# Stability Evaluation of a Simplified Reclaimer Using Fluid-Structure Interaction
## 3 Results
The vorticity results for the complex model, while limited in temporal scope, capture the rotational flow regions with high detail, emphasizing the localized effects of the structure's geometry on the flow field. Such detail aids in identifying potential areas of vortex-induced vibrations, which are critical in assessing fatigue life and structural integrity. For the simplified model, the streamlines and vorticity patterns, although analyzed within an FSI framework, are less granular due to the mesh's reduced complexity. Despite this, the FSI analysis adds a dimension of interaction between the flow and the structural response, which is not captured in a pure CFD study. The results from the simplified model across different wind speeds, as seen in the provided images, indicate how the structure dynamically responds to varied wind loadings. The pressure imposed by the airflow is shown in Figures 13-19. The maximum values varied from about 0.98 to 10 kPa considering all the wind speeds evaluated. The forces and displacements in the X direction were plotted to be compared with the analytical force. For a prescribed value of wind speed of 36 m/s (Figure 10), the analytical model predicted a drag force of 407.8 kN. Numerical results predicted an initial value between 700 and 800 kN, decreasing up to 560 kN. For the other velocities evaluated, the general transient behavior was similar, only changing the magnitude of the forces. Positive displacements were observed in all the wind speeds evaluated, caused by the X force. For a wind speed of 36 m/s, the maximum X displacement was about 0.04 mm. It is worth noting that the  
Figure 11: Velocity field streamlines—XY Plane—simplified FSI model. Figure 12: Velocity field streamlines—XY Plane—complex CFD model. Figure 16: Pressure, force, and displacement—68 m/s. Figure 17: Pressure, force, and displacement—84 m/s. Figure 6:0 Pressure, force, and displacement—100 m/s. The numerical results predicted higher wind forces than the analytical model, which could indicate fewer security levels of stability in the latter case. Nevertheless, the forces found in the numerical analysis were not enough to cause failure in stability, as shown in the reaction force analysis presented in Figure 6:1  
Analyzing the surface pressure results between the two models (Figures 13 and 14) provides a clear visual contrast of the pressure distribution due to the wind load on the reclaimer. The complex model, which seems to incorporate a higher level of geometrical detail, shows pressure extremes with higher fidelity. This can be observed from the more pronounced pressure gradients on certain components of the structure, which can be critical in identifying localized stress concentrations that could impact design and fatigue life assessments. On the other hand, the simplified model, despite its reduced mesh detail, still captures the overall pressure distribution trend. However, it smooths out the localized pressure extremes, possibly overlooking areas that could be susceptible to high stress concentrations. This can be beneficial for computational efficiency and for identifying general load distribution patterns for preliminary design stages or for larger design iterations where detailed local effects are less critical. In practical applications, engineers may use the simplified model for quick assessments and to inform the design process iteratively. In contrast, the complex model, with its detailed pressure mapping, is more suited for final validation stages where understanding the precise load effects on every part of the structure is necessary. The pressure results from both models can complement each other, with the simplified model used for broad  
Figure 6:2 Pressure, force, and displacement—132 m/s. Figure 6:3 Vertical reactions—front and back parts. evaluations and optimization, while the complex model is reserved for final checks and detailed investigations.