Professional Documents
Culture Documents
record_id=11536
ISBN
978-0-309-10104-2
1192 pages
web only
2005
Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Request reprint permission for this book
Twenty-Fifth Symposium on
NAVAL HYDRODYNAMICS
Wave Hydrodynamics
Propulsor Hydrodynamics
Ships and Propulsion in Ice
Hydrodynamics of Fast or Unconventional Ships
Viscous Ship Hydrodynamics
Hydrodynamics of Underwater Vehicles
Wake Dynamics
Fluid Dynamics in the Naval Context
Cavitation and Bubbly Flows
Nonlinear Wave-Induced Motions and Loads
Frontier Experimental Techniques
Maneuvering
Hydrodynamics in Ship Design and Optimization
Hydrostructural Acoustics
Twenty-Fifth Symposium on
NAVAL HYDRODYNAMICS
Wave Hydrodynamics
Propulsor Hydrodynamics
Ships and Propulsion in Ice
Hydrodynamics of Fast or Unconventional Ships
Viscous Ship Hydrodynamics
Hydrodynamics of Underwater Vehicles
Wake Dynamics
Fluid Dynamics in the Naval Context
Cavitation and Bubbly Flows
Nonlinear Wave-Induced Motions and Loads
Frontier Experimental Techniques
Maneuvering
Hydrodynamics in Ship Design and Optimization
Hydrostructural Acoustics
Sponsored Jointly by
Office of Naval Research
National Research Council, Institute for Ocean Technology, Newfoundland
Memorial University of Newfoundland
Naval Studies Board
Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this proceedings was approved by the Governing Board of the National
Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National
Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
A portion of the work done to prepare this document was performed under Department of the Navy Contract N0001402-I-0563 issued by the Office of Naval Research under contract authority NR 201-124. However, the content does not
necessarily reflect the position or the policy of the Department of the Navy or the government, and no official
endorsement should be inferred.
This work also relates to Department of the Navy Grant N00014-02-1-1007 issued by the Office of Naval Research
International Field Office. The United States Government has at least a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable
license throughout the world for government purposes to publish, translate, reproduce, deliver, perform, and dispose of
all or any of this work, and to authorize others so to do.
Copies available from:
Naval Studies Board
National Academies
500 Fifth Street, N.W., Room WS904
Washington, DC 20001
Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285,
Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet,
http://www.nap.edu
The proceedings are also available online at the National Academies Presss Web site at <http://www.nap.edu>.
Copyright 2005 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars
engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their
use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy
has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M.
Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of
Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the
selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal
government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national
needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A.
Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of
eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the
public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional
charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care,
research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the
broad community of science and technology with the Academys purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the
federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has
become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of
Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities.
The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr.
Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
www.national-academies.org
Attendees at the Twenty-Fifth Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, St. Johns, Newfoundland, August 8-13, 2004.
MAURIZIO LANDRINI
March 2, 1963June 26, 2003
Dr. Maurizio Landrini was tragically killed in a motorcycle accident in Rome, Italy, on June 26, 2003. He is
survived by his wife Sara and son Lorenzo, who was born after the accident. Dr. Landrini was an outstanding
marine hydrodynamics researcher who had been selected as the 2003 Georg Weinblum Lecturer. He was born on
March 2, 1963, and earned his Ph.D. degree in theoretical and applied mechanics at the University of Rome. Except
for short periods as a visiting researcher at the Ocean Engineering Laboratory, University of California, Santa
Barbara, and at the Department of Marine Technology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, he
worked his entire career at INSEAN, the Italian Ship Model Basin. Dr. Landrini had deep knowledge in numerical
and experimental techniques for free-surface waves, fluid-structure interactions, and ship hydrodynamics. He was
manager of the towing tank activities at INSEAN. He was a member of the International Ship and Offshore
Structures Congress Committee on Loads and of the International Towing Tank Conference Maneuvering
Committee. He authored or co-authored over 80 journal articles and conference papers. An enthusiastic and
innovative researcher, he was a personal friend to many in the field. He will be greatly missed in the marine
hydrodynamics community.
Foreword
Contents
OPENING REMARKS
John Leggat, CEO Defense Research and Development Canada
Stephen Lubard, Technical Director, Office of Naval Research
Axel Meisen, President and Vice Chancellor, Memorial University of Newfoundland
William Morgan, Naval Studies Board, National Research Council of the United States
Michael Reymont, National Research Council, Canada
KEYNOTE SPEAKERS
Wave Breaking
R. Leighton (General Dynamics-AIS, USA), paper not available
Ships in IceA Review
S. Jones (Institute for Ocean Technology, National Research Council, Canada)
Nuclei Effects on Cavitation Inception and Noise
G. Chahine (Dynaflow, Inc., USA)
Ship Maneuverability in Shallow Water
K. Kijima (Kyushu University, Japan)
TECHNICAL SESSIONS
Wave Hydrodynamics
Numerical Simulations of Breaking Waves Around an Advancing Ship by an Unstructured NS Solver
T. Hino (National Maritime Research Institute, Japan)
Numerical Simulations of Breaking Wave Around a Wedge
R. Broglia, A. Di Mascio, and R. Muscari (INSEAN, Italian Ship Model Basin, Italy)
A BEM-Level Set Domain Decomposition for Violent Two-Phase Flows in Ship Hydrodynamics
G. Colicchio and M. Greco (INSEAN, Italian Ship Model Basin, Italy) and
O. Faltinsen (Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures, Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
Norway)
The Numerical Simulation of Ship Waves Using Cartesian Grid Methods with Adaptive Mesh Refinement
D. Dommermuth,1 M. Sussman,2 R. Beck,3 T. OShea,1 D. Wyatt,1 K. Olson,4 and P. MacNeice5 (1Science
Applications International Corporation, 2Florida State University, 3University of Michigan, 4University of
Maryland at Baltimore County, 5Drexel University, USA)
Experimental Measurements of the Surface of a Breaking Bow Wave
A. Karion, T. Fu, J. Rice, D. Walker, and D. Furey (Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, USA)
Experimental Study of the Bow Wave of the R/V Athena I
T. Fu, A. Karion, J. Rice, and D. Walker (Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, USA)
An Experimental Investigation of Breaking Bow Waves Simulated with a 2D+T Technique
M. Shakeri, X. Liu, S. Goll, and J. Duncan (University of Maryland, USA)
Maneuvering
Unsteady RANS Simulation of a Maneuvering Ship Hull
A. Di Mascio, R. Broglia, and R. Muscari (Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di Architettura Navale,
Italy) and R. Dattola (Italian Navy General Staff, Italy)
Validation of Forces, Moments and Stability Derivatives of a Maneuvering Series-58 Bare Hull
C.-H. Sung, B. Rhee, and I.-Y. Koh (Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, USA)
Hydrodynamics in Ship Design and Optimization
Comparison and Validation of CFD Based Local Optimization Methods for Surface Combatant Bow
E. Campana and D. Peri (INSEAN, Italian Ship Model Basin), Y. Tahara (Osaka Prefecture University, Japan),
and F. Stern (University of Iowa, USA)
Parametric Optimization of SWAT-Hull Forms by a Viscous-Inviscid Free Surface Method Driven by a Differential
Evolution Algorithm
S. Brizzolara (University of Genova, Italy)
Theoretical Hull Form Optimization for Fine Higher-Speed Ships
K.-S. Min Hyundai (Heavy Industries, Korea) and Y.-S. Lee, S.-H. Kang, and B.-W. Han (Hyundai Maritime
Research Institute, Korea)
Hull Form Optimization Using a Free Surface RANSE Solver
E. Jacquin, Q. Derbanne, D. Bellvre, and S. Cordier (Bassin dessais des carnes, France), B. Alessandrini,
(Ecole Centrale de Nantes, France), and Y. Roux (K-Epsilon, France)
Hydrostructural Acoustics
A Physics-Based Simulation Methodology for Predicting Hydrofoil Singing
E. Paterson, J. Poremba, L. Peltier, and S. Hambric (Pennsylvania State University, USA)
Characterizing and Attenuating the Large-Scale Oscillations Downstream of Shallow Cavities Covered by a
Perforated-Lid
S. Jordan (Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport Division, USA)
Hull Excitation by Fluctuating and Rotating Acoustic Sources at the Propeller
O. Spivack,1 R. Kinns,2 and N. Peake1 (1University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2RKAcoustics, Scotland)
List of Attendees
M. Islam
Memorial University of Newfoundland
AUSTRALIA
L.J. Doctors
University of New South Wales
K. Thiagarajan
University of Western Australia
J. Xia
Australian Maritime College
J. Kennedy
Defence Research Development Canada (Atlantic)
V. Klaptocz
University of British Columbia
M. Lau
Institute for Ocean Technology, NRCC
AUSTRIA
G. Strasser
Vienna Model Basin
F. Lin
Martec Limited
P.-I. Liu
Institute for Ocean Technology, NRCC
BRAZIL
J. Sales, Jr.
Cidade Universitaria
C. Moores
Department of National Defence
D.C. Murdey
National Research Council, Canada
BULGARIA
K.Yossifov
Bulgarian Ship Hydrodynamics Centre
D.J. Noble
Defence Research Development Canada (Atlantic)
B. Parsons
Institute for Ocean Technology, NRCC
CANADA
N. Bose
Memorial University of Newfoundland
S. Calisal
University of British Columbia
A. Derradji-Aouat
Institute for Ocean Technology, NRCC
S. El Lababidy
Memorial University of Newfoundland
D. Hally
Defence Research Development Canada (Atlantic)
M. He
Memorial University of Newfoundland
T.C. Humphrey
Consultant
S. Jones
Institute for Ocean Technology, NRCC
J. Pawlowski
TRDC, Inc.
W. Qiu
Memorial University of Newfoundland
S. Sarkar
Memorial University of Newfoundland
D. Spencer
Oceanic Consulting Corporation
R. Taylor
Memorial University of Newfoundland
D. Vyselaar
University of British Columbia
D. Walker
Oceanic Consulting Corporation
J. Wang
Memorial University of Newfoundland
L. Lubke
Schiffbau-Versuchsanstalt Potsdam
G. Watt
Defence Research Development Canada (Atlantic)
M. Mehmel
Schiffbau-Versuchsanstalt Potsdam
CHINA
ISRAEL
Y.-S. Wu
China Ship Scientific Research Center
G. Zilman
Tel-Aviv University
K. Yan
China Ship Scientific Research Center
ITALY
FINLAND
G. Caprino
CETENA
T. Kukkanen
VTT Industrial Systems
S. Brizzolara
University of Genova
FRANCE
R. Broglia
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale
B. Alessandrini
Ecole Centrale de Nantes
U.P. Bulgarelli
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale
S. Cordier
Bassin dEssais des Carnes
E. Campana
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale
P. Ferrant
Ecole Centrale de Nantes
G. Colicchio
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale
E. Jacquin
Bassin dEssais des Carnes
R. Luquet
Ecole Centrale de Nantes
R. Dattola
Italian Navy
M. Visonneau
Ecole Centrale de Nantes
F. Di Felice
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale
GERMANY
A. Di Mascio
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale
M. Abdel-Maksoud
University of Duisburg
M. Felli
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale
J. Blaurock
Consultant
O. el Moctar
Germanischer Lloyd
J. Friesch
Hamburgische Shiffbau-Versuchsanstalt
A. Iafrati
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale
C. Lugni
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale
KOREA
B.J. Chang
Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.
F.J. Pereira
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale
H.-H. Chun
Pusan National University
G. Pisi
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale
C.-G. Kang
Korean Research Institute of Ships and Ocean
Engineering
F. Pistani
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale
C.-S. Lee
Chungham National University
F. Salvatore
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale
M. Soave
Centro Esperienze Idrodinamiche Marina Militare
Y.-S. Lee
Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.
J.-C. Park
Pusan National University
W.G. Park
Pusan National University
D.-J. Yum
Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.
JAPAN
T. Hino
National Maritime Research Institute
THE NETHERLANDS
K. Kijima
Kyushu University
H.C. Raven
Maritime Research Institute
Y. Kodama
National Maritime Research Institute
A. Masuko
Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.
R. Miyake
Nippon Kaiji Kyokai
NORWAY
H. Miyazaki
National Maritime Research Institute
H. Narita
Office of Naval Research, Asia
O.A. Hermundstad
Marintek
K. Holden
Marintek
Y. Tahara
Osaka Prefecture University
POLAND
N. Toki
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
L. Wilczynski
Centrum Techniki Okretowej
Y. Ukon
National Maritime Research Institute
D. Broutman
Computational Physics, Inc.
RUSSIA
A. Pustoshny
Krylov Shipbuilding Research Institute
B. Campbell
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
S.L. Ceccio
University of Michigan
SWEDEN
R. Bensow
Chalmers University of Technology
M. Liefvendahl
Swedish Defence Research Agency
T. Persson
Chalmers University of Technology
W. van Berlekom
SSPA Sweden AB
I.B. Celik
University of West Virginia
G.L. Chahine
Dynaflow, Inc.
C. Chesnakas
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
J.-K. Choi
Dynaflow, Inc.
D. Cusanelli
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
TAIWAN
S.-K. Chou
United Ship Design and Development Center
F. DeBord
BMT Scientific Marine Services
D. Dommermuth
Science Applications International Corporation
UNITED KINGDOM
M. Atlar
University of Newcastle
J. Dreyer
Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State
University
C. Jennings
DST International
J. Duncan
University of Maryland
R. Kinns
RKAcoustics
M. Renilson
QinetiQ
J. Eaton
Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State
University
UNITED STATES
A. Engle
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
P. Atsavapranee
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
R. Etter
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
R.F. Beck
University of Michigan
T. Fu
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
R. Bishop
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
D.A. Furey
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
A. Brandt
Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins
University
J.J. Gorski
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
C.-T. Hsiao
Dynaflow, Inc.
W. Morgan
Rockville, Maryland
S. Huyer
Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport
T. Nguyen
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City
M. Hyman
Coastal Systems Station, Panama City
E. Paterson
Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State
University
M. Irvine
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
S. Jessup
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
S. Jordan
Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport
R.D. Joslin
Office of Naval Research
L. Patrick Purtell
Office of Naval Research
A.M. Reed
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
J. Rice
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
J. Rottman
Science Applications International Corporation
A. Karion
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
J. Kim
American Bureau of Shipping
C. Schemm
Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins
University
K.-H. Kim
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
S. Scorpio
Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins
University
S.-E. Kim
Fluent, Inc.
J. Shan
Rutgers University
S. Kinnas
University of Texas at Austin
A. Sirviente
University of Michigan
I.-Y. Koh
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
J. Slutsky
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
R. Lahey
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
F. Stern
University of Iowa
R. Leighton
General Dynamics
C.-H. Sung
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
R.-Q. Lin
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
T. Sur
Science Applications International Corporation
W.M. Lin
Science Applications International Corporation
G. Wilkie
Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems and Sensors
S. Lubard
Office of Naval Research
R. Wilson
University of Iowa
T. Michael
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
D. Wyatt
Science Applications International Corporation
C. Yang
George Mason University
S. Yim
Oregon State University
Y.L. Young
Princeton University
Recherche et dveloppement
pour la dfense Canada
Canada
Propeller Hydrodynamics
Navies have always had a requirement for high performance
propellers, and since the 1940s they have also been been
concerned with quiet propellers:
DRDC started with the hardest problems first - developing
supercavitating propellers for hydrofoil ships (1970s)
Ship Hydrodynamics
Navy ships have a requirement to operate effectively and efficiently in
extreme sea conditions
This has led to continuous improvement of methods to predict motions and
loads
2D strip theory codes have been around for decades and are still used today
Technology has moved on to 3D panel methods and time domain codes
including nonlinear effects
Submarine Hydrodynamics
As with surface ships, requirements are for submarines to
achieve effective hydrodynamic performance and
establish safe maneuvering limitation diagrams
Unlike ships, most of this effort has been undertaken by
navies
Work in this area is a complex mix of analytical and
experimental development
where flow
characteristics
representative of
extreme maneuvers
are obtained.
Welcome
To the 25th
Symposium on
Naval Hydrodynamics
Dr. Stephen Lubard
Technical Director
Wakes
Evolution of Naval
Requirements
New
Configurations
Expanded Range
Of Ship Size
USVs
Intratheater
Broad Impact on
Science and Technology Needs
New
Operating Ranges
Unprecedented
Performance
High
Speeds
Reduced
Detection
New
Technologies
Materials,
Efficiency,
Electric Ship
Smaller Craft
Unmanned Surface Vessels
High speed response craft
Ducted Propulsor
Superconducting Motor
Enabling Technologies
Computational Fluid Dynamics
Fluid Structure Simulations
Microbubble and polymer drag reduction
Materials Science
40 micron
Sintered
Metal
Flow
MICROBUBBLES
AIR
Photo of Microbubbles
CFD of Propulsor/Hull Interaction
CFD of Lifting Body Pressures
Education
Goals:
Near Term: Strengthen the
Ocean Engineering, Naval
Architecture and Marine
Engineering departments
Far Term: Recruit the
students to ensure a
strong naval engineering
community for the future
Government
National Naval
Responsibility for
Naval Engineering
Academia
Industry
BACKUPS
ARMY
10,000 tons
70 kts
Propulsion
Metrics:
Hull Forms
Metrics:
Hull Materials
Metrics:
Ride Control
Metrics:
Power Density
Efficiency
Minimize drag
(friction, form, and
wavemaking)
Stable, smooth
Controllable /
adjustable
Technologies:
Engine / Drivetrain
Mechnical drive vs.
electric drive
Propulsor choice
Technologies:
Optimize hull form
Control emersion
(dynamic lift)
Fluid drag reduction
Technologies:
Technologies:
Environmental
sensing
Algorithms
Control surfaces and
actuators
Memorial University of
Newfoundland
Axel Meisen, Ph.D., P.Eng,
President and Vice-Chancellor
Newfoundland
and Labrador
Canada
USA
Great Britain
Area
(k km2)
People
(M)
People per
km2
404
0.5
10,000
31.0
9,600
293.0
30
244
60.3
247
Main Industries
Traditional:
Fishing
Forestry
Iron ore mining
New:
Oil and gas
Nickel
Tourism
Knowledge
Marine Institute
St. Johns
Harlow Campus
England
Enrollments
Students
Memorial University
17,000
18,300
University of Cambridge, UK
17,300
17,000
Academic Programs
Arts
Business
Education
Engineering
Fine Arts
Human Kinetics
Maritime Studies
Medicine
Music
Nursing
Pharmacy
Science
Social Work
Technology
Terra Nova
150,000 bbd
Proven Reserves:
Oil: 2.1 B bbl Gas: 9.8 TCF
NGL: 0.4 B bbl
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Whiterose
100,000 bbd
Wave Tank
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Marine Transportation of
Compressed Natural Gas
Serpil
Kocabiyik
Claude
Daley
Neil Bose
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Design Evaluation
Dan Walker
Oceanic
2003 Americas
Cup Winner
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
W
.A
us
tr
al
ia
am
br
id
ge
or
d
St
an
f
M
em
or
ia
l
$0
Memorial University
Opening Remarks
William B. Morgan, Dr. Eng. Retired
Former Head of Ship Hydromechanics Directorate
David Taylor Model Basin
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division
Good morning, it is an honor for me to make a few opening remarks at this 25th
ONR Naval Hydrodynamics Symposium. In addition, it is always a pleasure to come to
St. Johns and visit friends at IMD (now called IOT) and Memorial University. I should,
particularly, mention Chairman David Murdey whom I first met at the 10th ITTC in
1963.
Since this is the Silver anniversary of the ONR Symposium, I thought it would
be appropriate to spend a little time looking back. About 400 scientists and engineers
attended the first symposium in 1956, which was dedicated in honor of Captain Harold E.
Saunders who was the U.S. Navy captain in charge of building the David Taylor Model
Basin. From the beginning, the US National Academy of Sciences through its National
Research Council, represented today by the Naval Studies Board, were partners with
ONR in these biennial symposia. The first two symposia were held in Washington, D.
C., but starting in 1960 the present rotation of venue was developed with the third
symposium being held in The Netherlands. From that time, the Symposium has
alternated location between the American continent and overseas.
The concept of such a symposium, I believe, was the brainchild of Marshall Tulin
who went from the David Taylor Model Basin to ONR with Phil Eisenberg in the mid1950's. Marshall formulated and developed the technical program of invited papers
which contained critical, timely surveys of various aspects of Naval Hydrodynamics.
The presenters of the surveys whom Marshall assembled were the Who's Who of that
day in hydrodynamics. Some of the presenters were: Louis Milne-Thomson, Sir James
Lighthill, Walter Munk, Georg Weinblum, John Wehausen, Herman Lerbs, Garrett
Birkhoff, John Parkinson, Murray Strasberg, Milton Plesset, Stanley Corrsin, George
Batchelor, among others. Fittingly, over the years the Symposium has evolved into
papers on research topics as proposed by the authors with the Keynote Lectures
becoming the survey papers. This symposium has carried on over the years as the
premier symposium on naval hydrodynamics in the world.
So what has changed over the years - not much as far as the general topics go.
There are participants from more countries today and papers on specific research
dominate. The big change has been the change in technology. Of particular note is the
use of computers for numerical calculations and development of laser-based, nonintrusive instrumentation, e.g. holography, LDV, PDV, etc. In 1956, there was only a
brief mention in one paper and in discussions of five papers of electronic computer
calculations. The only electronic computer data shown was by Stoker in a discussion
of Lighthill's paper entitled River Waves where the observed flood stages of a river
was compared to calculations performed using the UNIVAC. Also in regard to
electronic computer calculations, Saunders said in a discussion of Niedermair's paper
entitled Hydrodynamic Barriers in Ship Design, There has been a lot of talk about
electronic computers, but don't let us forget that, in general, in order to work an electronic
The early theoretical work has been the basis for the advancement in numerical
techniques and our understanding of fluid mechanics.
2.
Progress in computers has led to both improved numerical procedures and flow
measurements.
3.
There will always be a critical need to look at both numerical and experimental
data. Do they make physical sense?
4.
All the problems are not solved. Hydrodynamics is still the key to the advances in
future ships. The future is still ahead.
Thank you all for making this 25th ONR Naval Hydrodynamic Symposium a crowning
success.
National Research
Council Canada
Conseil national
de recherches Canada
Michael Raymont
9 August 2004
ABSTRACT
A historical review of the literature on the
performance of ships in ice is given from 1888 to
2004.
INTRODUCTION
The object of this paper is to provide an up-to-date
(2004) review of the scientific literature on ship
performance in ice. This forms an updated version of
my previous review (Jones 1989), now 15 years old.
It considers only unclassified work in the open
literature and, unfortunately, probably gives too much
emphasis to those papers written in English. It was
not the intention to deal with the construction of, or
strength of, icebreaking ships, nor is the science of
modelling discussed in any detail.
HISTORICAL REVIEW
To 1900
Runeberg (1888/89) published the first scientific
paper on icebreakers with particular reference to the
Baltic. He discussed both continuous icebreaking
and charging and derived expressions for the
vertical pressure at the bow, the thickness of ice
broken, and the total elevation at the fore-end
calculated from ship geometry for the case of
continuous icebreaking. He claimed that the results
agreed, tolerably well with the actual performance
of six ships. He recognized the importance of hullice friction on resistance, taking, without any
apparent justification, a coefficient of friction of 0.05,
as well as the role of the stem angle of the bow:
the vertical component should be as large as
possible. This is effected by making the bow very
sloping at the waterline. This is still true today.
Nothing else was published in the 19th Century.
1900 1945
Kari (1921) gave, in a brief note, some empirical
equations for determining the required power,
displacement, length, and draught of an icebreaking
(1)
(2)
(4)
dividing by h to get
R ' = C o + C1B ' N + C 2 B ' NI
(5)
and then obtained a best fit with full-scale and modelscale tests of Wind-class, Raritan, M-9 and M-15
h
T
1.53
(6)
tan(i + )
(h
T)
against
where
T = draft of ship
w = density of water and = w - i .
By doing model tests at low speed (v=0) as well
as normal speeds he was able to isolate the velocity
dependent term, and by doing tests in pre-sawn ice
( = 0 ) he was able to isolate the submergence term.
He was able, therefore, to determine the relative
importance of the three terms in his equation.
Enkvist (1972) also conducted detailed tests on the
strength of his model ice, described strength tests on
natural ice, and carried out a considerable number of
friction tests on his model ice and on natural ice
surfaces using a towed sled the first person to
describe such tests in any detail. In a later study,
Enkvist (1983) applied his model-scale technique of
doing tests in pre-sawn ice and creeping speeds, to 16
full-scale tests. From these tests he obtained the
result that the breaking term at full-scale was greater
than he had previously estimated, between 40 and
80% of the total zero speed resistance, with the larger
figure applying to smaller ships. This is probably
still the most reliable published estimate of the
importance of the breaking term at full-scale. At
model scale, Poznak and Ionov (1981) showed that
for a medium size icebreaker the breaking term was
about 40% of the total ice resistance, and the friction
term about 30%.
Johansson and Mkinen (1973) applied
Enkvists method of analysis to model tests of a
parametric series of nine bulk carrier models. Their
results showed that
1. A reduction of bow angle from 82o to 20o
reduced the ice resistance by about 60%.
2. an increase in length of 38% increased the
ice resistance by about 30%. A decrease in
length of 38% decreased the ice resistance
by 10%.
3. An increase in beam of 33% increased the
ice resistance by about 40%. A decrease in
beam of 27% reduced the ice resistance by
about 36%.
They later (Virtanen et al., 1975) investigated the
effect of draft and found no effect on resistance,
within the errors of their experiment.
Edwards et al. (1972) conducted an extensive
set of full-scale and model-scale tests on a Great
Lakes icebreaker, the USCGC Mackinaw. Their full-
E T = E1 + E 2 + E 3 + E 4 + E 5
(9)
(10)
(13)
(14)
(15)
increase in t
decrease in w (ice-free wake fraction)
decrease in relative rotative efficiency by
disturbances to flow pattern by ice blocks
decrease in propeller efficiency for other
reasons, as discussed in the paper.
where
R ice
(16)
where
= C o + C1
v2
gB
L
h
(17)
Co = 4.25
C1 = 3.96 X 10-5
REFERENCES
Alexandrov, A.P. et al., 1958. The atomic icebreaker
Lenin. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Peaceful Uses of
Atomic Energy, Geneva, U.N., New York, Vol. 8,
Nuclear Power Plants, Part I, p. 204-219.
Baker, D., and Nishizaki, R., 1986. The MV Arctic
new bow form and model testing. Trans. SNAME,
Vol. 94, p. 57-74.
Beach, C.W., Munn, A.M., and Reeves, H.E., 1895.
Strength of ice. The Technograph, Vol. 9, p.38-48.
Bulat V., 1982. The effect of snow cover on ice
resistance. The Naval Architect, Nov. 1982, p.
E.253.
Carter, D., 1983. Ship resistance to continuous
motion in level ice. Transportation Development
Centre, Transport Canada, Monteal, Canada, Report
No. TP3679E.
Churcher, A., Kolomojcev, A., and Hubbard, G.,
1984. Design of the icebreaking supply ship Robert
LeMeur. Marine Technology, Vol. 21, No. 2, p. 134146.
Corlett, E.C.B., and Snaith, G.R., 1964. Some
aspects of icebreaker design. Trans. RINA, Vol. 106,
No. 4, p. 389-413.
POAC 2001.
Proceedings of International
Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering under
Arctic Conditions, Ottawa, National Research
Council. Also see USCGC Healy Ice Trials 2000,
consolidated report, USCG-ELC-023-01-09.
DISCUSSION
Larry J. Doctors, The University of New South
Wales, Australia
Can you please clarify what property or
properties of the ice affect the size of the pieces that
break off? How does one control the creation of the
model ice to achieve the desired result?
AUTHORS REPLY
The piece size broken by a ship in model ice
has long been debated, but there are very few data.
Research done at our institute has suggested
(Newbury, 1989) that the piece size is indeed 3-5
times larger than it should be when compared with
limited full-scale data that is available. However,
some of this discrepancy might be due to the fact that
a 5 cm piece at full-scale would be measured, while
the same piece at a model scale of 1:20 might be
ignored, thus skewing the statistics of the piece size.
Undoubtedly the brittleness of the model ice
has a big effect on the piece size, and most model
ices are not as brittle as they should be at model
scale.
The only variables we can adjust are
temperature, and the chemical content of the water.
The EG/AD/S model ice, which we use at IOT, and
was mentioned in my talk, is more brittle than most
other ices, but even so it is less brittle than it should
be. Ice is a remarkably brittle substance considering
how close to its melting point it exists on earth and so
finding a perfect model ice will probably remain
impossible. We have reviewed the properties of the
different model ices in Jones et al (1989).
REFERENCES
Newbury, S.N., 1989. A preliminary investigation of
model ice failure pattern and piece size generated by
an icebreaker bow form. NRC/IMD Report LM1989-11, 4pp.
Jones, S.J., Timco, G.W., Frederking, R., 1989. A
current view on sea ice modelling. Proceedings 22nd
ATTC, St. John's, Newfoundland, August 8-11, 1989,
National Research Council Canada, p. 114-120.
ABSTRACT
Cavitation is a problem of interaction between nuclei
and local pressure field variations including turbulent
oscillations and large scale pressure variations.
Various types of behaviors fundamentally depend on
the relative sizes of the nuclei and the length scales of
the pressure variations as well as the relative
importance of the bubble natural period of oscillation
and the characteristic time of the field pressure
variations. Ignoring this observation and basing
cavitation inception predictions on pressure
coefficients of the flow of the pure liquid, without
account for bubble dynamics could result in significant
errors in predictions. We present here a practical
method using a multi-bubble Surface Averaged
Pressure (DF-Multi-SAP) to simulate cavitation
inception and scaling, and connect this with more
precise 3D simulations.
INTRODUCTION
Cavitation and bubble dynamics have been the
subject of extensive research since the early works
of Besant in 1859 [1] and Lord Rayleigh in 1917 [2].
Thousands of papers and articles and several books
[e.g., 3-10] have been devoted to the subject.
Various aspects of the bubble dynamics have been
considered at length under various assumptions
and each contribution included one or several
physical phenomena such as inertia, interface
dynamics, gas diffusion, heat transfer, bubble
deformation, bubble-bubble interaction, electrical
charge effects, magnetic field effects, etc.
Unfortunately, very little of the resulting
knowledge has succeeded in crossing from the
fundamental research world to the applications
world, and it is uncommon to see bubble dynamics
analysis made or bubble dynamics computations
conducted for cavitation avoidance by the
hydrodynamics marine designer community, such
as propeller designers. This is due in part to the
failure of the scientific community to frame the
advances made in a format usable by the design
Definition(s) of Cavitation
R
Pg = PgO o .
(2)
R
The balance of pressures at the bubble wall
becomes:
3
R 2
L ( R ) =v +go o - ,
(3)
R R
where the notation PL(R) is meant to associate the
liquid pressure, PL to the bubble radius, R. An
understanding of the bubble static equilibrium can
be obtained by considering the curve; PL(R). As
illustrated in Figure 2, this curve has a minimum
below which there is no equilibrium bubble radius.
Only the left side branch of the curve corresponds
to a stable equilibrium.
1.E+05
P= Pv
Ro=1 mic
Ro=2 mic
Ro=5 mic
Ro=10 mic
Critical Values
8.E+04
6.E+04
A m b ie n t P r e s s u r e , P a .
Stable
4.E+04
2.E+04
0.E+00
-2.E+04
-4.E+04
Unstable
-6.E+04
-8.E+04
-1.E+05
1
10
100
1000
Bubble Radius, m
R 3
R
1
R R d
) RR + (1 ) R = (1 + +
)
c
2
3c
c c dt
2
R ( u ub )
+
p
p
p
4
,
g
encounter
v
R
R
4
Dynamical Effects
When the pressure variations to which the
bubble is subjected are not slow compared to the
bubble response time, the nuclei cannot
instantaneously adapt to the new pressure, inertia
effects become important, and thus one needs to
consider the bubble dynamics equation. This is
the case for nuclei travelling through a rotating
machinery. The nuclei /bubbles then act as
resonators excited by the flow field temporal and
spatial variations. In the case of a vortical flow
field the strong spatial pressure gradients (in
(5)
3k
3 2 1
R0
RR + R = pv + pg 0 Pencounter +
2
R
(6)
2
1 2 4 R ( u ub )
,
+
+
R
4
R
where k is the polytropic compression law
constant.
In the Surface-Averaged Pressure (SAP)
bubble dynamics equation, we have accounted for
a slip velocity between the bubble and the host
liquid, and for a non-uniform pressure field along
the bubble surface. In this SAP method the
definition of Pencounter as the average of the liquid
pressures over the bubble surface results in a
major improvement over the classical spherical
bubble model which uses the pressure at the
bubble center in its absence [27-29]. For instance,
a bubble does not always continuously grow once
it is captured by a vortex. Instead, it is subjected
to an increase in the average pressure once it
grows and this leads to a more realistic bubble
dynamics. In general, the gas pressure, pg, is
obtained from the solution of the gas diffusion
problem and the assumption that the gas is an
ideal gas [30].
The bubble trajectory is obtained using the
following motion equation [32]
du b 3
3
= P + C D ( u u b ) u u b
4
dt
(7)
3
+CL ( u u b ) u ub + ( u ub ) R ,
R
where the drag coefficient CD is given by an
empirical equation such as that of Haberman and
Morton [31]:
24
1.38
(1 + 0.197 Reb0.63 + 2.6 104 Reb
);
CD =
Reb
(8)
2 R u ub
Reb =
.
100
10-1
P acoustic / P amb
10-2
10
-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1.05
/ -Cpmin
The bubble behavior becomes highly nonspherical once it passes the minimum pressure
location. It elongates significantly and can
reach a length to radius ratio that can exceed 10.
The bubble then splits into two or more
daughter bubbles emitting a strong pressure
spike followed later by other strong pressure
signals when daughter bubbles collapse. Two
axial jets originating from the split and a strong
pressure signal during the formation of the jets
are observed.
Signal from
the collapse
10
-5
-10
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
Time (sec)
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0.75
1.25
1.5
1.75
2.25
2.5
2.75
-2000
-4000
-6000
t (m s)
Experimental Verification
Re=2.88x106
R0=50m
=2.56
Re=2.88x106
R0=50m
=2.50
One-Way
Interaction
Re=2.88x106
R0=50m
=2.50
Two-Way
Interaction
s.
re s
r P
.
n te re s s
P
cou
E n u s ti c
o
Ac
S p h e r ic a l
S p h e r ic a l
O ne -W a y
T w o -W a y
0 .0 0 7
Conventional
Spherical
0 .0 0 6
M odel N o S AP
M o d e l W it h S A P
N o n - S p h e ric a l M o d e l
N o n - S p h e r ic a l M o d e l
R (m)
0 .0 0 5
0 .0 0 4
0 .0 0 3
1-Way 3D
0 .0 0 2
2-Way 3D
0 .0 0 1
SAP Spherical
0 .0 4
0 .0 5
0 .0 6
0 .0 7
0 .0 8
Nuclei Distribution
0 .0 9
0 .1
T im e ( s e c )
Release
Area
Re=2.88x10
l = U t
t Investigation time
R 0=50m C 0 =1m
0.008
0.007
Conventional
Spherical
0.005
-8
250
1-Way 3D
200
0.004
0.003
Rmax(m)
0.006
2-Way 3D
SAP Spherical
0.002
0.001
0
2.4
2.5
2.6
Bubble Released
150
100
50
2.7
Cavitation no.
0
5
10
15
20
30
40
50
Tip Leakage
Vortex
Trailing Edge
Vortex
2=1/3
~ 0.6 C0
2=1/2.5
Propulsor study
The same approach as discussed above was
applied to the David Taylor Propeller 5206 [44]
shown in Figure 12. Three RANS codes have been
used by three groups to simulate numerically
cavitation inception on this propulsor [46-49]. All
three codes followed the simple engineering
criterion for cavitation inception, i = c p , and
min
~ 0.3 C0
2=1/2
10
R0=20m, =10.75
R0=20m, =10.85
s/C=0
s/C=0
Cp=-5.6
Cp=-10.9
Cp=-5.6
-4
s/C=0.5
DNS 61x61 grid
DNS121x121 grid
DNS 181x181 grid
RANS
Cp
-6
blow up
-8
s/C=0.5
blow up
-10
0.1
0.2
0.3
s/C
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
3.5
-8
Cp
Axial velocity
-9
3.3
Vs
Cp
3.4
3.2
-10
3.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
s/C
0.5
0.6
0.7
Conclusions
Difficulties in considering real fluid effects
have led the user community to select a liquid
only simple engineering definition of cavitation
inception as the basis for cavitation predictions
and scaling. While this has served the community
very well for decades, advances in silencing and
detection has made such a definition unsuitable
for advanced designs.
11
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Acknowledgment
13.
14.
15.
References
1.
2.
Besant,
W.H.
Hydrostatics
and
hydrodynamics, Cambridge University
Press, London, Art. 158, 1859.
Lord Rayleigh, On the pressure developed in
a liquid during collapse of a spherical
cavity, Phil. Mag; 34:94-98, 1917.
16.
12
13
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
14
DISCUSSION
Martin Renilson
QinetiQ, United Kingdom
Thank you for a very interesting paper. Can
you please explain what influences the frequency of
oscillation of the spherical bubble, and how this
scales?
AUTHORS REPLY
Thank you for your comment.
The
frequency of the spherical bubble is proportional to
the inverse of its radius and the square root of the
local pressure. Simplified scaling would follow from
the previous sentence. However, difficulties arise
when one has to select, in a dynamic environment,
the appropriate bubble radius, and the appropriate
pressure. The maximum bubble radius is appropriate
for one part of the spectrum, while the minimum
bubble radius is more appropriate for the collapse
phase.
DISCUSSION
Yin Lu Young
Princeton University, USA
Excellent work and presentation!
questions:
I have two
!"#
XCYZ[\ZL]6^7_4`
FCGHIJHLKMON P
_a
NEQ
R4FTSVU
N PWS1F
bcXCd a
_deZ`fgX
uCv:u1wx
yzwx{wLu6|7v }
$
%'&'()+* %-,
3
8:9;<=
$
%/.102
>?<@ACBED
*4%5(".6(7*4%
hCijkmljLn6o7p q
pEr
osq-rcklh
qtTh
INTRODUCTION
papers have dealt with its hydrodynamic force or estimation method for the force by using strip theory, slender
body theory or CFD etc.
But there is little published paper on relating with
the detail investigation for ship maneuvering characteristics in shallow water. This paper, therefore, deals with
the detail maneuvering characteristics in shallow water.
Consequently, the results based on this investigation will
be useful for ship operation and ship handling in shallow water for preventing marine disaster and for safety
of navigation.
