## 5 Verification and Validation of the Numerical Model  
One way to evaluate the generated numerical waves is to compare the numerical free surface's transient elevation with the respective analytical solution presented in Equation (1), maintaining the same position. Figure 8 compares these results on a two-dimensional wave channel without the OWC device. The measurement probes are placed at \(x=98.1\) m.  
The total simulation time to perform the verification is 225 s, where Figure 8A compares the results. Figure 8B shows a time interval in which it is possible to observe small differences between the numerical and analytical data. The absolute difference between the solutions is measured instantly by calculating the error. Thus, the average of the differences is 1.48%, with the maximum value reaching 5.44%. These results show the accuracy of the numerical model used.  
Validation of the numerical model considering the device is also required. The data obtained were compared with experimental and numerical results from [PERSON] et al. [11]. Thus, the dimensions of the wave channel and the OWC device are described in [PERSON] et al. [11] and determine a computational domain. In all cases, the turbine is not inserted into the turbine duct, and air pressure and air velocity variations are analyzed in the hydropneumatic chamber for the different wave periods mentioned above. Thus, the results were compared with those obtained numerically and experimentally by [PERSON] et al. [11].  
It should be noted that the numerical model adopted here differs from the numerical model employed by [PERSON] et al. [11] because when comparing the discrete results obtained for velocity, they are overestimated regarding the magnitudes of the experimental velocities; this fact is justified due to the resonance effects between the waves and chamber. The numerical values obtained agree with those in the previous works considering 2D and 3D domains, as shown in Figure 9A.  
Figure 8: Elevation of the free water surface: (**A**) all simulation times; (**B**) detail of 100 s \(\leq\) t \(\leq\) 150 s.  
Despite the differences in the results, both the velocity and pressure magnitudes are in line with the numerical results of the reference and, mainly, with the experimental results for the pressure field in Figure 9B. It can be noted that as the period (\(T\)) of the waves increases, the relative pressure also increases: for \(T\) = 6.5 s and 7 s, the obtained results are between the 2D and 3D results of [PERSON] et al. [11], while for \(T\) = 8 s, the proposed computational model conducts to practically the same value of the experimental result.  
The mathematical and numerical model used in this work considers the flow in a laminar and incompressible regime, these being one of the simplifications of the real model adopted. As shown by [PERSON] et al. [11], in the inner region of the chamber, the number of calculated Reynolds is high, thus configuring a turbulent flow and using a Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) approach with the standard k-\(\varepsilon\) turbulence model.  
Although the results obtained in the present work are not fully convergent with those presented by [PERSON] et al. [11], in general, they have the same trends as the numerical and experimental results of the authors. Therefore, it is possible to consider the employed computational model as verified and validated.