-flow side is built from AQWA BEM (added mass, radiation damping, Froude-Krylov) plus a standard quadratic drag model, while the CFD side is a direct Navier-Stokes FD/BP solution; the two models are solved with independent discretizations and compared against each other. Validation of the CFD framework against the damped-oscillator analytical solution and heave grid convergence is presented, and references [58,73] (Bhalla et al.; Nangia et al.) are prior work by the same group but only supplement, rather than replace, that validation. The slow-drift reliability claim is not drift-specific converged in the paper, but that is an evidence gap—a correctness risk—not a circular reduction. The main circularity-adjacent issue is the 'optimal' bPTO=80.64 claim in Sec. 5.1: the value is selected from the same CFD campaign that is used to demonstrate its superiority, so the 'optimization' is in-sample. I therefore set score 4: the central comparison has independent content, but one advertised conclusion ('optimal control coefficients' / linear-theory sub-optimality) is partly manufactured from the same simulations.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on standard potential-flow and FD/BP modeling assumptions; no new physical entities are introduced. Two PTO coefficients are hand-selected, one labeled optimal without shown optimization, and the potential-flow drag coefficients are unreported, so the ledger carries more unstated input than the text acknowledges.

free parameters (3)
  • bPTO = 80.64 N·s/m ('optimal control' damping) = 80.64 N·s/m
    Hand-selected damping value used for the optimal control curve and all parametric studies; the paper asserts it is optimal based on unshown trials in Sec. 5.1.
  • kPTO = 1995.2 N/m (fixed PTO stiffness) = 1995.2 N/m
    Chosen from reactive control theory for the 0.9-density buoy via Eq. (43) and then fixed for the density and wave-height studies; a chosen input rather than a fitted CFD output.
  • Viscous drag coefficients Cx, Cy, Cθ in the Cummins model = Not reported
    Enter through Eqs. (12)-(14) in the potential-flow model; without their values the potential-flow comparison is under-specified and not reproducible.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Cummins equation with state-space radiation memory (Eq. 7) is a valid time-domain representation of linear potential-flow hydrodynamics for this buoy.
    The paper relies on this standard formulation for all potential-flow results in Sec. 2.
  • domain assumption Fifth-order Stokes waves generated in the numerical wave tank match the intended incident wave field, and first-order Airy wave excitation is the correct forcing for the Cummins model.
    Sec. 3.6.2 uses Fenton [81] for CFD wave generation, while Sec. 4 justifies first-order kinematics via Le Méhauté [82]; the equivalence of these wave inputs is assumed, not tested.
  • domain assumption The PTO can be represented as a linear tether spring-damper along the instantaneous tether direction, as in Eqs. (10)-(11), in both the Cummins and FD/BP models.
    All PTO force and power results depend on this linear tether model, including the 3-DOF torque calculations.
  • domain assumption The FD/BP permeability κ=O(10^-8) and stair-step surface force integration in Eqs. (37)-(38) give converged rigid-body dynamics at the chosen medium grid resolution.
    The validation in Sec. 3.6 supports this for the tested cases, but the 3-DOF PTO results inherit this modeling assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparison of wave-structure interaction dynamics of a submerged cylindrical point absorber with three degrees of freedom using potential flow and computational fluid dynamics models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WZBH6FIB