1
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
There are some studies about prediction of hydrodynamic forces acting on a ship hull in shallow water theoretically or experimentally. The prediction method of
hydrodynamic forces in shallow water based on slender
body theory was proposed by Nonaka et al. (Nonaka et
al., 1997). As examples of experimental study, there are
papers by Hirano et al. (Hirano et al., 1985) or Kijima
et al. (Kijima et al., 1985). Recently application of CFD
for prediction of hydrodynamic forces in shallow water
was done by Ohmori (Ohmori, 1998).
From the practical point of view, simple prediction
method is required at the initial design stage of a ship.
Therefore the author had proposed approximate formulae to estimate hydrodynamic derivatives in deep water
(Kijima and Nakiri, 1999). The approximate formulae
consist of the principal particulars and some parameters
which represents hull shape as follows,
1
Y0 = k + 1.9257 Cb B/L a ,
0
0
0
0
Yr = k + 0.052ea 0.457 + m + m x ,
Y = 1.199Cb a + 1.05,
0
0
(1)
n
o
Yrr
= 7.1256 d 1 Cb /B ,
hn
o i2
0
0
Yr = 10.443 d 1 Cb /B ea
n
o
9.374 d 1 C /B e + 1.227,
; r = 0.0
; r = 0.3125
; r = 0.50
YH
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
5
10
(deg)
10
(deg)
NH
0.2
0.0
0.2
5
; r = 0.0
; r = 0.3125
n
o2
N0 = k 150.668 d 1 Cb /B e0a K
n
o
23.819 d 1 Cb /B e0a K + 1.802 ,
; r = 0.50
; r = 0.70
YH
0.5
0.0
0.5
5
10
(deg)
0
Nrr
= 0.15K 0.068,
0
Nrr
= 0.4086Cb + 0.27,
n
o
0
Nr = 0.826 d 1 Cb /B e0a 0.026,
NH
0.2
(2)
0.0
where,
0.2
5
L
B
d
Cb
k
m
mx
10
(deg)
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
ship length,
ship breadth,
draft,
block coefficient,
2d/L,
ship mass,
longitudinal component of added
mass.
2
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
ea = (1 C pa ),
B e
a
0
,
ea = q
1
1
4
(B/d)2
(3)
1 Cwa
a , =
1 C pa
1.5
1
ea L/B
Generally maneuvering characteristics changes considerably depending on the depth of water. Figure 3
shows turning circles for different water depth. These
lines in this figure were obtained by the numerical simulation by using the proposed approximate formulae, and
also they agreed completely well with measured results
in model test as shown in reference (Kijima and Nakiri,
2003). It is observed that turning circle becomes larger if
the depth of water shallows. Therefore the effect of water
depth upon precise hydrodynamic coefficients should be
taken into account when we estimate maneuvering performance by numerical simulations.
As described above, hydrodynamics forces and moment acting on a ship hull will change remarkably depending on water depth. The author had proposed the
extended formulae to estimate hydrodynamic derivatives
in shallow water based on that in deep water (Kijima and
Nakiri, 2003). When hydrodynamic derivatives in deep
water and shallow water are noted with D0 () and D0 (h)
(h = d/H : draft / water depth ratio, d : draft, H : water
depth) respectively, there are following correlation between them.
0
1) for Y0 , N0 and Yrr
)
(
1
h f (h) D()
D(h) =
(1 h)a
(4)
2) for Yr0
D(h) = (1 + a1 h + a2 h2 + a3 h3 )
D() m0 + m0x () + m0 + m0x (h)
(5)
0
0
0
0
3) for Nr0 , Y
, Yrr0 , Yr
, Nrr0 , Nr
and Nrr
D(h) = (1 + a1 h + a2 h2 + a3 h3 ) D()
4) for
(6)
x0
0
N
x, X
r, N
y, Y
y0
3
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
The equations for surging, swaying and yawing motion of ship can be written in the following form using
coordinate systems in Figure 4 (Kijima et al, 1990),
!
L U
cos sin
U U
+ m0 + m0y r0 sin = X 0 ,
!
L U
0
0
sin + cos
m + my
U U
+ m0 + m0x r0 cos = Y 0 ,
!
L 2 U
U 0
0
0
0
r + r
= N0.
Izz + izz
U
L
L
m0 + m0x
(8)
0
0
Xuu
is resistance coefficient and Xr
can be estimated
by Hasegawas chart (Hasegawa, 1980). Hydrodynamic
derivatives for YH0 and NH0 can be estimated using equations (1) to (6).
Mathematical model for thrust produced by propeller
is expressed using thrust coefficient KT defined as function advance coefficient JP :
The superscript 0 in the equations refers to the nondimensional quantities defined by:
m
, m0x , m0y
m, m x , my
1
2
2 L d
X, Y
X ,Y = 1
,
2
2 LdU
rL
,
r0 =
U
0
Izz0 , i0zz
Izz , izz
1
2
2
2 L dU
N
N = 1
,
2
2
2 L dU
0
1
XP0 = (1 tP0 )n2 D4P KT JP / LdU 2 ,
2
KT JP = C1 + C2 JP + C3 JP2 ,
JP = U cos 1 wP / nDP ,
wP = wP0 exp(4.00P 2 ),
0P = x0P r0 ,
x0P ' 0.5,
(9)
where,
L, d
m
m x , my
:
:
:
Izz , izz
U,
r
X, Y
:
:
:
:
:
(12)
(13)
where,
(11)
0 0
0
XH0 = Xr
r sin + Xuu
cos2 ,
0
YH0 = Y0 + Yr0 r0 + Y
|| + Yrr0 r0 r0
0
0
+ Yr
+ Yrr
r0 r0 ,
0
NH0 = N0 + Nr0 r0 + N
|| + Nrr0 r0 r0
0
0
+ Nr
+ Nrr
r0 r0 ,
tP
tP0
:
:
n
DP
C1 , C2 , C3
wP
:
:
:
:
wP0
XR0 = (1 tR )F N0 sin ,
0
0
(14)
YR = (1 + aH )F N cos ,
0
0
0
0
NR = (xR + aH xH )F N cos ,
(10)
where,
tR
aH
x0H
:
:
:
4
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
xR0
2 y/L
6
wR0
P
0
1 , 2
:
:
:
:
; r
;
; U/U0
;
(deg)
60
r, U/U0
=35
Time history
(deg)
1.0
40
400
20
200
0.5
0.0
0
100 time(sec)
50
Figure 5 Comparison of trajectories and time histories (Cargo ship, H/d = 1.2, = 35 )
where,
wR
Symbol; measured
Line; calculated
:
:
:
:
:
:
x/L
2
02
UR = 1 wR {1 + Cg(s)} ,
= DP /hR ,
K = (1 0.6 |sin |) 1 wP / 1 wR ,
(16)
n
o
R = + 0 1 R ,
0
0
0
R = 2xR r ,
x ' 0.5,
AR
hR
KR
UR
R
C
Trajectory
=35
rudder area,
rudder height,
aspect ratio of rudder,
effective rudder inflow speed,
effective rudder inflow angle,
coefficient for starboard and port rudder,
effective wake fraction coefficient at
rudder location,
effective wake fraction coefficient at
rudder location in straight forward
motion,
propeller pitch,
toe angle of offset rudder,
flow straightening coefficient,
functions which express effect of
rudder angle on and wR0 .
x/L
Trajectory
=35
Symbol; measured
Line; calculated
2
0
2
0
; r
;
r, U/U0
Time history
6 y/L
; U/U0
;
(deg)
60
=35
(deg)
1.0
40
400
20
200
0.5
Solving equation (8) with consideration of the influence of water depth on the hydrodynamic coefficients,
ship maneuvering motion can be estimated.
Figure 5 and 6 show turning trajectory and time histories of non-dimensional yaw rate, r0 , speed reduction
ratio, U/U0 (U0 : initial speed), drift angle, , and heading angle, for a cargo ship and a coal carrier at H/d =
1.2 respectively. Each line indicate simulation result the
symbols indicate measured values. It can be said from
these comparison between numerical simulation and measured results that this approximate formulae have enough
0.0
50
0
100 time(sec)
Figure 6 Comparison of trajectories and time histories (Coal carrier, H/d = 1.2, = 35 )
5
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
; H/d=6.0
x/L
; H/d=6.0
; H/d=1.5
x/L
; H/d=1.2
; H/d=1.5
; H/d=1.2
2
5
y/L
y/L
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
; H/d=6.0
; H/d=1.5
; H/d=6.0
; H/d=1.2
; H/d=1.5
; H/d=1.2
1.0
40
1.0
20
20
40
40
(deg)
20
20
40
(deg)
Figure 11 Change of advance, transfer and tactical diameter depending on water depth
these parameters.
As shown in the above, a turning advance and tactical
diameter will change as function of water depth and in
ship type in spite of same rudder execution.
It is well known that the linear terms of hydrodynamic derivatives are important parameters to evaluate
the course stability of a ship. If the linear terms of hydrodynamic derivatives satisfy the following equation, the
course stability is stable.
Y0 Nr0 + N Yr0 m0 + m0x > 0
(17)
(18)
lr
0.5
1
h(=d/H)
0.5
0.5
1
h(=d/H)
lr l
0.5
1
h(=d/H)
0.5
lr l
0.5
0.5
1
h(=d/H)
1
0
0.5
lr l
1
h(=d/H)
0.5
1
h(=d/H)
0.5
1
h(=d/H)
0.5
1
h(=d/H)
1
0
1
lr l
0.5
1
h(=d/H)
1
h(=d/H)
0.5
1
h(=d/H)
1
0
0.5
lr l
lr
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
h(=d/H)
1
h(=d/H)
1
0
1
h(=d/H)
0.5
l
5
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
h(=d/H)
5
0
lr
1
0
1
5
0
5
lr
1
0
(e) VLCC
Figure 12 Change of `r0 and `0 depending on water depth
Nonaka, N., Haraguchi, T., Nimura, T., Ueno, M., Fujiwara, T., Makino, M., Kodama, Y. and Yoshino, Y.,
Research on Flow Field around a Ship in Manoeuvring
Motion, Papers of Ship Research Institute, Vol.34,
No.5, 1997, pp.168.
Ohmori, T., A Study on Hydrodynamic Characteristics of a Maneuvering Ship in Shallow Water by a
Finite-Volume Method, Proceeding of International
Symposium and Workshop on Force Acting on a
Maneuvering Vessel (MAN98), 1998, pp.15-38.
8
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
DISCUSSION
Martin Renilson
QinetiQ, United Kingdom
I wonder if the author could comment on
scale effects in shallow water. Perhaps these would
be more severe than in deep water, and may be the
cause of some of the unusual results.
AUTHORS REPLY
Thank you for your question. On scale
effects of ship maneuvering motion in shallow water,
it seems it will be very difficult to investigate it,
especially in the full scales ship. Because, we have no
data for comparing the estimated results with
measured results in full scales ship in shallow water.
We know only a few published paper relating with
the data of full scales ship maneuvering
characteristics in shallow water.
We need to collect the data of its in shallow
water.
DISCUSSION
Jinzhu Xia
Australian Maritime College, Australia
It would be interesting if Prof. Kijima could
provide some discussion on wave effects and the
assessment of wave effects on maneuvering and
maneuvering in shallow water.
AUTHORS REPLY
Thank you very much for your discussion.
In this paper, the wave effects was not discussed, but
if you use our mathematical model, you can estimate
and consider the wave effect in ship maneuvering
motion by adding the wave force coefficients in the
mathematical model. Of course, you have to estimate
the wave drift force and wave exciting force acting
on ship hull.
ABSTRACT
This paper describes a numerical study of the
flow around a sharp wedge in both breaking and
nonbreaking regimes. The wedge is fixed on a free
slip bottom. In the numerical simulations two bow
angles and three water depths are considered; the
simulations correspond to some experimental tests
carried out by Waniewski et al. (2002) with which
comparisons are made. Froude number, based on
water depth and free stream velocity, ranges from
2.57 to 3.29, whereas Reynolds number is around
1.86 106 . The numerical method used is a solver for
steady incompressible free surface flows based on the
pseudocompressible formulation of the Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes equations (RANSE); free surface is handled by a singlephase level set approach
(Di Mascio et al., 2004).
INTRODUCTION
This paper deals with numerical simulations of
the flow around a wedge, fixed to a free slip bottom. This kind of flow is taken as a prototype of the
flow around the bow of a ship hull moving through
the water: the main characteristic of this flow is the
presence of a surface wave which, under some circumstances, can break. Bow wave breaking is one
of the main source of air entrainment and of the so
called whitewater wake phenomena; moreover, the
dispersion of bubbles in water can have strong negative effects in terms of, for example, signature of
the ship and propeller efficiency.
Objectives of this work are the study of the bow
wave in breaking condition and the analysis of the
vorticity production due to the formation of the
water jet and to the breaking phenomena. Attention must be devoted to this aspect, as coherent
structures like the streamwise vortices produced by
GOVERNING EQUATIONS
The turbulent motion of an incompressible (constant density) viscous fluid can be described by the
Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes equations:
uj
=0
xj
ui
uj ui
p
ij
+
+
=
t
xj
xi
xj
D F (x, y, z, t)
=0
Dt
(1)
i = 1, 2, 3.
NUMERICAL METHOD
In this section the numerical method used is recalled; for a complete description of the algorithm
the reader is referred to Di Mascio et al. (2001,
2004). When only the average steady state has to
be computed, the system of equations (1) can be
conveniently replaced by the pseudocompressible
formulation (Chorin, 1967), that reads, in integral
form:
Z
I
p dV +
ui ni dS = 0
t V
S(V)
Z
(4)
ui dV +
t V
I
[ui uj nj + pni ij nj ] dS = 0
A reference length l and velocity U have been chosen to make the equations nondimensional. In the
previous equations, ui is the ith Cartesian component of the velocity vector (in the following, the
Cartesian components of the velocity will be also
denoted with u, v, and w); p is a variable related
to the pressure P and the acceleration of gravity g
(parallel to the vertical axis z,downward oriented)
by p = P + z/F n2 , F n = U / gl being the Froude
number. Finally, ij = t (ui,j + uj,i ) is the stress
tensor, t = 1/Rn+T is the global kinematic viscosity, with Rn = U l/ the Reynolds number, the
kinematic viscosity and T the turbulent viscosity.
In the present work, the turbulent viscosity was calculated by means of the Spalart and Allmaras one
equation model (Spalart and Allmaras, 1994). In
what follows, the water depth d and the free stream
velocity U are used as reference quantities.
The problem is closed by enforcing appropriate
conditions at physical and computational boundaries. On solid walls, velocity is set to zero (whereas
no condition on the pressure is required); at the (fictitious) inflow boundary, velocity is set to the undisturbed flow value, and the pressure is extrapolated
from inside; on the contrary, the pressure is set to
zero at the outflow, whereas velocity is extrapolated
from inner points.
At the free surface, whose location is one of the
unknowns of the problem, the dynamic boundary
condition requires continuity of stresses across the
surface; if the presence of the air is neglected, the
dynamic boundary condition reads:
p = ij ni nj +
ij ni t1j = 0
+
We F n2
(3)
S(V)
~q dV +
(F~sc F~sd ) dS = 0
(5)
t Vijk
S
s
s=1
where ~q = (p, u, v, w)T is the state variables vector
for pseudocompressible flows, and F~sc and F~sd are
the convective (inviscid and pressure) and diffusive
normal fluxes at the sth interface Ss of the finite
volume Vijk . In order to obtain second order accuracy in space, convective and viscous fluxes are
computed by means of the trapezoidal rule.
The computation of the viscous fluxes requires
the value of the stress tensor at cell interfaces; for
instance, at the interface i + 12 , j, k :
um
ul
lm |i+ 1 ,j,k = i+ 21 ,j,k
+
(6)
2
xl
xm i+ 1 ,j,k
(2)
ij ni t2j = 0
2
where We = U
l/ is the Weber number ( being
the density of the fluid and the surface tension
coefficient) and the surface curvature; ~n, ~t1 and ~t2
are the surface normal and two tangential unit vectors, respectively. In this work surface tension effects have been neglected. The kinematic boundary
condition states that the free surface F (x, y, z, t) = 0
Velocity gradients are computed by means of a standard second order centered finite volume approximation.
2
(7)
~qr = ~qi+1,j,k
2
minmod( ~q|i+1/2 , ~q|i+3/2 )
2
(8)
where:
~q|i+1/2 = ~qi+1,j,k ~qi,j,k
(9)
1) = 0
+ sign()(||
(12)
(11)
In the singlephase algorithm adopted only the
liquid phase of the fluid is computed; the computational domain is formally decomposed in (see figure (1)):
i+ 12 ,j,k = i,j,k +
i+ 12 ,j,k = i+1,j,k
1
if Ui,j,k
0, and similarly for i 12 ,j,k . It has been
proved by Harten et al. (1987) that this procedure
yields a second order approximation to (11). Time
advancement of equation (15) is achieved by means
of a standard twolevel multistage second order
RungeKutta scheme (Jameson et al., 1981).
For the nodes in the water region which are not
close to the surface of discontinuity (empty squares
in figure (1)), the level set function is enforced to
represent the distance from the interface when the
steady solution is attained. To this aim, the constrain || = 1 is enforced by means of an iterative
marching ENO scheme with second order accuracy;
first, the above condition is rewritten as an evolution
equation for the level set function (x, y, z, t):
+ sign()
1 = 0
(17)
t
||
then, by using the definition (13), the previous equation is rewritten in term of (x, y, z, t) as:
(13)
+ ~u + w = 0
(14)
t
By doing so, it is easier to assign the boundary condition for the level set function at inflow, that reduces to (x, y, z, t) = 0.
An ENO technique (similar to the one used for
the bulk flow) is used to discretize equation (14); to
this end, the equation is first rewritten in terms of
curvilinear coordinates:
+ Um
+w =0
(15)
t
m
where:
+w
~ + b = 0
t
(18)
||
z
b = sign()
1
||
(19)
w
~ = sign()
m
being the contravariant components
xi
of the velocity vector. The derivatives of the function (x, y, z, t) at cell center are approximated by
a second order finite difference formula; considering,
for instance, the (i, j, k)cell center, for the coordinate line 1 it reads:
U m = ui
= i+ 12 ,j,k i 12 ,j,k
1
1
if Ui,j,k
0, or:
(x, y, z, t) = (x, y, z, t) + z
minmod( |i+ 1 , |i 1 )
(16)
4
with
pi,j,k + pi1,j,k
(23)
2
where pF S is computed from the dynamic boundary
condition (2).
Once the pressure is known, the normal velocity
at (i + 12 , j, k) is computed by solving the Riemann
problem:
pi+ 12 ,j,k pw + un |i+ 12 ,j,k un |w = 0 (24)
pi 12 ,j,k =
i+1,j,k
FS
i,j,k
i+1/2
j+1/2
j1/2
p
being = u
n + u
2n + and where pw and un |w represent the known state on the water side, computed
as in (8). The tangential velocity is simply extrapolated along the normal to the free surface, given by
/||, as in the following equation (25). The remaining dynamic boundary conditions for the tangential stresses in (2) are explicitly enforced when
computing the viscous fluxes at the cell interface
i + 12 , j, k .
Outside the water region, extension velocities are
computed as:
i1/2
ui = 0
i = 1, 2, 3
(25)
holds, it means that the free surface cuts the segment Pi,j,k Pi+1,j,k at some point PF S (Pi,j,k is the
position vector that locates the i, j, k point). Then,
the portion of the segment below the free surface is:
which guarantees that (x, y, z, t) evolves as a distance function also at the points adjacent to the
free surface (full circles in figure (1); see, for the
proof, Adalsteinsson and Sethian (1999)). Since the
steady state solution is the goal of the computation,
the previous relation is substituted by an evolution
equation for the velocity components ui :
|PF S Pi,j,k |
|i,j,k |
=
|Pi+1,j,k Pi,j,k |
|i+1,j,k i,j,k |
ui
+ ui = 0
t
i,j,k i+1,j,k 0
(20)
(21)
which is solved by a second order ENO scheme analogous to the one used to solve the kinematic equation (14) and equation (18), characteristic speed being . Note that the values of the velocity, pressure and turbulent viscosity in the air phase are useless when steady state is attained, and therefore they
do not affect the formal accuracy of the numerical
scheme. Nevertheless, their estimation is of great
importance during the iterative procedure at those
points that change their physical state from air to
water, for which an initial estimate is needed.
if i,j,k < 0, the level set function having been defined as the distance from the interface. A similar
relation holds for i+1,j,k < 0, with i and i + 1 interchanged.
The computation of the residuals for the RANS
equations at those points whose neighboring cells
are not all into the water region need some attention. In fact, in these cases the numerical convective
and viscous fluxes at interfaces that separate two
cells, of which one is in the air region (as the interface i + 12 , j, k in figure (2)), must be evaluated; in
these points the proper information to compute the
correct flux are needed to retain second order accuracy. To circumvent this difficulty, the following
procedure is applied. The pressure at i + 12 , j, k is
extrapolated as:
pi+ 12 ,j,k = pi 12 ,j,k +
1
2
1
(pF S pi 12 ,j,k )
+
(26)
RESULTS
Some numerical simulations of the flow around
an infinitely long wedge have been carried out; the
problem consists in a vertical piercing wedge fixed
on the bottom (in the simulations, the bottom plate
is treated as a free slip wall). Test conditions are
reported in table (1), where d represents the draft
(22)
Run
L1
L2
L3
H1
H2
H3
13.4o
13.4o
13.4o
26.6o
26.6o
26.6o
d (cm)
6.66
7.55
9.21
6.45
7.62
9.32
U (m/s)
2.44
2.43
2.46
2.61
2.40
2.46
Fn
3.01
2.81
2.59
3.29
2.77
2.57
(which is equal to the water depth of the unperturbed flow), U is the free stream velocity, and is
the bow half angle; two different wedge angles and
three different water depths were analyzed. In the
same table, the values of the Froude number, based
on the free stream velocity and the water depth,
are reported for each conditions. The geometry and
flow field conditions under investigation correspond
to the large flume experiments made by Waniewski
et al. (2002) (tests 1l to 6l).
The physical domain is discretized by means of a
single block grid with CH topology (see figure (3)),
with a total of 144 128 128 volumes, for the
simulations with = 26.6o and 72 64 64 volumes, for = 13.4o , along streamwise, normal to
the wedge side wall, and vertical directions, respectively; points are clustered toward both the leading edge and the side wall of the wedge, whereas
an uniform distribution has been adopted along the
vertical direction. At least four grid levels were used
for multigrid acceleration. A uniform velocity field
(equal to the upstream value), zero pressure field
and a flat free surface have been considered as initial conditions. As boundary conditions, free stream
250
y (cm)
200
150
100
50
0
-100
-50
50
100
x (cm)
150
200
250
Z
X
Z
X
Z
X
175
175
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
125
75
50
25
0
50
25
0
175
175
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
75
50
25
0
150
100
75
50
25
0
-25
-25
175
175
150
100
75
50
25
0
-25
150
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
125
25
50
21.0
18.0
15.0
12.0
9.0
6.0
3.0
0.0
-3.0
125
x (cm)
100
x (cm)
75
-25
125
x (cm)
100
-25
150
21.0
18.0
15.0
12.0
9.0
6.0
3.0
0.0
-3.0
125
21.0
18.0
15.0
12.0
9.0
6.0
3.0
0.0
-3.0
125
100
x (cm)
x (cm)
100
150
x (cm)
150
75
50
25
0
-25
25
50
25
20
144x128x128
72x64x64
36x32x32
18x16x16
15
15
z (cm)
z (cm)
20
10
144x128x128
72x64x64
36x32x32
18x16x16
10
0
20
0
25
z (cm)
15
z (cm)
20
15
10
10
0
20
5
15
z (cm)
z (cm)
25
10
20
15
10
15
20
y (cm)
25
30
35
40
10
Figure 10: Wedge flow: contact lines computed on four different grid levels, and for H1 (top), H2 (middle) and H3 (bottom) test cases.
5
0
-10
10
20
30
r (cm)
40
50
60
70
30
L1
L2
L3
25
20
H1
H2
H3
10
x
+
+ ++ +
+
++
xxxxxx
z (cm)
z (cm)
20
15
++
x xx
xx
++++
++ +
x x
xx
0
20
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
10
20
30
r (cm)
40
50
60
70
z (cm)
15
Figure 11: Wedge flow: contact lines, vertical tiny line indicates the leading edge. Experimental data (Waniewski et al.,
2002): ( ) L1 run, ( ) L2 run, ( ) L3 run, ( + ) H1 run,
( ) H2 run and ( 4 ) H3 run.
10
0
20
15
z (cm)
2.5
2.0
Z*max
10
0
-10
1.5
+ ++
10
1.0
0.5
0.0
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
15
10
15
20
y (cm)
25
30
35
40
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Fr
(27)
15
Run L1
r=35 cm
5
0
Run L2
r=35 cm
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
Run L3
r=100 cm
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
5
0
-5
15
Run L3
r=35 cm
15
12
9
6
3
0
-3
-6
-9
-12
-15
5
0
10
15
20
25
y (cm)
30
10
z (cm)
10
5
0
-5
35
10
15
20
y (cm)
25
25
20
Run H1
r=35 cm
15
10
5
0
-5
20
15
5
0
-5
20
10
0
-5
Run H2
r=75 cm
20
15
10
5
0
-5
5
0
10
15
20
y (cm)
25
30
35
Run H3
r=80 cm
20
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
10
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
15
25
Run H3
r=35 cm
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
10
35
15
25
Run H2
r=35 cm
30
Run H1
r=90 cm
20
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
z (cm)
z (cm)
10
z (cm)
15
z (cm)
Run L2
r=100 cm
-5
15
12
9
6
3
0
-3
-6
-9
-12
-15
z (cm)
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
z (cm)
z (cm)
10
z (cm)
Run L1
r=100 cm
15
15
-5
10
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
15
z (cm)
z (cm)
10
15
12
9
6
3
0
-3
-6
-9
-12
-15
z (cm)
15
10
5
0
-5
40
10
15
20
25
y (cm)
30
35
40
45
50
11
CONCLUSIONS
A single phase level set approach for free surface viscous flows at high Reynolds number have
been used to study the flow around a sharp wedge.
Numerical simulations at two different entrance angles and three different water depths are carried out;
in agreement with available experimental data (see
(Waniewski et al., 2002) and (Waniewski, 1999)) the
waves generated by the presence of the wedge is in
breaking conditions at the higher half bow wedge angle. Threedimensional views of the breaking flow
clearly show the formation of a water jet, plunging
toward the free surface where it impacts; further
downstream a splashup region develops. Contact
lines (the profile of the wave on the wedge side wall)
compare well with experimental date for = 26.6o
and the three water depths, whereas, for = 13.4o ,
agreement is only qualitative. At present the reasons for such discrepancies are not clear; however,
the waves height being smaller for the second case,
viscous effects on the bottom could be important.
More investigation is needed in the future. Plunging jet shapes, angle and velocity of impact compare
well with experimental data provided by Waniewski
(1999). Cross sections of vorticity field at regions
where the water jet starts to form, and just after
the impact of water jet happened were presented;
similarities with experimental observation made by
GenIn
Osher, S. and Sethian, J. A. (1988). Fronts Propagating with CurvatureDependant Speed: Algorithms Based on HamiltonJacobi Formulations.
J. Comput. Phys., 79:1240.
Rouy, E. and Tourin, A. (1992).
A Viscosity Solutions Approach to ShapefromShading.
SIAM. J. Numer. Analy., 29:867884.
Spalart, P. R. and Allmaras, S. R. (1994). A One
Equation Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic
Flows. La Recherche Aerospatiale, 1:521.
Sussman, M., Smekerda, P., and Osher, S. J.
(1994). A Level Set Approach for Computing Solutions to Incompressible TwoPhase Flow.
J. Comput. Phys., 114:146159.
Waniewski, T. A. (1999). Air Entrainment by Bow
Waves. Doctoral Dissertation, California Institute
of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
Waniewski, T. A., Brennen, C. E., and Raichlen, F.
(2002). Bow Wave Dynamics. J. Ship Research,
46(1):115.
13
DISCUSSION
Larry J. Doctors
The University of New South Wales, Australia
I would like to congratulate the authors for
this very interesting paper. My question relates to
Table 1, listing the test conditions. Why werent
exactly the same values of the water depth and speed
chosen for the two different wedge half angles? It
would have been interesting to examine the linearity
(or otherwise) of the wedge-flow contact lines in
Figure 11 with respect to the wedge half angle. Since
the data is almost the same for the two angles of
13.4 and 26.6, one can see, at least approximately,
such a behavior in Figure 11.
AUTHORS REPLY
Thank you for the comment. With regard to
the choice of flow parameters, the only reason why
the water depths were not exactly the same is that we
wanted to validated the simulations against the
experimental data collected by Waniewski et al.
(2002), and therefore we used the same values as in
their channel and towing tank tests. The investigation
on the behaviour of the maximum wave height on the
side wall with the dihedral angle will be the topic of
our future research activity on wave breaking. We
agree with Dr. Doctors as to the expected linearity for
the aforementioned function.
( INSEAN, The Italian Ship Model Basin, Roma - Italy, Centre for Ships and
Ocean Structures, NTNU, Trondheim - Norway)
ABSTRACT
In many practical circumstances relevant in ship hydrodynamics, complex water flow evolutions occur, involving large deformations of the free-surface, breaking and fragmentation. The resulting water-ship interactions may lead to dangerous structural loads and they
can concern the safety and the stability of the vessel.
The analysis of such problems is challenging both in
terms of the capability to handle the physics involved,
and of the CPU time and memory space needed for sufficiently accurate investigations. The latter become crucial when three-dimensional effects are accounted for.
Here we present a numerical study to deal with
these types of phenomena, their occurrence, evolution
and possible structural effects. The used method is based
on the Domain Decomposition (DD) philosophy where
the problem is split into sub-problems, each one analyzed by the most efficient and suitable solver. In particular, a Boundary Element Method (BEM) is used in
the fluid regions where the air-water interface can be
modeled as a smooth surface and vorticity and viscosity effects are negligible. A Navier-Stokes (NS) solver,
coupled with a Level-set (LS) technique for capturing
the air-water interface, is applied in the fluid areas interested by breaking phenomena and vorticity generation.
Since the air evolution becomes relevant in case of air
entrainment, both liquid and gas phases are simulated
by the BEM and NS-LS solvers. The most important
feature of the DD method proposed here is the presence
of an air-water interface in the exchange region between
the different solvers.
In this paper, the features of the present domain-
water
Potential flow
air
Potential flow
water
Potential flow
suming that the flow is laminar. To limit the code heaviness a stretching has to be introduced both in the horizontal and vertical directions. However the stretching
cannot be particularly strong, that is
,
max
being
the outer and inner discretizamax and
tions, respectively, and a number less than two. If a
larger stretching is used, numerical problems arise connected with the solution of the Poisson equation for the
pressure. As a result, two factors exist working against
each other: the need of a sufficiently high resolution to
capture the vorticity generated during the ship rolling
and the need to resolve with a similar accuracy both the
inner region around the ship and outer areas far from
the vessel. An example of feasible stretched grid is
given in the top of figure 1 for the roll motion of a ship
cross-section (black line). The geometry and the motion
data refer to two-dimensional model tests carried out recently at INSEAN. In particular, figure 1 is related to the
section 3 (American nomenclature) of the DDG41 ship
(scale factor 23.824). Despite the fact we want to study
open water conditions the domain has been truncated
for computational limits reasons. A uniform grid with
, being the cross-section
draft, is used in an inner region around the body and a
stretching
with
is introduced
elsewhere. The resulting mesh is fairly able to capture
the evolution of the vorticity shed from the ship (the
center plot of the figure gives a snapshot of the vorticity contours). But an enlarged view of the velocity field
near the lower tip of the cross section (see center plot of
figure 1) highlights the need of a much higher resolution
in the body neighbourhood. To meet this requirement
and to capture properly the behaviour of the boundary
layer we should at least consider an inner mesh with
. Due to the stretching
limits this would increase the memory space of a factor 16 and the CPU time of a factor 16x4 with respect
to the used grid. Obviously if three-dimensional effects
are accounted for, the computational cost becomes substantially more expensive. On the other hand this can be
conveniently reduced by using physical considerations.
During the roll motion, vorticity of opposite sign is created. This may cause vortex pairs with nearly opposite
strengths that will travel far from the ship. Once away
from it, their effect on the ship pressure loads is however not significant. This means, also in the case of the
roll motion the region interested by vorticity and viscous effects relevant for the ship is rather localized near
the vessel. From an adequate distance from the vessel
on, the vorticity leaving the ship can be conveniently
neglected (dissipated numerically) and a potential flow
theory can be used to simulate the flow evolution.
/0
In this paper the developed domain decomposition strategy is detailed described, the main challenges
related with the substantial differences between the used
solvers are discussed and the proposed solutions are reported. This is made by using the two-dimensional problem of a dam breaking as test case. In fact this is indirectly related to the water-on-deck phenomenon (see
132
NS-LS sub-domain
BEM sub-domain
Here a two-dimensional fluid is considered, evolving in
time according to the potential flow theory. The water is
assumed unaffected by the air. This is a reasonable approximation. In fact it is meant to be applied in fluid regions where air-cushioning does not occur and the free
surface can be modeled as a smooth simply-connected
surface. Therefore one can neglect the air-water coupling and assume that the heavier fluid (water) drives
the motion of the lighter one (air). This leads to a more
efficient and yet suitable method. In this sub-domain
the air-water interface is seen as a sharp surface across
which discontinuities of the tangential velocity component occur.
The problem is solved numerically by a BEM
54
54
54
5 4 6
54
7 54
/98(:<;>= ?@=*A
smoothing
air
variables
air
wate
r int
erfa
ce
water
variables
water interface should be very small. However it cannot be smaller than a threshold value, otherwise numerical instabilities arise. Typically
is a good
compromise. Special care has to be paid for the proper
smoothing of the variables inside the transition area.
This is because they are linked with each other nonlinearly through the governing equations and inconsistent smoothing can result in unphysical solutions. From
what has been said, inside the NS-LS sub-domain the
air-water interface is seen as a layer with finite thickness. Across it the variables slightly pass from their
definitions in water to the ones in air.
=CBEDF
To built up an efficient solution algorithm, the domaindecomposition strategy is applied both in time and in
space. The related details are described in the following
sections.
Spatial coupling
As far as the BEM can be used to study the problem
of interest, it will be applied. When applicable, this is
indeed the most efficient and accurate method to treat
free-surface flows. Let us assume a threshold time
as the time when it becomes useful to introduce the
domain decomposition strategy (for instance when the
air-water interface is going to break). From this time
instant on the domain is spatially split into two (many)
sub-domains. The problem in one of these is still solved
by the BEM, while the flow evolution in the other is described by the NS-LS solver (see sketch in figure 3). At
time the solution in the NS-LS sub-domain needs to
be initialized by the BEM. Once this is accomplished
the two methods will attack the problem in the corresponding sub-domains and will transmit each other
the required information through the overlapping region
(domain decomposition). The NS-LS solver gives to the
G
GH
Figure 3: Domain Decomposition Domain Composition method. Definition of the transmission region as
an overlapping area through which pressure and velocity data are exchanged. This coupling procedure has
been referred to as procedure b in Greco et al. (2002).
%
GH
GJIKGH
/K.
u,v,p
LSNS
with
5 4 065 4 7 5 4
N Q N 7 N
Q!R
S NUT MVWV QZR 5U[3\^]
X Y 4
5 4 T @V@V E;`_badjcfehgig
BEM
corr
BEM
corr
(1)
54
X
X X
BEM
water
air
Figure 4: BEM composition step. Extrapolation procedure for the generic NS-LS variable (velocity compoand pressure ).
nents
5 ?ML
5 ?@L
X
Figure 5: Examples of
smoothing across the
air-water interface that could be used within Level-set
techniques. In the present study the smoothing corresponding to the dashed line has been applied.
GOIPG
G
=
X
Temporal coupling
The DDDC method has been tested by studying the water evolution subsequent to the breaking of a dam. This
is a well known problem, extensively studied for its
relevance in environmental and safety contexts. Moreover it is an interesting problem for ship hydrodynamics. The related flow is similar to the one developing
onto the ship deck during the most common type of
water shipping, as described above. To mimic the impact of the water against deck superstructures, a vertical
rigid wall is introduced downstream the initial dam and
the water-wall interactions during the impact are analyzed. This study is relevant to check the method capabilities in handling the green-water loading.
GlkmIZG
t n> t0
BEM
tn
t n+1/2
DD
NSLS
DC
tn
DD
r
t n+1
DD
DC
DD
t n+1
corrector step
DC
t n= t
z
initial
water level
n+1
Glk Glkn^o
from
to
is achieved by performing two intermediate time integration steps with both solvers. First,
the BEM evolves from
to
and makes available the required variables at the transmission boundary.
These are properly reconstructed (domain composition)
and given to the NS-LS solver. Then, the latter performs a trial time integration from
to
(predictor step) and makes available the information needed by
the potential solver. Once these have been adequately
converted (domain composition), the BEM can make its
time evolution from to
and release the final data
required by the NS-LS solver. These are reconstructed
(domain composition) and used by the field solver that
can perform the final time evolution from
to
(corrector step). At this stage everything is known at
both in terms of fluid variables and geometry. One
can then perform a new integration step where the BEM
uses the data (once reconstructed) given by the NS-LS
solver at the end of the previous time step.
G k G kn^oMpWq
Glk Glk
n3o
Glk Glkn3o
Glkn3o
r
D
r
NSLS
tn
st
DC
BEM
tn
t n+1
predictor step
Glk Glk
n3o
dam
vertical wall
BEM
NSLS
h
x
Sxw
Gvu r Y %
Syw
GH u r Y %
problem until
after the dam release.
Then the DDDC strategy is introduced, as shown in the
right plot of figure 7. The BEM sub-domain is conveniently restricted to the left side of the tank, while the
NS-LS solver is applied to study the right sub-domain.
In the simulations the viscosity has been set equal to
zero. Within the dam-breaking problem such parameter
matters for the local details of the flow but it is not relevant from the global point of view. Due to the chosen
value for the free surface is not steep when the DDDC
is initiated. Despite this fact the related flow conditions
imply a high sensitivity of the solution to the numerical
choices. The transmission boundary has been placed
GH
rz %
=
G u r{ %
NS-LS (top plot of figure 8), numerical errors are introduced related to the discrete representation of the velocity. These grow up in time and lead to unbounded oscillations. They are avoided once the velocity field given
by the BEM is smoothed across the interface (center
plot of figure 8). However the flow evolution highlights
the occurrence of small oscillations of the air-water interface and above all an unphysical behavior of the pressure field in a region close to the water tip front (top plot
of figure 9). The latter is a memory effect of the initial
pressure given by the BEM and can be avoided by enforcing divergence free velocities across the interface,
center plot of figure 9. The oscillatory behavior of the
air-water interface nearly detectable from the solution
can be finally eliminated by shifting the smoothing area
toward the air domain (bottom plot of figure 8). In this
G u r| }~
way the velocity field in the water region of the NSLS domain is more consistent with the one given by the
BEM solver. Moreover pressure and free-surface evo-
Gvu r|
G u r0 ~
r
s
D D
w Fr
Gvu r ? ? % ?
