Report: the end?

report/main.tex

@@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ turbulence: the $k-\varepsilon$ model and the $k-\omega$ sst model. The
 $k-\omega$ sst model should provide better results in situations where strong
 pressure gradients are present, at the cost of computing power.
 For the purposes of this initial sensibility study, the $k-\omega$ model will
-be used.
+be used, as it will allow for faster computation times.
 
 \subsection{Domain}
 The studied domain will be a two-dimensionnal vertical slice going through the
@@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ inside of the Saint-Jean-de-Luz bay, as shown in \autoref{fig:map}.
 \begin{figure}
 	\centering
 	\input{fig/map.pgf}
-	\caption{Studied domain.}\label{fig:map}
+	\caption{Studied domain and bathymetry (\cite{shomsjl}).}\label{fig:map}
 \end{figure}
 
 The bathymetry was generated using bathymetric data from the SHOM
@@ -154,6 +154,11 @@ $H=\SI{7.5}{\m}$. The wave equation is the following:
 	\eta=H\left[\sech\sqrt{\frac 34\frac Hh\frac{x-ct}h}\right]^2
 \end{equation}
 
+The setup will be run for a duration of \SI{60}{\s}, using an adjustable
+timestep according to the cfd criteria. The results will be outputed at an
+interval of \SI{0.5}{\s}, which will provide enough accuracy to represent the
+studied case while providing a usable amount of data.
+
 \subsection{Porosity setup}
 The goal of the study is to find out the influence of the porosity parameters
 on the model results. Porosity in the olaFlow model is goverened by five
@@ -184,9 +189,69 @@ being the value that yielded the lowest error in the model calibration.
 	\caption{Parameter values.}\label{tab:params}
 \end{table}
 
+\subsection{Post-processing}
+The results from the olaFlow model will be post-processed using Python. In
+order to analyze the sensibility of the model to the studied parameters,
+velocity and pressure sensors will be considered on the boundary of the
+porous part of the breakwater.
+
 \section{Results}
+\subsection{Pressure}
+\begin{figure}
+	\centering
+	\input{fig/p.pgf}
+	\caption{Dynamic pressure computed using olaFlow.}\label{fig:p}
+\end{figure}
+
+Dynamic pressure was computed by olaFlow on the entire domain. The dynamic
+pressures obtained on the top side of the breakwater armour at
+$x=\SI{79.75}{\m}$ and $x=\SI{99.75}{\m}$ is plotted in \autoref{fig:p}.
+
+These results show that the porosity parameters that were modified have a minor
+influence on the dynamic pressure generated by the water flow. The maximum
+difference between the peak pressure for all cases is \SI{2}{\percent},
+which confirms the negligible impact of the porosity parameters on dynamic
+pressure.
+
+\subsection{Velocity}
+\begin{figure}
+	\centering
+	\input{fig/U.pgf}
+	\caption{Flow velocity computed using olaFlow.}\label{fig:u}
+\end{figure}
+
+The flow velocity was plotted at the same positions as dynamic pressure in the
+previous section. The results are visible in \autoref{fig:u}.
+
+Immediatly, it is apparent that the conclusion for flow velocity will not be
+the same as for dynamic pressure. The difference between the velocity peaks for
+all cases reaches \SI{65}{\percent}, showing the importance of selecting
+adequate porosity parameters.
+
+The graphs also show that the most influencial parameter in this case seems to
+be porosity. The difference in peak flow velocity generated by the change in
+mean diameter is of around \SI{26}{\percent}, while a change in porosity yields
+a difference of around \SI{53}{\percent}.
+
+Contrarily to dynamic pressure, flow velocity computations are strongly
+impacted by changes in the porosity parameters.
+\cite{poncet2021characterization} showed that attempting to calibrate those
+results does not always yield the expected results, showing the necessity for
+additionnal measurement campaigns, or for a large enough calibration database
+to ensure the accuracy of a numerical model.
 
 \section{Conclusion}
+This project has shown that although the influence of porosity parameters on
+flow pressure is fairly minor, their influence on flow velocity is major.
+This shows the importance of using adequate values for these parameters in
+order to ensure an accurate representation of reality.
+
+Nevertheless, this study only focused on the mean diameter and porosity
+parameters, but several other model parameters may have an influence on the
+results. In particular, the friction parameters from the porosity model were
+not studied -- default values were used -- and the influence of the
+turbulence model was not considered. More work is still needed to evaluate the
+influence of those parameters on the accuracy of the model.
 
 \printbibliography
 \end{document}