@misc{pith2026190804981,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparison of wave-structure interaction dynamics of a submerged cylindrical point absorber with three degrees of freedom using potential flow and computational fluid dynamics models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WZBH6FIB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04981}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper we compare the heave, surge, and pitch dynamics of a submerged cylindrical point absorber, simulated using potential flow and fully-resolved computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models. The potential flow model is based on the time-domain Cummins equation, whereas the CFD model uses the fictitious domain Brinkman penalization (FD/BP) technique. The submerged cylinder is tethered to the seabed using a power take-off (PTO) unit which restrains the heave, surge, and pitch motions of the converter, and absorbs energy from all three modes. It is demonstrated that the potential theory over-predicts the amplitudes of heave and surge motions, whereas it results in an insignificant pitch for a fully-submerged axisymmetric converter. It also under-estimates the slow drift of the buoy, which the CFD model is able to capture reliably. Further, we use fully-resolved CFD simulations to study the performance of a three degrees of freedom (DOF) cylindrical buoy under varying PTO coefficients, mass density of the buoy, and incoming wave heights. It is demonstrated that the PTO coefficients predicted by the linear potential theory are sub-optimal for waves of moderate and high steepness. The wave absorption efficiency improves significantly when higher than the predicted value of the PTO damping is selected. Simulations with different mass densities of the buoy show that converters with low mass densities have an increased tension in their PTO and mooring lines. Moreover, the mass density also influences the range of resonance periods of the device. Finally, simulations with different wave heights show that at higher heights, the wave absorption efficiency of the converter decreases and a large portion of available wave power remains unabsorbed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04981 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representation of a submerged point absorber tethered to the sea floor by the PTO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Time history of normalized (a) surge and (b) heave force on a three-dimensional cylinder of varying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Sketch of the immersed structure interacting with gas and liquid phases in a rectangular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (18 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sketch of the two-stage process for setting the density and viscosity in the computational domain. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Schematic of the damped-oscillatory system. (b) Center of mass vertical position as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Grid convergence of (a) vertical displacement of the center of mass, and (b) vertical component of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of (a) pressure, and (b) velocity vectors around the cylinder during its downward [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Center of mass vertical position as a function of time for various values of damping ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Schematic representation of a submerged point absorber in a numerical wave tank. Blue shade [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Heave dynamics of a submerged cylindrical buoy of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of rigid body dynamics of a 1-DOF buoy simulated using potential flow and CFD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of rigid body dynamics of a 2-DOF buoy simulated using potential flow and CFD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of rigid body dynamics of a 3-DOF buoy simulated using potential flow and CFD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Center of mass point trajectory of 2- and 3-DOF buoys traced between the time interval 64 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: (a) Generated PTO power of a 3-DOF buoy using potential flow and CFD models. (b) Power [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Vorticity generated due to WSI of 1-DOF ((a) and (b)) and 2-DOF ((c) and (d)) buoys at two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: (a) Undisturbed horizontal (u) flow velocity at the bottom location of the buoy, along with its heave and surge displacements, and surge velocity. (b) Undisturbed vertical (v) flow velocity at the bottom location of the buoy, along with its heave displacement and heav…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: (a) Normalized added mass and (b) radiation damping coefficients in the heave direction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Absorption efficiency of the submerged buoy using reactive control and optimal control PTO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: (a) Absorption efficiency of the submerged buoy with different mass densities. The PTO co [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Absorption efficiency of the submerged point absorber at three different wave heights. The PTO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_21.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K. Gunn, C. Stock-Williams, Quantifying the global wave power resource, Renewable Energy 44 (2012) 296–304

    2012

  2. [2]

    Evans, D

    D. Evans, D. Jeffrey, S. Salter, J. Taylor, Submerged cylinder wave energy device: theory and experi- ment, Applied Ocean Research 1 (1) (1979) 3–12

    1979

  3. [3]

    Falnes, J

    J. Falnes, J. Hals, Heaving buoys, point absorbers and arrays, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 370 (1959) (2012) 246–277

    1959

  4. [4]

    C. G. Soares, J. Bhattacharjee, M. Tello, L. Pietra, Review and classification of wave energy converters, in: Maritime engineering and technology, CRC Press, 2012, pp. 599–608

    2012

  5. [5]

    A. S. Sirigu, F. Gallizio, G. Giorgi, M. Bonfanti, G. Bracco, G. Mattiazzo, Numerical and Experi- mental Identification of the Aerodynamic Power Losses of the ISWEC, Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 8 (49) (2020) 1–25

    2020

  6. [6]

    S. A. Sirigu, M. Bonfanti, E. Begovic, C. Bertorello, P. Dafnakis, G. Bracco, G. Mattiazzo, Experi- mental Investigation of Mooring System on a Wave Energy Converter in Operating and Extreme Wave Conditions, Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 8 (180) (2020) 1–31

