Skip to content

Conversation

@jtgrasb
Copy link
Contributor

@jtgrasb jtgrasb commented Feb 7, 2022

This PR addresses comments from #779

@kmruehl kmruehl self-assigned this Feb 9, 2022
@kmruehl kmruehl self-requested a review February 9, 2022 15:18
@kmruehl kmruehl removed their assignment Feb 9, 2022
@kmruehl kmruehl added the BEM/BEMIO related to BEMIO or BEM hydro data label Feb 9, 2022
@kmruehl kmruehl assigned kmruehl and jtgrasb and unassigned kmruehl Feb 9, 2022
@kmruehl
Copy link
Collaborator

kmruehl commented Feb 9, 2022

This PR updates the AQWA runs for the following cases:

  • Ellipsoid comparison to WAMIT looks great. This one is ready for a merge.

  • Sphere comparison to WAMIT in surge and pitch differs a bit, any thoughts on this? I've included added mass as an example, but it's also true for radiation damping and excitation.
    AQWA
    image
    WAMIT
    image

  • WEC3 comparison to WAMIT in heave and pitch differs a bit, any thoughts on this? I've included radiation damping as an example, but it's also true for added mass and excitation.
    AQWA
    image
    WAMIT
    image

Copy link
Collaborator

@kmruehl kmruehl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Refer to comments about Sphere and WEC3

@jtgrasb
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtgrasb commented Feb 14, 2022

Thanks for the input @kmruehl. I was looking mostly at the shapes rather than values so didn't really notice the differences with the sphere (I guess that's why we need the compareBEM function haha) -- thanks for pointing those out. I will try a few things and should be able to figure it out. As for the WEC3, I'm not quite sure what the issue may be, but I'll try adjusting the mesh a bit and see how that changes it.

@kmruehl
Copy link
Collaborator

kmruehl commented Feb 15, 2022

Thanks! And hopefully the updates to plotBEMIO will make this comparison much easier :)

@kmruehl
Copy link
Collaborator

kmruehl commented Feb 17, 2022

@jtgrasb I found another run that needs to be updated, the RM3. There is a frequency spike around 2 rad/s that's making the radiation damping IRF unstable, especially in surge and pitch. The excitation magnitude also has a bunch of irregular frequency spikes that are causing the excitation IRF to be unsable.

Radiation Damping These plots compare the WAMIT to the AQWA solution for the RM3.
image
image

Excitation These plots compare the WAMIT, NEMOH and Capytaine to the AQWA solution for the RM3.
image
image

@kmruehl
Copy link
Collaborator

kmruehl commented Feb 17, 2022

@jtgrasb #790 has been merged into dev, so please pull this into this PR

@jtgrasb
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtgrasb commented Feb 21, 2022

@kmruehl Okay, I've pulled the CompareBEMIO updates into this PR, and I will check out the RM3 as well. Thanks!

@kmruehl
Copy link
Collaborator

kmruehl commented Feb 22, 2022

Great, thank you!

@kmruehl kmruehl changed the title Fix AQWA data for sphere, ellipsoid, and WEC3 DRAFT: Fix AQWA data for sphere, ellipsoid, and WEC3 Feb 24, 2022
@jtgrasb
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtgrasb commented Mar 9, 2022

I have fixed the example cases for the sphere and ellipsoid and also improved the example case for the RM3. Unfortunately, the RM3 and WEC3 still have unstable IRF's in surge and pitch that I am working on fixing.

@akeeste
Copy link
Contributor

akeeste commented Mar 9, 2022

@jtgrasb Have you tried changing the frequency limit for the IRF? If you can't get rid of the IRR problems in Aqwa itself, you can adjust this limit to try and tune the IRF. Not sure what you're using now, but if you set the frequency limit in the IRF to 2rad/s then most IRR spikes are avoided and the IRF may decay better. This worked somewhat in OMT, might be useful here.

@jtgrasb
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtgrasb commented Mar 11, 2022

@akeeste Thanks for the suggestion! That helped and the IRF looks much better now, so I think it is a good solution for now, but I will keep working to try to figure out the reason for the spikes.

@kmruehl
Copy link
Collaborator

kmruehl commented Mar 15, 2022

@jtgrasb is this ready for a review?

@jtgrasb
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtgrasb commented Mar 16, 2022

@kmruehl The sphere and ellipsoid should be fixed, so they are ready for a review. The RM3 case has been improved, but is still seeing some spikes, so it can be reviewed, but it is not perfect yet. I haven't gotten a chance to rerun the WEC3 yet as I've been prioritizing the RM3 case.

@jtgrasb
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtgrasb commented Mar 23, 2022

Although the WAMIT results seem to avoid the spikes for the RM3, the Capytaine and Nemoh results have similar spikes and just use a frequency limit for the IRF. I will keep looking into potential solutions for the RM3 and WEC3, but I think it is okay to merge for v5.0 for now.

@kmruehl kmruehl added the Feature new feature request label Mar 23, 2022
@kmruehl kmruehl changed the title DRAFT: Fix AQWA data for sphere, ellipsoid, and WEC3 Fix AQWA data for sphere, ellipsoid, and WEC3 Mar 23, 2022
Copy link
Collaborator

@kmruehl kmruehl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @jtgrasb I'm merging this now

@kmruehl kmruehl merged commit 7832c1a into WEC-Sim:dev Mar 28, 2022
@jtgrasb jtgrasb deleted the AQWAExamplesFix branch July 5, 2022 13:29
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

BEM/BEMIO related to BEMIO or BEM hydro data Feature new feature request

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants