Overleaf saturday

.calkit/overleaf-sync.json

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
   },
   "pubs/applied-ocean-research-model": {
     "project_id": "69ecde8851d14790c59f03d5",
-    "last_sync_commit": "07a22aeee8dc9f531a0e62af5ffe54e15e8a6c82"
+    "last_sync_commit": "32c12bee2947430417b247513669c0738085fcde"
   },
   "pubs/defense": {
     "project_id": "69ef01941916c106f7f5c565",

pubs/applied-ocean-research-model/commands-aor.tex

@@ -4,7 +4,41 @@
 
 \usepackage{microtype}
 \usepackage{subcaption} % for subfigures
+\usepackage{enumitem} 
+\usepackage{tikz}
+%\usepackage[section]{placeins} % prevent figs from going in wrong section
 
+\newcolumntype{P}[1]{>{\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
+\newcolumntype{M}[1]{>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
+
+\newcommand{\singleColMacro}[1]{
+    \ifdefined\DISSERATION 
+    \else
+        \onecolumn
+    \fi
+    {#1}
+    \ifdefined\DISSERATION 
+    \else
+        \twocolumn
+    \fi
+}
+\newcommand{\journal}{Applied Ocean Research}
+
+% Source - https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/515729
+% Posted by user194703, modified by community. See post 'Timeline' for change history
+% Retrieved 2026-06-21, License - CC BY-SA 4.0
+\usetikzlibrary{shapes.geometric}
+\newcommand{\Stars}[2][fill=black,draw=black]{
+    \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.35em,#1]
+    \foreach \X in {1,...,3}
+    {\pgfmathsetmacro{\xfill}{min(1,max(1+#2-\X,0))}
+    \path (\X*1.1em,0) 
+    node[star,draw,star point height=0.25em,minimum size=1em,inner sep=0pt,
+    path picture={\fill (path picture bounding box.south west) 
+    rectangle  ([xshift=\xfill*1em]path picture bounding box.north west);}]{};
+    }
+    \end{tikzpicture}
+}
 %\usepackage{graphicx}
 %\usepackage{float}
 %\usepackage{placeins}

pubs/applied-ocean-research-model/main.tex

@@ -99,18 +99,13 @@
 \end{highlights}
 
 \begin{keywords}
-wave energy conversion \sep
 marine renewable energy \sep
 semi-analytical hydrodynamics \sep
-multi-port circuit \sep
-constrained optimal control \sep
-structural design \sep
-survivability analysis \sep
+linearized pseudo-spectral optimal control \sep
+structural survivability \sep
 techno-economic modeling \sep
-two-body point absorber \sep
-power take-off modeling \sep
-validation \sep
-benchmarking
+model validation \sep
+computational benchmarking
 \end{keywords}
 
 \maketitle
@@ -129,17 +124,17 @@
 
 \section*{Acknowledgements}
 
-The authors thank Kapil Khanal, En Lo, Yinghui Bimali, and John Fernandez for assistance with hydrodynamics;
+The authors thank Kapil Khanal, Yinghui Bimali, En Lo, and John Fernandez for assistance with hydrodynamics;
 Fabien Royer for guidance on structures;
-and Ryan Coe, Jacob Mays, Patrick Reed, Nate DeGeode, and Alaa Ahmed for providing valuable manuscript feedback.
+Ryan Coe, Jacob Mays, Patrick Reed, Nate DeGeode, and Alaa Ahmed for technical feedback on a draft manuscript; and Nola McCabe for proofreading support.
 
 R.M. acknowledges funding from the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship.
 M.D. acknowledges funding from the Fund for Undergraduate Research on Solutions to Climate Change and the Bill Nye ’77 Award in Undergraduate Research.
 
 This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No.~DGE--2139899.
 Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
 
-The graphical abstract uses icons from \url{www.flaticon.com} in accordance with the Flaticon license.
+%The graphical abstract uses icons from \url{www.flaticon.com} in accordance with the Flaticon license.
 
 \section*{Data availability statement}
 
@@ -151,9 +146,9 @@ \section*{Data availability statement}
 and accessed at \url{https://calkit.io/symbiotic-engineering/mdocean}.
 
 \appendix
-
+\singleColMacro{
 \include{appendices}
-
+}
 \printcredits
 
 \bibliographystyle{cas-model2-names}

pubs/applied-ocean-research-model/sections/benchmarking.tex

@@ -21,14 +21,12 @@ \subsection{Dynamic Validation Using WEC-Sim}\label{sec:dynamic-validation}
 \fi
 
 The absolute error in average power compared to the WEC-Sim power is less than \resultsAOR[wecsimAvgPowerErrorBestCase] in the best case and \resultsAOR[wecsimAvgPowerErrorWorstCase] in the worst case, with an error breakdown for all simulation scenarios and sea states shown in \Cref{fig:error-histogram}.
-
-\begin{figure}[htbp]
+\begin{figure*}[htbp]
     \centering
     \includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figs/from-matlab/wecsim_wcsm_multi__histogram.pdf}
-    \caption{Error breakdown based on WEC-Sim Validation Runs}
+    \caption{Error breakdown based on WEC-Sim Verification Runs}
     \label{fig:error-histogram}
-\end{figure}
-
+\end{figure*}
 The detailed error breakdown across drag-on/drag-off and MEEM/WAMIT coefficient configurations is provided in \Cref{sec:appendix-dynamic-validation}, revealing that the dominant error sources are interactions between drag, hydrodynamic-coefficient mismatch, and the inter-body phase relationship in the 2-DOF model.
 \Cref{sec:appendix-dynamic-validation} also validates the describing-function approximation itself, showing total harmonic distortion below 1\% in the worst sea state and excellent agreement between the assumed and actual drag force waveforms at all four corners of the JPD.
 
@@ -107,12 +105,12 @@ \subsection{Static Validation}
 % \label{tab:validation}
 % \end{table}
 
-\begin{table}[htbp]
-\centering
-\input{tables/from-matlab/validation.tex}
-\caption{Validation}
-\label{tab:validation}
-\end{table}
+    \begin{table*}[htbp]
+        \centering
+        \input{tables/from-matlab/validation.tex}
+        \caption{Verification}
+        \label{tab:validation}
+    \end{table*}
 
 %\hl{Explain sources of error and rough uncertainty and the implications of what we can trust}
 
@@ -136,13 +134,13 @@ \subsection{Runtime Benchmarking}
 
 \begin{figure}[b!]
 \centering
-\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{figs/from-matlab/sim_runtime.pdf}
+\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/from-matlab/sim_runtime.pdf}
 \caption{Bar chart showing simulation runtime breakdown between modules}\label{fig:runtime-modules}
 \end{figure}
 
 \begin{figure}[t!]
 \centering
-\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{figs/from-matlab/hydro_runtime_logscale.pdf}
+\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/from-matlab/hydro_runtime_logscale.pdf}
 \caption{Bar chart demonstrating the speed improvement of MDOcean's hydro module over baseline solver Capytaine}\label{fig:runtime-hydro}
 \end{figure}
 
@@ -154,7 +152,7 @@ \subsection{Runtime Benchmarking}
 
 \begin{figure}[t!]
 \centering
-\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{figs/from-matlab/dynamics_runtime.pdf}
+\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/from-matlab/dynamics_runtime.pdf}
 \caption{Bar chart demonstrating the speed improvement of MDOcean's dynamics module over baseline solver WEC-Sim}\label{fig:runtime-dynamics}
 \end{figure}
 

pubs/applied-ocean-research-model/sections/discussion.tex

@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ \subsubsection{Effect of Bulk Dimensions on Hydrodynamic Efficiency}
 \fi
 
 \paragraph{Best Design as a function of Wave Environment}
-\begin{figure}[htbp]
+\begin{figure*}[htbp]
     \centering
     \begin{subfigure}[t]{0.48\linewidth}
         \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/from-matlab/sweep_geoms_line.pdf}
@@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ \subsubsection{Effect of Bulk Dimensions on Hydrodynamic Efficiency}
     \end{subfigure}
     \caption{Effect of wave environment and hydrodynamic design variables on (a) radiation efficiency and (b) capture width ratio}
     \label{fig:meem-sweep-m0h}
-\end{figure}
+\end{figure*}
 
 \ifdefined\DISSERTATION
     Starting with \Cref{fig:meem-sweep-eff}, we observe that the most efficient design depends on the frequency-depth regime $m_0h$ of the wave environment, shown on the x-axis.
@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ \subsubsection{Effect of Bulk Dimensions on Hydrodynamic Efficiency}
 