}
}
}Fr
p(gh)
-1
NS-LS
DDDC
Zhou exp.
0.5
r
s
D D
r w
vG u r ~
w
&G B D u r
w
GOB u r
r
0
1
t(gh)
1/2
s r
D D
r
}}
}r
Fr
Present investigation supplies the use of the DDDC strategy for handling complex free-surface flows involving breaking, air cushioning and impact phenomena. The efficiency properties of the method are also
confirmed. The DDDC results have been obtained by
reducing the CPU time of a factor two and the memory
space of a similar factor with respect to the full NS-LS
method.
CONCLUSIONS
A Domain Decomposition Domain Composition method
has been developed to study flows with large free-surface
deformations and breaking, leading to water-water and
water-structure impacts and air entrainment. The method
can also handle regions with vorticity generation and
viscous effects. It is based on the use of a BEM and a
N X
,- %
p = f( )
D /D t = 0
Figure 13: Strategy to account for the air compressibility in an efficient manner.
REFERENCES
an efficient and suitable method, we plan to model the
air compressibility only where necessary, that is inside
enclosed cavities (see figure 13). Elsewhere the air will
be treated still as an incompressible fluid like the water.
Therefore the Poisson equation will be solved for the air
pressure everywhere except for inside cavities. There,
the equation
(2)
NKN X X )
~ 2f
Dooley, B., A. Warncke, M. Gharib, and G. Tryggvason. Vortex ring generation due to the coalescence
of a water drop at a free surface. Experiments in Fluids 22(5), pp. 369374, 1997.
Greco, M. A Two-dimensional Study of Green-Water
Loading. Ph. D. thesis, Dept. Marine Hydrodynamics,
NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, 2001.
Greco, M., O. M. Faltinsen, and M. Landrini. Water Shipping on a Vessel in Head Waves. Proceedings
24 Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, technical
session: Slamming, Green Water and Capsizing, pp. 1
14. Fukuoka, Japan, 2002.
2f
2f
2f
Zhou, Z. Q., J. Q. D. Kat, and B. Buchner. A nonlinear 3-d approach to simulate green water dynamics
on deck. Piquet (Ed.), Proc. 7 Int. Conf. Num. Ship
Hydrod., pp. 5.11, 15. Nantes, France, 1999.
2f
DISCUSSION
Krish Thiagarajan
The University of Western Australia, Australia
The pressure impact curves shown in the
overheads are more spread out and less localized than
the pressure spikes seen in classic dam break problem
(shown in Figure 12 of the paper). Can you explain
the physical reason for the differences?
AUTHORS REPLY
DISCUSSION
Jinzhu Xia
Australian Maritime College, Australia
What is the perspective of coupling this
methodology to a seakeeping computation?
AUTHORS REPLY
The coupling, by itself, is well suitable for a
sea-keeping analysis. The challenge is not in the
coupling of the two different codes, but in the
individual development of each solver, both to treat
3D flows and to allow the free motion of the body.
Abstract
Cartesian-grid methods with Adaptive Mesh Refinement
(AMR) are ideally suited for simulating the breaking of
waves, the formation of spray, and the entrainment of air
around ships. As a result of the cartesian-grid formulation, minimal input is required to describe the ships geometry. A surface panelization of the ship hull is used
as input to automatically generate a three-dimensional
model. No three-dimensional gridding is required. The
AMR portion of the numerical algorithm automatically
clusters grid points near the ship in regions where wave
breaking, spray formation, and air entrainment occur.
Away from the ship, where the flow is less turbulent,
the mesh is coarser. The numerical computations are implemented using parallel algorithms. Together, the ease
of input and usage, the ability to resolve complex freesurface phenomena, and the speed of the numerical algorithms provide a robust capability for simulating the
free-surface disturbances near a ship. Here, numerical
predictions, with and without AMR, are compared to experimental measurements of ships moving with constant
forward speed, including a vertical strut, the DDG 5415,
and a wedge-like geometry.
Introduction
Two different cartesian-grid methods have been developed to simulate ship waves. One technique (CLSVOF)
combines Level-Set (LS) techniques with Volume-ofFluid (VOF) methods to model the free-surface interface. The second technique uses a pure VOF formulation. The CLSVOF formulation uses Adaptive Mesh
Refinement (AMR) to resolve small-scale features in the
flow. The VOF formulation uses domain decomposition
without AMR. Both methods that are described in this
paper use the same panelized geometry that is required
terms in the momentum equations are accounted for using a slope-limited, third-order QUICK scheme as discussed in Leonard (1997). Based on the PARAMESH
suite of codes (MacNeice, Olson, Mobarry, deFainchtein
& Packer 2000), domain decomposition is used to solve
the field equations. PARAMESH controls data communication between blocks of grid points, and also between
computer processors. PARAMESH is written in Fortran
90. PARAMESH provides AMR capability, but here we
only illustrate the NFA code using uniform grid spacing
without adaptive meshing. (An AMR capability for the
NFA code is in progress.) On the Cray T3E, message
passing is accomplished using either the Cray SHMEM
library or MPI. The CPU requirements are linearly proportional to the number of grid points and inversely proportional to the number of processors. For the NFA code,
comparisons are made to measurements of flow around
a vertical strut (Zhang & Stern 1996)and a wedge-like
geometry (Karion, Waniewski-Sur, Fu, Furey, Rice &
Walker 2003).
Developed concurrently with the NFA code, another
code based on the Coupled Level set and Volume-ofFluid (CLSVOF) method has been developed for modelling free-surface flows in general geometries. The
CLSVOF code uses adaptive mesh refinement to compute multi-scale phenomena. Like the NFA code, the
CLSVOF code uses cartesian grid techniques to model
complex geometries. Also, like NFA, CLSVOF uses a
two-phase formulation of the air-water interface. Unlike the NFA code, which is based on PARAMESH,
the CLSVOF code is based on BOXLIB, which is developed by the CCSE group at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories. The strategy of BOXLIB is that
high-level adaptive gridding and parallel functions are
performed using C++ while numerical discretizations
of the Navier-Stokes equations are performed using a
FORTRAN code. The BOXLIB libraries take care of
all the dynamic gridding functions, whereas the user
only has to supply FORTRAN routines that operate on
fixed, uniform, rectangular grids. Please refer to the
work of Rendleman, Beckner, Lijewski, Crutchfield &
Bell (2000) for more information regarding BOXLIB.
For computation of incompressible flow on an adaptive
grid, it is not enough to insure that fluxes are matched
at coarse/fine grid boundaries. We must also compute a
composite projection step at each time step. A composite projection step insures that the pressure, velocity, and divergence-free condition, are satisfied across
coarse-fine grid boundaries. For details of our adaptive
implementation, we refer the reader to Sussman (2003b)
and the references therein. CLSVOF predictions are
compared to measurements of the flow around the DDG
5415 (see http://www50.dt.navy.mil/5415/).
Formulation
Consider turbulent flow at the interface between air and
water. Let ui denote the three-dimensional velocity field
as a function of space (xi ) and time (t). For an incompressible flow, the conservation of mass gives
ui
=0 .
xi
(1)
(2)
where d/dt = /t + ui /xi is a substantial derivative. Q is a sub-grid-scale flux which can model the entrainment of gas into the liquid. Details are provided in
Dommermuth, Innis, Luth, Novikov, Schlageter & Talcott (1998).
CLSVOF and VOF formulations pose unique challenges associated with data processing of the free-surface
2
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
1 P
1
+
(2Sij )
xi
Re xj
ij
1
2 i3 +
,
Fr
xj
= Fi
(3)
ui + uki
+
R
=
(10)
i
xi ( ) xi
xi
t
k
uk+1
=
u
+
u
+
t
R
, (11)
i
i
i
i
2
( ) xi
(5)
where = g /` and = g /` are the density and viscosity ratios between air and water. For a sharp interface,
with no mixing of air and water, H is a step function. In
practice, a mollified step function is used to provide a
smooth transition between air and water.
As discussed in Dommermuth et al. (1998), the divergence of the momentum equations (3) in combination with the conservation of mass (1) provides a Poisson
equation for the dynamic pressure:
1 P
= ,
xi xi
(6)
where is a source term. As shown in the next section, the pressure is used to project the velocity onto a
solenoidal field.
1 P
ui
=
+
R
,
(7)
i
xi (k ) xi
xi t
3
CLSVOF method
Free-slip conditions
In the CLSVOF algorithm, the position of the interface is updated through the level-set equation and the
volume-of-fluid equation. After, the level-set function
and the volume fractions have been updated, we couple
the level-set function to the volume fractions as a part
of the level-set reinitialization step. The level-set reinitialization step replaces the current value of the level-set
function with the exact distance to the VOF reconstructed
interface. At the same time, the VOF reconstructed interface uses the current value of the level-set function to determine the slopes of the piecewise linear reconstructed
interface. For more details of the CLSVOF algorithm, including axisymmetric and three-dimensional implementations, see Sussman & Puckett (2000).
In the finite volume approach, the irregular boundary (i.e. ship hull) is represented in terms of along
with the corresponding area fractions, A, and volume
fractions, V . V = 1 for computational elements fully
outside the body and V = 0 for computational elements
fully inside the body. Once the area and volume fractions
have been calculated, they are used in the Poisson equation for the pressure and in the projection of the velocity
onto a solenoidal field. Through the Poisson equation
and the projection operator, the component of velocity
that is normal to the ship hull is set to zero. This corresponds to imposing free-slip conditions on the hull form.
Details associated with the calculation of the area and
volume fractions are provided in Sussman & Dommermuth (2001) along with additional references.
The boundary condition on the body can also be imposed using an external force field. Based on Dommermuth et al. (1998) and Sussman & Dommermuth (2001),
the distance function representation of the body () is
used to construct a body force in the momentum equations. As constructed, the velocities of the points within
the body are forced to zero. For a body that is fixed in a
free stream, this corresponds to imposing no-slip boundary conditions.
Body-force method
Body forces are used in the momentum equations
(see Equation 3) and the convection equation for the volume fraction (see Equation 2) to force conservation of
flux and mass. For the velocities, a parallel flow with
(u, v, w) = (1, 0, 0) is forced at the entrance and exit.
For the volume fraction, the mean surface elevation is
forced to be zero at the entrance and exit. A similar procedure is used by Iafrati et al. (2001) in their level-set
calculations of two-dimensional breaking waves over a
hydrofoil. The body-force is prescribed as follows:
I NTERFACE C APTURING
Two methods are presented in our work for computing ship flows. Both methods use a front-capturing
type procedure for representing the free surface separating the air and water. The first technique is based
on the Volume-of-Fluid (VOF) method, and the secondtechnique is based on the Coupled volume-of-fluid and
level-set method (CLS).
(13)
where Fo is a force coefficient, vi = (1, 0, 0) is the desired velocity field at the entrance and exit, and T (x) is
a cosine taper that smoothly varies from one at the entrance or exit to zero inboard of the entrance or exit over
a distance Lf . The formulation for the volume fraction
is similar.
VOF method
In our VOF formulation, the free surface is reconstructed from the volume fractions using piece-wise linear polynomials and the advection algorithm is operator
split. The reconstruction is based on algorithms that are
described by Gueyffier, Li, Nadim, Scardovelli & Zaleski (1999). The surface normals are estimated using
weighted central differencing of the volume fractions.
A similar algorithm is described by Pilliod & Puckett
(1997). Work is currently underway to develop a higherorder estimate of the surface normal using a least-squares
procedure. The advection portion of the algorithm is operator split, and it is based on similar algorithms reported
in Puckett, Almgren, Bell, Marcus & Rider (1997).
Hydrostatic-pressure method
At the inflow boundary, the horizontal velocity is set
equal to the free-stream velocity and the normal pressure
gradient is zero. At all other side boundaries, the reduced pressure is zero and the velocity at the boundary
is extrapolated from interior grid cells. In our computations, we use the reduced pressure, Pr . We define
Pr = P ()g(z zo ), where zo is the static freesurface elevation. The resulting Navier-Stokes equations
4
in terms of Pr are
ui
1 Pr
(z zo ) g
ui
+ uj
=
t
xj
xi
xi
(14)
xi
and 0.8. The height of the computational domain above
the mean water line normalized by chord length is 0.2.
The last term is discretized using the same second-order
The leading edge of the strut is located at x = 0 and the
technique used by Sussman (2003a) for the surfacetrailing
edge is located at x = 1. No flux boundary
tension term. The last term gives rise to a jump in the
conditions
are used on the centerplane of the strut (y =
reduced pressure of magnitude (z zo )(1 )g. By
0),
at
the
side
of the computational domain (y = 1.0),
forcing the reduced pressure to be zero at the walls, over
the
bottom
of
the computational domain (z = 0.8),
time, the water level at the walls relaxes to z = zo .
and the top of the domain (z = 0.2). Periodic boundary
conditions are used along the x-axis at x = 0.3725 and
I NITIAL T RANSIENTS
x = 3.6275. The three-dimensional numerical simulations used 512 128 128 = 8, 388, 608 grid points
Since VOF simulations are time accurate, there can
resulting in a grid spacing along each coordinate axis of
be problems with starting transients. As shown by Wexi = 0.0078125. The time step is t = 0.00125, and
hausen (1964) and others, unsteady oscillations can oc3001 time steps have been simulated, which corresponds
cur in the wave resistance, and by implication the surto 3.75 chord lengths. The number of sub domains along
face elevations, due to starting transients. There are also
the x, y, and zaxes are respectively 32, 8, and 8.
starting transients in the buildup of separation and the
512 CRAY T3E processors have been used to perform
boundary layer on the hull, but the viscous time constants
the numerical simulations. Each time step took approxiare significantly shorter than the wave resistance. The
mately 60 seconds per time step.
oscillations in the wave resistance occur at a frequency
Figure 1 compares numerical predictions to experequivalent to Uo /g = 1/4 and decay inversely proporimental
measurements. The numerical predictions are
tional to time. The decay rate is very slow and can lead
shown on the left side of the strut, and the experimental
to solutions that oscillate for relatively long times. This
measurements are shown on the right side of the strut.
can problematic if one is trying to reach steady state and
The color contours indicate the free-surface elevation.
also wants to minimize computer time. For computaRed denotes a wave crest ( = +0.15) and blue denotes
tions presented in this paper, a step function start of the
a wave trough ( = 0.15). In general, the agreement
velocity instantaneously jumping to the free-stream vebetween the numerical simulations and the experimenlocity has always been used. Step function starts are easy
tal measurements is very good. However, there are some
to initiate in the compute code, but they cause relatively
notable differences. For example, the numerical simulalarge transient oscillations. These very strong initial trantions show more fine-scale detail than the experimental
sients tend to weaken after the body has moved 10 body
measurements. This is because the experimental mealengths, but the weaker oscillations as predicted by Wesurements are time-averaged and the numerical simulahausen (1964) are still present. The effects of these trantions show an instantaneous snapshot of the free surface
sients are reduced by time averaging. We note that the
at t = 3.75. We also note that unlike the numerical simoscillations due to the starting transient can be mitigated
ulations, the measuring device that had been used in the
by reducing the severity of the startup from a step funcexperiments is only capable of measuring single-valued
tion to one that is much smoother and slower, which is
free-surface elevations. Another difference between nuan option that is currently being investigated.
merical simulations and experimental measurements occurs away from the strut where the numerical simulations
Results
show edge effects due to the smaller domain size that is
used relative to the actual experiments. Figure 1 illustrates that we are able to model the macro-scale features
NACA 0024 geometry
of the flow associated with the body interacting with the
The NFA code is used to simulate the flow around a
free surface.
surface-piercing vertical strut moving with constant forFigures 2 and 3 show details of the numerical simuward speed. The water plane sections of the strut are
5
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
6
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
7
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
5415 geometry
The length, beam, and draft are respectively 5.72m,
0.388m, and 0.248m. The speed is 6.02 knots. Details
of the hull geometry,including the sinkage and trim, are
provided at http://www50.dt.navy.mil/5415/.
The length, width, and depth of the computational
domain normalized by ship length are respectively 2, 0.5,
and 0.5. The origin of our computational domain is taken
to be the point at which the unperturbed water intersects
the bow of the ship. The x coordinate at inflow is x = 0.5
and at outflow, x = 1.5. The height of the computational domain above the mean free surface normalized by
ship length is z = 0.5. Reduced pressure boundary conditions are used along the sides (y = 0.25) and back of
the computational domain (x = 1.5). The free-stream
velocity is imposed at the leading edge of the computational domain (x = 0.5) with zero pressure gradient.
No flux conditions are used at the top and the bottom of
the domain (z = 0.5). The CLSVOF formulation is
used to capture the free-surface interface. AMR is used
locally near the ship hull and the free surface.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Figure 6: CLSVOF predictions compared to whisker-probe measurements for the 5415. (a) x = 0.044. (b) x = 0.062. (c)
x = 0.080. (d) x = 0.098. (e) x = 0.115. (f) x = 0.133.
9
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
resolution
coarse
medium
fine
grid points
320 128 96 = 3,932,160
480 192 144 = 13,271,040
640 256 192 = 31,457,280
resolution
coarse
medium
fine
grid spacing
0.00625
0.004166
0.003125
sub-domains
20 8 6 = 960
30 12 9 = 3240
40 16 12 = 7680
processors
120
270
320
Wedge geometry
The length and draft of the wedge geometry are respectively 35 and 3.5 feet. The entrance angle is 20 degrees. The speed is 6.0 knots. The Froude number is
Fr = 0.3021. The wedge geometry has a full bow based
on the Revelle hull form, and a narrow stern, based on
the bow of the Athena hull form. This enabled the model
to be towed in two different directions to investigate the
effects of fullness on the bow wave. Details of wedge geometry and the towing experiments are provided in Karion et al. (2003).
The rms surface fluctuations for each grid resolution are shown in Figure 8. The color contours indicate
the magnitude of the free-surface fluctuations. Red denotes the maximum rms fluctuations (
= 0.011), and
blue indicates regions where there are no fluctuations.
The rms fluctuations are calculated by taking the square
root of the variance of the vertical offset where the phase
changes from air to water. The regions where phase
changes occur include droplets of fluid above the mean
position of the free surface and bubbles of air beneath
the mean position of the free surface. The statistics are
calculated from t = 4 to t = 6. A histogram analysis indicates that phase changes are dominated by smallscale fluctuations on the mean position of the free surface. This corresponds to roughening of the free surface.
The greatest fluctuations in the free-surface elevation occur along the centerline of the wedge, in the flow separation region behind the corner of the wedge, and along
the front face of the bow wave. Comparisons of coarse,
medium, and fine resolutions show that fluctuations increase as the grid resolution increases. Interestingly, the
finest resolution simulation shows that the rms fluctuations increase in extent slightly off of the center plane on
the front face of the bow wave. Based on photographs
of the experiments (Karion et al. 2003), this is a region
Three different grid resolutions are used, corresponding to coarse, medium, and fine grid resolutions.
The details with respect to grid resolution are provided in
Table 1. The finest resolution is twice that of the coarsest.
The finest grid resolution is 0.003125 ship lengths. This
would correspond to 31cm for a 100m ship. In order to
resolve large-scale features associated with spray formation and air entrainment, we believe that grid resolutions
less than 10cm are required. Details of the domain decomposition are provided in Table 2, and the cpu time
per time step for each grid resolution are provided in Table 3. Based on these two tables, it can be shown that
the cpu time scales linearly with respect to the number of
grid points and the number of processors. The numerical
simulations have been run for 3001 time steps. The time
step for each simulation is t = 0.002.
10
The mean free-surface elevation for each grid resolution compared to laboratory measurements are shown
in Figure 9. Numerical predictions are plotted in the top
portion of each graph. Quantitative Visualization (QViz)
measurements are plotted in the bottom portion of each
graph. QViz uses a laser sheet to illuminate the free
surface. A video camera is used to capture snapshots,
which are then digitally processed. Additional details
of the QViz measurements are provided in Karion et al.
(2003). The color contours indicate the free-surface elevation. Red denotes a wave crest ( = +0.035), and
blue denotes a wave trough ( = 0.035). As before,
the mean position of the free surface is calculated from
the volume fraction averaged over time from t = 4
to t = 6. For these figures, 0.687 x 0.284
and 0.21 y 0.21. The correlation coefficients
between the measurements and the predictions for the
coarse, medium, and fine simulations are respectively
0.951, 0.954, and 0.957. Since the QViz instrument measures from the top down, we also consider the correlation
between the experimental data and the predictions of the
mean plus the rms fluctuations. In this case, the correlations improve to 0.950, 0.958, and 0.960 for respectively
the coarse, medium, and fine simulations.
Conclusions
With sufficient resolution, interface capturing methods
are capable of modelling the formation of spray and
the entrainment of air. Based on comparisons to other
VOF formulations that are not reported here, secondorder-accurate formulations such as those used in the
NFA and CLSVOF codes are desirable because firstorder schemes tend to inhibit wave breaking. A major benefit of our cartesian-grid formulations relative to
body-fitted formulations is that second-order VOF formulations are easier to develop.
second-order VOF formulation, a key issue is mass conservation and surface reconstruction along boundaries
where grid resolution changes. Various methods are
also being investigated to reduce initial transients. One
method slowly ramps up the free-stream velocity, which
is similar to how a towing-tank carriage operates. We are
also continuing development of techniques for processing VOF datasets to improve understanding and modelling of wave breaking.
Acknowledgements
This research is supported by ONR under contract numbers N00014-04-C-0097 and N00014-02-C-0432. Dr.
Patrick Purtell is the program manager. The second author is supported in part by the NSF Division of Mathematical Sciences under award number DMS 0108672
with Thomas Fogwell as program manager and by ONR
under contract number N00014-02-C-0543 with Judah
Goldwasser as program manager. The numerical simulations have been performed on the Cray T3E at the U.S.
Army Engineering Research and Development Center.
Figure 9: Comparisons to QViz Measurements for Wedge Geometry. (a) Coarse. (b) Medium (c) Fine.
References
Colella, P., Graves, D., Modiano, D., Puckett, E., & Sussman,
M., An embedded boundary / volume of fluid method
for free-surface flows in irregular geometries,
Proceedings of FEDSM99, 3rd ASME/JSME Joint
Fluids Engineering Conference, 1999.
Dommermuth, D., Innis, G., Luth, T., Novikov, E., Schlageter,
E., & Talcott, J., Numerical simulation of bow waves,
Proceedings of the 22nd Symposium on Naval
Hydrodynamics, Washington, D.C., 1998, pp. 508521.
Goldstein, D., Handler, R., & Sirovich, L., Modeling a no-slip
boundary with an external force field, J. Comp. Phys.,
Vol. 105, 1993, pp. 354366.
Gueyffier, D., Li, J., Nadim, A., Scardovelli, R., & Zaleski, S.,
Volume-of-fluid interface tracking with smoothed
surface stress methods for three-dimensional flows, J.
Comp. Phys., Vol. 152, 1999, pp. 423456.
Iafrati, A., Olivieri, A., Pistani, F., & Campana, E., Numerical
and experimental study of the wave breaking generated
by a submerged hydrofoil, Proceedings of the 23rd
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Nantes, France,
2001, pp. 746761.
Karion, A., Waniewski-Sur, T., Fu, T., Furey, D., Rice, J., &
Walker, D., Experimental study of the bow wave of a
large towed wedge, Proceedings of the 8th International
Conference on Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics, Busan,
Korea, 2003.
12
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
13
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
DISCUSSION
Joseph Gorski
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
The Cartesian based grid strategy the
authors present looks very attractive both from the
ability to quickly generate grids as well as the
improved accuracy possible for computing the free
surface.
Since no additional gridding beyond
potential flow methods is required have the authors
investigated how well the approach works for
predicting the boundary layer flow near a ship, which
can influence the wave field at the stern?
Also,
have the authors made a direct comparison of the two
methods, VOF and CLSVOF, or have any indication
that one may be better than the other?
AUTHORS REPLY
Thank you Joe for your comments.
As
formulated, our Cartesian grid method will not
resolve boundary layers along the hull. At the stem,
where turbulent break up is apt to occur, we would
have to incorporate a model into our formulation.
However, at the stern where there is a clean
separation, our formulation is adequate.
We are
currently in the process of comparing the merits of
VOF and CLSVOF.
DISCUSSION
Alessandro Iafrati
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale, Italy
First of all, the authors should be
congratulated on producing such large amount of
results. I have two questions. The first one concerns
the entrance and exit boundary conditions: the model
you adopted to enforce a parallel uniform flow with
zero free surface elevation at entrance and exit looks
rather efficient. I wonder if you could give more
details about it. My second question concerns the
comparison between numerical and experimental
results shown on figures 1 and 2 of your paper: timeaveraged experimental measurements display
longitudinal striations which are not so evident from
the numerical results. Maybe, this is because the
latter are just instantaneous snapshot. Did you try to
establish the same comparison by using timeaveraged free surface profiles also for the numerical
data?
AUTHORS REPLY
Thank you Alessandro for your comments.
We force a uniform stream at the entrance and exit.
The x-component of velocity is set equal to negative
one, and the y- and z-components of velocity are set
equal to zero. The free-surface elevation is set equal
to its still-water level. The nature of the forcing is
very similar to the forcing that you have formulated
in your own research studies as noted in our paper.
In regard to our comparisons with experiments, we
have discussed this matter with experimentalists who
indicate that the capacitance wave probes that were
used in the experiments are prone to drift. This may
explain the striations that are observed in the
experiments.
DISCUSSION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Kelli Hendrickson
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA
Firstly, I would like to thank the authors for
their work. All of them have contributed greatly to
the field of numerical Naval Hydrodynamics and this
work is an example of their continuing effort to delve
into the complex nature of even simulating high
Froude number flows about surface ships, much less
improve our understanding of the phenomena of
wave breaking, spray formation and air entrainment.
I have questions regarding both the
numerical method and comparisons with
experiments, so please bear with me if they appear
too detailed for this venue.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
AUTHORS REPLY
Thank you Kelli for your comments. We
address your questions point by point.
DISCUSSION
Stephen Scorpio
Johns Hopkins University, USA
I would like to thank the authors for an
excellent paper. What are your ideas for validating
the fine scale structure (e.g. ejection of water
droplets, air entrainment and free surface
fluctuations) predicted by your model?
AUTHORS REPLY
Thank you Steve for your comments. A
range of instruments are currently being developed to
capture the fine-scale structure that is present in ship
flows. In addition, different methods for processing
existing datasets are also being developed to capture
unsteady effects.
a)
Figure 3: The R/V Athena I traveling at +10 m/s.
details for the R/V Athena are listed in Table 1.
More
information
can
be
found
at
www.code50.nswccd.navy.mil.
b)
Figure 1: a) Breaking wave over a submerged
hydrofoil, U=2.6m/s, chord=1.8m, depth of
submergence =1.8m, b) Flow behind the DDG-67,
USS Cole, U=10.3m/s.
a)
b)
Figure 2: Images of the bow wave of the DDG-67
USS Cole at 20 knots, a) bow on and b) side view.
Note the fluid sheet curl over characteristic of a
plunging breaker.
Length Overall
50.3 m
Length Waterline
47.0 m
Extreme Beam
7.3 m
Draft
3.2 m
Propulsion
Twin screw,
Twin diesel (low speed)
Gas Turbine, (high
speed)
Speed
Camera 1
Camera 3
Spatial
Reference
Camera 2
a)
Camera 3
Spatial
Reference
Laser Sheet
Camera 2
Camera 1
b)
Figure 4: Image of the QViz set-up showing the 3
cameras and the spatial reference.
SPEED
Speed (m/s)
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
Time (sec)
120.0
ROLL
Roll (deg)
4.0
2.0
0.0
-2.0
-4.0
40.0
60.0
120.0
PITCH
2.0
Pitch (deg)
80.0
100.0
Time (sec)
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
Time (sec)
120.0
Heading (deg)
HEADING
360
330
300
270
240
210
180
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
Time (sec)
120.0
a)
b)
c)
d)
c)
e)
Figure 7: Successive QViz images t =1/30th second, U=4.6 m/s and x=5.9 m from the bow stem.
RESULTS
A sample of successive frames with the extracted
edge superimposed in red, for U=4.6 m/s at an axial
location 5.9 m from the bow stem are shown in
Figure 7. Note the wave crest amplitude changes by
approximately 0.15 m in ~ 1/6th of a second. To
characterize this unsteadiness of the free-surface
profiles, the mean and the standard deviation for each
speed and location were computed. Figure 8 shows
these mean profiles in red and the standard deviation
in blue for speeds of 4.6, 5.4, and 6.2 m/s at the same
axial location and the same general heading
As noted above 1800 individual profiles
were collected per run. At least two runs were
performed for each speed and axial position.
Comparing mean free-surface profiles for the same
location, for two separate runs, it was observed that
two mean profiles were very similar. The most
obvious difference was a slight amplitude offset, due
to a slight difference in speed. This difference was
much smaller than the unsteady fluctuations of the
instantaneous profile, where the difference between
runs was approximately 2 cm and the range of the
unsteady fluctuations was around 15 cm, so the large
fluctuations are not due to the way the ship is
operated, i.e. variations in speed or ship motions
while recording a data set.
Though the ambient conditions were very
calm, with only a slight wind chop from a 3.5 to 5.5
m/s breeze, there is still a great deal of fluctuation in
the free-surface elevation. Data for a given speed
was acquired at two headings, roughly equivalent to
head and following sea conditions. The effect of
heading on the breaking bow wave can be seen in
Figure 9. Figure 9 shows the average free-surface
profile for an axial position 5.3 m aft of the bow stem
for two successive runs at opposite headings. The
shape of the profile is markedly different. One can
see that on the southward run (red, heading = 255
deg.), which would be nominally a head seas
condition, the wave is smaller and the peak of the
profile is farther from the ship, than is the northbound
case (blue, heading = 65 deg.)). This difference is
not due to the direction of the swell, because there
was minimal swell present, but mostly due to the fact
that the wind direction is slightly off of the ships
track. The wind came out of nominally 30 degrees.
The QViz instrumentation was mounted on the port
side of the ship. So the system would then be on the
windward side on northbound runs and on the
leeward side during southbound runs. The slight
difference in speed through the water, due to the
currents in the bay should also be noted. This effect
a) U=6.2 m/s
b) U=5.4 m/s
c) U=4.6 m/s
Figure 8: Mean surface profiles (red) and standard
deviation (blue) for a) 6.2 m/s, b) 5.4 m/s, and c) 4.6
m/s, at an axial position 5.9 m aft of the bow stem.
DISCUSSION
Figures 8 shows that the standard deviation in
amplitude of the profiles is only weekly dependent
upon speed. The magnitude of the variability was on
the order of 0.15 m. Because the magnitude of the
fluctuations was for a large part independent of speed
that would lead one to believe that ambient
conditions may be causing this variability. Looking
at the tail ends of the profiles away from the crest of
the bow wave the range of fluctuations is on the order
of 0.1 m. This is similar to the difference seen in
Figure 9. It may very well be that the wind chop
present was on the order of 0.1 m in amplitude and a
great deal of the variability present is due to the wind.
A more systematic assessment of the ambient seas
surface conditions has not been made to date. Video
and analysis of portions of the images further from
the ship would also help in characterizing the
ambient seas.
The objective of the test was to obtain
detailed free-surface measurements of the bow wave
of a full-scale ship. Data was taken in as calm as
possible field conditions to allow for comparison to
tow tank data.
Looking more closely at the
differences between field and tow tank conditions,
Figure 11 shows the time-averaged wave profile for
the Athena and for a large wedge model towed at the
same speed (4.6 m/s) and nominally the same axial
position. The wedge model is large (5 ft draft, 7 ft
max beam) and flared with a 20-degree entry angle,
making it generally similar to the R/V Athena. A
detailed description of the geometry is found in
Karion et al (2003). Figure 11 shows that the
DISCUSSION
Dane M. Hendrix
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
The difficulty in obtaining these detailed
measurements in the field for conditions that are of
practical interest and over extents likely to be helpful
to modellers is tremendous. I would like to thank the
authors for a very interesting paper and encourage
them to continue to examine the details of this data to
improve our understanding of the factors that control
the characteristics of breaking wave flows.
One question I have concerns the rather
dramatic difference due to ships heading shown in
Figure 9. I note that the ship speed and the wind
speed are roughly equal and that your heading is
nearly down wind. Do you think it likely that the
down wind pass is a condition where the ship is
moving in phase with the wind generated waves?
There might be a steady wave pattern around the ship
that is dependent on this particular condition and may
account for the difference in the average wave profile
observed.
AUTHORS REPLY
This is certainly possible and something we
will be looking at as we get further into the analysis.
The wind generated waves were minimal due to the
small fetch in the bay, but nonetheless, there was an
observable wind generated chop.
DISCUSSION
Dane M. Hendrix
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
My
second
question
concerns
a
characteristic of the flow that you may not have yet
had time to analyze in detail. In Figure 11, you show
that the average profile is much more variable for the
at-sea test than for the tow tank large bow wedge.
How would you compare the surface roughness of
the bow wave observed on Athena and on the large
bow wedge at the same speed at an instant in time?
AUTHORS REPLY
We have begun to look more in depth at the
rms fluctuations of the free-surface elevations
between the at-sea and tow tank data. We are
planning to compare the roughness spectra from the
two tests. We do observe increased variability in the
DISCUSSION
Stephen M. Scorpio
Johns Hopkins University, USA
Does QViz require the presence of droplets
or bubbles to visualize the free surface?
AUTHORS REPLY
QViz does not require droplets or bubbles,
but it does require sufficient surface roughness to
spectrally scatter enough light that the surface can be
detected from the recorded images. This has not
been an issue in the field, but it does require the QViz
images be recorded at night. In the lab, we use
fluorescing dye to mark the free-surface when there
is insufficient scattering.
DISCUSSION
Patrick Purtell
Office of Naval Research, USA
What is the effect of surface roughness since
the fluctuations occur both in the tank and at sea?
AUTHORS REPLY
The surface roughness observed in the tank
is associated with the turbulence from the breaking
bow wave and some residual disturbance from the
previous run. The surface roughness seen in the field
is due to both the breaking wave turbulence and with
ambient roughness from wind driven chop and
ambient waves. We have made full-scale laboratory
measurements of the small scale roughness generated
by wind and see a significant increase in spectral
content at the wavenumbers associated with surface
roughness. The surface roughness does not seem to
alter the time averaged wave fields, but we will
continue our analysis and attempt to quantify or at
least identify the affects of the ambient conditions on
bow wave breaking.
DISCUSSION
Richard Lahey, Jr.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, USA
Is it not possible to also measure the
velocity, turbulence and void fraction fields using
existing instrumentation (e.g., ). These type of salt
water data are badly needed by modelers.
AUTHORS REPLY
It is certainly possible to measure velocity,
turbulence and void fraction with existing
instrumentation at least at discreet points. Velocity
and turbulence can be measured with Acoustic
Doppler Velocimetry (ADV) probes in the lower void
fraction regions. And Eric Terrill at the Scripps
Institution on Oceanography, UCSD, did make void
fraction measurements of the transom flow region
during the May 2004, Athena effort, and Mory
Gharib, of the California Institute of Technology also
measured bubble size and velocity distributions. So
while it is certainly possible to measure velocity,
turbulence, and void fraction to go along with the
free-surface elevation and surface roughness, we
have not yet attempted to obtain a detailed
comprehensive salt water data set of all these
quantities for the same breaking wave feature. That
canonical data set is indeed one of the goals of the
field work and the authors do thank the modelers for
their encouragement and support.
DISCUSSION
Leonard Imas
Stevens Institute of Technology, USA
This paper describes a study in which fullscale wave breaking around a surface ship was
investigated. What makes this work unique is that
very little full-scale data on this phenomenon is
available in published literature. Congratulations
should be extended to the authors for undertaking an
experiment of this magnitude, especially one where
quantitative
measurements
were
obtained
successfully. A few comments on the discussion
presented in the paper:
1) On page 1, the authors present the different
speeds at which Athena was run vs. those at
which the wedge experiment was run. While
some of these are the same, in terms of scaling
they represent different Froude, Reynolds, and
Weber number combinations. It would have been
more useful to make these comparison using
these nondimensional parameters (using draft as
the length scale) rather than absolute speeds.
AUTHORS REPLY
The intent was to focus on the field
measurements and only make initial observational
comments on the comparison of the data to the wedge
experiment data. We will indeed carry out the kind of
specific analysis Len mentions. In fact, the draft at
the bow of the R/V Athena I is only 1.55m which is
very close to one of the three wedge drafts (1.5m,
1.1m, and 0.6m), so direct comparison and scaled
comparisons can be made.
DISCUSSION
Leonard Imas
Stevens Institute of Technology, USA
2) On page 4, there is a discussion regarding
characterization of near surface currents. It
should be noted that this is not a trivial task due
to the unsteady nature of Gulf of Mexico surface
currents near the free-surface. Much work has
been carried out in investigating this subject by
the off-shore petroleum industry in the framework of VIV problems.
AUTHORS REPLY
This has indeed been more complicated than
first anticipated. The data was taken in St. Andrews
DISCUSSION
Tricia Waniewski Sur
Science Applications International Corporation, USA
DISCUSSION
1.
3.
AUTHORS REPLY
AUTHORS REPLY
This has been done and is in the final
version of the paper.
DISCUSSION
Tricia Waniewski Sur
Science Applications International Corporation, USA
2.
AUTHORS REPLY
The primary difference in the appearance is
the stability of the white bubbly region in saltwater.
This is due to differences in surface tension. The
smaller bubble size certainly contributes to the
bubble stability, but the visual differences I am
referring to are not differences in the appearance of
the white water regions, but the fact there are larger
areas of whitewater due to the differences in surface
tension.
ABSTRACT
CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) methods for
solving Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes equations
are being used as a design tool in various fields of fluid
engineering. However, there remain many problems
which are not easily analyzed by standard CFD methods. Wave breaking which often appears in free surface
flows around an advancing ship is one of such examples. Its simulations are difficult because of the underlying complicated physics such as interface topology change, air-water interaction or energy dissipation.