    2020

  7. [7]

    Vissio, D

    G. Vissio, D. Val´ erio, G. Bracco, P. Beir˜ ao, N. Pozzi, G. Mattiazzo, ISWEC linear quadratic regulator oscillating control, Renewable energy 103 (2017) 372–382

    2017

  8. [8]

    Poullikkas, Technology prospects of wave power systems, Electronic Journal of Energy & Environment 2 (1) (2014) 47–69

    A. Poullikkas, Technology prospects of wave power systems, Electronic Journal of Energy & Environment 2 (1) (2014) 47–69

    work page 2014

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    van Rij, Y.-H

    J. van Rij, Y.-H. Yu, K. Edwards, M. Mekhiche, Ocean power technology design optimization, Interna- tional Journal of Marine Energy 20 (2017) 97–108

    2017

  2. [10]

    Y.-H. Yu, Y. Li, Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes simulation of the heave performance of a two-body floating-point absorber wave energy system, Computers & Fluids 73 (2013) 104–114

    2013

  3. [11]

    Sergiienko, A

    N. Sergiienko, A. Rafiee, B. Cazzolato, B. Ding, M. Arjomandi, Feasibility study of the three-tether axisymmetric wave energy converter, Ocean Engineering 150 (2018) 221–233

    2018

  4. [12]

    Rafiee, J

    A. Rafiee, J. Fi´ evez, Numerical prediction of extreme loads on the CETO wave energy converter, in: 11th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC). Nantes, France, 2015

    2015

  5. [13]

    Sergiienko, B

    N. Sergiienko, B. Cazzolato, B. Ding, P. Hardy, M. Arjomandi, Performance comparison of the floating and fully submerged quasi-point absorber wave energy converters, Renewable Energy 108 (2017) 425– 437. 27

    2017

  6. [14]

    Paasch, K

    R. Paasch, K. Ruehl, J. Hovland, S. Meicke, Wave energy: a Pacific perspective, Philosophical Trans- actions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 370 (1959) (2012) 481–501

    1959

  7. [15]

    L. S. P. da Silva, T. P. Tancredi, B. Ding, N. Sergiienko, H. M. Morishita, COBEM-2017-1253 Fully Submerged Point Absorber in Santa Catarina, Brazil-A Feasibility Study

    2017

  8. [16]

    Dafnakis, M

    P. Dafnakis, M. Bonfanti, S. A. Sirigu, G. Bracco, G. Mattiazzo, A submerged point absorber wave energy converter for the Meditterranean Sea, in: Proceedings of the 13rd European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Mattiazzo, State of the Art and Perspectives of Wave Energy in the Mediterranean Sea: Backstage of ISWEC, Frontiers in Energy Research 7 (2019) 114

    G. Mattiazzo, State of the Art and Perspectives of Wave Energy in the Mediterranean Sea: Backstage of ISWEC, Frontiers in Energy Research 7 (2019) 114

    2019

  10. [18]

    Tˆ etu, F

    A. Tˆ etu, F. Ferri, M. Kramer, J. Todalshaug, Physical and mathematical modeling of a wave energy converter equipped with a negative spring mechanism for phase control, Energies 11 (9) (2018) 2362

    2018

  11. [19]

    B. Ding, B. S. Cazzolato, M. Arjomandi, P. Hardy, B. Mills, Sea-state based maximum power point tracking damping control of a fully submerged oscillating buoy, Ocean Engineering 126 (2016) 299–312

    2016

  12. [20]

    S. A. Sirigu, M. Bonfanti, P. Dafnakis, G. Bracco, G. Mattiazzo, S. Brizzolara, Pitch Resonance Tuning Tanks: A novel technology for more efficient wave energy harvesting, in: OCEANS 2018 MTS/IEEE Charleston, IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–8

    2018

  13. [21]