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
     \centering
-    \includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{figs/from-matlab/sweep_geoms_pareto_nondim.pdf}
+    \includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{figs/from-matlab/sweep_geoms_pareto_nondim.pdf}
     \caption{Effect of hydrodynamic design variables on radiation efficiency and power per unit surface area}
     \label{fig:meem-sweep-pareto}
 \end{figure}
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ \subsubsection{Damping Plate Size}
 This is because the same force has a lower lever arm to the column and therefore creates less bending moment.
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
     \centering
-    \includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{figs/from-matlab/damping_plate_aspect_ratio.pdf}
+    \includegraphics[width=.85\linewidth]{figs/from-matlab/damping_plate_aspect_ratio.pdf}
     \caption{Normalized effect of damping plate aspect ratio on maximum stress and deflection.
 The dashed lines indicate the nominal design point at $b/a = 0.2$.}
     \label{fig:damping-plate-maxs}
@@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ \subsubsection{Effect of PTO Force and Power Limits}
 
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
 \centering
-\includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{figs/from-matlab/pto_sweep.pdf}
+\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{figs/from-matlab/pto_sweep.pdf}
 \caption{Effect of Generator Force Limit and Power Limit on Annual Average Power and LCOE}
 \label{fig:force-power-limit-sweep}
 \end{figure}
@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ \subsubsection{Effect of PTO Force and Power Limits}
     The theoretical analysis in \Cref{sec:appendix-constraint-sensitivity} derives mathematical conditions for when this is the case.
     Convexity suggests that local optimization methods should be effective for finding the optimal PTO design.
 \else
-    Power and LCOE both appear to be convex with respect to the force and power limits across the feasible region, a structural property exploited by the optimization strategy in the companion paper \citep{mccabe_leveraging_2026}.
+    Power and LCOE both appear to be convex with respect to the force and power limits across the feasible region, a structural property that future optimizations can exploit.
 \fi
 
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
@@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ \subsubsection{Design Space Exploration}
 
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
 \centering
-\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/from-matlab/experiments_ratios.pdf}
+\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{figs/from-matlab/experiments_ratios.pdf}
 \caption{Design of experiments}\label{fig:experiments}
 \end{figure}
 
@@ -211,6 +211,8 @@ \subsection{Multidisciplinary Insights}
 
 This multiplicative decomposition allows isolation of the effect of each design variable and parameter on power, intuitively identifying which design variables are most important for improving power.
 \Cref{tab:power-matrix-dependence} maps the dependence explicitly.
+{
+\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.35}
 \begin{table}[h]
 \centering
 \caption{Dependence of efficiencies on inputs}\label{tab:power-matrix-dependence}
@@ -225,6 +227,7 @@ \subsection{Multidisciplinary Insights}
 \hline
 \end{tabular}
 \end{table}
+}
 
 \ifdefined\DISSERTATION
     Importantly, the later matrices in the product depend on the design variables and parameters that affect the earlier matrices.
@@ -243,12 +246,12 @@ \subsection{Multidisciplinary Insights}
     Low-period sea states achieve higher radiation efficiency, while high-period sea states have lower radiation efficiency but contribute significantly to total production due to their higher energy content; despite the most probable period being 6--8~s, 10~s waves contribute the most to annual energy production \citep{zou_practical_2023}.
 \fi
 
-\begin{figure}[htbp]
+\begin{figure*}[htbp]
 \centering
-\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/from-matlab/nominal_power_matrix.pdf}
+\includegraphics[width=.95\linewidth]{figs/from-matlab/nominal_power_matrix.pdf}
 \caption{Power matrix decomposition}
 \label{fig:power-matrix-decomposition}
-\end{figure}
+\end{figure*}
 The effect of drag is most significant in the 11-12 second range, corresponding to the spar's natural frequency.
 \ifdefined\DISSERTATION
     Interestingly, this is also where the force limit has the strongest effect, indicating that the large amplitudes at the natural frequency drive up the force more than the larger stiffnesses required for reactive control at frequencies far from the natural frequency.
@@ -278,19 +281,21 @@ \subsection{Multidisciplinary Insights}
 The result is:
 \begin{equation}\label{eq:power-double-sum-main}
 \begin{aligned}
-    \overline{P}_{elec} = \overline{P}_{elec,0}
+    \overline{P}_{elec} =~&\overline{P}_{elec,0}
     - \eta \sum_{\mu\nu\beta}
-    &\left[
+    \left[ 
         \sqrt{\textrm{aff}_{\mu\nu\beta}(b_{\mu})}
-        + \textrm{quad}_{\mu\nu\beta}(b_{\mu}, b_{\nu})
+        ~+ \right. \\
+        & \left. \textrm{quad}_{\mu\nu\beta}(b_{\mu}, b_{\nu})
     \right.+
      \\
     &\left.
         \left(\textrm{aff}_{\mu\nu\beta}(b_{\mu}) + \textrm{aff}_{\mu\nu\beta}(b_{\nu})\right)
-        \sqrt{\textrm{quad}_{\mu\nu\beta}(b_{\mu}, b_{\nu})}
+        \sqrt{\textrm{quad}_{\mu\nu\beta}(b_{\mu}, b_{\nu})}~
     \right]
 \end{aligned}\end{equation}
 where $\overline{P}_{\text{elec},0}$ is the unconstrained power and $\textrm{aff}_{\mu\nu\beta}$, $\textrm{quad}_{\mu\nu\beta}$ are affine and quadratic functions of $b_\mu$ and $b_\nu$, respectively.
+$\mu$ and $\nu$ are constraint indices, expanded in \Cref{sec:appendix-constraint-sensitivity}.
 