Yet, analysis of wave breaking is of great importance
in ship hydrodynamics, since the wave breaking resistance plays a significant role in propulsive performance
of a certain class of ships. Therefore, it is desirable that
CFD methods for ship design have capability to simulate breaking waves. In this paper, the capability of the
up-to-date unstructured Navier-Stokes method which
is under development at National Maritime Research
Institute, Japan is examined for breaking wave simulations around a ship model. The method employs an
interface capturing scheme for free surface treatment
and it is expected that it can cope with large deformation of free surface shape.
INTRODUCTION
CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) methods
have reached the stage in which they are used as a design tool in various fluid engineering fields. However,
there remain many problems which are not easily analyzed by standard CFD methods.
Wave breaking often appears in free surface flows
around an advancing ship is one of such examples. Its
simulation is difficult due to the underlying complicated physics such as interface topology change, twophase flow interaction or energy dissipation. Analysis
of wave breaking, on the other hand, is of great importance in ship hydrodynamics, since wave breaking
resistance plays a significant role in propulsive performance of a certain class of ships. Therefore, it is desirable that CFD methods for ship design have capability
to simulate breaking waves.
In this paper, the capability of the up-to-date CFD
method which is under development at National Maritime Research Institute, Japan is examined by the
NUMERICAL PROCEDURE
Flow Solver
The flow solver used in this study is called SURF
(Solution algorithm for Unstructured RaNS with
FVM). It is under development toward a practical ship
design tool. The governing equations are the threedimensional Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes equations for incompressible flows. In order to couple pressure with a velocity field, artificial compressibility is
introduced into the continuity equation with expense
of time accuracy, which means that the present formulation is for a steady state solution. The final form can
be written as follows:
q (e ev ) (f f v ) (g g v )
+
+
+
=0
t
x
y
z
(1)
and
q = [ p u v w ]T
In the above expressions all the variables are made dimensionless using the reference density 0 , velocity
U0 and length L 0 . Pressure p is modified as
p = p +
z
F2
where p is
the original pressure and F is the Froude
number, U/ gL0 , with z being the vertical coordinate. By this modification of pressure, the gravitational acceleration term can be dropped from the zmomentum equations. The velocity components in the
(x, y, z) direction is expressed as (u, v, w).
The inviscid fluxes e, f and g are defined as
u
v
w
u2 + p
vu
wu
e=
uv , f = v 2 + p , g = wv
w2 + p
uw
vw
0
0
0
xx
v
xy v zx
ev =
xy , f = yy , g = yz
zx
yz
zz
where
ij = (
DH
H
H
H
H
=
+u
+v
+w
=0
Dt
t
x
y
z
(2)
in water
>0
=0
on the interface
(3)
<0
in air
1
ui
uj
+ t )(
+
)
R
xj
xi
=
+u
+v
+w
=0
Dt
t
x
y
z
(4)
if d > 1
1
d
if |d| 1
=
(5)
1
if d < 1
Thus, the level set function is localized within the
bandwidth 21 from the interface. The transport equation (4) is also modified as
+ C() u
+v
+w
= 0 (6)
t
x
y
z
where C() is the cut-off function defined as
C() =
(|| )2 (2|| + 3 )
2
2
1
3
)
2
1
if || 1
if 1 < || 2
if || < 2
(7)
from the cell centered values with the second order accuracy in the physical space. The gradient of at the
cell center used in the extrapolation above is obtained
by the least squares method. Furthermore, when a cell
face is quadrilateral, the face is divided into two triangles and the one point quadrature is used for each
triangle, which guarantees the second order accuracy
in the physical space. The time integration is carried
out by the Euler backward scheme as in the same way
as for the momentum equations.
In order to avoid reflection of free surface waves in
the outer boundaries of a computational domain, the
wave damping method (Hino, 1999) is used.
There is a singular behavior of the interface in the
region close to a solid wall. The no-slip condition imposed on a solid wall prevents the interface movement
there, while the interface in the outer region moves due
to the fluid motion. It causes the unphysical large deformation of near a solid wall. The extrapolation
approach is employed here to remove this problem, in
which the value of for the cells close to the wall is
extrapolated from the outer cell. The selection of outer
cells on unstructured grids also needs special attention
(Hino, 1999).
The re-initialization of the level set is an important
step in the level set method, since the level set function
is no longer a distance function after the convection.
The re-initialization process can be done using the partial differential equation as in Sussman et al, 1994 or
Peng et al, 1999.
Flow Variable Extrapolation
i
+ C(i )
(i+j)/2 U(i+j)/2 = 0
t
j
Since most of ship hydrodynamics applications require a flow field of water region only, one-phase flow
approach is used, i.e., flow variables in the air region are extrapolated from a water region in such a
way that the dynamic condition on free surface boundary is satisfied. This method also has an advantage that it is not necessary to cope with large density difference between air and water. At this point,
the present method differs from the original level set
method(Sussman et al, 1994) where two-phase flow
approach is employed.
The dynamic free surface conditions can be approximated by the following two conditions. First, the velocity gradients normal to the free surface are zero.
Second, the pressure on the free surface is equal to atmospheric pressure. In order to satisfy the first condition, the velocity components are extrapolated in
the direction normal to the interface. Following the
localized level set method (Peng et al, 1999), this is
achieved by solving the following equation in the air
(8)
where
U(i+j)/2 ui Sx,(i+j)/2 + vi Sy,(i+j)/2 + wi Sz,(i+j)/2
Vi is the cell volume and j is the neighbor cells of the
cell i. The subscript (i + j)/2 denotes the cell face
between the cells i and j and (S x , Sy , Sz ) are the area
vectors of the cell face. Special care should be taken
in the construction of the flux (i+j)/2 U(i+j)/2 . When
the flow is uniform and parallel to the flat interface,
the flat interface should be preserved. To achieve this,
(i+j)/2 , the value of on the cell face, is extrapolated
Free Surface
| i |
C
A
| j |
J
q = 0
||
(9)
h
on the free surface
F2
(10)
(zc /F 2 )(|i | + |j |) pj |i |
|j |
where
zc =
y/L
0.15000
0.15000
0.15000
0.14935
0.14694
0.14166
0.13346
0.12223
0.10771
0.089610
0.067359
0.037416
0.00000
A ship model used is called SRI-BBM (Ship Research Institute- Blunt Bow Model) which is designed
for investigation of wave breaking around a blunt
bow of simple geometry. Flow field measurements
for this model have been carried out at Ship Research Institute (currently, National Maritime Research
Institute)(Hinatsu et al, 2001). Fig.2 shows the geometry of the model whose length, width and draft are
2.0m, 0.6m and 0.6m, respectively. The waterline
shape is a semi-circle of radius r/L = 0.15 at the
bow followed by a parallel part of a half ship length
and a smooth curve to the stern-end. Waterline coordinates are shown in Table 1. The hull shape is wallsided down to z/L = 0.15 and the remaining part
is a lower-half of a body of revolution with the profile
being same as the waterline.
Fig.3 shows the views of the computational grid.
Since the geometry is simple, the grid is generated as
a structured grid of O-O topology and the data structure is converted into the unstructured grid format. The
number of cells are 128 68 80 in the streamwise,
girth and normal directions. The grid points are clustered to the body surface and are densely distributed
in the interface region. A solution domain is on the
port side of the ship assuming symmetry of flow field
and its size is 2 x 4, 2.5 y 0 and
2.2 z 0.3, while a ship is placed at 0 x 1.
The averaged spacing adjacent to the solid wall is
3.16 106 .
As a flow condition, Froude number and Reynolds
number, based on a ship length, are set 0.3834 and
|i |zj + |j |zi
|i | + |j |
0.4
0.3
0.2
y/L
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0.00
0.25
0.50
x/L
0.75
1.00
Waterline
0.4
0.3
0.2
z/L
0.1
and wave contours between experiment and simulation. In these figures, it is observed that general features of a wave field have been captured by the present
computation. Bow wave forms an arc-like shape. It
is followed by the steep trough behind it. The second
wave crest is present slightly aft of a midship. However, there are some differences in the details of wave
configurations. A bow wave in the picture shows a turbulent surface due to spilling beaker, while a free surface shape in the computation is smooth except for the
small hump ahead of a bow. The grid resolution may
not be sufficient enough to capture breaking and/or
small-scale turbulent motions. Furthermore, the preset
steady state solution method cannot simulate unsteady
flows properly. The second wave crest in the experiment is breaking with air bubbles, which is also beyond
the capability of the present code which employs onephase flow approach. However, the computed wave
front of the second crest shows discontinuity, which
indicates wave breaking.
The same trend is seen in the comparison of wave
profiles along a ship hull shown in Fig.7. From the
fore-end to the bottom of wave trough, the simulated
wave profile agrees very well with the measured one,
where wave breaking is not present. The second wave
crest with strong breaking is not simulated well, although the weak discontinuity of a free surface shape
can be observed. The computed wave crest height is
smaller than that in the experiment. Note that in the experiment this region is a mixture of water and air as can
be seen in Fig.5, while in the computation flow field is
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0.00
0.25
0.50
x/L
0.75
1.00
Profile
Figure 2: Geometry of ship model.
3.4 106 , which corresponds to the experimental condition.
Flow Field Solution
Computation continued up to 3,000 iteration steps
with the CFL number of 5. At this stage, the resistance
and the number of cells within water still show fluctuations with the iteration step. Since the actual flow field
is unsteady due to strong wave breaking, it is reasonable that the present steady state solution method failed
to get convergence. In the following, the snapshot flow
data at 3,000-th step is analyzed to examine the capability of the present method. Time accurate simulation
is underway and the result will be presented in the presentation.
Fig.4 shows hull surface pressure and velocity vectors on a center plane together with wave profile.
Figs.5 and 6 shows the comparison of wave patterns
Measured
Y/L
0.25
-0.25
-0.5
0.25
0.5
0.75
X/L
Computed
h/L
Measured
Computed
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
X/L
Experiment
Z
Y
Simulation
Figure 5: Comparison of wave patterns.
0.4
0.05
0.2
z/L
0.0
Plane A
-0.05
-0.2
Plane B
r/L
-0.1
-0.4
-0.25
-0.15
0.00
0.25
x/L
0.50
0.75
1.00
-0.2
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.2
0.1
Z/L
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
X/L
Measured
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The capability of the up-to-date CFD method which
is under development at National Maritime Research
Institute has been examined by the comparison of computed and measured flow field data for a ship model
with a blunt bow.
In general, wave breaking is not simulated well
by the present method, although the simulated flow
field agrees reasonably well with the experimental one
where wave breaking is not present and the breaking in
the midship region is captured to some extent.
Poor grid resolution in the interface region may be
one reason for this discrepancy. However, there seem
to be more subtle limitations in the present method
for simulating breaking waves . Steady-state solution methods like the present method may not simulate
breaking waves which are essentially unsteady. Twophase flow approach may be necessary for simulations
of strong wave breaking. Especially if the air trap plays
0.2
0.1
Z/L
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
X/L
Computed
Figure 9: Comparison of pressure distribution on a
ship hull. Contour interval Cp is 0.1.
in Fig.10 are compared in Figs.11 and 12. On the
center plane (Plane A), the wave profile in the experiment is less steep than in the computation and the
PLANE A
0.12
0.1
0.08
Z/L
0.06
0.04
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
0.02
0
-0.02
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
X/L
Measured
0.12
REFERENCES
0.1
0.08
Z/L
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
-0.02
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
X/L
Computed
Sussman, M., Smereka, P. and Osher, S., A Level Set Approach for Computing Solutions to Incompressible TwoPhase Flow, J. Comput. Phys., Vol.114, 1994, pp.146159.
Z/L
0.1
Hino, T., A 3D Unstructured Grid Method for Incompressible Viscous Flows, J. of the Soc. Naval Archit.
Japan, Vol.182, 1977, pp.9 15.
0.05
-0.2
-0.1
R/L
Measured
Z/L
0.1
Spalart, P.R. and Allmaras, S.R., A One-Equation Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic Flows, La Recherche
Aerospatiale, No.1, 1994, pp.5 21.
0.05
-0.2
-0.1
R/L
Computed
DISCUSSION
Arthur Reed
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
The author notes discrepancies between the
waves ahead of the bow by computation and
measurement. I note that the computations fail to
capture the stagnation flow ahead of the bow. This is
seen in the experiments as a predominantly vertical
flow on the centerline immediately ahead of the bow.
Stagnation flow is a steady phenomena that should be
captured by the computations, even with a simple
free surface breaking code. An examination of why
the stagnation flow is not captured might help to
resolve the differences between the computations and
experiments.
AUTHORS REPLY
Fig. A1 shows the computed streamlines in
the center plane in front of the bow. The present
computation captures the feature of the stagnation
flow although the computed stagnation point is
higher than the experimental one. In Fig.A2, the
front views of the surface pressure distributions are
compared between the computation and the
measurement. Again, the high (stagnation) pressure
zone in the computation is located higher than in the
measurement. This difference is most likely due to
the poor grid resolution in the vertical direction,
although the verification is needed.
0.08
Z/L
0.06
0.04
-0.1
-0.05
X/L
Measured
Computed
0.04
Z/L
0.02
0
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
-0.1
-0.12
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
X/L
I NTRODUCTION
Bow wave dynamics have been the subject of analytical,
experimental,
and numerical
research
in
the
past
(including
Ogilvie (1972), Miyata and Inui (1984), Wyatt (2000),
Roth, et al. (1999),
Waniewski, et al. (2002),
and
others).
At present, a large variety of computational methods exists for modeling freesurface flows near surface ships (Wyatt (2000),
Sussman and Dommermuth (2001), and many others).
As numerical methods have grown more sophisticated,
developers have begun to attempt to model the breaking
bow wave. Experimental data in this breaking region
is needed for validation of these advanced numerical
techniques. While previous experiments have also investigated bow waves (Ogilvie (1972), Roth, et al. (1999),
Miyata and Inui (1984), Waniewski, et al. (2002)), most
were conducted with smaller models and did not exhibit
Figure 1: Diagram of wedge model with dimensions (in meters). The fine bow is on the right in the figure, and the full bow
on the left.
D (m)
0.6
0.6
1.1
1.1
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
U (m/s)
2.0
2.9
2.6
3.9
2.0
3.1
3.9
4.6
Fr
0.8
1.2
0.8
1.2
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.2
was towed with the fine bow forward, and for the second
part, the model was mounted in the opposite direction
(with the full bow forward). Thus, measurements of the
free surface were made for both configurations. Figure 2
shows an example of the bow wave generated by the full
bow (in the photograph, the model is running from left to
right).
The run conditions are summarized in Table 1
for the fine bow and Table 2 for the full bow. In the
tables, D represents the draft (the immersion depth of the
model, measured from the free surface at zero velocity),
U the towing velocity, and Fr the Froude number. The
Froude number is defined as follows:
U
Fr = ,
gD
D (m)
1.1
1.1
1.1
(1)
U (m/s)
1.7
2.6
3.1
Fr
0.5
0.8
1.0
Digital images from the video camera were collected at 30 frames per second using a National Instruments frame-grabber board and a personal computer. An
image analysis program was developed at NSWCCD
using National Instruments LabView software with the
Image Processing (Vision) toolbox using built-in edgedetection routines to extract the surface profile information. For the present analysis, the breaking region of
each image was analyzed separately, and the resulting
water line determined as a function of time. The image size was 640480 pixels, covering a viewing area
of approximately 1.51.2 meters. Thus the lowest possible uncertainty (approximately 1 pixel) was equal to
0.25 cm. Distortion due to camera placement and viewing angle was corrected using an image of a calibration
grid with equally spaced points and a calibration algorithm in National Instruments LabView IMAQ Vision
software package. The largest error in the system was
introduced by the camera placement and the calibration
method. For example, error in the calibration would result if the grid was not held perfectly square and at the
correct distance relative to the camera. It is estimated
that the total error on the free-surface elevations is 1cm.
However, this is an error affecting the determination of
the absolute location of the free surface. The relative
error in the free-surface measurement from one frame
to the next (affecting the fluctuations of the surface presented here) is much lower, estimated to be at the pixel
error value of 0.25 cm. Future effort to reduce the error
on these types of measurements is focusing on placing
the cameras on automated pan-and-tilt units, so that their
orientation is exactly known, and the calibrations can be
performed in a more controlled environment.
The images collected in this experiment were
taken with an interlaced camera, so that each image was
acquired in two fields, 1/60 of a second apart in time. In
an interlaced image, the first field is composed of the odd
pixel lines and the second the even. For the current analysis, these fields were separated to minimize the blurring
of the moving surface (the shutter speed of the camera
was also at 1/60 second). The effective vertical resolution for each image was thus halved to 240 pixels, and
the number of images doubled. The LabView software
used to perform this separation of the interlaced fields
simply interpolated to regenerate the intermediate pixels. Thus, at each location, the two seconds of data at 30
frames per second, each composed of two fields, resulted
in 120 images for analysis.
An example of an image that has been analyzed
in this way is shown in Figure 4. The red line superimposed on the surface of the wave is the edge that has been
0.6
Fine Bow Wave Profile, D = 1.5 m, FrD = 1.0, U = 3.9 m/s (7.5 kt), X = 2.6 m
0.4
0.26
0.2
z (m)
0.25
0
0.24
z (m)
0.2
0.23
0.4
0.22
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
y (m)
0.8
1.2
0.21
1.4
0.2
0.7
0.75
0.8
y (m)
0.85
0.9
0.95
R ESULTS
D = 1.5 m Fr = 1.0
Surface Fluctuations
The Quantitative Visualization (QViz) data was used to
determine the variation of the free surface with time.
Two seconds of data images were collected at each fixed
laser sheet location; these were analyzed to determine the
fluctuation of the free surface. Surface fluctuations were
determined only on the breaking region of the bow wave;
that is, in the region beginning where the bow sheet first
impinged back onto the free surface. In this area, the
laser light sheet was scattered very effectively due to the
turbulent, multiphase nature of the flow. Therefore, the
region analyzed was that where the image was clearly
and significantly brighter than the surrounding background. The image was thresholded at a high pixel value
that differed based on the condition, but was usually at
an approximate value of 200 out of 255, and then the
edge-detection algorithm was executed to find the topmost edge. Because this region had high contrast levels,
the image processing revealed relatively accurate measurements of the free surface. The non-breaking parts of
the free surface, although previously analyzed in a mean
fashion (Karion, et al. (2003)), were not clear enough for
a frame-by-frame analysis.
0.015
0.01
0.005
raw data
smoothed data
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x (meters from stem)
2.5
0.03
0.025
RMS (m)
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0
0.5
Fr
1.5
0.1
0.08
RMS / Zmax
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0
0.5
FrD
1.5
10
Power density
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
wavenumber (rad / m)
in length, usually ten centimeters or less. The straightsided bow with its rounded leading edge produced a wide
breaking wave, as contrasted with the narrow, plunging
breaker of the fine bow. The reflection of the laser sheet
off of the wide breaking region of the wave provided a
free-surface profile that was long enough to allow for
performing the FFT (see Figure 4).
The resulting wavenumber spectra are shown in
Figure 9 for two different speeds (2.6 m/s and 3.1 m/s)
at two different locations (0.5 m and 0.75 m from the
stem). The draft is 1.1 meters. The wavenumber results
show that the power spectrum at the higher wavenumbers, or shorter wavelengths, does not vary significantly
with Froude number. This result is consistent with
results shown for a two-dimensional spilling breaker
by Walker, et al. (1996). It appears that the two cases
at higher speeds have slightly more energy at lower
wavenumbers than the two cases at lower speeds. However, this phenomenon would need to be studied experimentally in more detail in the future to make a firm conclusion. These somewhat limited results do support the
conclusions of Walker, et al. (1996), however.
Extent of Breaking
The extent of breaking occuring in the bow wave for each
condition was determined from the QViz images. Essentially, for each image, the region in which the laser
reflected very brightly off of the surface was defined as
the breaking area. This was the area in which the laser
reflected off of the multiple air-water interfaces of the
wave. Although this determination is somewhat subjective, it was found that there was a very clear contrast in
Figure 10: Contour plot of free-surface height with the location of breaking superimposed in black. This run is for the fine
bow, and has D = 1.5 m, U = 3.9 m/s (7.5 kt) and Fr = 1.0.
the images between this region and the rest of the free
surface, and effort was made to be consistent. This was
the same region that was used for the surface fluctuation
and surface roughness analyses described above.
Figures 10 and 11 show contour plots of the free
surface with the breaking area, as defined above, superimposed in black, for the fine bow and full bow, respectively. It should be noted here that the contour plots were
also generated using the same laser sheet data, but analyzed in a different manner (see Karion, et al. (2003) for
more contour plots and details regarding this analysis).
The mean width of the breaking region in the direction perpendicular to the hull (i.e., in the plane of the
laser sheet) for the fine bow is shown in Figure 12 as a
function of draft Froude number. Figure 13 includes the
values for the full bow on the same plot, with a new scale.
The breaking width has been normalized by the characteristic length for the wave, U 2 /g. This normalization relates the width of breaking to the wavelength, (2)U 2 /g.
Figure 12 illustrates that the extent of breaking does increase with increasing Froude number, even when normalized, indicating that the fraction of the wavelength
that exhibits rough breaking on the surface is not constant. Figure 13 shows that the hull shape makes a very
significant difference, as the width of the breaking region is much larger for the full bow than for the fine bow.
The extent of breaking for the full bow seems to decrease
from Fr = 0.8 to Fr = 1.0. This may be at least partially
due to a transition in the form of the wave between these
two conditions. The bow wave transitions from a spilling
breaker that breaks violently ahead of the stem (for Fr =
0.8) to a plunging breaker that begins breaking behind
the stem, once the bow sheet impinges on the free surface (for Fr = 1.0).
0.9
0.8
breaking
/ (U /g)
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.5
FrD
1.5
Figure 13: Width of the breaking region for the fine and full
bow, normalized by U 2 /g, as a function of draft Froude number.
Figure 11: Contour plot of free-surface height with the location of breaking superimposed in black. This run is for the full
bow, and has D = 1.1 m, U = 2.6 m/s (5 kt) and Fr = 0.8.
0.15
0.1
breaking
/ (U2/g)
0.05
0
0
0.5
Fr
1.5
Figure 12: Width of the breaking region for the fine bow, normalized by U 2 /g, as a function of draft Froude number.
C ONCLUSIONS
Data from laser-sheet visualization of the bow wave of a
large towed wedge has been analyzed with the goal of understanding features of the turbulent surface of the breaking wave. The large size of the model was necessary to
produce a wave large enough to exhibit characteristics
of waves in the field, such as spray and bubble generation and turbulent, multiphase breaking. The model was
towed at three different drafts, various speeds, and with
two different bow shapes, yielding a unique data set for
comparison with computations.
Three different results are presented that will
aid researchers modeling breaking bow waves. The magnitude of the free-surface fluctuations is presented, serving as a measure related to the turbulent energy of breaking. The surface roughness on the face of the breaking
wave is presented for cases in which the wave was wide
enough to enable a spectrum analysis. The wavenumber
information supports previous work in this area, although
not enough of the data was able to be analyzed to be conclusive. Lastly, the area and location where breaking occurs is shown; the extent of the breaking, normalized by
U 2 /g, increases with draft Froude number and is significantly larger for the straight-sided (full) bow than the
flared (fine) bow. The data and conclusions here can be
used to aid in the development of breaking models in the
future.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research is supported by ONR under contract numbers N0001403WX20225 and N0001403WX20728. Dr.
DISCUSSION
Trish Sur
Science Applications International Corporation, USA
I would like to ask the following questions.
AUTHORS REPLY
1.
AUTHORS REPLY
There are two reasons that data is missing
from the contour maps in Figures 10 and 11. The
first is that the light was shadowed behind the crest of
the wave, keeping the camera from viewing the area
behind the wave crest. The breaking regions were at
the wave crest and were not affected by this
shadowing. The second, the outboard limit to the
measurement area, does however apply to the
breaking areas as well. As the measurement system
and camera moves aft, the crest of the wave moved
out of the cameras field of view.
Visual
observations indicate that often by this point the
rough breaking had dissipated and was spread out
over a wide area, but it is possible that some breaking
roughness was there and not measured. It is not clear
how the breaking regions aft and outboard of the
measurement area would affect the characteristics of
the free surface fluctuations. Figure 6 illustrates that
there is no clear trend in the fluctuations as a function
of distance downstream of the stem. Therefore, there
is no reason to believe that the characteristics of the
breaking region outside the measurement region is
different from those of the region measured (at least
within our accuracy).
DISCUSSION
AUTHORS REPLY
I am not aware of anyone developing
breaking models based on our data (although there
are others who have developed their own models
based on acceleration or slope). However, there are
plans to use this data and other tow-tank data to
generate a breaking model at NSWC Carderock.
REFERENCES
Karion, A., Sur, T. Waniewski, Fu, T.C., Furey,
D.A., Rice, J.R., and Walker, D.C., Experimental
Study of the Bow Wave of a Large Towed Wedge,
Proc. 8th International Conference on Numerical Ship
Hydrodynamics, 2003.
Trish Sur
Science Applications International Corporation, USA
2.
DISCUSSION
Stephen M. Scorpio
Johns Hopkins University, USA
I would like to thank the authors for making
progress on a challenging measurement. Would it be
possible to make a quantitative comparison with
Walkers 2D breaking wave measurements by
measuring surface fluctuations normal to the
breaking wave crest? Walker suggested a model
spectrum where the spectral roll-off was related to
the width of the turbulent plume. Does your data
support this hypothesis?
AUTHORS REPLY
We do not believe it is possible to use the
data from this experiment to quantify the
wavenumber spectrum in the direction perpendicular
to the breaking wave crest. The laser sheet was
oriented perpendicular to the hull itself, and thus the
instantaneous wave profiles are only known in this
direction. Sequential x positions were one inch apart
and could not be used to reconstruct a continuous
surface in any arbitrary direction.
(The second part of this question is
answered in our reply to Dr. Ericsons second
discussion question.)
DISCUSSION
Richard Leighton
General Dynamics, USA
What ancillary measurements were made?
To expand on that, for validation purposes, there are
more robust measurements for comparison. For
example, the pressure along a transverse cut on the
hull. Without a robust and independent baseline
measurement, the detailed comparisons are suspect.
AUTHORS REPLY
Unfortunately, there were no additional
measurements made during this experiment other
than those reported in the given paper and in Karion
et al. (2003). These include laser sheet wave height
data and high-speed video of spray droplets as well as
extensive video.
REFERENCES
Karion, A., Sur, T., etc. 8th International Symposium
on Numerical Hydrodynamics, September 2003.
DISCUSSION
AUTHORS REPLY
Leonard Imas
Stevens Institute of Technology, USA
DISCUSSION
Leonard Imas
Stevens Institute of Technology, USA
3) Regarding Figure 5 (pg. 4), would any additional
information be evident if these results are plotted
as a 3D surface where the axes are z, y, Fr?
Namely, is the behavior self-similar?
AUTHORS REPLY
The wave profiles at a given position are
different enough that a 3D surface plot would not be
appropriate.. However, the following two figures
each show three wave profiles (with standard
deviation bands) at the same position. The first
figure shows profiles at the same Froude number, but
different drafts, and the second shows profiles at
three different Froude numbers but the same draft.
All are quite different.
DISCUSSION
Leonard Imas
Stevens Institute of Technology, USA
2) On page 4, in Figure 5, the standard deviation
curves which are shown are actually timeaveraged. It would be of interest to see how
these curves appear frame by frame over the two
second period for the different Froude numbers
at which the model was tested. Namely, how
much information is removed by performing this
averaging?
AUTHORS REPLY
Unfortunately, the data set from this
experiment only allowed for a wavenumber analysis
of the full bow data at two Froude numbers, 0.8 and
1.0. The figure below illustrates the average wave
number spectrum for each case (averaged over x
location). The figure further illustrates that the
curves differ in the low wavenumber region, but it is
unclear how this effect might change at a different
Froude number condition.
2
10
Fr = 0.8
Fr = 1.0
Power density
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
wavenumber (rad / m)
DISCUSSION
Leonard Imas
Stevens Institute of Technology, USA
5) As the authors point out, surface fluctuations are
important as a measure related to turbulence
energy in breaking. Using this measured quantity
for CFD code validation should prove useful as at
present time, there is limited understanding
about the accuracy of uRANS and LES turbulence
models performance in the breaking wave zone.
6) The surface roughness measurements presented
in Figure 9 essentially indicate that the breaking
wave region is spectrally broad-banded. It would
be useful to produce this curve for a broader
range of Froude numbers, both above and below
1.0. Namely, do the differences in the curves
become larger or smaller at lower wavenumbers?
DISCUSSION
Eric A. Ericson
Johns Hopkins
Laboratory, USA
University
Applied
Physics
AUTHORS REPLY
1) The authors believe that the bow sheet exists for
all the breaking conditions of the fine bow. That
is, the breaking wave generated by the fine bow
was a plunging breaker, characterized by a bow
sheet riding up the side of the hull, overturning,
and impinging back on the free surface. The
current paper only addresses conditions in which
the bow wave was breaking. There were
certainly experimental conditions that did not
exhibit the bow sheet, but they are not
considered to be breaking for the purpose of this
paper, because whitewater was not observed in
the laser sheet. The full bow, in contrast, did not
always exhibit a bow sheet because the bow
wave was sometimes more of a spilling wave
than a plunging wave with a clear bow sheet.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this experimental study is to explore
the physics, surface profiles, flow fields, and bubble
distributions in breaking bow waves of high-speed
ships.
These laboratory experiments must be
performed at relatively large scale and in salt water to
insure that the bubble size distributions are similar to
those in full scale ships. In order create these large
waves, a two-dimensional deformable wave maker is
being used. The profile of the wave maker at each
instant in time (t) is set to match the vertical section of
a ship model at a streamwise location that is a distance
Ut from the stem, where U is the ship model speed.
The wave maker has a draft of 0.91 m and an
equivalent full beam of 2.83 m. It is capable of speeds
that simulate 30 knots full scale speed for a ship with a
draft-to-length ratio of 23.11. The wave maker and
the wave tank are built to be used with salt water. In
this paper, measurements of the profiles of the
breaking bow wave in fresh water are presented for
two cases with equivalent full scale ship speeds of 20
and 25 knots.
INTRODUCTION
Breaking bow waves in the flow around high-speed
ships are of great practical and scientific interest. The
primary goal of the current experiments is to explore
the dynamics of air entrainment by breaking bow
waves and to provide information on the bubble
populations and velocity fields created by these
breakers at positions as far downstream as the stern of
a 3D ship model. In these experiments, two major
issues must be taken into account in order to achieve
realistic bubble populations. First, the breaking bow
waves must be large enough to make the effect of
surface tension small relative to the available kinetic
energy thus allowing the creation of small bubbles,
similar to those created in the large waves of full scale
ships. In order to generate large waves, the ship model
length Fr = U /
Experimental Details
The experiments are being carried out in a wave tank
that is 14.80 m long, 1.15 m wide, and 2.20 m deep
with a water depth of 1.83 m. The 2D+T wave maker
was built to simulate the 5415 model that was used in
tests at the Naval Underwater Warfare Center,
Carderock. (Other ship profiles can be simulated as
well by modifying the computer control software.)
Unfortunately, it is not possible to simulate the bow
bulb in the 2D+T experiments so this feature was
removed from the wave maker profile sequence. The
beam to draft ratio of the 5415 model is 3.11 and the
length to draft ratio is 23.11. The draft of the 2D+T
wave maker is 0.91 m. Thus, the equivalent beam and
length of the 3D model simulated by the 2D+T wave
maker are 2.82 m and 21.03 m, respectively.
A schematic drawing of the wave maker is shown in
Figure 3. The wave maker is powered by four
servomotors, which drive four vertically oriented
shafts. Each shaft drives a toothed pulley, which drives
a tube via a rack-and-pinion-like system. The drive
tubes, in turn, drive horizontally oriented drive plates
Wave board
Servo motors
Keel bar
Figure 4. A photograph of the wave maker in the fully
extended position (midships).
In order to examine the accuracy of the wave maker,
two measurements are shown in Figure 5 and 6. Both
measurements were done at a full scale equivalent ship
speed of 25 knots, Fr= 0.346. The wave maker motion
lasts 2.25 seconds at this equivalent speed. Figure 5
is a plot of the measured horizontal position of each
drive tube versus time along with the desired position
data for each tube taken from horizontal cuts of the
hull of the 5415 model. The drive tube position data
was measured with the linear position sensors used for
feedback for the wave maker control system (see
Figure 3). Note that measured and desired data are in
very close agreement. Figure 6 is a plot of the shape of
the wave board at various times and the shape of the
5415 hull profiles at the corresponding streamwise
positions along the length of the model. The wave
board position measurements were taken from
photographs the wave maker during its extension.
Note the excellent agreement between the two sets of
data with the exception of the bottom of the first
profile where the top of the bulbous bow can be seen in
the 5415 profile data.
Position
sensors
60
Offset (inches)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
High-speed movie
camera
Mirror
Laser ligh
sheet
Profiles near
Mid ship
Carriage moves
with top drive plate
60
50
z(in)
40
1.82 m
30
Water
mixed with
fluorescene
dye
20
10
10
20
30
y(in)
40
50
60
Figure 7.
apparatus.
1.15 m
Results
A sequence of six photographs from a single run with
the wave maker is shown in Figures 8 (a) through 8 (f).
The sequence covers the first 452 ms of the
experimental run. This run has an equivalent full scale
ship speed of 25 knots (Fr = 0.346) and is completed in
2.25 s. The image widths are about 50 cm. In Figure 8
(a), the wave maker has just started to move and the
water surface is nearly flat. The wave board is vertical
at the left side of the image. The bright nearly
horizontal line on the left at the bottom of the image is
the intersection of the light sheet and the water surface.
After 20 ms (Figure 8 (b) the water surface has begun
to rise up the wave board. At t=144 ms, Figure 8 (c),
the water surface has risen much further up the wave
board and a jet directed horizontally to the right is
Figure 8 (e). t = 400 ms. Air can be seen in the jet tip.
20
18
16
Contact line height (cm)
Figure 8 (f). t= 452 ms. The jet begins contact with the
front face of the wave.
Data from image sequences such as the one from
which the samples were taken for Figure 8 are being
processed to obtain the history of the wave crest
profile. A sample data set is shown in Figure 9. The
plot contains about 100 profiles from a run with a 2.25second duration. The time between profiles is 4 ms. It
can be seen that the water surface rises quickly up the
wave board and flattens across the top at about the
same time that a horizontally moving jet is formed.
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Time (seconds)
Figure 10. Contact line height versus time for 2.8second run.
30
Conclusion
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Time (seconds)
Figure 11. Contact line height versus time for 2.25second run.
Another interesting quantity is the horizontal speed of
the jet as shown in Figure 12. Data for both the 2.8second run and the 2.25-second run are shown in the
figure along with the velocity of the top drive tube
which is located 15.24 cm above the undisturbed water
level. The velocities are non-dimensionalized by the
maximum velocity of the top drive tube ( U max ) in
Reference
1.8
Channel 1 velocity, 20 knots
Jet horizontal velocity, 20 knots
Channel 1 velocity, 25 knots
Jet horizontal velocity, 25 knots
1.6
1.4
Velocity/U
1max
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
20
40
60
Time*U1max (inches)
80
100
120
DISCUSSION
Alan Brandt
Johns Hopkins University, USA
Is there an expected scale to the intermittent
fingering noticeable at the leading edge of the
spilling breakers? A scale could be associated with
the eddy structure in the turbulent region.
AUTHORS REPLY
We are planning to rotate the laser light
sheet and camera by 90 degrees about a vertical axis
so that we can measure the surface structures along
the cross stream length of the jet. We agree that there
will probably be a relationship between the dominant
length scale of these surface structures and the length
scales of the turbulent velocity field in cross stream
planes, at least just after jet impact with the front
wave face. However, we are not sure that the PIV
measurements that are planned for the underlying
flow will be sufficient to determine the turbulent
length scales in the cross stream plane. In any case,
we will attempt to address this issue.
DISCUSSION
Richard Lahey, Jr.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, USA
To make good local void fraction
measurements one can use a rake of tubes with quick
closing ball valves at either end. At a given time all
valves are closed capturing the local air volume (i.e.,
void fractions). This device works well in high void
fractions where optical devices wont work. The
authors are encouraged to investigate the use of these
devices.
AUTHORS REPLY
Thank you for your interesting suggestion.
We will explore the possibility of this measurement
technique. Though we can see the advantages of this
measurement technique in statistically stationary twophase flows, we will need to address difficulties
caused by the fact that in the breaking wave the highvoid fraction zone is in a region of space that is
initially above the mean water level in the tank and
the high-void fraction zone is moving rapidly in
laboratory coordinates.
INTRODUCTION
Interest in sprays arises from many practical applications related to power, propulsion, heat exchange,
and material processing. There are also natural occurrences of sprays. A recent review of the science and
technology of droplets and sprays may be found in Sirignano (1999). Experimental investigations have been and
continue to be useful for exploring the physics of spray
generation and evolution. Dai et al. (1997) studied turbulent primary breakup of annular wall jets and correlated drop sizes at the onset of turbulent primary breakup
by equating the surface energy required to form a drop
to the kinetic energy of an eddy of corresponding size.
Sarpkaya and Merrill (1999) also focused on the physics
of ligament and drop formation at the free surface of liquid wall jets, flowing over smooth and sand-roughened
plates. They found that the root mean square value of
v 0 was quite close to the initial ligament ejection velocity, thereby relating the ligaments to the internal structure of the flow. Turbulent breakup of the liquid sheet is
widely accepted as the main source of spray generation;
however, it should be noted that some groups observed
instabilities in the liquid sheet which also contribute to
spray droplet generation (see, for example, Shroff and
Liepmann (1997)).
Not only do the high-speed images provide detailed records of full-scale bow wave break up into spray
droplets, but image processing yielded a quantitative
characterization of the spray including droplet sizes and
velocities. Variations in spray droplet size and velocity
with ship Froude number and with distance aft of the forward perpendicular were observed. It was also observed
that the bow wave and spray generation were quite unsteady even for the mildest sea state conditions. Correlations between the pitch angle in a ship-fixed coordinate
system and the spray sheet elevation showed that the ship
motion relative to the incoming waves is a key parameter
in determining the extent of the bow spray sheet.
Figure 1: Photographs of the bow flow at twenty knots at two different scales: the USS Cole (left) and David Taylor Model Basin
model 5415 (right).
IMAGE PROCESSING
Both the tuffcam and the high-speed video were used to
make measurements of bow spray characteristics. The
tuffcam video was used to estimate elevations of the bow
wave/spray sheet by scaling the image from distinctive
markings on the R/V Roger Revelle ship hull. These
videos also highlight the unsteady nature of the bow
wave due to the at-sea conditions. The high-speed image
sequences were processed using custom software written
in MATLAB (The MathWorks, Inc.) together with the
Signal Processing and Image Processing toolboxes. The
key image-processing steps for the calibration and spray
droplet images are presented, and a discussion of the error associated with these techniques follows.