    Davidson, R

    J. Davidson, R. Costello, Efficient Nonlinear Hydrodynamic Models for Wave Energy Converter De- sign—A Scoping Study, Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 8 (1) (2020) 35

    2020

  14. [22]

    E. B. Agamloh, A. K. Wallace, A. Von Jouanne, Application of fluid–structure interaction simulation of an ocean wave energy extraction device, Renewable Energy 33 (4) (2008) 748–757

    2008

  15. [23]

    Penalba, G

    M. Penalba, G. Giorgi, J. V. Ringwood, Mathematical modelling of wave energy converters: a review of nonlinear approaches, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 1188–1207

    2017

  16. [24]

    Ghasemi, M

    A. Ghasemi, M. Anbarsooz, A. Malvandi, A. Ghasemi, F. Hedayati, A nonlinear computational modeling of wave energy converters: A tethered point absorber and a bottom-hinged flap device, Renewable energy 103 (2017) 774–785

    2017

  17. [25]

    Anbarsooz, M

    M. Anbarsooz, M. Passandideh-Fard, M. Moghiman, Numerical simulation of a submerged cylindrical wave energy converter, Renewable Energy 64 (2014) 132–143

    2014

  18. [26]

    Z. Shen, D. Wan, P. M. Carrica, Dynamic overset grids in OpenFOAM with application to KCS self- propulsion and maneuvering, Ocean Engineering 108 (2015) 287–306

    2015

  19. [27]

    P. M. Carrica, R. V. Wilson, R. W. Noack, F. Stern, Ship motions using single-phase level set with dynamic overset grids, Computers & fluids 36 (9) (2007) 1415–1433

    2007

  20. [28]

    Z. Hou, T. Sun, X. Quan, G. Zhang, Z. Sun, Z. Zong, Large eddy simulation and experimental investi- gation on the cavity dynamics and vortex evolution for oblique water entry of a cylinder, Applied Ocean Research 81 (2018) 76–92

    2018

  21. [29]

    A. L. Facci, M. Porfiri, S. Ubertini, Three-dimensional water entry of a solid body: A computational study, Journal of Fluids and Structures 66 (2016) 36–53

    2016

  22. [30]

    Hsieh, A

    C.-M. Hsieh, A. Sau, R. R. Hwang, W. Yang, Nonlinear interaction and wave breaking with a submerged porous structure, Physics of Fluids 28 (12) (2016) 126601

    2016

  23. [31]

    Y. Kim, C. S. Peskin, Penalty immersed boundary method for an elastic boundary with mass, Physics of Fluids 19 (5) (2007) 053103

    2007

  24. [32]

    Kumar, G

    M. Kumar, G. Natarajan, Diffuse interface immersed boundary method for low mach number flows with heat transfer in enclosures, Physics of Fluids 31 (8) (2019) 083601. 28

    2019

  25. [33]

    Walayat, N

    K. Walayat, N. Talat, S. Jabeen, K. Usman, M. Liu, Sedimentation of general shaped particles using a multigrid fictitious boundary method, Physics of Fluids 32 (6) (2020) 063301

    2020

  26. [34]

    N. A. Patankar, P. Singh, D. D. Joseph, R. Glowinski, T.-W. Pan, A new formulation of the distributed Lagrange multiplier/fictitious domain method for particulate flows, International Journal of Multiphase Flow 26 (9) (2000) 1509–1524

    2000

  27. [35]

    Sharma, N

    N. Sharma, N. A. Patankar, A fast computation technique for the direct numerical simulation of rigid particulate flows, Journal of Computational Physics 205 (2) (2005) 439–457

    2005

  28. [36]

    Angot, C.-H

    P. Angot, C.-H. Bruneau, P. Fabrie, A penalization method to take into account obstacles in incom- pressible viscous flows, Numerische Mathematik 81 (4) (1999) 497–520

    1999

  29. [37]

    Carbou, P

    G. Carbou, P. Fabrie, et al., Boundary layer for a penalization method for viscous incompressible flow, Advances in Differential equations 8 (12) (2003) 1453–1480

    2003

  30. [38]

