TY - GEN
T1 - Smoothed particle hydrodynamics
T2 - ASME 2013 32nd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, OMAE 2013
AU - Le Touzé, David
AU - Barcarolo, Daniel A.
AU - Kerhuel, Matthieu
AU - Oger, Guillaume
AU - Grenier, Nicolas
AU - Quinlan, Nathan
AU - Lobovsky, Libor
AU - Basa, Mihai
AU - Leboeuf, Francis
AU - Caro, Joelle
AU - Colagrossi, Andrea
AU - Marrone, Salvatore
AU - De Leffe, Matthieu
AU - Guilcher, Pierre Michel
AU - Marongiu, Jean Christophe
PY - 2013
Y1 - 2013
N2 - In this paper are presented comparisons of SPH variants on academic test cases classically used to validate numerical fluid dynamics software. These comparisons are extracted from NextMuSE FP7 project activities which will be published more extensively in the near future. One of the goals of this project was to better understand the SPH method and to leave the path to its establishment within CFD methods. An important work load was thus dedicated to benchmark SPH variants on selected test cases. A number of results and conclusions of this comparative study are presented in this paper. The studied variants are: standard weekly-compressible SPH, δ-SPH, Riemann-SPH, incompressible SPH, and FVPM. The majority of the test cases also present a reference solution, either experimental or computed using a mesh-based solver. Test cases include: wave propagation, flow past a cylinder, jet impact, floating body, bubble rise, dam break on obstacle, floating body dynamics, etc. Conclusions may help SPH practitioners to choose one variant or another and shall give detailed understanding necessary to derive further improvements of the method.
AB - In this paper are presented comparisons of SPH variants on academic test cases classically used to validate numerical fluid dynamics software. These comparisons are extracted from NextMuSE FP7 project activities which will be published more extensively in the near future. One of the goals of this project was to better understand the SPH method and to leave the path to its establishment within CFD methods. An important work load was thus dedicated to benchmark SPH variants on selected test cases. A number of results and conclusions of this comparative study are presented in this paper. The studied variants are: standard weekly-compressible SPH, δ-SPH, Riemann-SPH, incompressible SPH, and FVPM. The majority of the test cases also present a reference solution, either experimental or computed using a mesh-based solver. Test cases include: wave propagation, flow past a cylinder, jet impact, floating body, bubble rise, dam break on obstacle, floating body dynamics, etc. Conclusions may help SPH practitioners to choose one variant or another and shall give detailed understanding necessary to derive further improvements of the method.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84893070506&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1115/OMAE2013-10811
DO - 10.1115/OMAE2013-10811
M3 - Conference Publication
AN - SCOPUS:84893070506
SN - 9780791855416
T3 - Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering - OMAE
BT - ASME 2013 32nd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, OMAE 2013
Y2 - 9 June 2013 through 14 June 2013
ER -