Figure 3: Forward looking view of a typical deployment of the SAIC camera boom and high-speed video camera aboard the R/V
Roger Revelle (left). Aft looking view of a deployment with a large outboard offset (right).
Figure 4: Part of a typical raw image sequence (eight frames out of 2,176) from the high-speed video camera of the spray droplets
generated by bow wave break up. The sequence reads from the left to the right and from the top to the bottom; the elapsed time in
between successive frames is 0.4 seconds. The field of view of the camera was approximately 26.5 cm (H) by 24.8 cm (V).
The secondary mechanism of bow spray generation is the impact of the bow wave jet on the free surface, and the amount of spray droplet generation (and
air entrainment) depend quite critically on the degree of
breakup of the bow wave jet before impact. The free
surface itself is disturbed and may be rough and foamy.
After the primary impact, there may be additional impacts similar to a skipping stone, but these produce fewer
droplets. Finally, droplets may also be produced by
droplet splitting and by bubbles bursting at the free surface.
Quantitative Results
Image processing of the high-speed videos yielded quantitative results; the following sets of figures present examples of typical results from processing a single run as
well as groups of related runs. The first set of figures,
Figures 6, 7, and 8, show typical results from processing a single run, SAIC run 72 where the ship forward
speed was 6.2 m/s (12 knots). In addition to the results
shown here, the image processing programs also calculate velocity direction, droplet eccentricity, and droplet
size-velocity maps. For this run, the camera was located
at (x, y, z) = (2.20, 6.62, 4.47) meters, with respect
3.5
3
1000*probability function
350
300
250
200
150
4
5
time (s)
1.5
0.5
800
900
1000
Figure 6 presents the number of droplets per image as a function of time and demonstrates the unsteady
nature of the bow spray. Figure 7 shows the numerical
frequency (probability density function) of the apparent
spray droplet diameter. The number of droplets is normalized such that the area under the curve connecting
the data points is equal to one. Recall from the Image
Processing section
that the apparent droplet diameter is
p
defined as 2 area/. A total of 148,410 droplets were
counted. The bin size for these distributions was 1 mm;
for example, the fraction of spray droplets with an apparent diameter between 2 and 3 mm is represented by the
filled circle at 2.5 mm on the abscissa. The mean spray
droplet apparent diameter for this run was 5.3 mm. Based
on spray droplet distributions reported in the literature
(see, for example, Sarpkaya and Merrill (2001) and Sallam et al. (1999)), a more Gaussian-shaped distribution
was expected. The shape of these size distributions indicate that there are probably a number of smaller droplets
that could not be captured with a high-speed video camera having a resolution of 512 by 480 pixels.
1
1.5
apparent droplet diameter (cm)
200
2.5
0.5
100
probability function
1.5
0
0
50
0
0
0.5
100
0
0
2.5
2.5
Figure 7: A typical bow spray numerical frequency distribution of the apparent spray droplet diameter for SAIC run 72.
The ship forward speed was 6.2 m/s (12 knots). The mean value
of this distribution is 5.3 mm.
Figure 8 shows the numerical frequency (probability density function) of the spray droplet velocity for
the same run as is presented in Figure 7. It is extremely
important to note that the velocities reported here were
measured in the focal plane of the camera. Although the
spray droplets also move in and out of the focal plane,
6
6
5.5
RUN 72
RUN 71
4.5
RUN 79
RUN 77
RUN 78
RUN 75
RUN 74
3.5
RUN 80
RUN 73
RUN 76
3
RUN 81
2.5
0
3
4
distance aft of FP (m)
Figure 10: Mean spray droplet apparent diameter as a function of distance aft of the forward perpendicular (FP) for runs
71-81 (black). The average diameter for all of the runs at a
given location is also shown (red). The error bars on the mean
values indicate upper and lower bounds based on spray droplet
position within the image depth of field.
The correlation results are summarized in Figure 11 for SAIC runs 7779. Figure 11 show the number
of droplets identified in each high-speed video image as a
function of time; the high-speed video runs begin at zero
seconds. In addition, about sixty seconds of pitch angle
data is also shown where positive pitch angle values indicate bow down motion. Finally, a sixty second interval
of the bow spray elevation as measured from the tuffcam video was added. Each frame from this video was
stamped with the GPS time code and was used to synchronize the measurements. Both the pitch angle and the
spray elevation data is periodic; furthermore, bow down
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
0.8
0.9
1.1
4
3
2
1
0
0.4
Frd
Figure 9: Mean spray droplet apparent diameter (top) and velocity (bottom) as a function of Froude number based on ship draft,
F rd . In both figures, the error bars on the mean values indicate upper and lower bounds based on spray droplet position within the
image depth of field. Linear curve fits are shown by the dotted lines.
run
47, 48, 53
54, 56, 57
60-62, 64, 66, 69-72
75
working distance
(m)
5.94
5.21
6.91
3.84
near edge
(m)
5.79
5.10
6.71
3.77
far edge
(m)
6.10
5.32
7.12
3.90
depth of field
(cm)
31
22
41
13
max.
(mm)
5.23
5.06
5.24
5.15
min.
(mm)
4.97
4.84
4.94
4.98
Table 1: Spray droplet size error bounds based on location within the depth of field for a given working distance.
CONCLUSIONS
Increases in the distance aft of the forward perpendicular along the bow wave appear to cause the
mean spray droplet apparent diameter to decrease.
FUTURE RESEARCH
Future directions for this work include both field experiments and numerical modelling efforts.
Field Experiments
Additional field experiments were conducted on the R/V
Athena in Panama City, FL in October 2003 and are
planned for May 2004. Table 2 presents a comparison of geometric characteristics for a DDG-51, the R/V
Roger Revelle, and the R/V Athena. High-speed video
of the bow spray was recorded. These experiments provided an opportunity to collect calm water data for a
full-scale naval combatant and to improve the high-speed
video system according to the suggestions described in
the Conclusions section. The calm water conditions are
important for several reasons. First, experimental measurements are more repeatable in calm, protected water than in the open ocean. Second, current prediction
methodologies for breaking waves (computational fluid
dynamics and scaled model-scale data) are limited to
steady conditions; therefore, calm water full-scale data
is required for their validation and further development.
Bow Spray
This experimental work provides a detailed description
of the breakup of the bow wave into spray droplets at
9
Length (m)
Beam (m)
Length-beam ratio
Block coefficient
Prismatic coefficient
Bow half angle (deg.)
Flare angle (deg.)
DDG-51
142 (waterline)
18.0 (waterline)
7.9
0.521
0.627
10
10-20
R/V Athena
47.0
7.0
6.9
0.47
0.641
10
10-25
picted in Figure 13. At the time this model was developed, suitable experimental data was not available for its
validation.
There are some numerical models documented
in the literature which are related to the bow spray problem; however, they cannot be directly applied. Modelling the generation and evolution of large quantities of
droplets over a wide range of scales requires specialized
procedures. For example, the approach that Sussman and
Dommermuth (2001) used for studying spray sheets is
only suitable for micro-scale analysis of droplets; it is
not possible to model the flow around an entire ship with
such detail. Numerical models for spray droplet breakup
computations such as the Taylor Analogy Breakup model
(ORourke and Amsden, 1987) and the surface wave
instability model (Reitz, 1987) are also too detailed.
Complementary to the numerical simulations are simpler approaches. Sellens and Brzustowski (1985) used
the maximum entropy formalism to predict the drop
size distribution in a spray resulting from the breakup of
a liquid sheet, but the average droplet size must already
be known. Novikov and Dommermuth (1997) presented
a statistical description of droplets in a turbulent spray
connected with the description of turbulent dissipation.
Formulas for characteristic droplet sizes and corresponding probability distributions are obtained; however, these
contain unknown constants that can only be determined
empirically.
Figure 13: Bow wave (blue) of surface ship model 5415 (gray)
with envelope of spray sheet (white) as calculated by previous
SAIC bow spray model.
Numerical Modelling
As a result of this experimental work, there is a unique
collection of bow spray measurements for different geometric and flow conditions that will be helpful in bow
spray model development and validation. The development of an empirical spray model that will interface with
an existing base flow code has been initiated by Dr. Sur
at SAIC. Several years ago, a bow spray model was developed at SAIC as part of an ongoing effort in computational ship hydrodynamics. It used the bow wave
predicted by Numerical Flow Analysis (NFA), a mature
Large-Eddy Simulation (LES) code written by Dr. Douglas Dommermuth of SAIC, for surface ship model 5415.
Spray source points were located along the contact line
of this bow wave along the ship and then along the cusp
of the overturning bow wave. A size distribution similar
to that presented by Novikov and Dommermuth (1997)
was assigned to the spray droplets and they were ejected
from the source points with velocities related to the base
flow velocity. The spray droplets were tracked as they
interacted with an approximate solution for the air flow
around the ship. The results of the calculation are de-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research is supported by the Office of Naval
Research under contract numbers N00014-97-C-0345,
N00014-01-C-0295, N00014-02-C-0283, and N0001403-0105. Dr. L. Patrick Purtell is the program manager.
The authors also wish to acknowledge Mr. John Kuhn
of SAIC, Dr. Eric Terrill , Ms. Lisa Lelli, and Professor
Ken Melville of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
and Dr. Thomas Fu, Mr. Billy Boston, and Mr. Martin
Sheehan all of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division for their contributions to this work.
10
REFERENCES
Dai, Z., Hsiang, L.-P., and Faeth, G., Spray Formation at the
Free Surface of Turbulent Bow Sheets, Proceedings of
the Twenty-First Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics,
Office of Naval Research, 1997, pp. 490505.
Edson, J.B., Hinton, A.A, Prada, K.E., Hare, J.E., and Fairall,
C.E., Direct Covariance Flux Estimates from Mobile
Platforms at Sea, American Meteorological Society,
1998, pp. 547562.
Kaiser, J.A.C, Garrett, W.D., Ramberg, S.E., Peltzer, R.D., and
Andrews, M.D., WAKEX 86; A Ship Wake/Films
Exploratory Experiment, NRL Memorandum Report
6270, 1988, Naval Research Laboratory.
ORourke, P. J. and Amsden, A. A., The TAB Method for
Numerical Calculation of Spray Droplet Breakup,
Society of Automotive Engineers, paper number 872089,
1987.
Novikov, E.A. and Dommermuth, D.G., Distribution of
droplets in a turbulent spray, Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 56,
No. 5, 1997, pp. 54795482.
Ratcliffe, T., Boston, W.S. and Sheehan, M., Photographic
Visualization of the Surface Wave Field and Boundary
Layer Surrounding the Research Vessel, R/V
REVELLE, NSWCCD-50-TR-2003/003, March 2003,
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, West
Bethesda, MD.
Reitz, R.D., Modelling Atomization Processes in
High-Pressure Vaporizing Sprays,
Atomization and Sprays Tech., Vol. 3, 1987, pp.
309337.
Sallam, K.A., Dai, Z., and Faeth, G. M., Breakup of
Turbulent Liquid Jets in Still Gases,
Proc. AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, AIAA paper
number 99-3759, June 1999.
Sarpkaya, T., and Merrill, C.F., Spray formation at the free
surface of liquid wall jets, Proceedings of the TwentySecond Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Office of
Naval Research, 1999, pp. 796808.
Sellens, R.W. and Brzustowski, T.A., A Prediction of the
Drop Size Distribution in a Spray from First Principles,
Atomization and Spray Technology, Vol. 1, 1985,
pp. 89-102.
Shroff, S. and Liepmann, D., Spray Generation over Curved
Surfaces, In Proceedings of the Fluids Engineering
Division Summer Meeting, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, 1997.
Sirignano, W. Fluid Dynamics and Transport of Droplets and
Sprays, Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Sussman, M. and Dommermuth, D.G., The numerical
11
100
20
10
10
20
2
40
30
100
50
0
30
20
10
10
20
2
40
30
100
50
0
30
20
10
10
20
pitch (deg)
0
30
pitch (deg)
200
pitch (deg)
number of droplets
number of droplets
number of droplets
5
40
30
time (s)
Figure 11: SAIC high-speed video run 77 (top), 78 (middle) and 79 (bottom). The blue line indicates the number of droplets per
high-speed video image; the high-speed video runs begin at time zero seconds. The green line indicates the pitch angle where
a positive value represents bow down motion. Finally, the red line indicates the elevation of the spray sheet measured from the
tuffcam video.
amplitude
6000
4000
2000
0
30
20
10
10
20
30
20
10
10
20
30
20
10
10
20
30
amplitude
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
30
amplitude
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
30
time (s)
Figure 12: Cross-correlations of the pitch angle (where a positive value represents bow down motion) and the bow spray elevation
for SAIC high-speed video run 77 (top), 78 (middle) and 79 (bottom).
12
DISCUSSION
Alan Brandt
Johns Hopkins University, USA
A significant fraction of the bow sheet does
not form droplets. Is it not important to also account
for this in the measurements at model-scale?
AUTHORS REPLY
In the field tests on the R/V Revelle and R/V
Athena and also in the model scale (i.e. bow wedge,
see Karion et al., 2004) tests, there is a portion of the
bow sheet that does not break up into droplets that is
visible in the high-speed video camera field of view.
In each high-speed video image, this portion of the
bow sheet is filtered out so that it does not register as
a large droplet and affect the droplet size
distributions. It would be of interest to quantitatively
characterize this portion of the bow sheet,
particularly the surface roughnesses; however, this
has not been a focus of our work.
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
Thomas C. Fu
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
1.
AUTHORS REPLY
The correlation with ship motion focused on
the relationship between the maximum elevations of
the spray sheet with pitch angle. In the model, the
initial ejection velocity for the spray droplets will be
provided by the base flow code. If the full threedimensional velocity of the spray droplets could be
measured (perhaps by using multiple synched highspeed video cameras), then these measurements could
be used to validate the velocity prediction by the base
flow code.
Thomas C. Fu
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
3.
AUTHORS REPLY
Preliminary image processing of the R/V
Athena data revealed mean droplet sizes that were
smaller than those from the R/V Revelle data. This
difference is likely due to the deployment of a higher
resolution high-speed video camera on the R/V
Athena. General trends such as mean droplet size
decreasing with ship forward speed and mean droplet
velocity increasing with ship forward speed appear to
be consistent, though additional image processing of
the R/V Athena is required.
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
Thomas C. Fu
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
Thomas C. Fu
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
4.
2.
AUTHORS REPLY
AUTHORS REPLY
The spray model is actually semiempirical; the droplet size distribution is based on a
theoretical droplet size distribution by a turbulent
breakup mechanism (Novikov and Dommermuth,
1997). It is not yet possible to run a physics-based
calculation like Dommermuths (1999) twodimensional spray sheet breakup due to grid
resolution limitations.
04-05-13
25th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics
St. Johns, Newfoundland and Labrador, CANADA, 8-13 August 2004
ABSTRACT
This paper presents the results of a research
project on the theoretical design of trans-cavitating
propellers (TCP) for high-speed and high-powered
ships with shallow draft.
Extensive experimental
evaluation was carried out on these propeller models
working in a uniform flow and behind a complete ship
model of twin-screw large fast ferry. Ten propellers
were designed to generate the necessary thrust under
the operating condition between sub-cavitation and
super-cavitation.
First of all, this paper describes a theoretical
design method for TCPs, developed from the NMRI
super-cavitating propeller design method. The present
method employs two kinds of combinations with
super-cavitating and non-cavitating blade sections to
design a hybrid propeller. In this paper, six propellers
including conventional propellers were designed at
30.6kt and four propellers were designed at 35.0kt
under each normal operating rate condition. In each
case, the design of the propellers was made not only by
current methods but also by a newly developed method
which can theoretically control sheet cavitation over
the propeller blades using a couple of high
performance blade sections, so as to satisfy a given
thrust with maximum efficiency. Extensive evaluation
in cavitation open water tests shows that the designed
TCPs had higher efficiency than the CPs under the
severer cavitating condition.
Secondly, this paper introduces a method to
evaluate the propeller efficiency working behind a ship
model under trans-cavitating (TC) conditions for a
given propeller, thrust load coefficient. Using this
evaluation method, extensive experimental evaluation
of TCPs was made in the NMRI (SRI) Large
Cavitation Tunnel with respect to the propeller thrust,
propeller efficiency, pressure fluctuations and erosion.
For the 30.6kt case, conventional propellers still kept
in the same level of efficiency and pressure
INTRODUCTION
In these days, high speed ships, for example,
Ro/Ro ferries, become faster and bigger. Since high
speed and/or highly loaded propellers cannot evade
cavitation, a new type of propeller is needed, which
can generate the necessary thrust under the operating
condition between sub-cavitation and super-cavitation.
Under this condition, most of the suction side of the
propeller blades is covered with cavitation and
significant thrust breakdown is revealed, if a subcavitating propeller (Non-Cavitating Propeller, CP)
with aerofoil (NC) sections is used under this
condition. Most of the propeller blade (near the tip) is
super-cavitated and the rest of the blade (near the root)
is partially cavitated. This is called the transCavitating (TC) condition. Under this condition the
efficiency of this type of a propeller becomes
tremendously worse. Propeller designers have to give
up their propeller design by a normal design method.
Then, the trans-cavitating propeller (TCP) with a
hybrid concept is expected to be one of the possible
candidates
In order to design a highly efficient propeller
under such a condition, Yim invented the TCP (Yim,
1998, Vorus, 1988). The propeller blade is divided
into two or three domains by the borderline or the
intermediate region (domain C) as shown in Fig. 1.
04-05-13
04-05-13
sections their blade width is determined as large as
possible to get the optimum performance.
Near Tip
NC Section
SC Section
Combination I
NACA 16
SRJN
Combination II
UT-NC
UT-SC
04-05-13
the conventional propellers (CPs) and the transcavitating propellers (TCPs) are called CP and HP,
respectively. Usually the thrust load coefficient art
35.0 kt should be higher than that at 30.6 kt. In order
to clearly demonstrate the effect of cavitation number
on the design results, however, the thrust load
coefficient was kept to 0.728 throughout the present
propeller design. Except the conventional propeller of
CP-1, other propellers were designed as the propeller
working in the starboard side.
All of the propellers were designed for those
turning outwards, based on the self-propulsion tests
performed at the NMRI 400m towing tank. The
designed advance coefficients for some TCPs (HP-5, 6,
7) were modified with taking account of the tangential
wake in the propeller plane.
THEIR
Design Condition
The present design method was applied for the
TCPs equipped to twin-screw large high-speed ferries
with twin rudders whose design speeds are 30.6 and
35.0 kt. The principal particulars of the ship model,
NMRI M.S. No.610 are given in Table 2. The
working conditions for the designed propellers at the
normal operating rate (NCR) are given in Table 3.
key
LPP
LDWL
B
DCAV
d
CB
CP
unit
m
m
m
m
m
-
7.000
7.233
1.089
0.389
0.272
0.500
0.556
CP-1
This propeller as shown in Fig. 2 was designed
using the existing camber lines and pitch distribution
of which controllable pitch propeller offered good
results (Toyama, 1996).
The blade thickness
distribution was determined with satisfying the
requirement of the NK rule. At the design condition
in a uniform flow, this propeller was fully cavitated
with thrust breakdown as shown in Fig. 2 but the
propeller efficiency is in a reasonable level.
CP-1~3
HP-4
HP1~3
30.6
1.371
0.916
0.240
HP-5
HP-6
HP-7
0.732
0.153
0.935
0.250
35.0
1.048
0.935
0.250
0.728
CP-1
CP-2
M.P.No. (NMRI)
411/
412
413
Diameter [mm]
Boss Ratio
Pitch Ratio
Exp. Area Ratio
Proj. Area Ratio
Rake at Tip [mm]
Skew at Tip
Blade Number
Blade
Section
Rot. Direction
Material
CPBlade 3
431
HP-1
HP-2
HP-3
HP-4
HP-5
HP-6
HP-7
433
432
434
444
445
446
447
1.478
0.625
0.506
1.506
0.630
0.507
1.088
0.584
0.504
1.410
0.779
0.636
SRJN
NACA
SRJN
NACA
Right
SRJN
NACA
UT-SC
UT-NC
1.475
0.731
0.600
1.479
0.731
0.600
1.412
0.731
0.605
1.292
0.637
0.521
1.447
0.580
0.468
NACA
MAU
Mod.
NACA
R/L
UT-SC
UT-NC
SRJN
NACA
194.4
0.30
1.282
0.634
0.518
0
35.54
4
UT-SC
UT-NC
Aluminum (Anodized)
04-05-13
04-05-13
HP-2
This propeller as shown in Fig. 10 was designed
based on the Lerbs optimum circulation distribution.
The SRJN sections were used from the tip to 0.7R
where the optimum SRJN sections could be adopted,
while the NACA 16 sections were employed from 0.5R
to the root, using the pitch distribution of CP1.
Between 0.5R and 0.7R, the blade sections were
generated by the interpolation. At 0.7R, the chord
length was increased to obtain the smooth blade
contour and the thickness at the trailing edge was
reduced because of the excessive strength and smooth
radial connection at the trailing edge.
From the experiment in a uniform flow of the
cavitation tunnel, the measured thrust was 6.0%
higher than the target one in the design. The
discrepancy in the thrust, that is, over pitch is due to
the simple and direct adoption of the NC sections of
CP1. Longer sheet cavitation occurs outside 0.65R,
while partial cavitation is observed inside of 0.6R as
the expectations as shown in Fig. 10.
1.6
1.4
H/DP
HP-3
This propeller as shown in Fig. 11 was designed,
referring to the open water test on HP-1 in the
cavitation tunnel. The offsets of HP-3 were generated
by fairing the geometrical shape of HP-1. The pitch
outside of 0.9R was increased to stimulate sheet
cavitation because of less sheet cavitation in this
region of HP-1. In the intermediate region, the fairing
was made to remove the wavy geometrical shape.
Although the measured thrust is 7.9% higher
than the target, the former is 2.8% higher than the
prediction by SC-VLM3 in the design. The measured
CP-1
CP-2
CP-3
HP-1
HP-2
HP-3
HP-4
HP-5
HP-6
HP-7
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.6
r/RO
0.8
1.0
04-05-13
HP-5
HP-5 propeller as shown in Fig. 13 was designed
by the same way in HP-4 but including the tangential
component of wake distribution at the propeller plane.
It amount to 5% of the incoming uniform flow at 0.7R
of the propeller. The design condition on the advance
and the thrust coefficients was modified and they were
increased 2.1% and 4.2%, respectively.
In order to enhance the propeller efficiency and
to design the cavity thickness at each radial position as
thin as possible, the analytical computation was
employed to determine the optimum pitch distribution
iteratively. Thus, not only the thrust but also torque
can be designed within 3% accuracy with the help of
the analytical tool. The measured thrust agrees with
the target value but sheet cavitation partly occurs at
0.7R and around the tip. The observed patterns are
different from the prediction as shown in Fig. 13
.
04-05-13
04-05-13
04-05-13
Wake Distribution
The wake distribution was measured by a four-rake
five-hole NPL type pitot tube in the No.2 working
section of the cavitation tunnel. The measured results
on the starboard side are shown in Fig. 21. Before the
wake measurement in the cavitation tunnel, the wake
distribution was measured at the towing tank at Froude
number FN=0.370, using the same apparatus and
measuring system as those in the cavitation tunnel.
Comparing two wake measurements, they are almost
the similar to each other but the axial wake in the
cavitation tunnel is relatively steeper than that in the
towing tank totally. It can be said that the present
experiment should offer more strict evaluation on the
cavitation performance.
10
04-05-13
CP-1(30.6kt)
CP-2(30.6kt)
CP-3(30.6kt)
64
HP-1(30.6kt)
B[%]
HP-2(30.6kt)
62
HP-3(30.6kt)
CP-1(35.0kt)
CP-3(35.0kt)
60
HP-4(35.0kt)
HP-5(35.0kt)
58
HP-6(35.0kt)
HP-7(35.0kt)
56
(a) CP-1
(b) CP-3
(c) HP-3
Fig. 23 Cavitation of CP-1, CP-3 and HP-3 Working
behind Ship Hull under MCR Condition (VS=31.0kt)
Cavitation patterns are shown in Fig. 23, on CP-1,
CP-3 and HP-3 under the MCR condition (CT=0.728,
V=1.336), stable cavitation was observed on CP-2
and HP-2, while unstable streak and/or bubble
cavitation were found on CP-1, CP-3 and HP-3, in
spite of artificial nuclei seeding. Sheet cavitation on
CP-3 was suppressed under the present condition as
expected.
On the tip vortex cavitation (TVC), those of CP-3
and HP-1 were thinner, those of CP-2 and HP-3 were
almost equivalent and that of CP-3 was thicker than
11
04-05-13
CP-1(30.6kt)
CP-2(30.6kt)
1.05
CP-3(30.6kt)
HP-1(30.6kt)
Eta_R
1.00
HP-2(30.6kt)
HP-3(30.6kt)
0.95
CP-3(35.0kt)
HP-4(35.0kt)
0.90
HP-5(35.0kt)
HP-6(35.0kt)
0.85
HP-7(35.0kt)
(a) HP-5
0.80
(b) CP-3
Fig. 24 Cavitation of CP-1, CP-3 and HP-2 Working
behind Ship Hull under MCR Condition
(VS=35.5kt)
Comparison of Propeller Efficiency between Open
Water and Behind Conditions
The ratio of the propeller efficiency behind the
ship model to that in the cavitating open water is
shown in Fig. 25 for two cases. The relative rotative
propeller efficiencies of the designed propellers except
CP-3 in 35.0kt case became 5~7% lower than those in
the cavitation open water test except CP-2 for two
cases. Since the existing towing tank tests indicate
that this efficiency of twin screw propeller is 0.95~1.0
in NC conditions, almost the same results were
obtained in the behind cavitation tests under the TC
condition.
On the other hand, CP-3 showed the completely
different tendency of the propeller performance from
other propellers due to less and unstable sheet
cavitation in non-uniform flows brought by unsteady
cavitation and Reynolds effects.
12
04-05-13
CP-1(31.0kt)
CP-2(31.0kt)
CP-3(31.0kt)
HP-1(31.0kt)
HP-2(31.0kt)
HP-3(31.0kt)
CP-1(35.5kt)
CP-3(35.5kt)
HP-4(35.5kt)
HP-5(35.5kt)
HP-6(35.5kt)
HP-7(35.5kt)
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
70.0
HP-3
CP-1
65.0
HP-2
CP-3
Good
60.0
HP-1
CP-2
Bad
55.0
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
65.0
HP-7
60.0
CP-3
HP-5
HP-6
HP-4
Good
CP-1
55.0
Bad
50.0
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
13
04-05-13
ACKNOULEDGEMENT
1.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
CLOSING REMARKS
2.
3.
4.
5.
14
04-05-13
15
DISCUSSION
Stephane Cordier
Bassin dessais des Carnes, France
In the propeller series, the diameter D is
kept constant when rpm is increased in some cases:
(HP1, 3, 6). These propellers generate higher
pressure fluctuations, which is expected but also
better efficiency. Can you comment on the choice of
D associated with the different rpm?
AUTHORS REPLY
In the propeller design, the designed
propeller diameter was restricted to be less than 5.0
m due to the shallow draft of the present twin screw
high-speed ferry. Then there are no choices of larger
diameter in the present propeller design. The
difference in the propeller revolution rate of HP-1
and HP-3 corresponds to unexpected error due in the
theoretical propeller design, the amount of thrust
breakdown due to the design concept or inclusion of
the tangential wake in the design condition, while
that of HP-6 depends on the design requirement of
the higher propeller revolution rate.
DISCUSSION
Roger Kinns
RK Acoustics, UK
Variations in cavitation patterns between the
different propeller designs suggest that there may be
large variations in broadband noise. The consequent
vibration can be very annoying and dominate
components at blade rate and its multiples. Has this
been considered in the study?
AUTHORS REPLY
In the present study, cavitation noise emitted
by Trans-Cavitating Propeller (TCPs) was measured,
whose data were not included in this paper.
Rougly speaking, the respective sound
pressure levels generated by TCPs including CP-1
increase 610 dB at frequency corresponding to first
blade rate and 20 dB at the frequency above 10 kHz,
comparing with that under non-cavitating condition.
The sound pressure level of CP-3 was the lowest at
the first blade rate but larger than other TCPs at
multiples, while that of CP-1 is the lowest in the
frequency of 110 kHz.
In general, a cavitation controlled propeller
often offers low pressure amplitude at the first blade
rate but higher one at the higher order of the blade
rates.
DISCUSSION
Manfred Mehmel
Schiffbau-Versuchsanstelt Potsdam, Germany
Many thanks for your fine presentation.
You mentioned pressure amplitudes and made a
comparison on the base of CP1. My question, can
you give me the total pressure amplitude to get an
idea about the pressure pulses?
AUTHORS REPLY
The present propeller design was made for a
fast twin-screwed ship with very shallow draft. It
was expected that the propeller designed by a
conventional method for this ship, that is, CP-1,
surely causes thrust break-down and high pressure
fluctuations. The press fluctuation amplitudes at the
first blade rate of CP-1, HP-1 and CP-3 are predicted
15, 12 and 11 kPa at the ship sped of 30.6 kt by the
present CT identity method. The pressure amplitudes
of the second and higher blade rates are about 5% of
the first blade rate and negligible, especially for the
hybrid propellers.
At 35 kt, the pressure amplitudes of HP-7,
CP-3 and CP-1 are evaluated 11, 16.5 and 15 kPa.
The pressure amplitude level is unacceptable for the
ship builders and ship owners. The ship hull form to
reduce the effective horse power and to increase tip
clearance should be improved. In the present project,
the reduction of pressure amplitude due to air
injection along the hull surface above the propeller
blade was tested. The reduction rate is proportional
to the air injection volume. The pressure amplitudes
became around 30% of those without air injection
and acceptable level.
REFERENCE
Ukon, Y., et. al., Reduction of Pressure Fluctuations
Induced by Cavitating Propellers due to Air Injection
through the Hull at the Stern of a Ship, Trans. of the
West-Japan Society of Naval Architects, Vol. 99,
(2000.3), pp. 33-42
v v 2
P 3 / 2, x x n / R 2n
v v
v v
v v
u( x, t) = v(x, t ) +
n (x x n )
v v 3
4 x x n
(1)
P(a,z) is the incomplete gamma function with limits P
= 0 at z = 0 and P = 1 as z . For a = 3/2 and z =
x2 , where x is real, P(a,z) is given in terms of the error
function:
P ( 3 / 2, x ) = erf ( x)
2
2xe x
(2)
1/ 2
n
v v 2
2
3 / 2 3 exp( x x n / R n )
Rn
N
v v
( x, t) = P 3 / 2, xv vx 2 / R 2
n
n
v v
n =1
n (x x n )
v v 3
4 x x n
(3)
The vorticity in (3) is divergence free. If the vorticity
is known at the control points, a matrix equation needs
to be developed to solve for the element amplitudes.
The induced velocity due to a set of vortex
filaments with core radius, n , length, l n ,
,
circulation, , and unit circulation unit vector,
n
v v
N filaments
v v
n l n (x x n )
n (
u ( x, t) =
r /n )
v
v
3
4
n =1
x xn
(4)
(r / n ) = (1 (1
3 r 3 ( r / n ) 3
)e
)
2 3n
(5)
v v
r = (x x n )
n
As in the method described by Bernard, only
the vortex stretching and advection term will be
included, so the evolution of vorticity may be
approximated as:
v
v v v
v
v
+ u = ( )u
t
(6)
(l n n ) t+ t = (l n n )t
(7)
v v v
v v v v
v
1 ( x ) (x x )
1 ( x )(x x )
u ( x) =
dS +
dS
4 S vx xv 3
4 S vx xv 3
=
{ n B n + n B n }
N
U
18.7
n =1
(8)
y, u y
v
The boundary condition at points x m on the surface is:
v
v
v
v
v
u elements( x m ) + u stator( x m ) + U = 0
(10)
v
v
Here, u elements( x m ) is the induced velocity due to all
v
v
vortex elements in the field and u stator( x m ) is the
induced velocity due to the stator.
Vortex Lattice Calculations:
Since the stators produce lift, the surface and
shed wake vorticity will produce an induced velocity.
This is treated as a mean effect. Instead of shedding
the vorticity in the form of filaments every time step
(one possible approach), it was decided to conduct a
separate calculation solving for the flow past a stator
using a vortex lattice method. The modified propulsor
unsteady flow (PUF) code (see Kerwin (1978, 1986),
Huyer and Snarski (2002)) was used for these
computations. The flow field was solved and induced
velocities were comp uted on a fixed grid.
An
interpolation routine was then used to compute the
induced velocity at any point in the field due to the
stators.
The unsteady velocity at a given point in the
field is therefore a summation of the velocities due to
1) Freestream velocity; 2) Hull near wall vorticity; 3)
Stator vortex lattice; 4) Hull boundary layer vorticity
due to filaments and blobs; and 5) Stator boundary
layer shed vorticity using vortex filaments.
n
s
= surface normal
, u
x, u x
0o
90o
v 0.1
u'
1.0
ux
0.0
0.25
(a)
(a)
MEAN AXIAL VELOCITY
Uinf = 29.3 m/sec, J = 2.343
0.14
r/Rprop=0.39
r/Rprop=0.57
r/Rprop=0.65
r/Rprop=0.82
0.6
r/Rprop=0.98
r/Rprop=1.15
0.4
r/Rprop=1.32
0.2
0.12
0.8
ux /Ui n f
TURBULENT INTENSITY
Uinf = 29.3 m/sec, J = 2.343
0.1
r/Rprop=0.39
r/Rprop=0.57
0.08
r/Rprop=0.65
r/Rprop=0.82
r/Rprop=0.98
0.06
r/Rprop=1.15
r/Rprop=1.32
0.04
0.02
0
0
0
20
40
60
80
Theta (deg)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Theta (deg)
(b)
(b)
Inflow Measurements:
Inflow measurements were conducted for
various freestream velocities with non-dimensional
results at 29 m/sec used for model calibration and
validation.
Velocities were chosen so that the
boundary layer thickness in air at 36.6 m/sec was the
same as that for equivalent Reynolds numbers in water
(20.57 m/sec). At the end of the cylindrical UUV
section (before the afterbody), the Reynolds number
was approximately 120 million and the measured
boundary layer thickness was approximately 4.3 cm.
The in-water boundary layer thickness was
approximately 5% less than in-air measurements.
1.4
1.2
Tangential
1
Axial
r/R prop
Radial
0.8
0.6
0.4
-0.3
0.2
-0.1
Experiments
Vortex Lattice Soln.
Vortex Lattice Soln.
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
ux , ur or u (r)/U inf
hub
0.9
1.1
Axial Velocity
0.0
Hull Surface
Inflow Plane
Computational Outflow
Rake
Plane
Experiments
ur
0.8
Axial
0.6
0.4
0.2
Radial
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
-0.2
Tangential
-0.4
Circumferential Angle
Axial
0.6
0.4
Radial
0.2
0
0
-0.4
40
60
80
100
Tangential
Simulation
Experiments
ur
Circumferential Angle
RESULTS:
Mean Velocity Comparisons
Figures 9, 10 and 11 show circumferential
distributions of axial, radial and tangential velocity at
r/Rprop = 0.39 (closest to the surface), 0.65 (middle of
the boundary layer) and 0.9 (outer boundary layer
under the influence of the tip vortex). For these and all
cases, comparisons are made in the local (x, r, )
coordinate system. The plots are shown from position
angles between 0 and 100 deg encompassing two
stators. For r/Rprop = 0.39, the axial velocity displays a
clear drop in velocity due to the stator wake.
Simulations slightly underpredict by 5% the magnitude
of the velocity decrease and demonstrate overshoots
not seen in the experimental data. This is likely due to
the lack of resolution of the boundary layer vorticity
shed from the stator. Aside from this, the simulated
axial velocity predicts the measured velocity between
the stator wakes to within 2%. The simulated radial
velocity distribution appears to follow the measured
distribution, but is offset by a value of -0.02.
Simulations of the tangential component do a better job
20
-0.2
0.8
Axial
0.6
0.4
Radial
0.2
0
0
-0.2
-0.4
20
40
60
80
100
Tangential
Circumferential Angle
Simulation
Experiments
ur
1.2
Tangential
1
r/R prop
Axial
Radial
0.8
0.6
0.4
-0.3
0.2
-0.1
0.1
Experiments
Computations
R/Rprop
0.3
0.5
0.7
ux, u r or u (r)/Uinf
hub
0.9
0.09
rms Turbulence / U inf
1.4
VELOCITY PROFILES
Between Stators
0.08
0.07
Computations
Experiments
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
hub
0.01
0
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
r/R prop
1.1
1.3
0.09
0.08
0.07
Computations
Experiments
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.08
0.09
rms Turbulence / U inf
AXIAL TURBULENCE
r/Rprop =0.73
0.1
0.1
0.03
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
Simulation
0.01
0.02
hub
0.01
Experiments
0
0
20
0
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
r/R prop
1.1
1.3
60
80
100
0.09
1.E-04
0.08
0.07
Computations
Experiments
0.06
Computations
Experiments
1.E-05
Power (u/Uinf)^2
40
Circumferential Angle
0.05
0.04
0.03
1.E-06
1.E-07
1.E-08
0.02
hub
1.E-09
0.01
20
40
60
80
100
120
Frequency/Shaft Rate
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
r/R prop
1.1
1.3
1.E-04
Computations
Experiments
Power (u/Uinf)^2
1.E-05
1.E-06
1.E-07
1.E-08
1.E-09
1.E-10
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Frequency/Shaft Rate
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
This work was funded by the NUWC Internal
Research Program, Mr. Richard Philips, program
manager and the Office of Naval Research under
Contract N0001402WX20474, Dr. Kam Ng, program
manager. The experimental data used for comparisons
was collected during SISUP experiments, supervised
by Dr. John Muench for his thesis work and funded by
the Office of Naval Research under Dr. Patrick Purtell.
REFERENCES:
Bernard, P.S., Dimas, A.A., Collins, J.P., Turbulent
Flow Modeling Using a Fast, Parallel, Vortex Tube and
Sheet Method, European Series in Applied and
Industrial Mathematics, Vortex Flows and elated
Numerical Methods III, ed. Gagnon, Y., Cottet, G.-H,
Dritschel, D.G., Ghoniem, A.F., Meiburg, E., Vol. 7,
pp 46-55, 1999 (http://www.emath.fr/proc/Vol.7/)
DISCUSSION
Stephane Cordier
Bassin dessais des Carnes
In the paper, the vortex filament intensities
are tuned to one geometry. How would this
method be applied when experimental data is not
available for a new geometry? Do the authors have
examples of this method applied based on a
computed (RANSE or LES) flow?