    Bergmann, A

    M. Bergmann, A. Iollo, Modeling and simulation of fish-like swimming, Journal of Computational Physics 230 (2) (2011) 329–348

    2011

  31. [39]

    L. H. Holthuijsen, Waves in oceanic and coastal waters, Cambridge University Press, 2010

    2010

  32. [40]

    R. G. Dean, R. A. Dalrymple, Water wave mechanics for engineers and scientists, Vol. 2, World Scientific Publishing Company, 1991

    1991

  33. [41]

    Giorgi, J

    G. Giorgi, J. V. Ringwood, Computationally efficient nonlinear Froude–Krylov force calculations for heaving axisymmetric wave energy point absorbers, Journal of Ocean Engineering and Marine Energy 3 (1) (2017) 21–33

    2017

  34. [42]

    S. A. Sirigu, Iowec: a novel wave-climate adaptable technology (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    ANSYS AQWA theory manual (2014)

    2014

  36. [44]

    Lee, WAMIT theory manual, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Ocean Engi- neering, 1995

    C.-H. Lee, WAMIT theory manual, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Ocean Engi- neering, 1995

    1995

  37. [45]

    Cummins, The impulse response function and ship motions, Tech

    W. Cummins, The impulse response function and ship motions, Tech. rep., David Taylor Model Basin Washington DC (1962)

    1962

  38. [46]

    Ogilvie, Recent progress in the understanding and prediction of ship motions, David Taylor Model Basin, Washington, DC, Tech

    T. Ogilvie, Recent progress in the understanding and prediction of ship motions, David Taylor Model Basin, Washington, DC, Tech. Rep (1964)

    1964

  39. [47]

    Giorgi, J

    G. Giorgi, J. V. Ringwood, Articulating parametric resonance for an OWC spar buoy in regular and irregular waves, Journal of Ocean Engineering and Marine Energy 4 (4) (2018) 311–322

    2018

  40. [48]

    Giorgi, J

    G. Giorgi, J. V. Ringwood, Analytical Formulation of Nonlinear Froude-Krylov Forces for Surging- Heaving-Pitching Point Absorbers, in: ASME 2018 37th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Madrid, 2018

    2018

  41. [49]

    Z. Yu, J. Falnes, State-space modelling of a vertical cylinder in heave, Applied Ocean Research 17 (5) (1995) 265–275

    1995

  42. [50]

    Jefferys, Simulation of wave power devices, Applied Ocean Research 6 (1) (1984) 31–39

    E. Jefferys, Simulation of wave power devices, Applied Ocean Research 6 (1) (1984) 31–39

    1984

  43. [51]

    C. J. Damaren, Time-domain floating body dynamics by rational approximation of the radiation impedance and diffraction mapping, Ocean Engineering 27 (6) (2000) 687–705

    2000

  44. [52]

    McCabe, A

    A. McCabe, A. Bradshaw, M. Widden, A time-domain model of a floating body using transforms, in: 6th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, 2005, pp. 281–288

    2005

  45. [53]

    Cl´ ement, Identification de la fonction de green de l’hydrodynamique transitoire par des modeles continus, Proc

    A. Cl´ ement, Identification de la fonction de green de l’hydrodynamique transitoire par des modeles continus, Proc. 5` emes Journ´ ees de l’Hydrodyn (1995) 319–332. 29

    1995

  46. [54]

    Perez, T

    T. Perez, T. I. Fossen, Joint Identification of Infinite-Frequency Added Mass and Fluid-Memory Models of Marine Structures, Modeling, Identification and Control 29 (3) (2008) 93

    2008

  47. [55]

    P´ erez, T

    T. P´ erez, T. I. Fossen, Time-vs. frequency-domain identification of parametric radiation force models for marine structures at zero speed, Modeling, Identification and Control: A Norwegian Research Bulletin 29 (1) (2008) 1–19

    2008

  48. [56]

    Taghipour, T

    R. Taghipour, T. Perez, T. Moan, Hybrid frequency–time domain models for dynamic response analysis of marine structures, Ocean Engineering 35 (7) (2008) 685–705

