# Seastead Simulation Software Analysis ```html Seastead Simulation Software Comparison

Seastead Simulation Software Analysis

Comparing open-source options for simulating your trimaran-style seastead design in waves

Project Requirements Summary

Based on your description, your simulation needs include:

Software Comparison

DualSPHysics

GPU-accelerated
SPH Method

Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics solver optimized for GPUs.

Accuracy:
Visualization:
Setup Time:

Estimated setup time: 2-4 weeks

Pros:
  • Excellent for non-linear wave interactions
  • GPU acceleration for fast simulations
  • Good for large wave amplitudes
  • Open-source and actively developed
Cons:
  • Steep learning curve
  • Less mature than some alternatives
  • Primarily command-line focused

OpenFOAM

Industry Standard
Finite Volume

Advanced CFD toolbox with multiphase flow capabilities.

Accuracy:
Visualization:
Setup Time:

Estimated setup time: 4-8 weeks

Pros:
  • Extremely accurate results
  • Industry standard for marine CFD
  • Excellent for complex geometries
  • Large community and resources
Cons:
  • Very steep learning curve
  • Long simulation times
  • Complex setup for moving bodies
  • Requires significant computational resources

Capytaine + MoorDyn

Python-based
BEM + Mooring

Boundary Element Method solver with mooring dynamics.

Accuracy:
Visualization:
Setup Time:

Estimated setup time: 1-2 weeks

Pros:
  • Python-based (easy with Claude Code)
  • Relatively quick to learn
  • Good for initial design validation
  • Integrated mooring analysis
Cons:
  • BEM limitations for large motions
  • Less accurate for non-linear waves
  • Limited visualization capabilities

Project Chrono::FSI

Multiphysics
SPH Option

Multibody dynamics with fluid-structure interaction.

Accuracy:
Visualization:
Setup Time:

Estimated setup time: 3-5 weeks

Pros:
  • FSI-SPH handles large motions well
  • Good visualization tools
  • Multibody dynamics for complex structures
  • Can add stabilizers later
Cons:
  • More complex than pure CFD
  • SPH can be computationally expensive
  • C++ based (harder with Claude Code)

Comparison Table

Software Method GPU Support Python API Learning Curve Visualization Non-linear Waves
DualSPHysics SPH Excellent Limited Medium-High Good Excellent
OpenFOAM Finite Volume Good PyFOAM/API High Good (Paraview) Excellent
Capytaine+MoorDyn BEM + Lumped Mass Limited Excellent Low-Medium Basic Limited
Chrono::FSI SPH + Multibody Good Limited Medium-High Excellent Good

Additional Options

Blender with Physics Add-ons

Status: Not recommended for engineering accuracy

While Blender has improved physics simulation, it's still not suitable for engineering-grade marine simulations. The hydrodynamics are simplified and not validated for complex wave-body interactions.

WEC-Sim + MoorDyn

Status: MATLAB-based (not free)

While excellent for wave energy converters, MATLAB with required toolboxes would cost approximately $3,000-$5,000 USD for a commercial license in Anguilla. Not suitable for open-source requirement.

Other Mentions

Recommended Approach

Based on your requirements, I recommend a two-phase approach:

Phase 1: Quick Prototyping (Weeks 1-2)

Start with Capytaine + MoorDyn + Python for initial validation. This will give you:

Phase 2: Detailed Analysis (Weeks 3-8+)

Move to DualSPHysics for nonlinear wave analysis:

Alternative: If you need the absolute highest accuracy and have time, consider OpenFOAM with overset mesh for the moving legs.

Implementation Timeline Estimates

Software First Simple Simulation Full Design Simulation Adapt to New Design
DualSPHysics 2-3 weeks 4-6 weeks 1-2 weeks
OpenFOAM 4-6 weeks 8-12 weeks 2-3 weeks
Capytaine+MoorDyn 3-5 days 1-2 weeks 2-3 days
Chrono::FSI 2-4 weeks 5-8 weeks 1-2 weeks

Final Recommendations

For your specific needs: Start with Capytaine for quick validation, then use DualSPHysics for detailed nonlinear analysis.

Why this combination works best:

  1. Python-based Capytaine allows rapid prototyping with Claude Code assistance
  2. DualSPHysics handles the nonlinear wave interactions you're concerned about
  3. Both are free/open-source and support Linux
  4. DualSPHysics leverages your GPU effectively
  5. You can create good visualizations with both (though may need Paraview or similar for post-processing)

Next Steps:

```