AUTHORS REPLY
It is correct that the results presented in this
paper were calibrated for a particular SISUP
geometry. Experimental mean 3-D velocity and
turbulence data were used in this process at a given
upstream plane. It would actually be easier to utilize
CFD data to calibrate the model for a generic
geometry, but, at present, we have no examples to
present. As long as mean and rms velocities are
computed, this information can be used to calibrate
the model.
Right now, this method is being
transitioned to a 6.2 program where turbulent inflow
into a propulsor will be computed. Unlike the SISUP
cases presented where experimental data were used,
the inflow velocity data is computational using a
RANS formulation. Mean velocities and turbulent
intensity will be used to calibrate a model to predict
the broadband unsteady hydrodynamic blade forces
and pressures. We will present these results in the
future as the calculations progress.
DISCUSSION
Joseph R. Gavin
General Dynamics Electric Boat Division, USA
ABSTRACT
An assessment is made of the fidelity of
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) prediction of a
turbulent wingtip vortex. Efficacy of a featureadaptive local mesh refinement is showcased to
resolve steep gradients in the flow-field along the tipvortex. The impact of turbulence modeling is
evaluated using several popular eddy-viscosity
models and a Reynolds-stress transport model. The
results indicate that, with a judicious combination of
computational mesh with adequate resolution, highorder spatial discretization and advanced turbulence
models, one can predict the tip-vortex flow with a
commendable accuracy.
INTRODUCTION
Turbulent flow around lifting surfaces such
as propeller blades, rudders, and hydrofoils has long
been a topic of both fundamental and practical
interest in naval applications for their ubiquity around
naval vessels and significant impact on various
aspects of hydrodynamic performance. Despite the
long history of deployment and designers vested
interest, the task of numerically predicting turbulent
flows around lifting surface flows remains a difficult
one.
There are several challenges to be dealt with
before one can predict the subject flow accurately.
First, one has to overcome the sheer numerical
difficulty of resolving large gradients of the flowfields in the boundary layer on lifting surfaces and
the tightly braided vortices emanating from the tip.
One difficulty constantly encountered in real
applications is that there are many such regions
needing high-resolution simultaneously. When there
is a need to trace the tip-vortices over a long distance,
as is often the case when tracking trailing vortices in
the wakes of aircrafts, the difficulty is even more
acute.
Eddy-viscosity models
We selected three most popular eddyviscosity models for this study. In view of its
popularity in the aerospace and the ship
hydrodynamics communities, the one-equation model
of Spalart and Allmaras (1994) (S-A hereafter) was
selected. We adopted the modification proposed by
Dacles-Mariani et al. (1995, 1996) to suppress the
unduly large build-up of eddy-viscosity in the vortex
(1)
# of cells
385K cells
1.04M cells
2.3M cells
Remarks
coarsest mesh
globally refined
globally refined
Mesh IV
1.38M cells
locally refined
Q=
(2)
48"
137.55"
1 2
S2
2
37.3"
55.2"
32"
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Some of the earlier numerical studies
(Dacles-Mariani et al., 1995) used the experimental
data to specify the boundary conditions (Dirichlet)
not only on the inlet but also on the outlet boundary.
However, the practice of using a Dirichlet-type
boundary condition on the outlet - generally not
known a priori - is questionable both mathematically
and practically.
In the present study, the free-stream velocity
was specified at the upstream inlet boundary for the
sake of simplicity, which was deemed justifiable as
our focus is on the region away from the tunnel wall.
The exit boundary is modeled as a pressure outlet on
which an area-averaged static pressure is specified.
The velocity on the pressure outlet is linearly
extrapolated from the adjacent interior cells in such a
way that the overall continuity (mass conservation) is
satisfied. Other solution variables are extrapolated in
a similar manner.
On the tunnel wall and the wing surface, we
adopted a generalized wall-function approach (Fluent
Inc., 2003) that invokes proper wall-laws depending
on the y+ value to provide the wall boundary
conditions for the momentum and the turbulence
equations, thus being applicable to the entire inner
layer including the viscous sub-layer, buffer zone,
and logarithmic layer.
RESULTS
RSTM. The results exhibit a considerable meshdependency. When viewing these results, however, it
should be kept in mind that the local extrema of the
static pressure and the axial velocity magnitude
would appear by far more sensitive to the mesh
resolution than overall error norms. The coarsest
mesh captures the major qualitative features of the
flow. However, the static pressure and the maximum
axial velocity that are the measures of the strength of
the tip-vortex are severely under-predicted. The
results from the finer meshes show a typical meshconvergence of the solutions, although the
convergence rate is rather slow. The finest mesh,
Mesh III, gives fairly good predictions of all the
aspects of the flow. The static pressure and the
velocity excess along the core of the tip-vortex are
predicted well, although the predictions gradually
deviate from the measurements in the wake. As
shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7, the location of the
vortex-core is closely captured by the predictions.
Interestingly, the sudden change of the vertical
location (z-coordinate) of the vortex axis observed in
the experiment (Chow at al., 1993) - referred to as
kink in the paper - is also seen in the predictions.
The same figures show the results obtained
with the locally adapted mesh (Mesh IV). Despite
the much less number of cells (1.4 million cells in
total) than in the finest mesh (2.3 million cells), the
level of the accuracy is comparable to that of the
finest mesh.
x/c=0.345
x/c=0.985
x/c=0.542 x/c=0.729
x/c=1.191
x/c=0.864
-3.8 -3.6 -3.4 -3.2 -3 -2.8 -2.6 -2.4 -2.2 -2 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2
(a)
x/c=0.345
x/c=0.985
x/c=0.542 x/c=0.729
x/c=1.191
x/c=0.864
0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.6 0.75 0.9 1.05 1.2 1.35 1.5 1.65 1.8
(b)
Figure 8. Contours of static pressure coefficient
and maximum axial velocity at cross-flow planes
predicted using the RSTM (a) CP (b) Umax/U
(a)
Figure 12. Minimum static pressure along the tipvortex core - predicted by four different
turbulence models
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors acknowledge that FLUENT was
used for all the computations presented here.
REFERNCES
Chen, B., RANS Simulations of Tip Vortex Flows
for a Finite-Span Hydrofoil and a Marine
Propeller, Ph. D. Thesis, Dept of Mechanical
Engineering, University of Iowa, May 2000.
Chow, J. S., Zillac, G. G., and Bradshaw, P.,
Measurements in the Near-field of a Turbulent
Wingtip Vortex, AIAA Paper 93-0551, 1993.
Chow, J., Zillac, G., and Bradshaw, P., Turbulence
Measurements in the Near-field of a Wingtip
Vortex, NASA Technical Memorandum
110418, Febuary 1997.
Dacles-Mariani, Rogers, S., Kwak, D., Zillac, G. G.,
and Chow, J. S., A Computational Study of
Wingtip Vortex Flowfield, AIAA Paper 933010, 1993.
Dacles-Mariani, Zillac, G. G., Chow, J. S, and
Bradshaw, P., A Numerical/Experimental Study
of a Wingtip Vortex in the Near-field, AIAA
Journal, Vol. 33, No. 9., pp. 1561 1568, 1995.
Dacles-Mariani, J., Kwak, D. and Zillac, G.,
Accuracy Assessment of a Wingtip Vortex
Flowfield in the Near-Field Region, AIAA
Paper 96-0208, 1996.
FLUENT Users Guide V6.2, Fluent Inc., 2003.
DISCUSSION
Stephen Turnock
University of Southampton, UK
Would the authors like to comment on the
accuracy with which the tip vortex strength and by
implication the side force and induced drag of the
control surface are found using the four different
meshes? Also, for the mesh adapted solution what are
the typical number of cells across the vortex core and
did this degrade downstream of the trailing edge?
AUTHORS REPLY
We have not looked at the side force
predictions, since there were no force data to
compare against.
Yet, we believe that the strength of the tipvortex would significantly affect the resultant force,
since the pressure field (e.g., negative peak pressure
at the vortex-core) would impress low static pressure
on the surface of the wing.
Regarding the mesh resolution near the
vortex-core, the adapted mesh (Mesh IV) has roughly
20 cells across the vortexcore just downstream of
the trailing-edge. The mesh resolution near the
vortex-core in the mid- to far-wake does not degrade,
since the vortex core becomes larger and the mesh
retains pretty much the same resolution throughout
the wake.
DISCUSSION
Michel Visonneau
Ecole Centrale de Nantes, France
The local grid refinement shown in this
paper is controlled by explicit criteria. Dont you
think it would be more rigorous in the future to use a
criteria based on a numerical error estimate? If yes,
what kind of methodology do you want to use to
estimate discritization error on a given grid?
AUTHORS REPLY
The authors fully agree with the comments.
In fact, it was noted in the paper that local
refinement or coarsening of meshes based on
rigorously derived error-indicators as adaptation
criteria would offer better .
Having said that, Id like to add that error
indicator-based refinements for complex industrial
flows may not as efficacious as one might think,
inasmuch as it will be very difficult to come up with
good error-indicators for all equations being solved
and reconcile them.
NOMENCLATURE
CP
D
F
H
KQ
Lref
n
p
Q
r
R
pressure coefficient
inlet diameter
camber
head
torque coefficient
reference length, in this case inlet radius
rotor speed, revolutions per second
pressure
volumetric flow rate
local radius
inlet radius
U
V
Subscripts
r
radial
s
streamwise
t
tangential
x
axial
0.1
0.0
Change in C/D
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0.0
0.2
0.4
Span
0.6
0.8
1.0
TEST DESCRIPTION
EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS
Pump Loop
Pitch
F/D
10
0.02
0.00
-0.02
-5
-0.04
-10
-0.06
-15
0.0
0.2
0.4
Span
0.6
0.8
F/D Difference
15
-0.08
1.0
SLA Inlet
Fairing
Mid-Stage Spacer
with LDV Window
LDV Probes
V = U x + ( 2rn ) 2
Flow Visualization
Two types of flow visualization were employed.
Photos of fully developed cavitation were obtained in
order to reveal regions of low pressure in the flow and
the gross structure of the vortical flow. Surface oil
flow visualization was also employed to reveal the
presence of vortices along the rotor and stator surfaces
and the location of flow separations.
sin V x + cos Vt
Vc = cos V x + sin Vt
(2)
Vr = Vr
Pressure Measurements
Rings of pressure taps were located at Station 3,
Station 4, and just ahead of Station 6, to measure the
circumferentially averaged wall static pressure.
Additionally, measurements were made of the test
section static pressure, the tunnel inflow total pressure,
and the pump nozzle total pressure. The nozzle total
pressure was obtained with a single Kiel probe
measuring at approximately 75% of the nozzle radius.
These pressure measurements, when combined with the
LDV velocity measurements, allowed the pump
operating curve to be determined.
(1)
t
Vx
Vt
90-
Vt = Ut - 2rn ,
Vr = Ur
(3)
TEST RESULTS
STATOR
COORDINATE SYSTEM
All distances presented here are normalized by
the inlet radius, R = 95.25 mm (3.750 inches). The
velocity measurements presented here are generally
normalized by nD, where n is the rotor rotation rate,
and D is the inlet diameter. The exceptions to this are
Ux
0.2
2.40
2.30
2.20
2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
0.2
-0.2
-0.4
(4)
Vs
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
Figure 12: Water jet pump rotor tip gap vortex cavitation.
V*s
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
Vs
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
1.2
1.0
/ max, / max, KQ
/ max, / max, KQ
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
NSWCCD /max
NSWCCD /max
NSWCCD KQ
MIT /max
MIT /max
MIT KQ
0.0
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.9
1.0
1.1
COMPUTATIONAL METHODS
1.0
0.8
r/R
1.2
0.6
0.4
36-Inch Water Tunnel
MIT Water Tunnel
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
U_X
0.8
1.0
1.2
r/L ref
4
3
2
1
0
-10 -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
x/Lref
CP: -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 -0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
1.2
1.0
r/R
0.8
0.6
0.4
Computation
Measurement
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
U_X
0.8
1.0
1.2
CP
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.1
-0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0-6
-5.5
-5
-4.5
-4
-3.5
-3
x/Lref
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0.150
CP
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.1
-0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
2.0
r/Lref
Original Rotor
Research Rotor
0.155
2.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
x/Lref
2.5
CP
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.1
-0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.145
0.140
0.135
0.130
0.125
0.0-6.0 -5.5 -5.0 -4.5 -4.0 -3.5 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 -0.0
r/Lref
0.160
Circulation (G)
r/Lref
2.0
0.120
0.0
Figure 22:
distributions.
0.2
0.4
Span
Comparison
of
0.6
0.8
calculated
1.0
circulation
0.0-6.0 -5.5 -5.0 -4.5 -4.0 -3.5 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 -0.0
x/Lref
CP
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.1
-0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
r/Lref
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0-6.0 -5.5 -5.0 -4.5 -4.0 -3.5 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 -0.0
x/Lref
2.5
CP
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.1
-0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
r/Lref
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0-6.0 -5.5 -5.0 -4.5 -4.0 -3.5 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 -0.0
x/Lref
1.2
/ max, / max, KQ
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
/max Measured
/max Measured
KQ Measured
/max Computed
/max Computed
KQ Computed
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.0
Computed
Measured
1.1
0.8
0.6
r/R
0.4
1.4
0.2
Computed
Measured
1.2
r/R
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
UX
2.5
3.0
Figure 26:
Measured and calculated axial velocity
distribution at nozzle exit, Station 6, =0.92.
1.0
1.0
0.8
Computed
Measured
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.6
UX
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Figure 24:
Measured and calculated axial velocity
distribution between rotor and stator, Station 4, =0.92.
0.6
r/R
0.6
0.0
0.4
1.4
0.2
Computed
Measured
1.2
r/R
0.0
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
UT
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.8
CONCLUSIONS
0.6
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
UT
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
DISCUSSION
Justin E. Kerwin
Massachusetts
Institute
of
Technology,
USA/Consultant, Anteon Corporation, USA
The authors have provided an extremely
valuable set of experimental data and comparisons with
calculations for a mixed-flow waterjet pump. Having
been involved with both calculations and experiments
for the AWJ-21 and earlier designs, I am all the more
impressed with the quality of the authors work.
Testing the waterjet pump in a strut mounted
pod was, no doubt, complicated to arrange, but results
in a much cleaner setup to compare with analytical
predictions. The setup in the MIT water tunnel, of
necessity, included a large upstream drive and a
bellmouth extending into the main contraction section.
As shown in Figure 17, the authors setup produces a
much more uniform inflow profile. Of course, real
waterjets may have even more non-uniform inflow, but
for research purposes, it is best to deal with one
problem at a time.
It is interesting to note that the experimentally
determined pump performance of the original rotor and
the research rotor is almost identical, in spite of the
significant differences in blade planform shape (and
resulting differences in pitch and camber). The authors
state that the difference in design loading distribution
results in large differences in pitch and camber.
However, the spanwise distributions of circulation
shown in Figure 22 look almost identical. The
distributions are both practically linear, and differ from
each other at the hub and tip by no more that three
percent. This would suggest that the differences in pitch
and camber are due principally to differences in
planform shape.
It would also indicate that overall waterjet
performance (for a given passage geometry and flow
coefficient) is principally a function of the radial
distribution of circulation and not detailed blade shape.
This is, of course, the justification for lifting-line
theory, which is well established for traditional open
propellers. It would be nice if this were true for
waterjets, too.
Anticipating this finding, I have been
developing a lifting-line equivalent of the PBD-14/
MTFLOW method used by the authors with the hope
that it will be an even simpler and faster method for
carrying out preliminary designs (Kerwin, 2003).
Both lifting-surface and lifting-line methods
will over-predict efficiency unless the types of losses
enumerated by the authors are incorporated in some
way. The experimental results presented here will be
most useful in developing the needed loss models.
1.5
AUTHORS RESPONSE
The authors would like to thank the
discussers for their valuable comments.
The relatively uniform inflow in the water
tunnel was quite different from the inflow in a real
waterjet installation. Figure R-1 shows a measured
inflow at model scale for a typical waterjet inlet.
1.2
1.1
P tot/P tot(design)
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.6
Torq/TorqDesign
0.5
0.4
0.3
0
0.9
0.95
1.05
Flow/Flowdesign
1.1
9/22/00 rwk
Original Rotor
Research Rotor
Stuart Jessup, Chris Chesnakas, David Fry, Martin Donnelly, Scott Black and Joel
Park
(Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division)
observations show very erratic, unsteady leading edge
cavitation, which resembles classic leading edge stall
(Figure 1). Using LDV and PIV measurements in the
X-R plane, the recirculation ring vortex is documented.
Instantaneous PIV images show the erratic movement
of the ring vortex in and out of the propeller disk.
When the vortex moves inside of the propeller tip, it is
hypothesized that the blade loading increases to peak
levels due to extreme blade section angle of attack and
results in leading edge stall. Effort is made to predict
the peak blade loading from PIV derived propeller
inflow. An ad hoc approach is proposed using
measured blade section angles of attack, and lifting
surface corrections to compute peak blade loading for
the assessment of blade structural integrity.
ABSTRACT
Propeller performance at extreme off design
conditions was investigated using experimental
techniques. Experiments were conducted in the
NSWCCD 36WT for a simple open propeller at near
bollard and crashback conditions. Tests included LDV,
PIV, load measurement, cavitation observations and
laser sheet flow visualization. Numerical calculations
were performed using panel methods to predict the
performance.
At near bollard conditions the blade flow was
attached, showing an expected thick suction side
boundary layer. Performance was predicted with
potential flow methods, with empirical corrections for
boundary layer effects.
NOMENCLATURE
C
Cp
Cd
d
D
F
G
J
KT
KQ
n
P
p0
q
r
R
T
U
Ut
Vs
Vc
V r, U r
Vt
Ux
X
Y
Z
INTRODUCTION
Propeller performance prediction at near design
operating conditions has become well developed using
a variety of analysis tools. The state of the art is well
represented by the 22nd ITTC propulsion committee
Propeller RANS/Panel Method Workshop, with results
summarized in the 22nd ITTC propulsion committee
Report (ITTC, 1999). Lifting surface, Panel method
and RANS computational approaches have all
demonstrated reasonable prediction capability near
design operation for convention single, open
propellers. Data at design condition has been provided
by Jessup (1989, 1994) in way of LDV measurements
on simple open propellers and blade pressure
measurements controllable pitch type propellers in
uniform and inclined flow (1982).
The ahead, bollard condition represents some
additional complexity, where the propeller is heavily
loaded, with very high propeller inductions. The blade
sections are at high angle of attack, with large radial
flow, with large section drag coefficients and very
strong tip and hub vortices.
Steady backing conditions represent a further
complication in propeller blade flow. In this case the
ship is moving backwards, the propeller is turning in
reverse. The sharp trailing edge becomes the leading
edge and the blunt leading edge becomes the trailing
edge. Also the sign of the section camber becomes
reversed, ie, negative camber. This results in extreme
blade section pressure distributions and can lead to
leading edge separation, which can be compared to
airfoil stall conditions occurring at angles of attack
above around 25 degrees. Jiang (1991) presented Panel
method calculations for Propeller 4381 operating in
steady backing. Jiang also outlined a procedure to
estimate crashback performance using panel method
with lift corrections due to leading edge separation.
Number of Blades: 5
Diameter: 12.0 inches (305 mm)
Expanded Area Ratio: 0.726
Right Hand Rotation
Thickness Section: NACA 66 (DTMB Modified)
Camber Section: a=0.8 meanline
Material: Aluminum
Skew, Rake = 0.0
r/R
C/D
T/C
P/D
F/C
0.20
0.174
0.250
1.26
0.0312
0.30
0.228
0.156
1.35
0.0369
0.40
0.275
0.107
1.36
0.0348
0.50
0.313
0.077
1.34
0.0307
0.60
0.338
0.057
1.28
0.0244
0.70
0.348
0.042
1.21
0.0189
0.80
0.334
0.031
1.14
0.0147
0.90
0.281
0.024
1.07
0.0122
0.95
0.219
0.026
1.03
0.0133
0.98
0.153
0.037
1.01
0.0164
0.99
0.115
0.050
1.01
0.0211
1.00
0.000
0.070
1.00
0.0280
X=0.0
TEST SET-UP
All measurements were made in NSWCCDs 36
water tunnel. Propeller 4381 was used with geometry
listed in the following Table. The propeller was run
with an upstream shaft arrangement, shown in Figure
4.
Test Conditions
J
Near-bollard
Crashback
Crashback
+0.3
-0.5
-0.7
n
(rpm)
660
-700
-600
U
(m/s)
1.006
1.778
2.134
U
(ft/s)
3.30
5.83
7.00
MEASUREMENTS
Propeller Dynamometry
Propeller shaft thrust and torque loads were
measured with the 36-inch Water Tunnel standard
strain gage Dynamometry. Tunnel velocity was
calculated via a differential pressure measurement
through the contraction with a correction factor based
upon an LDV survey in an empty test section. Data
acquisition and analysis system was based on National
Instruments hardware; a PXI-1000B rack, PXI-8170
embedded computer, and a PXI-6031E multi-function
I/O device with 16 bit A/D resolution. Software and
data reduction routines were written in LabVIEW v6.1.
Open Jet
Motion
Motion
Fiber-Optic
Probes
Two-axis Traverse
Cavitation Observations
Cavitation observations were performed with
strobe-light illumination. Recording was performed
with a Sony Digital Betacam broadcast quality video
camera/recorder. Still images of the cavitation were
downloaded from the video to JPG files using an
AVID editing system. In crashback, the cavitation and
flow visualization experiments were conducted at
tunnel pressures of 83, 110, and 138 kPa (12, 16, and
20 psia).
t
Vx
V = U 2 + ( 2rn ) 2
Vt
90-
(1)
x
sin V x + cos Vt
Vc = cos V x + sin Vt
(2)
Vr = U r
Type B
Type A
0.005
0.003
0.00008
0.00014
df
0.003
0.0005
t,r
0.0010
0.05
Item
Vr = V r
Vx = Ux ,
(3)
Combined Uncertainties
Case 1 (Inviscid
Flow)
Item
Type
B
0.5
Type
A
0.3
Total
Type
A
0.3
Total
Ref
0.6
Type
B
0.5
Ux, Vx
0.3
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.3
3.0
3.0
Ut
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
1.5
1.5
Ur, Vr
0.03
0.1
0.1
0.1
3.0
2.3
Vt
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
1.5
1.5
Vs
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
2.0
1.9
Vc , Vp
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.3
3.0
2.8
0.0
10.
10.
0.0
10.
10.
Case 2 (Propeller
Wake)
1
10KQ
0.9
0.8
KT, 10KQ, O
0.7
0.6
KT
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.2
0.4
JA
0.6
0.8
Z=blade number.
(4)
RESULTS
Ahead Condition
Baseline ahead measurements were performed to
verify analysis tools for this relatively simple blade
geometry. In tunnel Open water measurements were
compared to earlier tow tank open water performance
(Hecker, 1968) and predictions with the potential based
panel code, PSF10 (1993), and lifting surface code,
PSF3 (1982). Comparison of water tunnel, tow tank
0.3
0.2
KT
0.507
0.495
0.432
0.469
10KQ
0.759
0.857
0.747
.789
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
r/R
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Measured J=0.30
PSF10 J=0.30
PSF3 J=0.30
0.25
0.2
-0.3
0.319
0.275
0.274
0.284
-0.2
-0.1
r 2004
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.24
0.9
0.16
V *s
q*
0.8
q*
Vs
0.20
0.12
0.08
0.7
0.04
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.040
1.1
0.030
0.025
0.020
R / R PROP
Drag Coefficient, Cd
0.035
Cd, P4381
0.015
Cd, P4119
0.010
0.9
0.005
0.000
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.8
r/R
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
X / R PROP
1.1
R / R PROP
Reference Vector
Ur = +0.65
Ux = -1.64
1.1
1
U
0.9
0.9
Ux
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
-2.50
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.8
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
X / R PROP
0.5
1.1
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
R / R PROP
0.4
0.6
0.9
0.8
-0.2
-0.1
R / R PROP
0.1
0.2
0.3
X / R PROP
1.1
0.9
0.8
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
X / R PROP
0.0
KT & 10KQ
-0.2
0.0
600 rpm
-0.2
700 rpm
800 rpm
KT & 10KQ
-0.4
J = -0.5
-0.6
KT1
KT2
-0.8
KQ1
-0.6
KQ2
KT
-1.0
-0.8
-1.0
-1.2
KQ
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.30
Crashback T1
CB T1, SR 2 kHz
Crashback T2
CB T2, SR 2 kHz
Ahead T1
Ahead T1, repeat
Ahead T2
Ahead T2, repeat
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
10
0.20
Re/10
Figure 18 Effect of loading on nondimensional thrust
and torque, J=-0.5
0.25
Symbols:
Water Tunnel Data
Solid Lines: Tow Tank Data
-1.4
T/T
-0.4
1.0
Abs(J)
10
2.5
U_x
1.5
U INF
1.1
1.08
0.83
0.59
0.35
0.10
-0.14
-0.38
-0.63
-0.87
-1.11
-1.36
-1.60
U X / U INF
1.2
0.85
0.9
0.5
0.8
0.15
0.5
-0.2
0.7
0
-0.55
-0.9
0.6
-1.25
0.5
2.5
-1.6
0.4
-0.4
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
1.20
0.80
0.40
0.00
-0.40
-0.80
-1.20
-1.60
1.5
-0.3
Ux
1.5
0.5
PROPELLER
# 4381
0.5
-1
-0.5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3
11
-0.60
-0.65
-0.70
-0.75
-0.80
-0.85
-0.90
-0.95
-1.00
0.8
0.7
V*s
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
KT
KQ
1
2
3
4
Tunnel
Data
0.17770
0.20910
0.21984
0.22073
0.25
0.03785
0.04277
0.04460
0.04450
0.050
KT
Error
-29%
-16%
-12%
-12%
KQ Error
-24%
-14%
-11%
-11%
0.5
0.2
-0.3
Iteration
0.3
z
Figure 23 Crashback blade wake flow, X/R=-0.24,
(upstream), J=-0.5, streamwise velocity
KT
0.221
0.156
0.148
0.131
KQ
0.0445
0.0346
0.0351
0.0341
12
50
Crashback (Iter4) J=-0.5
Steady Backing J=0.5
Ahead J=0.5
40
30
-CP
20
10
-10
-20
r/R
0.60
0.40
-1.50
-1.00
-0.50
0.00
U/U inf
0.50
1.00
r/R
0.70
Vx Total Velocity
Vr Total Velocity
Vt Total Velocity
Vx Effective Inflow after 4 iterations
Vr Effective Inflow after 4 iterations
Vt Effective Inflow after 4 iterations
0.60
0.50
x/c
0.6
0.8
0.40
0.30
0.20
-0.40 -0.20
0.4
0.80
0.20
-2.00
0.2
U X/U inf
U T/U inf
U R /U inf
1.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
Vx, Vr, Vt
1.00
1.20
1.40
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.60
KT
backing
-0.353
-0.272
-0.174
-0.067
10KQ
backing
-0.731
-0.579
-0.400
-0.203
13
KT
crashback
-0.443
-0.331
-0.503
-0.732
10KQ
crashback
-0.915
-0.671
-0.936
-1.285
Forward
Crashback, geo= 42
r
= 13
-V
Backing, geo= 16
Crashback, effective= 13
(5)
2.5
U
q
1.60
1.50
1.40
1.30
1.20
1.10
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
1.5
0.5
2.5
q
1.60
1.50
1.40
1.30
1.20
1.10
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
14
Ut
0.00
-0.03
-0.06
-0.09
-0.12
-0.15
-0.18
-0.21
-0.24
-0.27
-0.30
1.5
0.5
15
U INF
1.1
U X / U INF
2.4
1.8
0.9
1.2
0.8
0.6
0
0.7
-0.6
-1.2
0.6
-1.8
-2.4
0.5
0.4
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
1.1
U X / U INF
2.4
1.8
0.9
1.2
0.8
0.6
0
0.7
-0.6
-1.2
0.6
-1.8
-2.4
0.5
0.4
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
th
8 extreme of 1000
J = -0.5, 700 RPM
U INF
1.1
U X / U INF
2.4
1.8
0.9
1.2
0.6
0.8
0
0.7
-0.6
-1.2
0.6
-1.8
-2.4
0.5
0.4
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Best of 1000
Figure 33 Instantaneous Axial velocity and
streamlines, from PIV J=-0.5
16
Vi = 1.77 m/s
Tip Radius = 152.4 mm
R (mm)
150
100
Image 418
Image #021
Image #304
Image #003
Image #461
Image #035
Image #350
Average
50
Hub Radius
-5
Vx (m/s)
r/R
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
PIV Average Inflow
PIV Extreme Load Condition
0.40
0.30
-1.5
-1
-0.5
V x / V inf
0.5
1.5
17
25
Angle of Attack ( )
20
15
10
0
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
r/R
1.00
0.90
0.80
AVG
EXTREME
0.70
CL
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
r/R
1.20
1.10
1.00
0.90
r/R
AVG
EXTREME
0.80
1.
0.70
0.60
0.50
PIV Average Inflow
0.40
0.30
-20
-15
-10
-5
2.
3.
The time average crashback condition at J=0.5 is typified by flow accelerated forward
against the on coming flow which recirculates
and forms a ring vortex outside the propeller
disk, approximately centered at the propeller
plane. The induced velocity from the thrusting
propeller is large enough to keep the blade
angles of attack similar to a steady backing
condition at the same J. Outgoing swirl from
the propeller creates swirl in the ring vortex
structure, which further complicates the flow.
At J=-0.7 the ring vortex moves aft from the
propeller disk, and the flow through the
propeller develops significant radial outward
flow. This is attributed to the greater external
velocity, and leads to greater propeller thrust.
The Crashback condition creates very
significant unsteady flow. The unsteadiness is
higher at J=-0.5 that at J=-0.7, attributed to the
closer proximity of the ring vortex to the blade
tips. PIV images near the blades, in extreme
cases, show the ring vortex migrating inboard
of the propeller tip, resulting in very high
18
4.
5.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was funded by the Office Of Naval
Research, monitored by Dr. Ki-Han Kim. Supporting
panel calculations were provided by Thad Michael.
The co-authors should be commended individually
for all the contributing efforts encompassing this work.
Chris Chesnakas conducted the LDV measurements.
Dave Fry conducted the PIV measurements. Martin
Donnelly conducted load measurements. Joel Park
prepared the NSWCCD report on the work, and Scott
Black performed the Crashback analysis using the
panel code.
REFERENCES
Chesnakas, C. J., Donnelly, M. J., Fry, D. J., and Park,
J. T., Performance of Propeller 4381 in Crashback,
NSWCCD-50-TR-2004/010, August, 2004.
Davoudzadeh, F., et. al., Coupled Navier-Stokes and
Equations of Motion Simulation of Submarine
Maneuvers, Including Crashback, ASME Fluids
Engineering Division Summer Meeting, Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada, 1997.
FUTURE WORK
Chen, B., , Computational Fluid Dynamics of FourQuadrant Marine Propeller Flow, Ms.Sc. Thesis, The
University of Iowa. 1996.
19
20
DISCUSSION
Neil Bose
Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada
This is an interesting paper because it
describes experimental measurements that are rarely
seen in the literature. I have a number of questions:
AUTHORS REPLY
DISCUSSION
Fabio Di Felice
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale, Italy
The authors should be congratulated for
their extensive study of the complicated flow
fields around a propeller operating in off design
conditions. Several experimental tools have
been used to investigate the phenomena. LDV
and PIV are used in complementary way and the
advantage of PIV in obtaining instantaneous
snapshot of the flow field is used to evaluate
inflow conditions causing extreme blade loading
in crashback. In such case in front of the
propeller a large and complex stagnation area
exists (see figure 22). The behaviour of the
stagnation area is strictly related with the vortex
ring breakdown. To point out if there is a
periodicity in the vortex ring breakdown should
be interesting to see the power spectrum of the
velocity measured by LDV in some points
(upstream of the propeller and nearby the vortex
ring for example).
An important point, as stated by the
authors, is the effect of facility blockage that
seems to be important as demonstrated also by
figure 16 where the differences of KT and KQ
between towing tank and tunnel data are
increasing when reducing J. This is probably
due to the increasing blockage of the propeller.
May be the different position of the vortex ring
from J= -0.5 and J= -0.7 is also influenced by the
facility blockage.
As suggested by the authors future work
using time resolved PIV (nowadays high
resolution camera up to 1 Mpixels at 2000
frame/sec and suitable illumination systems are
available) will give a better insight on the flow
unsteadiness.
AUTHORS REPLY
The authors wish to thank the discussers
for their helpful comments. The idea of
analyzing the power spectrum of the velocity is
interesting. It is a challenge to analyze the
unsteady velocity field in a fashion that can
utilize the data obtained in the most efficient
manner.
DISCUSSION
Eric Paterson
Pennsylvania State University/Applied Research
Laboratory, USA
The authors present magnitude of unsteady
forces during crash back. Can they comment on
frequency content of the unsteady forces?
One of the objectives is to understand ship
motions during crash back, however, only CT & KQ
have been measured. Do the authors plan to measure
the remaining 2 components of force and 2
components of torque? These side forces are
obviously important for understanding this complex
problem.
AUTHORS REPLY
The measurements presented in this paper
did not include side force measurements. Recent tests
conducted in August of 2004 included additional PIV
measurements, and unsteady shaft forces and
moments, including side forces. These results will be
reported at a later date.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
AIM OF STUDY
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
OBJECTS OF RESARCH
In the present study the viscous flow on a geometry
of a propeller with three different cap shapes was
investigated. A 5 bladed controllable pitch propeller
was selected for the investigations. The propeller has
a typical radial load distribution as normally used for
a navy ship to delay cavitation inception (strong deloaded at blade tip and root). The hub diameter ratio
and skew angle equal 0.2976 and 22.7 respectively.
The scale ratio of the propeller model is 12. Main
parameters of the propeller model (VP 1352) are:
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
D
Z
Pm/D
Ae/Ao
= 350.0 mm
=
5
= 1.279
= 0.72
2
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
NUMERICAL COMPUTATION
The commercial CFX-TASCflow code has been
applied to solve the Reynolds-averaged NavierStokes equations. CFX-TASCflow is based on a
conservative finite volume method. CFX-TASCflow
uses a non-orthogonal, block-structured numerical
grid, in conjunction with Cartesian velocity
components. For a description of the application of
CFX-TASCflow method for propeller flow see
Abdel-Maksoud and Heinke, 2002.
The applied discretization method of the convective
terms in transport equations is based on the MassWeighted-Skew-Upwind-Differencing
method
(MWS) and the Linear-Profile-Skew-Upwind
differencing procedures (LPS). The accuracy of the
calculated convective terms is improved with the help
of the Physical Advection Correction (PAC) method.
Multi-grid technology is applied to reduce long-wavy
errors and to accelerate the solution of the algebraic
equation system. While the masses and three impulse
conservation equations in every iteration are coupled
solved, the turbulence equations are solved
individually. The coupled solution of the masses and
impulse conservation equations has many advantages
especially for a complicated flow behaviour and it
leads to a robust, reliable and quick algorithm.
To solve the Navier-Stokes equation for the propeller
the solution domain is divided into two regions. The
outside region is stationary and the region inside,
which includes the propeller, rotates. Between the
inside and the outside region a sliding non-matching
interface is applied (Abdel-Maksoud and Heinke,
2002). For turbulence modelling the SST model is
applied.
Especially in the separated flow region for example
behind the hub, more accurate results can be achieved
with the SST turbulence model. Although the
calculations were carried out for a propeller in
homogeneous flow, all propeller blades are
considered in the study. This was necessary to focus
the interaction between the root vortices of the
propeller blades and the unsteady behaviour of the
hub vortex flow.
The applied numerical grid Control contains about
1.3 Mio. control volumes and most of them are
located in the hub region in order to capture the detail
of the flow in this region. The numerical grid is
3
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
NUMERICAL RESULTS
The calculated efficiencies of the propeller show the
same tendency as the measured data. The efficiencies
of the propeller with CON and CONDIV hub caps are
close to each other and much higher than that with
DIV shape. The absolute efficiency differs from those
measured. This can be explained by the fact that the
number of grid cells on the outer radii of the propeller
blades was kept to a minimum in order to be able to
apply higher grid resolution at the inner radii of the
propeller blades and behind the hub. The total
number of cells was kept below a certain limit to
enable a large number of numerical computations to
be carried out within an acceptable time.
The flow behaviour around the CONDIV shape can
be seen in the Figures 6-8. The low pressure regions
in the flow are shown in Figure 6. These regions are
located on the suction side of the propeller blade and
directly behind the hub cap as well as at a certain
distance behind it. At this location the root vortices
are coincided together and form a strong hub vortex
with low pressure region. The streamlines near the
root region of the blades are shown in Figure 7. The
swirl component dominates the flow in this region. A
separated flow region is located directly behind the
hub cap. The shape of the streamlines is changed
suddenly behind the separated flow region as shown
in Figure 8.
A comparison of measured and calculated axial
velocity component in a longitudinal section along
the rotation axis is included in Figure 9. Results of
the LDV and the PIV measurements as well as the
4
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
CORRELATION
BETWEEN
THE
CALCULATED RESULTS FOR MODEL
AND FULL-SCALE
The velocity distribution in the longitudinal section
along the rotation axis is shown for model and fullscale in Figure 11 and 12. The shape of the separated
pNorm =
p
0.5 (V + (0.7 D n ) 2)
(1)
5
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
(p )
(p )
(Rn )model
Norm model
(2)
DIV
CON
CONDIV
Model
pNorm
-0.06
-0.045
-0.058
Full-scale
pNorm
-0.225
-0.131
-0.155
mean value
Exponent
m
0.40
0.32
0.31
0.34
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to express their gratitude to
the Federal Office of Defence, Technology and
Procurements, Department Ships and Naval
Equipment for the support of this study.
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Ae/Ao
D
dh
J
KT
KQ
kn
m
n
Pm
PS
pNorm
r
R
Rn
SS
V
Z
o
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
6
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
REFERENCES
Abdel-Maksoud, M., Menter, F. R., Wuttke, H.,
"Viscous Flow Simulations for Conventional and
High Skew Marine Propellers," Ship Technology
Research, Vol. 45, No. 2, 1998.
Abdel-Maksoud, M., Rieck, K., Menter, F. R.,
"Unsteady Numerical Investigation of the Turbulent
Flow Around The Container Ship Model (KCS) with
and without Propeller," Gothenburg 2000, A
Workshop on Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics,
Gothenburg, Sweden, 2000.