    2008

  49. [57]

    Roessling, J

    A. Roessling, J. Ringwood, Finite order approximations to radiation forces for wave energy applications, Renewable energies offshore 359 (2015)

    2015

  50. [58]

    A. P. S. Bhalla, N. Nangia, P. Dafnakis, G. Bracco, G. Mattiazzo, Simulating water-entry/exit problems using Eulerian-Lagrangian and fully-Eulerian fictitious domain methods within the open-source IBAMR library, Applied Ocean Research 94 (2020) 101932

    2020

  51. [59]

    IBAMR: An adaptive and distributed-memory parallel implementation of the immersed boundary method, https://github.com/IBAMR/IBAMR

  52. [60]

    R. D. Hornung, S. R. Kohn, Managing application complexity in the SAMRAI object-oriented frame- work, Concurrency Comput Pract Ex 14 (5) (2002) 347–368

    2002

  53. [61]

    SAMRAI: Structured Adaptive Mesh Refinement Application Infrastructure, http://www.llnl.gov/ CASC/SAMRAI

  54. [62]

    Balay, W

    S. Balay, W. D. Gropp, L. C. McInnes, B. F. Smith, Efficient management of parallelism in object oriented numerical software libraries, in: E. Arge, A. M. Bruaset, H. P. Langtangen (Eds.), Modern Software Tools in Scientific Computing, Birkh¨ auser Press, 1997, pp. 163–202

    1997

  55. [63]

    Balay, S

    S. Balay, S. Abhyankar, M. F. Adams, J. Brown, P. Brune, K. Buschelman, L. Dalcin, V. Eijkhout, W. D. Gropp, D. Kaushik, M. G. Knepley, L. C. McInnes, K. Rupp, B. F. Smith, S. Zampini, H. Zhang, PETSc users manual, Tech. Rep. ANL-95/11 - Revision 3.6, Argonne National Laborato...

    2015

  56. [64]

    Balay, S

    S. Balay, S. Abhyankar, M. F. Adams, J. Brown, P. Brune, K. Buschelman, L. Dalcin, V. Eijkhout, W. D. Gropp, D. Kaushik, M. G. Knepley, L. C. McInnes, K. Rupp, B. F. Smith, S. Zampini, H. Zhang, PETSc Web page, http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc (2015). URL http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc

    2015

  57. [65]

    Nangia, B

    N. Nangia, B. E. Griffith, N. A. Patankar, A. P. S. Bhalla, A robust incompressible Navier-Stokes solver for high density ratio multiphase flows, Journal of Computational Physics 390 (2019) 548–594

    2019

  58. [66]

    Min, On reinitializing level set functions, Journal of Computational Physics 229 (8) (2010) 2764–2772

    C. Min, On reinitializing level set functions, Journal of Computational Physics 229 (8) (2010) 2764–2772

    2010

  59. [67]

    Son, A level set method for incompressible two-fluid flows with immersed solid boundaries, Numerical Heat Transfer, Part B 47 (5) (2005) 473–489

    G. Son, A level set method for incompressible two-fluid flows with immersed solid boundaries, Numerical Heat Transfer, Part B 47 (5) (2005) 473–489

    2005

  60. [68]

    M. Cai, A. Nonaka, J. B. Bell, B. E. Griffith, A. Donev, Efficient variable-coefficient finite-volume Stokes solvers, Communications in Computational Physics 16 (5) (2014) 1263–1297

    2014

  61. [69]

    B. E. Griffith, An accurate and efficient method for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations using the projection method as a preconditioner, Journal of Computational Physics 228 (20) (2009) 7565–7595

    2009

  62. [70]

    A. P. S. Bhalla, R. Bale, B. E. Griffith, N. A. Patankar, A unified mathematical framework and an adaptive numerical method for fluid-structure interaction with rigid, deforming, and elastic bodies, J Comput Phys 250 (1) (2013) 446–476. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2013.04.033. URL http://li...

