Comparative Solution Project

Hello All,

A very productive workshop today on the early results for the CSP11, thank you to the organisers and other participants. 

One thing that I noted was that it was mentioned that gridding is not a focus of this CSP, that was surprising to me, as I thought gridding would be an integral part of the project. 

This leads me to the question of what exactly is the focus of the CSP? I've reread the documentation, and it still isn't totally clear to me, so perhaps others may be able to share their thoughts.

The website states "In developing this 11th SPE CSP, we hope to provide a common platform and reference case for numerical simulation of GCS." and then goes on to list a number of what I now assume are possible future areas of study, not things to be covered in this CSP. 

My interpretation is that the organisers have already come up with the 'common platform' with the detailed problem definition, other than any ambiguities or problems in the definition. Is resolving these kinds of issues seen as part of the CSP objective?

Is another main objective therefore to come up with a set of reference results that can be used for future studies? How would this set of reference results be derived from the submissions from all of the teams? Will it be some kind of aggregation of all the results? How are anomalous results or results that deviate from the problem description accounted for?

Comparison of simulator performance is perhaps another objective, but without consideration for the gridding and the difficulty of assessing the accuracy (precision?) of the results, this might be very challenging to come to any conclusions. Will these be qualitative rather than quantitative conclusions?   

Perhaps coming up with a set of tools to create the simulation inputs is also an objective of the study?

Is there anything else that the organisers/participants are hoping to get out of the study? Submitting results seems to be mechanically the objective, but what are we ultimately intending to show/conclude? This may help guide the teams in their work through the rest of the project. 

Hi Adam,

It seems there might have been a misunderstanding regarding a comment I made during the workshop. Gridding is indeed a focal point of the CSP. However, my intention was to clarify that while gridding is emphasized, the organizers will not supply predefined grids. Instead, participants are free to select the grid type, spatial resolution, and discretization method that best suit their needs. Additionally, there are two particular questions of interest: how to obtain a fully resolved simulation and what resolution would be adequate in an engineering setting.

I hope that this clarifies your questions.

Best regards,
Knut-Andreas

Hello All,

A very productive workshop today on the early results for the CSP11, thank you to the organisers and other participants. 

One thing that I noted was that it was mentioned that gridding is not a focus of this CSP, that was surprising to me, as I thought gridding would be an integral part of the project. 

This leads me to the question of what exactly is the focus of the CSP? I've reread the documentation, and it still isn't totally clear to me, so perhaps others may be able to share their thoughts.

The website states "In developing this 11th SPE CSP, we hope to provide a common platform and reference case for numerical simulation of GCS." and then goes on to list a number of what I now assume are possible future areas of study, not things to be covered in this CSP. 

My interpretation is that the organisers have already come up with the 'common platform' with the detailed problem definition, other than any ambiguities or problems in the definition. Is resolving these kinds of issues seen as part of the CSP objective?

Is another main objective therefore to come up with a set of reference results that can be used for future studies? How would this set of reference results be derived from the submissions from all of the teams? Will it be some kind of aggregation of all the results? How are anomalous results or results that deviate from the problem description accounted for?

Comparison of simulator performance is perhaps another objective, but without consideration for the gridding and the difficulty of assessing the accuracy (precision?) of the results, this might be very challenging to come to any conclusions. Will these be qualitative rather than quantitative conclusions?   

Perhaps coming up with a set of tools to create the simulation inputs is also an objective of the study?

Is there anything else that the organisers/participants are hoping to get out of the study? Submitting results seems to be mechanically the objective, but what are we ultimately intending to show/conclude? This may help guide the teams in their work through the rest of the project.