Abdel-Maksoud, M., Heinke, H., "Scale effects on
Ducted Propellers," 24th Symposium on Naval
Hydrodynamics, Fukuoka, Japan, July 2002
Abdel-Maksoud, M., Hellwig, K., Blaurock, J.,
Schmidt, D., Jaksic, D., "Correlation of Propeller
Cavitation Design of Hub Cap," Potsdam Model
DIV-shape
CON- shape
CONDIV- shape
Figure 1: Investigated propeller geometry
7
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
DIV - KT
CON - KT
CONDIV - KT
DIV - 10KQ
CON - 10KQ
CONDIV - 10KQ
DIV - ETA0
CON - ETAO
CONDIV - ETAO
1,1
1,0
0,9
10K Q
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
KT
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1,0
1,1
1,2
1,3
J [-]
8
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
LDA
PIV
CFD
DIV
CON
CONDIV
Figure 9: Comparison of measured and calculated axial velocity component, longitudinal section
9
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
DIV, r/R=0.71
DIV, r/R=0.16
CON, r/R=0.71
CON, r/R=0.16
CONDIV, r/R=0.71
CONDIV, r/R=0.16
Figure 10: Comparison of measured and calculated axial velocity component, cross section
10
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Model
Full
scale
DIV
CON
CONDIV
Figure 11: Comparison of calculated axial velocity contours for model and full-scale
Model
Full
scale
DIV
CON
CONDIV
Figure 12: Comparison of calculated axial velocity vectors for model and full-scale
Model
Full
scale
DIV
CON
CONDIV
Figure 13: Comparison of calculated pressure field for model and full scale
11
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
DISCUSSION
Stuart Jessup
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
I would like to congratulate the authors for
addressing a topic for which Navy propeller
designers have great interest. Design methods for hub
vortex performance are presently very crude. The
design community can benefit from any experimental
or computational efforts in this area. The conclusion
of the application of McCormick type sealing
supports our general approach.
Our experience with the use of divergent
hub cones is similar in respect to performance loss.
We installed such a hub cone on our PC-1 patrol boat
propeller which resulted in an efficiency loss. One
positive result was an improvement in thrust
breakdown. The divergent cone appears to raise the
static pressure in the propeller plane, thus reducing
the amount of blade cavitation at high speed. Can the
authors comment on this aspect?
Also, can the authors explain why the RANS
computations used in the paper have required a full
propeller disk simulation? Would it be possible to
compute the hub vortex pressures by modeling only
one blade passage? Would accuracy be sacrificed by
making that simplification?
We appreciate the contribution that this
paper has made for the propeller designer tasked with
addressing hub vortex cavitation requirements.
AUTHORS REPLY
Thank you very much for your kind
comments.
The main interest of this task was focussed
on the structure of the velocity field behind the hub,
the cavitation onset and the influence of the different
hub shapes on the propeller efficiency. Hence, the
influence on thrust break down and the corresponding
influence on blade cavitation have not been
investigated.
We agree with you that the divergent cone
raises the static pressure in the propeller plane. A
well known proceeding in design of propellers for
fast vessels is to reduce the hub diameter at half boss
length and to increase it again toward the hub end.
The aim of this proceeding is to raise the pressure at
the route fillet locally to delay route cavitation. This
is the same physical mechanism, which can be
observed on the divergent cap.
Unfortunately this positive effect cannot be
achieved, when we look for late cavitation onset of
the hub vortex. Necessarily, we have to accept that
DISCUSSION
Soave Massimo
INSEAN, Italy
I have appreciated the work presented
especially because it has confirmed a similar
investigation carried out at the CEIMM (Italian Navy
Cavitation Tunnel) a few years ago. All the results
presented are perfectly congruent with our previous
work with the exception of the proposed correlation
between model and full scale; extensive comparison
of model cavitation with full scale investigation
carried out by the Italian Navy Cavitation Tunnel
have several times shown that the hub vortex
cavitation (at least the type attached to the hub) is
subject to a very small scaling effect. Could the
authors of this paper say if they have validated their
numeric theory with full-scale sea investigation?
AUTHORS REPLY
Thank you very much for your encouraging
comments. In the paper, the viscous flows around a
propeller geometry in model and full-scale were
calculated and the estimated minimum pressures in
model and full-scale were compared. The comparison
shows that it is possible to apply the formula
developed by McCormick to calculate minimum
pressure in the hub vortex region of the full-scale
from the model scale results.
The calculated results of the velocity
distribution behind the different hub cap forms were
compared with the measured data in model scale.
As you know, in full-scale case, the
observation of the hub vortex is much more difficult
than the tip vortex due to many reasons. In addition it
should be mentioned that the location of lowest
pressure was found not attached to the propeller cap
but at a significant distance behind it. Just this area is
extremely difficult to observe by optical means and
even cavitation of the hub vortex is existent there.
Unfortunately, there were no measurements
available for a validation study of full scale results.
We would appreciate a lot if it would be possible to
get validation data for this part of the study.
DISCUSSION
Christopher Chesnakas
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
Was the root flow at the blade examined
either experimentally (through oil flow) or
numerically for flow separation, and if so, did the
shape of the boss cap have an effect on the root
separation?
AUTHORS REPLY
A so called wet paint (or oil flow) test has
not been carried out at any of the tested conditions.
Although this proof is not available, it should be
expected that especially the divergent (DIV) cap
shape will retard slightly the flow close to the hub
surface and hence the pressure will increase in this
region. (See also the contribution of S. Jessup and the
corresponding answer).
The LDA and PIV results are available only
for the flow behind the propeller blades. Therefore, it
was not possible to study the effect of the hub cap
shape on the flow in the root region.
The numerical results do not show any flow
separation near the roots of the blades. Perhaps the
reason is the applied ideal inflow condition to the
propeller in the study. The propeller was investigated
in parallel flow and the operation point was close to
the design condition.
DISCUSSION
Hoyte C. Raven
MARIN, Netherlands
The paper concludes that numerical methods
are a good tool for predicting the pressure reduction
in the hub vortex, and can be used to find the most
suitable hub cap shape. However, the calculated
minimum pressures in Table 1 seem not in agreement
with the cavitation inception test results. What
evidence do you have that you can actually predict
the pressure in the hub vortex?
AUTHORS REPLY
The calculated velocity distribution behind
the different hub cap forms were compared with the
measured data in model scale. The results of the
calculated minimum pressure for the CON and DIV
forms agree well with the cavitation inception test
results . The reason for the deviation of the results of
CONDIV is that the calculated minimum pressure of
this hub cap form is strongly effected by the unsteady
behavior of the hub vortex due to the highly
interaction between the root vortices of the blades.
Because this effect takes place only in model scale, it
should be expected that a good agreement can be
achieved for full-scale case.
method has been successfully applied to propeller problems by many researchers(Lee 1987, Hoshino 1989). A
good discussion on the potential-based panel method may
be found in Kerwin et al(1987). The existing potentialbased method, called the low-order panel method, assumes that the potential is constant over a panel, and
hence to get the velocity distribution on the body surface,
the method requires a finite difference scheme which inevitably introduces a numerical differentiation error. This
error is most significant at/near the trailing edge and the
tip of the lift-generating surface, and leads ultimately to
the degradation of the accuracy of the low-order method.
The main purpose of the present paper is to develop
a higher-order panel method, which improves the prediction of the velocity and pressure in these regions. We
will employ B-spline basis functions(Rogers and Adams
1989, Piegl and Tiller 1996) to represent both the geometry and the potential. Since the derivatives of the basis functions can be obtained exactly, there is no need to
use a numerical differentiation scheme to get the velocity
from the potential, and hence it is obvious that the inherent limit of the low-order panel method would no longer
exist. The order of the B-splines to represent the body
and the potential can also be increased without limit, and
hence the solution of any order can be obtained.
The most detailed description of the higher-order
panel method based on B-splines was first given by Hsin,
Kerwin and Newman(1993) at M.I.T. for the analysis of
the flow around two-dimensional bodies. Their theory
is mathematically complete and the numerical procedure
is reported robust. Maniar(1995) then extended to the
three-dimensional higher-order panel method, following
the similar line of approach as Hsin et al. The threedimensional higher-order panel method proved to be very
accurate for their test cases of spherical floating bodies
and floating offshore structures with vertical cylindrical
columns. In their approach, the integrals of the influence functions are expressed in terms of polynomials of
a parametric coordinate, and the polynomial coefficients
are derived from B-spline basis functions. Although the
polynomial representation is sufficient for most bodies
of interest, it is in general not appropriate to expand in
A higher order panel method based on B-spline representation for both the geometry and the solution is developed for the analysis of steady flow around marine
propellers. The self-influence functions due to the normal dipole and the source are desingularized through the
quadratic transformation, and then shown to be evaluated
using conventional numerical quadrature. By selecting
a proper order for numerical quadrature, the accuracy of
the present method can be increased to the machine limit.
The far- and near-field influences are shown to be evaluated based on the same far-field approximation, but the
near-field solution requires subdividing the panels into
smaller subpanels continuously, which can be effectively
implemented due to the B-spline representation of the geometry. A null pressure jump Kutta condition at the trailing edge is found to be effective in stabilizing the solution
process and in predicting the correct solution. Numerical
experiments indicate that the present method is robust and
predicts the pressure distribution on the blade surface, including very close to the tip and trailing edge regions,with
far fewer panels than existing low order panel methods.
INTRODUCTION
Panel methods have been widely accepted as a useful tool
for aerodynamic and hydrodynamic design, since the pioneering work of Hess and Smith(1964). A large number
of different panel methods have been developed for a variety of applications(Hess 1975), leading recently to application to the analysis of steady performance of marine
propellers(Hess and Valarezo 1985). Until Morino(1974)
introduced a panel method based on Greens formula in
which the primary unknown is the potential, most of the
previous works were based on the velocity-based formulation in which the boundary condition on the body surface is satisfied through the direct computation of the velocity. Morinos potential-based formulation is known
to be more stable and hence more suitable to numerical
computation than the velocity method, since the potential is one order less singular than the velocity. Morinos
1
(1)
(3)
(4)
v
v 1 M
N
1
X X
i=0
i (u)M
j (v)
~xvi,j N
(5)
j=0
(u, v) =
v
v
NX
1 MX
1
i=0
2
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
j=0
(6)
Y
X
Geometric vertices
Discretized panels
Y
X
8
7
0.5
6
5
The potential on the body surface is represented by the influences of the normal dipoles and the sources distributed
on the body surface consisting of the blade and the hub
(SB SH ) and the wake surface(SW ) as
ZZ
G
=
+
G dS
()
2
n
n
SB SH
ZZ
G
+
()
dS
(8)
n
SW
3
2
-0.5
1
0
-1
-1
Wake vertices
0
1
1
8
7
0.5
6
5
3
2
-0.5
0
-1
-1
Wake panels
1
(9)
~r
=
nU
(10)
n
~r = U
~A
~ ~r is the velocity of the circumferwhere U
ential mean oncoming stream past a fixed blade at radius
r, being defined by the circumferential mean advance ve~ A and the rotational speed of the propeller .
~
locity U
As discussed in the preceding section, the blade surface patch may be discretized into (N , M ) panels using the usable parametric space of the knot vectors (7).
The wake surface patch, which sheds downstream from
the trailing edge, can be represented by a set of M
streamwise strips with the constant normal dipole on each
spanwise location.
Discretization into a set of (N , M ) panels on the
blade and M strips in wake will then yield
ZZ
X
G
+
dS
2
n
S,
,
X ZZ
X ZZ
G
dS =
GdS
()
+
n
w
S
S, n
,
n ~r
dS
(15)
I0D =
4
r3
(11)
Noting that there are only (p + 1, q + 1) nonzero
basis functions at each span defined by the space between
adjacent knots in (7), we may rewrite the potential (6) as
a (p + 1, q + 1) term summation as follows
(u, v) =
q
p X
X
v, N (u)M (v)
where the distance vector ~r is defined by a vector extending from the control point to the source point on the panel
surface and is expressed by a series of B-spline tensor
products as
X
(u)M
(v)
~r =
(~xv, ~xc )N
(12)
a=0 b=0
a,b
|~r|
(16)
The derivatives of the above with respect to the parametric variables can be obtained analytically from the Bspline derivatives as follows:
~r
u
1 X
{
Ni (ui )Mj (vj )vi ,j }
2
a,b
X ZZ
X
G
+
dS
{
N (u)M (v)v, }
n
S, a,b
,
X ZZ
X ZZ
G
+
()
dS =
GdS
n
n
w
S
S,
~r
v
X
(u)
N
(v)
(~xv, ~xc )
M
u
(u) M (v)
(~xv, ~xc )N
v
a,b
(17)
a,b
(13)
where i = si p + a, j = tj q + b, = s p + a
and = t q + b. It should be noticed that the (, )
4
will give
v
Transformation
(0)
for
(2)
( uc , vc )
u - uc =
v - vc =
(0)
u - uc
u
=0
v
=
u
=1
v
=
(24)
(0)
(1)
(3)
u
~r
~r
Figure 3: A typical triangulation of the parametric space and the quadratic transformation, after
Maniar
For (1) ,
For (2) ,
For (3) ,
u uc
v vc
u uc
v vc
u uc
v vc
u uc
v vc
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
~r
r
(18)
k=0
~r
~r
~r
~r
(21)
J =
S
I0,
(0)
v vc =
(22)
=
Without loss of generality, we may describe the procedure to get the integral in the rightmost triangle (0)
and this can be equally applicable to the other triangles.
The quadratic transformation for (0)
u uc =
(26)
~
~ + Q
Q
~
Q
(27)
Substituting (26) and (27) into the source integral (19) for
(0) will lead to
/J
~
Q(u,
v)
Q(u, v)
(20)
n
=
(25)
With the partitioning, the integrals (14) and (15) may now
be obtained by adding the contribution of each triangular
section as
ZZ
3
3
X
X
1
1
S
Jdd (19)
I0S =
I0,
(k) =
4
(k) r
k=0
k=0
ZZ
3
3
X
X
1
n ~r
D
D
Jdd
I0 =
I0,(k) =
4
r3
(k)
k=0
~r u ~r v
+
u
v
~r u ~r v
+
u
v
~r
~r dd
r
(0)
!
ZZ
~
~ dd
1
Q
Q
~
Q+
Q
(0)
1
4
ZZ
(28)
where the integrand of the last expression is non-singular.
Similarly, the quadratic transformation applied to the
(23)
5
3 dd
=
quadrature for the self-induction computation should be
4
r
(0)
!
(Ng )Self 4 and (Mg )Self 4. Application of the simiZZ
~
~
~
1
Q
Q
Q
~
dd lar equation to the other triangles of the square will com=
Q +
||3 Q3
(0)
plete the computation of the self-induced potentials due
(
ZZ
to the source and the dipole.
~ Q/
~
~
Q
Q
1
=
4
Q3
(0)
)
!
SELF-INDUCED POTENTIAL OF DIPOLES OF
~
~
Q
Q
1
~
dd
Q
(29) HIGHER ORDER
Q3
When the control point falls on the panel surface, the inThe numerator of the first term in the integrand is always duction integral due to the normal dipole of higher order
zero, whereas the denominator is nonzero unless = 0. requires a special treatment as described above. The conWe expect that this term will result in the solid angle tribution of the higher orders is, however, less singular
of 2, when the contribution from all four triangles are than that due to the constant term in dipole strength, and
added together as described by Maniar(1995). This is the hence the same argument leading to (32) can be applied
factor which leads to the /2 term in the integral equa- to evaluate the dipole-induced potential of higher-order
tion. With the nonzero denominator in the second term as
in the integral, we observe that the integrand is a reguD
Iself
lar function. The significance of the above expressions
(28) and (29) is that the singular part is removed from the
3 ZZ
3
X
X
G
D
original equations (19) and (20), and hence we can apply
=
I
dS
(k) =
n
(k)
a numerical quadrature to perform integrations.
k=0
k=0
3 ZZ
To compute the integrand of (29) using more familiar
X
X
G
v, N (u)M (v)
=
Jdd
physical quantities rather than Q, we use the relation
n
(k) a,b
k=0
~
~
~
~
~ Q
Q
(33)
~ 1 = ~r ~r ~r + Q Q/ Q
Q)
(
3
3
3
Q
r
Q
(30) The last line of (33) may be rewritten as
All the variables in the first term in the right-hand side
D
of (30) are well defined. The second term is identically
Iself
ZZ
zero, since 6= 0 in our numerical integration for (29).
X
G
v
=
,
N (u) M (v)
Jdd
Equations (28) and (29) may now be computed by
n
(k)
k,a,b
applying Gauss-Legendre quadrature with global variX
ables as follows
=
v,
k,a,b
1 R L T B
S
ZZ
I0,
'
(0)
1
n ~r
4
2
2
Jdd
N
(u)
M
(v)
Mg 1 Ng 1
4
r3
X X
~r
(k)
~r 1
wm wn
X
1 R L T B
r n,m
v,
'
m=0 n=0
4
2
2
k,a,b
(31)
)
1 R L T B
X
D
~
r
I0,
'
(0)
wm wn N (u)M (v) 3 J
4
2
2
r
n,m
m,n
Mg 1 Ng 1
X X
~r
~r ~r
(34)
wm wn
r
n,m
m=0 n=0
(32) Note that computation of (34) does not require any special treatment due to the removal of singularity at the
where L and R denote the parameters at the control origin, and hence the same order of the Gauss-Legendre
point and the rightmost side of the square, respectively, quadrature may be maintained as the order for the conB and T the parameters at the lower and upper ends stant dipole integral (32).
6
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
IfSar =
GdS
S, n
,
X ZZ
G J du dv
=
S, n
,
X uR uL vT vB
'
2
2
,
)
X
wm wn
(37)
GJ
n
n,m
m,n
S
I
(k) =
k=0
3 ZZ
X
k=0
(k)
GdS
n
X 1 R L T B
4
2
2
k
X
1
J
wm wn
n r
n,m
m,n
'
(35)
IfDar
X ZZ
,
X ZZ
,
S,
X
S, a,b
'
,,a,b
v, N (u)M (v)
(Z Z
v,
,,a,b
G
dS
n
v,
G
Jdu dv
n
G
N (u)M (v)
Jdu dv
n
S,
uR uL vT vB
2
2
)
G
wm wn N (u)M (v)
J
n
n,m
m,n
(36)
(a)
(c)
2U +
+
2V +
x
y
y
2W +
+
z
z
2U +
+
2V +
x
x
y
y
2W +
=0
(40)
+
z
z
(b)
(d)
Figure 4: Continuous partitioning of the parametric space from (a) to (d), after Maniar
dynamic array allocation technique can be applied effectively to handle the storage need for continuously increasing number of subpanels which is unknown until all the
subpanels meet the far-field cirterion.
(t1)
2U +
x
(t1)
2V +
y
(t1)
2W +
z
(41)
E
+F
+G
x
y
z
=0
(42)
(38)
+F
+G
x
y
z
E
D
E
D
E
D
v
n
y
v
n1
y
u
y
v
y
u
y
v
z
u
z
v
n1
n2
E y
u
u D n1
z
v
n2
z
u
z
v
z
u
n2
v
(43)
F
y
(39)
F x
= v
D n0
x
F u
D x
v
8
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
u + D
z
v
n2
z
u
z
v
u
n0
z
u
n2
v
(44)
G
z
G x
v
D n0
x
G u
D x
=
+
y
v
n1
y
u
y
v
G x
u
u D n0
y
u
n1
(45)
Since the potentials in (43), (44) and (45) can be differentiated with respect to the parameters, the first three
terms in (42) may now be recast as
+F
+G
x
y
z
E F G
1 x y z
D v v v u
n0 n1 n2
x y z
1 u u u
G
E F
D
v
n0 n1 n2
x y z
u
u
1 u
y
x
z
D v v v n
G
E F
E
=
a,b
G
n
(46)
Sv = T
X N
M v
E
M + F N
,
u
v
a,b
X N
E
M + F N
v,
u
v
a,b
= G
+ G
(48)
where A is NCP NV non-square matrix, v the unknown potential vertex strength vector and B the forcing
vector with NCP elements.
The dynamic Kutta condition (47) with all terms expressed in terms of the strength of the potential vertices
vi,j can be expressed in matrix form as
+ F
+ G
u
v
n
X N
X
M v
E
N
M v, + F
u
v ,
E
a,b
Av = B
(49)
(47)
(50)
(51)
Z
Y
and (N , M ) = (10, 4)
Y
X
(N , M ) = (8, 4)
0.5
0.4
0.3
Present Method
analytic
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
90
180
270
360
4
2.5
3.5
100.0*/2RU
100.0*/2RU
1.5
2.5
2
N M = 8 8
N M = 16 8
N M = 16 16
N M = 24 16
N M = 24 24
1.5
Present Method
Jordan
0.5
0.5
0
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
0.4
0.6
0.8
r/R
y/R
0.49
NACA 0010
angle of attack 5 degree
-Cp
0.45
0.00
0.25
0.5
0.75
Figure 9: Pressure distribution at selected spanwise stations predicted by the present method with
N M = 20 10, (p, q) = (4, 3)
Y
X
Z
11
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
0.5
Pressure distribution on DTRC 4119, J=0.833
0.45
0.4
r/R=0.7
r/R=0.3
0.7
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.4
0.35
0.3
0
-Cp
-Cp
0.2
0.1
-0.1
0
88
16 8
16 16
24 16
24 24
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
88
16 8
16 16
24 16
24 24
-0.3
-0.4
0.25
0.2
-0.5
-0.5
-0.6
0.3
10KQ
-0.2
-0.1
0.25
0.5
0.75
-0.6
0.25
s/C
0.5
0.75
s/C
KT
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
168
88
1616
2416
2424
NUMBER OF PANELS
Pressure distribution on DTRC 4119, J=0.833
0.4
r/R=0.98
r/R=0.9
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
-0.1
of
-0.1
-0.2
-0.2
88
16 8
16 16
24 16
24 24
-0.3
-0.4
88
16 8
16 16
24 16
24 24
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
-Cp
-Cp
0.3
-0.5
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
-0.6
Measured
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
3.5
s/C
s/C
100.0*/2RU
Figure 12: Convergence characteristics of pressure distribution for various number of panels
2.5
1.5
Present Method
Experiment(Jessup)
Experiment(Jessup)
PSF-2
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.8
r/R
Figure 14: Circulation distribution of radial direction on DTRC 4119 propeller: Comparison
with experiments and PSF-2 prediction (J S =
0.833)
0.6
r/R=0.3
0.5
0.4
0.3
-Cp
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
Present Method
-0.2
Experiment (Jessup)
-0.3
Hoshino (Panel)
-0.4
PSF-2
-0.5
0.25
0.5
0.75
s/C
12
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
0.3
0.3
r/R=0.7
r/R=0.9
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
-Cp
-Cp
-0.1
-0.2
Present Method
Present Method
-0.1
Experiment (Jessup)
-0.3
Experiment (Jessup)
Hoshino (Panel)
-0.4
-0.5
0.25
0.5
Hoshino (Panel)
-0.2
PSF-2
PSF-2
0.75
s/C
0.25
0.5
0.75
s/C
experiment whereas is convex downward in the computations. To see whether this is due to any discrepancy of
the numerics, another Figure 18 is presented comparing
the predicted pressures by various numerical codes. It is
clearly seen that there exist correlations between the theories. This may imply first that there may be an error in
measurement errors or in data processing. Another possibility is related to the treatment of the Kutta condition
in numerical form.
Figures 19 shows the pressure distribution at r/R =
0.99, where the prediction by the low order panel method
has been practically impossible due to the abrupt change
of both the geometry and the flow characteristics. The
solution in this region may provide a critical information
for prediction of the tip vortex cavity flow solution. The
unnatural behavior of the pressure distribution at the trailing edge is likely to be influenced by the wake sheet location, which is fixed by a set of wake geometry parameters. This may be improved by introducing the real wake
model or by iterative procedure to locate the force-free
wake sheet.
Figure 20 show the velocity vectors and streamlines
on both suction and pressure sides of the blade. The
streamlines show a qualitatively similar picture to the experimental results of Jessup reproduced in Figure 21. It
is clear that the streamlines in the tip region direct toward
the hub as they move downstream on the suction side of
the blade, and outward on the pressure side. This crossflow component will form a strong vortex core when the
flow detaches from the blade tip.
Figure 22 shows the pressure contours on suction and
pressure sides of the blades. The pressure coefficient is
non-dimensionalized by the uniform inflow speed.
As a final step for DTRC propeller 4119, the open
water characteristics at various advance coefficients from
r/R=0.9
0.2
-Cp
0.1
-0.1
Present Method
Experiment(Jessup)
KRISO(Panel)
PSF-10(Panel)
VSAERO(Panel)
-0.2
0.25
0.5
0.75
s/C
r/R=0.99
0.4
0.3
-Cp
0.2
0.1
Present Method
-0.1
-0.2
0.25
0.5
0.75
s/C
13
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
0.98R
0.97R
0.9R
0.8R
0.98R
0.97R
0.9R
0.8R
CONCLUSIONS
When the control point falls very close to the panel,
a continuous subdivision method can be applied to
evaluate the induction-integrals. Sub-division into
a smaller panels does not lose the accuracy of the
geometry and the potential representation.
A B-spline based high order panel method is developed for the analysis of the propeller performance.
Both the geometry and the velocity potential are represented by B-splines, thus increasing the accuracy
of geometry and flow representation.
The self-induction due to the high order normal dipole and source distribution is shown to
14
12
14 14
16
161
16
1 8 15
13
14
Level
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
17
17 1 8
17
15
16
23
25
17
17 17
1923
18 17
16
18
16
18
19
16
18
22 14
2
16
14
18
221
12
17
1818
20
23
17
11
10
15
14
21
2223
17
22
15
19
17
15
19
15 15
20
14
13
13
17
1616
192020
2521
18
15
14
151 111315
16 3
Cp
0.3000
0.2667
0.2333
0.2000
0.1667
0.1333
0.1000
0.0667
0.0333
0.0000
-0.0333
-0.0667
-0.1000
-0.1333
-0.1667
-0.2000
-0.2333
-0.2667
-0.3000
-0.3333
-0.3667
-0.4000
-0.4333
-0.4667
-0.5000
X
1
611089 6 9
99
8 79612
14
14
15
51 72
2
13 17
24 21
15 252
02
12
11
17
21
17
18 18
12
12
11
11
13
14
15
1111
11
111347
1
19
25
5 6 01 9
4
01 2
11 4224
2
23
14
15
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Cp
0.3000
0.2667
0.2333
0.2000
0.1667
0.1333
0.1000
0.0667
0.0333
0.0000
-0.0333
-0.0667
-0.1000
-0.1333
-0.1667
-0.2000
-0.2333
-0.2667
-0.3000
-0.3333
-0.3667
-0.4000
-0.4333
-0.4667
-0.5000
11
25
8
14 9
18
17
1 91
23 9
23
10
23
12
18
88
20
11
10
6
4
18
14
19
13
25
14 1919 18
17
10
15
11
10
15
1724
Level
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
13
13
23
17
14
13
14 14
13
14
513
11 1010
13
11
13
If the blades are represented by NURBS(NonUniform Rational B-Spline) surfaces, the panel
method can be easily extended to adopt the NURBS
surface.
REFERENCES
Greeley, D.S. and Kerwin, J.E., Numerical Methods
for Propeller Design and Analysis in Steady Flow,
Transactions of SNAME, Vol. 90, 1982, pp. 415-453.
Hess, J.L., Review of Integral-Equation Techniques
for Solving Potential-Flow Problems with Emphasis on
the Surface-Source Method, Computational Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 5, 1975, pp.
145-196.
1.2
DTRC 4119
1
Experiment
Present Method
0.8
o 0.6
10KQ
0.4
KT
0.2
0
0.4
0.6
0.8
J
1.2
Figure 23: Comparison of open water performance of DTRC 4119 propeller with experiments
=
=
=
x
x u
x
x v
x n0
+
+
+
y
y u
y
y v
y n1
z
z u
z
z v
z n2
+
+
+
(52)
u
u
u
1
y
z
=
v
v
v
x
D
n
n
1
2
n
x z
u
u
1 u
x
z
=
v
v
y
D v
n0 n n2
x y
u
u
1 u
y
x
=
(53)
v
z
D v v
n0 n1 n
u
u u
y
z
D = x
v
v
v
n0 n1 n2
(54)
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
Ki-Han Kim
Office of Naval Research, USA
c)
REFERENCES
Kinnas, S.A., Pyo, S., Hsin, C.-Y., and Kerwin, J.E.,
"Numerical Modeling of Propeller Tip Flows," Sixth
International Conference on Numerical Ship
Hydrodynamics, pp. 531-544, Iowa City, IA, August
1993.
REFERENCES
Pyo, S. and Kinnas, S.A., "Propeller wake sheet rollup modeling in three dimensions," Journal of Ship
Research, Vol. 41, pp. 81-92, 1997.
AIAA
ABSTRACT
The numerical modeling of the flow around two types of
high efficiency propulsors, ducted and podded propellers,
is performed via coupling of a Vortex Lattice Method
(VLM) based potential solver (MPUF3A) with a Finite
Volume Method (FVM) based Euler solver (GBFLOW).
The coupling of GBFLOW with MPUF3A provides a
way of analyzing the interactions among propeller, pod
and strut, or between propeller and duct. In the coupling
of MPUF3A and GBFLOW, MPUF3A is first solved for
the potential flow distribution around the propeller, and
the pressure distributions on the propeller blades are evaluated. The pressure distributions are then converted into
body force terms which represent the existence of the
propeller in GBFLOW. GBFLOW solves the Euler equations, with the converted body force terms and the appropriate boundary conditions, in the whole fluid domain
which includes the appendages such as duct, pod and
strut. The effective wake to the propeller and the body
forces keep being updated as iterations continue until the
loading of the propeller converges. The numerical computations are carried out for a ducted propeller, and a pull
or twin types of podded propulsors, and the method is
validated by comparing the numerical results with those
measured in experiments.
INTRODUCTION
The multi-component propulsors like ducted and podded
propellers have been widely used in modern commercial
ships on account of their high efficiency, maneuverability
and sea-keeping ability. A ducted propeller, with the influence of duct, can either accelerate flow inside the duct
and provide additional thrust (accelerating type) or improve the pressure distribution inside the duct and delay
the occurrence of cavitation on the blade (decelerating
type). A podded propulsors, with the proper design of
the pod and strut, can also improve the overall performance of the propulsion and reduce the fuel consumption
of a vessel. In addition, podded propulsors and ducted
propellers can be used in dynamic positioning systems of
ducted propellers. For both cases, MPUF3A, a Vortex Lattice Method based potential solver, solves the
flow in the vicinity of the propeller, and GBFLOW, a
Finite Volume Method based Euler solver, solves for
fluid domain where the appendages (hub, pod/strut or
duct) are included. The interactions among propeller(s),
pod and strut (or duct), and the inflow (which can be
non-axisymmetric in general) are considered by applying
MPUF3A and GBFLOW with the effects of one on the
other being considered iteratively.
First, MPUF3A solves the potential flow problem around
the propeller and hub subject to the effective wake, and
calculates the pressure, forces and moments on each propeller blade. It should be noted that MPUF-3A can also
evaluate unsteady (leading edge or mid-chord) sheet cavitation on the blades. The initial effective inflow to the
propeller is taken as an uniform (or a given nominal nonaxisymmetric) wake, and the inflow wake is updated by
using the resulting velocities from GBFLOW as iterations
continue. The calculated pressure distribution is then
converted to body force terms which represent the existence of each propeller in GBFLOW. The Euler equations
are then solved with the appropriate boundary conditions.
Once the Euler equations are solved, the effective wake is
determined by subtracting the propeller induced velocity
computed using the result of MPUF3A, from the total velocity computed in GBFLOW near the propeller plane.
The iteration process between MPUF3A and GBFLOW
continues until the loading of the propeller converges.
The present method is applied to ducted propellers and
podded propulsors (a pull and a twin type), and the predicted forces are compared to those measured in experiments.
(1)
fined as follows.
r
duct
gap
R prop
blade
(2)
hub
!
"$#&%
')(
*,+
Figure 1: A configuration of ducted propeller and geometric parameters. From Kinnas et al. (2002).
MPUF3A GBFLOW
duct
body
force
effective
wake
plane
blade
pressure
effective
wake
(3)
Far Field Boundary
*,+
where
is the non-dimensionalized pressure force
calculated from the propeller potential flow solver
",#
%
(MPUF3A). , and ' are the volume cell and the advance ratio based on ship speed, respectively.
Inflow Boundary
Outflow Boundary
DUCTED PROPELLER
A typical configuration of a ducted propeller is shown
together with the main geometric parameters in Fig. 1. In
the figure, the duct sectional angle and the inflow angle
of attack are denoted as - and -/. , respectively, and the
propeller radius, 021&.4351 , is defined as a distance from hub
centerline to midchord of the blade tip. The gap size is
expressed as a percentage of the propeller radius which
is measured at the midchord of blade, as shown in the
figure. Notice that the propeller radius at the tip varies
along the chord since the blade tip is placed at a constant
distance from the duct inner surface. The technique of
adapting the blade geometry to the duct and hub surface
is described in Kinnas et al. (2002).
Solid Boundary
Repeat Boundary
Axis Boundary
a 2-D grid is generated first, and then rotated along -axis to create the 3D
grid. Since the duct is surrounded by fluid in 2-D grid,
this domain is a doubly-connected. A C-Type grid with
a cut at the trailing edge of the duct, as shown in Fig. 2,
makes the domain simply-connected and thus simplifies
the numerical implementation. The boundary conditions
in GBFLOW are specified on each boundary of the domain, as shown in Fig. 3. The velocities and pressures
along the cut (repeat wake boundary) are averaged from
those at neighboring vertices, and the actual duct trailing wake does not follow this cut. The applied boundary
conditions on each boundary are as follows:
Inflow boundary
Outflow boundary
(4)
Axis boundary
(6)
(7)
where
: cell nodes next to the axis, and
is the number
of cells in the circumferential direction.
Solid boundary
!" #
where !
.
#
(8)
)( $ $
'
( $
( $&$&%%
$ % and ( $ %
0
(9)
(10)
Gap model
(5)
ULTIMATE
WAKE
4
DUCT
INNER
SURFACE
GAP
VORTEX
PANELS
3
100
BLADE
VORTEX
PANELS
2
Y
20x 9
20x18
20x27
20x18, w/o gap model
Z
X
WAKE
VORTEX
PANELS
0
0.2
0.4
GAP
WAKE
PANELS
0.6
0.8
r/R
gap vortices
tip
3
100
inner
surface
duct
2
0% gap
0.38% gap
1% gap
2% gap
blade
L.E.
wake
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
r/R
T.E.
magnified view
100
CQ=0.0
CQ=0.3
CQ=0.6
CQ=0.85
CQ=1.0
CQ=1.5
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
r/R
0.8
(11)
!
.
(12)
1
where
!
.
and
1
(13)
tip is attached to the duct inner surface, the predicted circulation distributions have to be the highest
and same as
that of zero gap, as shown in Fig. 8. As
increases, the
effect of the viscous gap flow becomes smaller (in other
words the gap flow is inviscid and that can lead to very
high velocities through the gap), and the predicted loading at the blade tip decreases. Then, the propeller loading
converges to that of potential solver without gap model.
In the present work, however, a moderate value of
is chosen from Hughes (1997) and Moon et al. (2002) to
determine the performance of ducted propellers.
U
1.50
1.34
1.18
1.02
0.86
0.70
0.54
0.38
0.22
0.06
-0.10
Validations
Figure 10: Grid and axial velocity contours around duct
3
predicted by GBFLOW: NACA0015 duct with -
4
2
-Cp
In order to validate the present method, the numerical calculation is first performed for the bare duct without propeller. Since no propeller is present in this case, the computation is performed only by GBFLOW.
The first case is for an axisymmetric duct for which Kerwin et al. (1987) has computed the pressure distributions on the duct surface using the surface panel method.
The duct section has a NACA0015 thickness distribution
without camber, and the duct radius at the leading edge is
equal to the duct chord. The angle of attack of the duct
3 . Figure 10 shows the 2-D grid and
section is -
the predicted axial velocity distributions around the duct.
The comparison of the pressure distributions on the duct
section between the predicted from the present method
and from the panel method is shown in Fig. 11. In the
figure, GBFLOW-3X and GBFLOW-3D stand for the axisymmetric and the fully 3-D version of GBFLOW, respectively. The predicted results from both Euler solvers
compare quite with those from the panel method.
The second case is for DUCT II subject to open flow at
an angle of attack. The experiments for the pressure measurement on DUCT II surface were conducted by Morgan
& Caster (1965). The section of the duct has a modified
NACA 66 thickness distribution with maximum thickness
to chord ratio of 0.10, and a NACA 0.8 meanline with
maximum camber to chord ratio of 0.04. The sectional
3
angle of attack is -
, and the ratio of the duct chord
to the duct inner surface diameter at the propeller plane is
0.8. Figure 12 shows the pressure contours and streamlines around DUCT II when the inflow angle of attack is
3
. Due to the inflow angle of attack, the pressure distribution is no longer axisymmetric. The predicted pressures at the top and the bottom sections of the duct are
close to those measured by Morgan & Caster (1965), as
shown in Fig 13.
Oosterveld (1970) conducted systematic series tests on
ducted propellers. Ducted propeller with Ka 4-70 propeller and nozzle (or duct) 19A is modeled with the
present method. A Ka 4-70 propeller has four blades of
-1
-2
0.2
0.4
x/C
0.6
0.8
Figure 11: Comparison of pressure distributions predicted by panel method (Kerwin et al. 1987) and present
3
method: NACA0015 duct with -
Y
P
0.51
0.42
0.32
0.22
0.12
0.03
-0.07
-0.17
-0.27
-0.36
-0.46
=0
GBFLOW (inner surface)
GBFLOW
(outer
surface)
EXPERIMENT (inner surface)
EXPERIMENT
(outer
surface)
-1.2
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
C
Pp
0.6
0.8
Kaplan type, and the chord at the blade tip is finite. The
nozzle 19A has an axial cylindrical part to adapt the finite
blade tip at the propeller plane, and the back side of the
duct is mainly a straight line (cone in 3-D). The pitch of
the propeller varies from 0.8 at the
root to 1.4 at the tip,
%
and the design advance ratio is '
! . The gap between duct inner surface and propeller tip is 1mm, which
corresponds to 0.38% of the propeller radius.