 Under conditions derived in \Cref{sec:appendix-constraint-sensitivity}, this scaling law is convex in the constraint coefficients $b_\mu$.
 While satisfaction of these conditions is not guaranteed, convexity is observed to hold across the PTO sweep of \Cref{fig:force-power-limit-sweep}.
@@ -328,12 +333,12 @@ \subsection{Limitations and Future Work}\label{sec:unmodeled-effects}
     \Cref{tab:future-work} summarizes potential future improvements to the model, distinguishing between model improvements that would enhance the accuracy or realism of studies that can be conducted with the present model and those that would unlock the ability to answer design questions that the current model cannot.
     This section describes the relevance and possible implementation paths for each development area.
 \else
-    \Cref{tab:future-work} summarizes principal limitations and future work, distinguishing model improvements that would enhance the accuracy of currently-achievable studies from extensions that would unlock new design questions.
+    \Cref{tab:future-work} summarizes principal limitations and future work, distinguishing model improvements to enhance the accuracy of currently-achievable studies from extensions to unlock new design questions.
     MDOcean is open-source \citep{mccabe_mdocean_2024}; community contributions are welcome, and the authors are pursuing the multi-objective RM3 optimization in the companion paper \citep{mccabe_leveraging_2026}.
 \fi
 
 \newcommand{\modelTrustBuilders}{
-    \begin{enumerate}
+    \begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=*]
         \item Surge force and mooring cost
         \item Nonlinear storm wave forces
         \item Irregular waves
@@ -343,7 +348,7 @@ \subsection{Limitations and Future Work}\label{sec:unmodeled-effects}
 }
 
 \newcommand{\modelStudyEnablers}{
-    \begin{enumerate}
+    \begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=*]
         \item Spectral power, load, amplitude
         \item Different WEC archetypes
         \item Lifetime and sea state contours
@@ -357,8 +362,8 @@ \subsection{Limitations and Future Work}\label{sec:unmodeled-effects}
 \caption{Future model improvements}
     \label{tab:future-work}
 \begin{tabular}{
-        >{\centering\arraybackslash}p{0.5\linewidth}
-        >{\centering\arraybackslash}p{0.5\linewidth}}
+        >{\raggedright\arraybackslash}m{0.35\linewidth}
+        >{\raggedright\arraybackslash}m{0.5\linewidth}}
 Enhance Trust in Achievable Studies  & Unlock New Studies  \\ \hline
 \modelTrustBuilders                & \modelStudyEnablers \\
     \end{tabular}
@@ -451,7 +456,7 @@ \subsection{Limitations and Future Work}\label{sec:unmodeled-effects}
     Whether semi-analytical or numerical, extension to other archetypes would require significant development effort but unlock new comparative insights.
 \else
     The most consequential current limitations are:
-\begin{itemize}
+\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
     \item \textbf{Neglect of surge force in the structures module and absence of a mooring cost model.} Surge forces on the nominal RM3 are \resultsAOR[surgeForceFloatNominal] (float) and \resultsAOR[surgeForceSparNominal] (spar), and mooring/foundation accounts for 12\% of CAPEX (\Cref{tab:CBS}); incorporating these would likely affect optimal designs.
     \item \textbf{Regular-wave assumption in storm load cases.} Storm waves are nonlinear, and the regular-wave equivalent cannot capture transient peaks; second-order MEEM \citep{cong_novel_2020,mavrakos_second-order_2009} or the slender-body approximation in RAFT \citep{carmo_slender-body_2025} are candidate extensions.
     \item \textbf{Regular-wave assumption in operational loads.} Stochastic linearization \citep{da_silva_statistical_2020,da_silva_stochastic_2023,kluger_synergistic_2017,folley_spectral-domain_2016,spanos_efficient_2016,neshat_enhancing_2024} could replace the describing function to handle spectral inputs and enable spectral fatigue, grid-integration, and storage-sizing analyses \citep{mccabe_wec_2025}.