    2013 doi

  63. [71]

    W. J. Rider, J. A. Greenough, J. R. Kamm, Accurate monotonicity-and extrema-preserving methods through adaptive nonlinear hybridizations, Journal of Computational Physics 225 (2) (2007) 1827–1848

    2007

  64. [72]

    Gazzola, O

    M. Gazzola, O. V. Vasilyev, P. Koumoutsakos, Shape optimization for drag reduction in linked bodies using evolution strategies, Computers & Structures 89 (11-12) (2011) 1224–1231

    2011

  65. [73]

    Nangia, N

    N. Nangia, N. A. Patankar, A. P. S. Bhalla, A DLM immersed boundary method based wave-structure interaction solver for high density ratio multiphase flows, Journal of Computational Physics 398 (2019) 108804

    2019

  66. [74]

    S. S. Rao, F. F. Yap, Mechanical vibrations, Vol. 4, Prentice hall Upper Saddle River, 2011

    2011

  67. [75]

    J. Lee, J. Kim, H. Choi, K.-S. Yang, Sources of spurious force oscillations from an immersed boundary method for moving-body problems, Journal of computational physics 230 (7) (2011) 2677–2695

    2011

  68. [76]

    Nobile, L

    F. Nobile, L. Formaggia, A stability analysis for the arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian formulation with finite elements, East-West Journal of Numerical Mathematics 7 (ARTICLE) (1999) 105–132

    1999

  69. [77]

    Causin, J.-F

    P. Causin, J.-F. Gerbeau, F. Nobile, Added-mass effect in the design of partitioned algorithms for fluid–structure problems, Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering 194 (42-44) (2005) 4506–4527

    2005

  70. [78]

    Burman, M

    E. Burman, M. A. Fern´ andez, Stabilization of explicit coupling in fluid–structure interaction involving fluid incompressibility, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 198 (5-8) (2009) 766–784

    2009

  71. [79]

    J. W. Banks, W. D. Henshaw, D. W. Schwendeman, Q. Tang, A stable partitioned FSI algorithm for rigid bodies and incompressible flow. Part I: Model problem analysis, Journal of Computational Physics 343 (2017) 432–468

    2017

  72. [80]

    D. A. Serino, J. W. Banks, W. D. Henshaw, D. W. Schwendeman, A stable added-mass partitioned (AMP) algorithm for elastic solids and incompressible flow, Journal of Computational Physics 399 (2019) 108923

    2019

  73. [81]

    J. D. Fenton, A fifth-order Stokes theory for steady waves, Journal of waterway, port, coastal, and ocean engineering 111 (2) (1985) 216–234

    1985

  74. [82]

    Le M´ ehaut´ e, An introduction to hydrodynamics and water waves, Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    B. Le M´ ehaut´ e, An introduction to hydrodynamics and water waves, Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  75. [83]

    Falnes, Ocean waves and oscillating systems: linear interactions including wave-energy extraction, Cambridge university press, 2002

    J. Falnes, Ocean waves and oscillating systems: linear interactions including wave-energy extraction, Cambridge university press, 2002

    2002

  76. [84]

    S. K. Chakrabarti, Steady drift force on vertical cylinder-viscous vs. potential, Applied ocean research 6 (2) (1984) 73–82

    1984

  77. [85]

    Faizal, M

    M. Faizal, M. R. Ahmed, Y.-H. Lee, A design outline for floating point absorber wave energy converters, Advances in Mechanical Engineering 6 (2014) 846097

    2014

  78. [86]

    B. W. Schubert, W. S. Robertson, B. S. Cazzolato, M. H. Ghayesh, Linear and nonlinear hydrodynamic models for dynamics of a submerged point absorber wave energy converter, Ocean Engineering 197 (2020) 106828

    2020

  79. [87]

    Y.-H. Yu, N. Tom, D. Jenne, Numerical analysis on hydraulic power take-off for wave energy con- verter and power smoothing methods, in: International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. 51319, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2018, p. V010T09A043. 31

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.