The present research investigates Marine Current Turbine (MCT), an exciting proposition for the extraction of tidal and marine current power. CFD simulation is being widely used in the research on MCT. Solution of incompressible unsteady Navier-Stokes (N-S) equations is required in the numerical simulation of flow around MCT. Large Eddy Simulation (LES) has been opted which fully resolves the energetic turbulent flow structures and models only the sub-grid scale turbulence. IB method has been used to enforce the boundary conditions on complex geometry. Due to computational limitations, only a coarse grid LES of the marine turbine for specific operating conditions have been performed. Nevertheless, the results provide insights into the flow structures around the marine turbine. Analysis shows that the effect of vorticity diminishes after 11R from the turbine rotor blade. However, the velocity deficit region remains until the end of the domain used in our simulations which is 10D distance downstream of the rotor blades.

1. E. Vallada, R. Ruiz, and J. M. Framinan, “New hard benchmark for flowshop scheduling problems minimising makespan,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 240, no. 3, pp. 666–677, 2015. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.07.033
2. Q.-K. Pan, R. Ruiz, and P. Alfaro-Fernández, “Iterated search methods for earliness and tardiness minimization in hybrid flowshops with due windows,” Computers & Operations Research, vol. 80, pp. 50–60, 2017. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2016.11.022
3. T. Yamada and R. Nakano, “A genetic algorithm applicable to large-scale job-shop problems,” in Parallel Problem Solving from Nature 2 (PPSN-II), Brussels, Belgium, 1992.
4. G. Minella, R. Ruiz, and M. Ciavotta, “A review and evaluation of multiobjective algorithms for the flowshop scheduling problem,” INFORMS Journal on Computing, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 451–471, 2008. doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/ijoc.1070.0258
5. L. Fanjul-Peyro and R. Ruiz, “Scheduling unrelated parallel machines with optional machines and jobs selection,” Computers & Operations Research, vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 1745–1753, 2012. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2011.10.012
6. N. J. Venkatesan, C. S. Nam, E. Kim, and D. R. Shin, “Analysis of real-time data with spark streaming,” Journal of Advances in Technology and Engineering Research, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 108–116, 2017. doi: https://doi.org/10.20474/jater-3.4.1
7. A. Drexl, R. Nissen, J. H. Patterson, and F. Salewski,“ProGen – an instance generator for resource-constrained project scheduling problems with partially renewable resources and further extensions,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 125, no. 1, pp. 59–72, 2000. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0377-2217(99)00205-2
8. R. Kolisch, C. Schwindt, and A. Sprecher, “Benchmark instances for project scheduling problems,” in Project Scheduling. New York, Ny: Springer, 1999, pp. 197–212.
9. Y.-C. Lin and H.-C. Wu, “Reversible data hiding based on multi-dimension difference-histogram and bilinear interpolation,” International Journal of Technology and Engineering Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 62–70, 2019. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.20469/ijtes.5.40005-2
10. E. Taillard, “Benchmarks for basic scheduling problems,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 278–285, 1993. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(93)90182-m
11. B. Wang, K. Huang, and T. Li, “Permutation flowshop scheduling with time lag constraints and makespan criterion,” Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 120, pp. 1–14, 2018. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.04.021
12. H. Ye, W. Li, and A. Abedini, “An improved heuristic for no-wait flow shop to minimize makespan,” Journal of Manufacturing Systems, vol. 44, pp. 273–279, 2017. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2017.04.007
13. M. Ciavotta, G. Minella, and R. Ruiz, “Multi-objective sequence dependent setup times permutation flowshop: A new algorithm and a compre-hensive study,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 227, no. 2, pp. 301–313, 2013. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.12.031
14. M. Rauf, Z. Guan, S. Sarfraz, J. Mumtaz, E. Shehab, M.Jahanzaib, and M. Hanif, “A smart algorithm for multi-criteria optimization of model sequencing problem in assembly lines,” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 61, no. 10, pp. 18–44, 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2019.101844
15. E. Demirkol, S. Mehta, and R. Uzsoy, “Benchmarks for shop scheduling problems,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 109, no. 1, pp. 137–141, 1998. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0377-2217(97)00019-2
16. L. Fanjul-Peyro, F. Perea, and R. Ruiz, “Models and matheuristics for the unrelated parallel machine scheduling problem with additional resources,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 260, no. 2, pp. 482–493, 2017. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.01.002
17. P. Bratley, B. L. Fox, and L. E. Schrage, A Guide to Simulation. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, 1983.
18. S. Hasija and C. Rajendran, “Scheduling in flowshops to minimize total tardiness of jobs,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 42, no. 11, pp. 2289–2301, 2004. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540310001657595
19. R. Ruiz and T. Stutzle, “An iterated greedy heuristic for the sequence dependent setup times flowshop problem with makespan and weighted tardiness objectives,” European Journal of Operational Research,, vol. 187, pp. 1143–1159, 2008.

J. Latthawanichphan, W. Songserm, and T. Wuttipornpun, “An instance generator for scheduling problems featuring options for unequal stages and unequal parallel machines,” International Journal of Technology and Engineering Studies, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 106–112, 2019.