The thrust
#
of the nozzle is normalized as "$# % '&)(+* , which is
the same way the propeller thrust is normalized. The frictional force on the duct is considered
as follows:
1
1.2
=180
0.2
0.4
",#
X
X/C
0.6
0.8
GBFLOW (inner surface)
GBFLOW (outer surface)
EXPERIMENT (inner surface)
EXPERIMENT
(outer
surface)
-1.2
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
CPp p
C
-0.2
0
"
180
1
0
0.2
0.4
X
X/C
0.6
0.8
Figure 13: Comparison of pressure distributions predicted by present method with those measured in experi
3
3 (bottom): DUCT II
ments at
(top) and
3
at inflow angle of attack of - .
. From Kinnas et al.
(2002)
P/D=1.0
measurement
current method
0.4
10KQ
0.3
KT,10KQ
#2#
"
0.8
0.2
KTT
0.1
-0.1
0.4
KTN
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Figure 14: Thrust and torque coefficients measured in experiments and predicted by the present method with the
gap model for Ka 4-70 propeller/Nozzle 19; P/D=1.0.
1
' /
0
(14)
0.4
0.6
0.2
1.2
.-
"
43
"
5-
.
(15)
where "$# is the propeller thrust. The predicted (including the gap effects) and measured forces and moments
are plotted in Fig. 14. In this case, the present method
appears to predict the forces well overall, with the agreement becoming somewhat less satisfactory at lower advance ratios.
Dyne (1973) performed series tests on ducted propellers
using the propeller P1452 and varying duct geometries,
and measured the thrust and the torque on the ducted propellers. Propeller P1452 and DUCT No. 15 are chosen to
validate the present method. The ducted propeller has the
following geometric characteristics: the angle of attack of
3 , and the maximum camber to chord
the duct is - 76
ratio of the duct is 0.060. A propeller diameter,
pitch
and
6 8:9;9
to diameter ratio of propeller P1452 are
6
and
, respectively. In addition, a radial
clearance between propeller tip and duct inner surface is
1.0mm. Since the propeller chord length at the tip is equal
to zero, which leads to a varying gap ratio, the gap model
is not applied in this case. In order to compare the results in the fully wetted case, Dynes close-to-wetted run
is considered. The body force distribution preat <
dicted by the present method, and the duct geometry are
shown in Fig. 15. The swirl distribution inside the duct
is shown in Fig. 16. The predicted thrust and torque are
compared with those measured in experiments in Fig. 17.
In this case the present method seems to overestimate the
propeller thrust and torque. The cause of the discrepancy
is still under investigation.
PODDED PROPULSORS
Qbx
4.35
4.11
3.88
3.64
3.41
3.17
2.94
2.70
2.47
2.23
1.99
1.76
1.52
1.29
1.05
0.82
0.58
0.35
0.11
-0.12
-0.36
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
w
0.01
-0.00
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
-0.10
-0.11
-0.13
-0.15
-0.17
-0.19
-0.20
-0.22
-0.24
-0.26
-0.28
-0.30
-0.31
-0.33
-0.35
-0.37
-0.39
-0.40
-0.42
-0.44
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.5
1.5
measurement
current method
100KQ
3
10KTT
With the growing use of podded propulsor units, it is important to model the flow around the pod and strut in the
presence of the propeller. The prediction of the flow is
essential in calculating the pressures on the body, which
when integrated can give the total forces, which are of
importance, in determining the overall performance of a
podded propulsor.
Interaction between propeller and pod
The interaction of the propeller with the pod and strut
requires very extensive calculations. The interaction between the three components is considered iteratively via
coupling of MPUF3A and GBFLOW, as described in the
case of ducted propellers. MPUF3A solves for the pressures, forces and moments in the vicinity of the propeller. The propeller forces from the potential solver are
represented in the Euler solver as body forces. At the
initial iteration, an uniform inflow wake (or given nonaxisymmetric nominal wake) is assumed as the effective
wake in the potential solver. By placing body forces at
appropriate locations and by applying the proper boundary conditions, GBFLOW solves for the fluid flow in the
whole domain using Euler equations. The pod and strut
are represented using the wall boundary condition inside
the domain. It should be noted that in the present method
the hull on which the pod is mounted is presented as an
infinite plate, on which a flow tangency condition is applied. The effective wake distribution is then updated
for the next MPUF3A prediction. The iterations between
MPUF3A and GBFLOW proceed until the convergence
criterion is satisfied. The pictorial representation of the
iterative procedure for the podded propulsor is shown in
Fig. 18. As shown in Fig. 18, the present method can
accommodate 2 blade rows, like contra-rotating, twinrotating or stator-rotor combinations. Computations are
done separately for each propeller (Kinnas et al. 2004)
and the body forces are transfered to GBFLOW at the
appropriate locations. Iterations are performed between
GBFLOW and all the blade rows solved in MPUF3A until the convergent solutions for both propellers are obtained.
10KTD
Grid generation
0
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Xeff
Xeff
STRUT
Effective wake
Body Force
Potential Solver
POD
Validations
Effective wake
Body Force
Potential Solver
Direction of
Flow
The present method is validated by comparing the results with those measured in experiments for a modified
KCA-110 series propeller with a constant P/D over the
radius. Results are presented for pull type and twin rotating propellers subject to uniform inflow, and for twin
rotating propellers subject to inflow with yaw angles of
attack. More details, including validations with other inviscid or viscous flow methods in the case of pods, as well
as grid dependence studies of the results from the present
method, are given in Gupta (2004).
The numerical results for pulling propeller at zero degree
angle of attack are compared with the measured values.
Figure 20 shows the predicted pressure contours as well
as the body force distributions for pull type configuration in GBFLOW. The pressures increase at the leading
edge of the pod and strut. The forces are calculated by
integrating the pressures over the surface of the pod and
strut. The axial force acting on the whole unit (the propeller, the pod and strut)% is compared at the four different
values of advance ratio ' . Figure 21 shows the comparison of the total axial forces calculated from the present
method for a pulling propeller with those from the experiments performed by Szantyr (2001). The predicted axial
forces compare well with those at higher advance ratios
but seem to underpredict the force at lower advance ratios. The frictional force on the pod was
considered by
using the empirical ITTC formula for .
The second case is for the twin type podded propulsor
which one propeller is placed in front of strut and one aft
of it, and both propellers rotate in same directions. The
diameters of both propellers are same as 0.182m and hub
ratios are 0.352. The propeller pitch to diameter ratios of
, respectively.
front and aft propellers are
and
Figure 22 shows the body force distribution and axial velocity contours predicted by the present method. The flow
is accelerated after it passes the first propeller plane, and
further accelerated after the second propeller which is aft
of the strut. The tangential velocity contours for twin rotating propellers are shown in Fig. 23. The tangential velocity after the front propeller plane is negative below the
pod and positive on the top surface. Due to rotation of the
propeller, the flow at the top surface of the pod goes into
the paper, while at the bottom surface comes out of the
paper. At the aft propeller, the tangential velocities at the
top and bottom of the pod increase due to rotation of the
propeller. The total forces predicted for the twin rotating
propellers are compared with those from Szantyr (2001),
as shown in Fig. 24.
ZX
-0.23 -0.05 0.12 0.30 0.47 0.65 0.83 1.00 1.18 1.36 1.53 1.71 1.88 2.06 2.24
-0.60 -0.51 -0.43 -0.34 -0.26 -0.17 -0.09 0.00 0.09 0.17 0.26 0.34 0.43 0.51 0.60
0.3
0.15
0.1
0.05
0.1
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.2
0.9
JS
0
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
JS
0.25 0.36 0.46 0.56 0.67 0.77 0.87 0.98 1.08 1.18 1.29 1.39 1.49 1.60 1.70
0.4
The above method was also successfully applied to predict the performance of podded propulsors, and the results compared reasonably well with those measured in
experiments in the cases of pull and twin type propellers.
More validations with other experiments as well as with
other methods are required to assess the present method
more thoroughly.
FX
0.3
0.2
Present Method
Szantyr(2001)
0.1
0
-20
-15
-10
-5
10
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
15
20
References
Abdel-Maksoud, M. & Heinke, H. J. (2002), Scale effects
on ducted propellers, in Twenty-Fourth Symposium
on Naval Hydrodynamics, Fukuoka, Japan.
Atlar, M., ed. (2004), First International Conference on
technological Advances in Podded Propulsion, School
of Marine Science and technology, University of Newcastle, UK.
Brewer, W. H., Newman, J. C., Burgreen, G. W. & Burg,
C. O. E. (2003), A design method for investigating cavitation delay, in The 8th International Conference on
Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics, Busan, Korea.
Chesnakas, C. & Jessup, S. D. (2003), Tip-vortex induced cavitation on a ducted propulsor, in International Symposium on Cavitation Inception, ASME
FED Summer Meeting, Honolulu.
Choi, J.-K. & Kinnas, S. A. (2000), An unsteady threedimensional euler solver coupled with a cavitating propeller analysis method, in The 23rd Symposium on
Naval Hydrodynamics, Val de Reuil, France.
Choi, J.-K. & Kinnas, S. A. (2001), Prediction of nonaxisymmetric effective wake by a 3-D Euler solver,
Journal of Ship Research 45(1), 1333.
Choi, J.-K. & Kinnas, S. A. (2003), Prediction of
unsteady effective wake by a euler solver/vortexlattice coupled method, Journal of Ship Research
47(2), 131144.
Chorin, A. J. (1967), A numerical method for solving incompressible viscous flow problems, Journal of Computational Physics 2, 1226.
Dyne, G. (1973), Systematic studies of accelerating
ducted propellers in axial and incline flows, Symposium on Ducted Propellers, RINA pp. 114124.
Falcao de Campos, J. (1983), On the calculation of ducted
propeller performance in axisymmetric flows, Technical Report 696, Netherlands Ship Model Basin, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Feng, J. & Dong, S. (1985), A method for the prediction of unsteady of unsteady hydrodynamic performance of the ducted propeller with a finite number of
blades, Technical Report 85006, China Ship Scientific
Research Center, Wuxi,China.
Ghassemi, H. & Allievi, A. (1999), A Computational
Method for the Analysis of Fluid Flow and Hydrodynamic Performance of Conventional and Podded
Propulsion Systems, Oceanic Engineering International 3(1), 101115.
Gibson, I. & Lewis, R. I. (1973), Ducted propeller analysis by surface vorticity and actuator disk theory, in
Proceedings of the Symposium on Ducted Propellers,
RINA, Teddington, England.
Glover, E. & Ryan, P. (1973), A comparison of the theoretical and experimental performance of a ducted propeller system, in Symposium on Ducted Propellers,
The Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Teddington,
England.
Gupta, A. (2004), Numerical prediction of flows around
podded propulsors, Masters thesis, The University of
Texas at Austin.
Hsin, C.-Y., Chou, S.-K. & Chen, W.-C. (2002), A new
propeller design method for the pod propulsion system, in Proceedings of Twenty-Fourth Symposium on
Naval Hydrodynamics, Fukuoka, Japan.
Hughes, M. (1993), Analysis of Multi-component Ducted
Propulsors in Unsteady Flow, PhD thesis, M.I.T., Department of Ocean Engineering.
Hughes, M. J. (1997), Impementation of a special procedure for modeling the tip clearance flow in a panel
method for ducted propulsors, in Propellers/Shafting
97 Symposium, Virginia Beach, VA.
Hughes, M. & Kinnas, S. (1993), Unsteady flows around
multi-component integrated propulsors, in Forum on
Unsteady Flows, (FED-Vol. 157), Fluids Engineering
Division, ASME, pp. 2131.
Hughes, M., Kinnas, S. & Kerwin, J. (1992), Experimental validation of a ducted propeller analysis method,
Journal of Fluids Engineering 114(2), 214219.
HYDROCOMP Inc. (1999), Modeling tractor-style azimuthing podded drives, Technical Report 127, HYDROCOMP Inc.
Kakar, K. (2002), Computational Modeling of FPSO Hull
Roll Motions and Two-component Marine Propulsion
Systems, Masters thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin.
Kerwin, J. E., Kinnas, S. A., Lee, J.-T. & Shih, W.-Z.
(1987), A surface panel method for the hydrodynamic
analysis of ducted propellers, Transactions of Society
of Naval Architects & Marine Engineers 95.
Kerwin, J., Keenan, D., Black, S. & Diggs, J. (1994), A
coupled viscous/potential flow design method for wake
adapted multi-stage, ducted propulsors using generalized geometry, Transactions of Society of Naval Architects & Marine Engineers 102.
Kerwin, J., Taylor, T., Black, S. & McHugh, G. (1997), A
coupled lifting-surface analysis technique for marine
propulsors in steady flow, in Propellers/Shafting 97
Symposium, Soc. Naval Arch. & Marine Engnrs., Virginia Beach, VA, pp. 115 (Paper No. 20).
Kinnas, S. A., Choi, J.-K., Lee, H. S., Young, Y. L.,
Gu, H., Kakar, K. & Natarajan, S. (2002), Prediction
of cavitation performance of single/multi-component
propulsors and their interaction with the hull, Transactions of The Society of Naval Architects & Marine
Engineers .
Kinnas, S. A. & Coney, W. B. (1992), The generalized
image model - an application to the design of ducted
propellers, Journal of Ship Research 36(3), 197209.
Kinnas, S. A., Gu, H., Gupta, A. & Lee, H. S. (2004),
Numerical prediction of the performance of podded
propulsors and ducted propellers, in The 13th offshore
symposium : The Application of Emerging Technologies Offshore, Texas Section of The Society of Naval
DISCUSSION
Prof. Mehmet Atlar
University of Newcastle, United Kingdom
The authors present numerical modelling of
the flows around two types of unconventional
propulsors: ducted and podded propellers which have
substantial stationary components which are
subjected to complex hydrodynamic interaction as
well as large viscous drag forces under the effect of
propellers action. In order to tackle the complex
interaction problem the authors present a
computationally efficient, hybrid and iterative flow
model.
Within the framework of the method
presented in this paper and the hydrodynamic
interaction phenomenon involving these devices, say
for a pulling type podded propeller, one can consider
three types of interaction: Firstly, the effect of the
propeller flow on the pod and strut would appear as
an increase of the axial and tangential velocities
combined with an increase of the pressure field
behind the propeller. This effect is represented by the
body forces in the Euler solver of the authors paper.
Secondly, the presence of the pod and strut in the
slipstream of the propeller will slow down the inflow
velocity and thirdly, the latter effect will also deform
the propeller wake. The reduced flow effect can be
taken into account by the measured velocity field
(nominal wake) in the presence of the pod/strut
housing as input to the lifting surface code. However,
it is not common practice to measure the wake in the
presence of the pod/strut housing unless for a
particular reason. Can the Authors shed a light on
how this interaction is modelled effectively using
only hull inflow data in the absence of the pod/strut
housing? As far as the slipstream deformation is
concerned, it is not clear in the paper, at least to the
discusser, how this effect is taken into account in the
potential propeller solver and/or in the Euler solver. It
will be therefore helpful if the authors can give a
brief description details for the account of this effect.
In fact Fig. 19 of the paper indicates no visible
deformation of the wake as it intersects the strut.
However the physics of the phenomena may present
rather complex interaction problem for heavily
loaded propulsor as one can see in Fig. 1 from the
cavitating tip vortex trajectories for a pulling type
podded propeller operating in bollard pull condition.
The degree of slipstream deformation and its
modelling can be argued depends upon the axial
distance from the propeller and hence relative
position of the strut to the propeller, which may vary
depends upon particular pod type, requiring careful
modelling. Within this respect although there is
AUTHORS REPLY
REFERENCE
REFERENCES
0,9
KTP, KQP, 0P
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0 1,1 1,2 1,3
J=V/(nD)
Pull, J=0.299
0,12
0,10
0,5
KX
0,4
KX, KY
0,08
0,3
0,06
0,2
0,04
0,1
0,02
0,0
0,00
-0,02
-0,1
-0,2
-0,04
KY
-0,3
-0,4
MZAX
-0,5
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
10
-0,08
-0,10
-0,6
-60
-0,06
20
30
40
50
-0,12
60
MZAX
DISCUSSION
0.1248
0.1213
0.1267
0.2426
0.2357
0.2454
DISCUSSION
Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud
Duisburg-Essen University, Germany
Congratulations for the impressive work! It
connects the advantages of using boundary element
methods and field methods.
Boundary element methods are very
valuable for propeller design, and the short
calculation time makes the combination with an
optimisation method very effective.
Of course, the application of these methods
is not recommended when it is important to consider
geometrical boundaries very close to the propeller as
a duct or a pod. But this limitation can be avoided by
combination with a field method such as Euler or
RANSE method. Therefore, the presented paper is
very valuable not only for academic reasons but also
for the practice.
In this context I have some questions:
2.
INTRODUCTION
R =R +R +R +R
t
br
c
b
ow
(1a)
R =R +R +R
t
c
b
ow
(1b)
= R R R
t
b
ow
(1c)
(1d)
br
2.
Segmentation Hypothesis
For the test runs in ice, several reasons have
contributed to the decision for keeping the speed of the
ship model constant throughout most of the useable
length of the ice tank (about 65 m Appendix A). The
main one is the hypothesis that the time history from
one long ice test run can be divided into segments, and
each segment can be analyzed as a statistically
independent test. The hypothesis states that:
3.
200
150
100
50
0
-50
90
140
190
240
Tim e (s)
290
340
Figure 2a: Example for a measured tow force history (PICE-2 refers to ice sheet #2).
120
200
Segment 4
Tow Force (N)
80
40
0
90
100
Time (s)
110
110
140
Segment 7
100
50
0
50
0
-50
-50
140
120
150
Segment 6
100
150
150
170
170
180
Time (s)
190
150
Segment 8
100
200
Segment 9
100
50
120
150
50
0
50
0
-50
190
220
150
-50
230
220
250
Segment 11
100
50
0
50
0
-50
-50
260
Time (s)
270
200
280
280
290
Time (s)
300
200
Segment 12
150
310
Segment 13
150
100
100
50
0
-50
305
150
100
250
230
200
Segment 10
100
-50
-40
Segment 5
150
50
0
-50
315
335
335
345
Time (s)
355
365
Figure 2b: Division of the tow force time history (in Figure 2a) into segments.
(R
Open Water
(RTotalIce)CorrectMean = (RTotalIce)MeasuredMean* ho
hm
(2b)
) (2a)
f =
6 PL
2
wh f
(3a)
where P is the point load.
The uncertainty in the flexural strength is Uf:
U f = U + U + U
2
P
2
L
2
W
+ 2U
2
hf
(3b)
i = w
M
V
(4a)
U i = U 2H + U 2L + U 2W + U 2M
(4b)
(Chauv #)Mean =
TFMean
Mean_TFMean)
(5a)
STD_TFMean
18
15
50
60
40
30
20
10
12
9
6
3
PICE-1
PICE-2
PICE-3
PICE-4
PICE-1
Ice Sheet
35
18
15
25
20
15
10
PICE-4
12
9
6
3
PICE-1
PICE-2
Ice Sheet
PICE-3
PICE-1
PICE-4
15
30
20
10
PICE-2
PICE-3
PICE-4
Ice Sheet
40
Mean Tow Force (N)
PICE-3
Ice Sheet
30
50
PICE-2
10
PICE-1
PICE-2
PICE-3
Ice Sheet
PICE-1
PICE-4
PICE-2
PICE-3
PICE-4
Ice Sheet
Figure 4a Measured mean tow forces presented as function of the ice sheet number.
U(TFMean ) = t*(STD_TFMean )
(5b)
UP(TF
Mean
U(TF Mean )
) =
*100
Mean_TF Mean
(5c)
9%
3%
2%
1%
PICE-1
PICE-2
Ice Sheet
PICE-3
PICE-1
30%
PICE-2
PICE-3
Ice Sheet
PICE-4
25%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
PICE-1
6%
3%
PICE-4
7%
6%
0%
0%
PICE-2
PICE-3
Ice Sheet
PICE-4
PICE-1
14%
PICE-2
PICE-3
Ice Sheet
PICE-4
12%
5%
U Mean Tow Force (%)
4%
U Mean Tow Force (%)
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
0%
PICE-1
PICE-2
PICE-3
PICE-4
Ice Sheet
PICE-1
PICE-2
PICE-3
Ice Sheet
PICE-4
Figure 4b: Uncertainties in mean tow forces presented as function of the ice sheet number.
(6)
30%
2
UR 0 2
UR
Uh
=
+
R
h0
R0
25%
20%
Run #1
Run #2
Run #3
Run #4
Run #5
Run #6
15%
10%
5%
0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
40
Mean Tow Force (N)
60
30
Phase 3: PMM
20
10
40
30
20
10
0
Run #1
50
Run #2
Run #3
Run #4
Run #5
Run #6
Run #1
75
40
Phase 1: Tow Post
30
Phase 3: PMM
20
10
50
Mean Tow Force (N)
50
Run #2
Run #3
Run #4
Run #5
Run #6
60
Phase 1: Tow Post
45
Phase 3: PMM
30
15
0
0
Run #1
Run #2
Run #3
Run #4
Run #5
Run #6
Run #1
Run #2
Run #3
Run #4
Run #5
Run #6
Figure 6a: Comparison of test results: Measured mean tow forces using the tow post (Phase I) and measured mean
tow forces using the PMM (Phase III).
APPENDIX A:
35%
30%
20%
16%
25%
20%
15%
10%
12%
Phase 3: PMM
8%
4%
5%
0%
0%
Run #1
25%
Run #2
Run #3
Run #4
Run #5
Run #1
Run #6
14%
Run #2
Run #3
Run #4
Run #5
Run #6
12%
20%
10%
15%
10%
8%
6%
4%
5%
2%
0%
0%
Run #1
Run #2
Run #3
Run #4
Run #5
Run #6
Run #1
Run #2
Run #3
Run #4
Run #5
Run #6
Figure 6b: Comparison of uncertainties in mean tow force using the tow post (Phase I) and the PMM (Phase III).
The experiments in ice involved:
1.a:
Experiments in level ice sheets (unbroken).
1.b:
Experiments in pre-sawn ice sheets.
1.c:
Experiments in pack ice (broken)
The experiments in open water involved:
2.a:
Standard resistance experiments in open water
(as per the ITTC procedure)
2.b:
Baseline experiments in open water (constant
speed through the length of the tank)
EXPERIMENTS IN ICE
Ship model speeds of 0.1 m/s, 0.2 m/s, 0.4
m/s, and 0.6 m/s were selected. Each ice sheet was
tested for only one speed. For example, ice sheet #1
was tested for speed of 0.1 m/s, ice sheet # 2 was tested
for speed 0.2 m/s. In each ice sheet, six (6) different
test runs were performed. The first three runs were
conducted in level and pre- sawn ice sheets, while the
last three runs were conducted in pack broken ice. A
total of 24 resistance test runs in ice were performed.
A schematics for the six (6) ice test runs is
shown in Figure A.2. The first three test runs are:
12 m
NQP
CC
SQP
76 m
Free Boundary
Tests Run # 3
Test Run # 1
Constrained
Boundary
Pre-Sawn Ice
Test Run # 2
50
R = 0.9959
40
60
5
4
3
30
20
2
10
Velocity (m/s)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Figure A.4a: Baseline open water tests (best fit for all
three phases of testing).
90
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
70
y = 32.21x2 - 11.354x
R2 = 0.9735
60
12
0.2
80
0.1
20
Velocity (m/s)
50
40
30
20
Velocity (m/s)
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
10
0.5
0.6
0.7
Velocity (m/s)
0
0
Figure A.4b: Standard open water tests (best fit for all
three phases of testing).
EXPERIMENTS IN OPEN WATER
Standard Resistance Experiments in Open Water: A
series of standard resistance tests in open water were
performed in the ice tank (calm water). In all tests,
turbulent stimulation studs were placed on the model
and beach absorbers were used. Ship speeds from 0.1
m/s to 1.8 m/s were covered (increments of 0.2 m/s).
Baseline Resistance Experiments in Open Water: In
this series of tests, the turbulent studs and beach
absorbers were removed. In each test, model was
towed in calm open water at constant velocity along
the entire useable length of the ice tank (~ 65 m).
Velocities of 0.1 m/s, 0.2 m/s, 0.4 m/s and 0.6 m/s
were tested.
TEST RESULTS
Figures A.4a and A.4b show the results from
the standard open water resistance tests and the results
from the baseline open water tests, respectively.
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
(B
U =
P2
(B.1)
P NX
t * S
NX
(B.2b)
(B.3)
The above equations are valid for direct
measurements (directly measured variables, such as
load, deformation, motion, pitch, roll, etc.). In most
cases, the measured variables are used to compute
engineering parameters (such as stress, strain,
resistance, etc.) using Data Reduction Equations
(DRE). Additional uncertainties due to the use of DRE
need to be considered (as discussed in the paper).
Council
of
Canada
(http://www.iot-ito.nrccnrc.gc.ca/) has conducted physical, numerical and
mathematical modeling of ship maneuvering
characteristics in ice, as part of a larger effort to
develop reliable modeling techniques to assist in the
design of new ice-worthy vessels and in the
simulation of their navigating characteristics. The
objective is to develop a physical representation of
the complex interaction processes of a ship
maneuvering in ice and to build a mathematical
model to satisfactorily predict its performance. In
turn, the mathematical model will provide a tool for
ship designers to use as part of the assessment of ship
navigation in ice infested routes. It can also be
incorporated into marine simulators to train mariners,
or into automatic ship control systems for better ship
maneuvering.
In this paper, the preliminary results of a
series of physical and mathematical modeling are
presented. As the yaw moment and turning radius are
the important indicators of the maneuvering
performance, this paper focuses on the interaction
processes and the influence of ship motions on the
yaw moment exerted on the ship hull. The dominant
ice-ship interaction processes are identified. The test
results show large influence of ship motions and
interaction geometry on the measured yaw moments.
The geometrical aspect of the interaction processes is
described and its influences on ice loads are
discussed.
Conclusions
are
made
and
recommendations for future works are provided.
INTRODUCTION
MODEL TESTS
N b , and ice
N cl , components:
N tot = N br + N cl + N b + N ow
PVm = 0.68 f ( w h 5 / E )1 / 4
ym =
Where
2 PV m
l c w
(3)
is the
l c is the
ym :
a = y m / tan
where
(4)
PVa = PVm
(1)
(2)
2f h
a
= 5.7
2 * 0.2l c
E tan
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Where
N br = ( Fh1 + Fh 2 )l 5 + Fh3 l 6
where
(9)
l1 l1 l 2
=
l 2 l 2 l 3
(10)
Wb = l1 + l 2 + l1 l 3
(11)
Submergence component, Nb
The buoyancy force on the hull was
calculated by considering the amount of ice covering
the different parts of the hull. For the bow part, as
shown in Figure 8, the vertical components, Fv _ 1
and
l1 l 2
( w i )hS
l1 l 3
l l
= 2 3 ( w i )hS
l1 l3
Fv _ 1 =
Fv _ 2
(12)
where
S is the
l1 l 2
( w i )hS tan( )
l1 l 3
l l
= 2 3 ( w i )hS tan( )
l1 l 3
Fh _ 1 =
(14)
Fh _ 2
(15)
N b = ( Fh _ 1 + Fh _ 2 )l 5
(16)
(13)
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
Intera Technology, Inc., 1986, DECICE Theoretical
Manual, Lakewood, Colorado.
IOT Standard GM-4, Environmental Modeling
Ice, Version 2, Institute for Ocean Technology, St.
Johns, Newfoundland, 1999.
Wf
Wi
1.3
Theory
Measurement
1.2
Drift Angle, ()
-2 to 2
Model Speed,
Yaw Rate,
V (m/s)
(deg/s)
1.1
50
10
0
0.9
0.02~0.6
0.02~ 0.34
40
35
20
40
60
Turning Radius, R (m)
80
120
100
80
60
N o,10 = 43 Nm
40
20
N o,50 = 12.7 Nm
0
0
-1
R=10 m
R=50 m
Linear (R=50 m)
Linear (R=10m, Primary Slope)
Linear (R=10m, Secondary Slope)
-2
-3
-4
V
PVm
Force
l1 l2
V
l2 l3
la
Figure 5: The idealized force displacement
history when ship advancing.
V
Figure 8: Bow geometry, showing amount
of ice sliding on bow surface.
60
CG
Theory
Measurement
50
Lb
40
F1h
l5
l6
l1 l 2
F2h
F3h
l 4 l1 l3 l
2
30
20
l2 l3
l l
10
0
0
20
40
60
80
Turning Radius, R (m)
100
O
Figure 6: Geometry of a ship maneuvers at a
constant yaw rate.
l1
Edge effect
Crack
l1 l2
l2
l 2 l3
Edge effect
Figure 7: Edge effect on ice breaking pattern at
the bow.
2D+t THEORY
ze z y
ey
Free Surface(x)
Lagrangian markers
exx
Hull Section (x)
dx/dt = u , p =const
Hull Section (x + U t)
2D
Figure 1: Qualitative sketch of the 2D+t approximation for the steady three-dimensional flow around a ship
with constant forward speed U . Left: 3D ship problem.
Right: equivalent unsteady 2D problem (2D+t).
Let us consider a ship moving with constant velocity U (see left sketch in Figure 1). We assume a
beam-to-draft ratio B/D O(1) and both B and D
individually much smaller than the ship length L, say
= B/L, D/L 1. We also assume the Froude num
ber F r = U/ gL = O(1). In a ship-fixed frame
of reference, the hull geometry is given implicitly as
H(x, y, z) = 0 and the a priori unknown free surface
can be represented as W(x, y, z) = z (x, y) = 0.
Assuming that the fluid is in irrotational motion, the
flow field is described by the Laplace equation combined with the kinematic hull (H) boundary condition
H = 0
(1)
and the kinematic and dynamic free surface (W) boundary conditions
W = 0
and
p=0
(2)
as x .
(3)
source.
2
LINEAR 3D METHOD
EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP
A dedicated and comprehensive experimental investigation has been performed to analyze the steady and
unsteady behaviour of semi-displacement mono-hulls
and catamarans. A catamaran model was built consistently with the geometric ratios normally used for
semi-displacement catamarans. The main characteristics are reported in table 1. The same parameters have
been considered for the mono-hull geometry coinciding
therefore with a catamaran demi-hull. This leads to a
shape finer than those of the existing semi-displacement
mono-hulls. The experimental activity has been carried out at the INSEAN basin No. 2: 220 m long, 9 m
large and 3.6 m deep. During the tests, each model was
towed by the carriage through a constant force mechanism. Trim and sinkage were free while the center of
rotation was fixed to the center of gravity of the vessel.
The model tests reproduced two main conditions: forward motion in calm water and in head sea waves. In the
former case, several Froude numbers have been inves
tigated for the mono-hull geometry: F r = U/ gL =
0.3 0.8 with a step F r = 0.1. A smaller number of
speeds was considered for the catamaran, corresponding to F r = 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6. A capacitance wave
probe system was used to measure the wave field near
L
LCG
KG
r55
T
BWL
2p
= 6.25
= 25 m
= 1.7 m
= 3 m
= 0.26 L
= 1.75 m
= 2 m
= 5 m
= 40.48 m3
Figure 3: Sketch: top view of the wave probes (indicated by the dots) used along the external profile of a
catamaran demi-hull and along the vessel central axis.
In the tests in waves, experimental transfer functions in heave and pitch were estimated both by a transient test technique and regular waves of different steepnesses. More in detail, Response Amplitude Operators
(RAO) have been determined preliminarily by a transient test technique. In this way the frequency range
characterizing the resonance area of heave and pitch
motions has been identified. Then, for this range of frequencies, tests have been carried out in regular head sea
waves with different steepnesses and considering several Froude numbers. Also in this case we measured the
wave profile along the hull and the centreplane of the
catamaran.
Our studies are of fundamental nature and particular care has been taken in performing a dedicated
error analysis; for instance each test condition was repeated between 5 and 10 times to ensure repeatability.
The error analysis did not investigate the error bias but
just the precision error. Results of such study will be
discussed in the following sections for some variables
of interest. Due to space limits the unsteady investigation will be presented for the catamaran only.
4
/L*102
0.8
0
-0.8
-0.4
1.58
-0.2
0.91
0.71
0.4 x/L
0.53 Frx
0.2
0.6
/L*102
1.6
-1.6
-0.4
-0.2
2.21
1.28
0.2
0.99
0.84
0.4 x/L
0.74 Frx
(solid line) methods. F rx = U/ gx, with x the longitudinal distance from the bow.
Froude number F rx = U/ gx, with x the longitudinal distance from the ship bow. He used such a local
number to estimate the goodness of the 2D+t theory for
the ship bow waves prediction. A similar local Froude
number should be introduced for the ship waves generated at the transom. In this case x is the longitudinal distance from the ship stern. For a given F r, the
2D+t results can be considered suitable within the region where F rx is sufficiently large, say greater than
0.4. Obviously such region enlarges as the ship speed
increases. The local bow Froude number is reported in
the figures.
Fr=0.6
1.2
1.2
0
0
-1.2
External
External
-1.2
/L*102
1.8
2.8
-1.8
-2.8
Centre-line
Centre-line
-0.4
1.6
-0.2
0.9
0
0.7
0.2
0.6
0.4 x/L
0.53 Frx
-0.4
1.9
-0.2
1.1
0
0.85
0.2
0.72
0.4 x/L
0.63 Frx
2D+t results (top). F rx = U/ gx, with x the longitudinal distance from the bow.
these larger speeds the nonlinearities are quite important, therefore the linear results underestimate substantially the wave pattern. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that the two results agree quite well in
terms of phasing. This confirms the unimportance of
the transverse waves at such Froude numbers. Top
RPM results (top). F rx = U/ gx, with x the longitudinal distance from the bow.
picture of figure 11 shows the experimental wave field
behind the transom for the mono-hull at F r = 0.5. The
dry transom causes the formation of a hollow just behind the vessel. The water reaches a minimum value
and then rises to form a rooster tail developing into a
divergent breaking wave system. The mono-hull transom flow features have been thoroughly investigated by
Landrini et al. (2001) due to the practical relevance
of the resulting breaking phenomena. These lead to
vortical structures responsible of the visible signature
left downstream by the ship. In their study, the authors
used the 2D+t theory. The transom was enforced to be
/L*102
3
2
1
0
Fr=0.5
Fr=0.6
Fr=0.7
Fr=0.8
-1
-2
-3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
x/L
0.1
/L*102
-0.38
y/L
-0.19
-1
0.19
0.19
Fr=0.5
Fr=0.6
0.38 Fr=0.7
Fr=0.8
-2
-3
-0.38
-0.1
-0.96
-0.19
Fr x
0.2
1.12
0.4
0.79
x/L
-0.19
0.1
0.38
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
x/L
mechanisms are connected with the hydrodynamic interaction between the demi-hulls or if they are related
to the demi-hulls interference only. The latter means the
diffraction caused by one demi-hull on the waves generated by the other demi-hull is negligible and the catamaran wave pattern is just given by the sum of the wave
fields produced by each demi-hull as if the other was not
there. To this purpose figure 14 gives the longitudinal
wave cut along the centre-line of the catamaran for different Froude numbers. The 3D RPM and 2D+t calculations are presented together with the experiments (for
the tested speeds). In the plots, the curves with circles
give the 2D+t results obtained as the superimposition
of two mono-hulls solutions, that is the interaction between the demi-hulls is not accounted for but just their
interference. From the results, the interference is not the
governing mechanism. The interaction between the two
demi-hulls plays a fundamental role. This interaction
is mainly nonlinear as evidenced both by difficulties of
the linear solution in capturing the first peak and by the
phase shifting existing between the linear and nonlinear
results accounting for the demi-hull interaction.
As previously discussed, the 2D+t model enforces a dry transom stern condition independently from
the forward speed. In reality the flow at the transom
stern can be quite complicated at sufficiently small Frou-
Fr
03
04
05
06
07
08
3.6
/L*10
1.8
0
F rT
176
209
246
291
332
382
F rT trans
182
243
304
365
426
487
Transom
wet
wet
dry
dry
dry
dry
Table 1: Monohull: Dry and wet transom stern conditions as a function of different Froude numbers.
-1.8
-0.4
1.6
0
0.7
0.4
0.53
0.8
0.44
1.2
0.38
x/L
Frx
2.8
/L*102
T /L
00290
00364
00413
00424
00444
00438
Fr
03
04
05
06
T /L
00290
00360
00525
00598
F rT
176
211
218
245
F rT trans
182
243
304
365
Transom
wet
wet
dry
dry
Table 2: Catamaran: Dry and wet transom stern conditions as a function of different Froude numbers.
-2.8
-0.4
1.9
0
0.85
0.4
0.63
0.8
0.53
1.2
0.46
x/L
Frx
-0.4
2.2
0
0.99
0.4
0.74
0.8
0.61
1.2
0.54
x/L
Frx
-0.4
2.53
0
1.13
0.4
0.84
0.8
0.7
1.2
0.6
x/L
Frx
/L*102
2.8
-2.8
5.6
/L*10
2.8
0
-2.8
-5.6
Figure 14: Catamaran: cut of the steady wave pattern along the catamaran center-line. Experimental data
(square symbols: mean value and error bar), 3D RPM
code (dashed lines) and 2D+t theory (solid lines). The
curves with circles give the 2D+t results obtained as the
superimposition of two mono-hulls solutions, that is the
interaction between the demi-hulls is not accounted for.
From top to bottom: F r = 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8.
de numbers, involving partial or full ventilation phenomena. Several flow regimes can be distinguished and it
is difficult to identify the critical Froude for the transition from one regime to another. In this context, analytical (Vanden-Broeck and Tuck 1977), numerical (Scor-
Fr
03
04
05
06
07
08
Velocity (m/s)
U
1880
0001
2510
0001
3133
0001
3754
0.0001
4384
0.0001
5008
0003
Sinkage (mm)
s
-6189
0110
-13974
0057
-19637
0057
-16684
0029
-14054
0021
-12536
0413
Trim (degree)
-0010
0001
0543
0093
1177
0004
1424
0003
1348
0001
1328
0022
Velocity (m/s)
U
1883
00005
2509
00003
3125
0006
Sinkage (mm)
s
-8792
0321
-21385
0072
-27062
0223
Trim (degree)
0025
0008
0424
0009
2652
0021
1.5
8
6
0.5
/L
/L
/L
3
15
2.5
12
L/ A
1.5
0.5
0
/L
3.2
16
L/ A
1.6
12
8
0.8
/L
/L
TAV (degree)
Calm Water
kA=0.0125
kA=0.01875
kA=0.025
-8
-16
-24
-24
Fn = 0.3 ----> = 0.6
Fn = 0.4 ----> = 0.54
Fn = 0.5 ----> = 0.49
0.3
0.60
Fr = 0.5
-8
-16
SAV (mm)
0.4
0.54
Fr
0.5
0.49 (Hz)
0.3
0.55
0.4
0.51
Fr
0.5
0.47 (Hz)
2.5
2
/A
/A
2.4
TAV (degree)
/A
SAV (mm)
/A
10
L/ A
2.5
12
Trans. test tech.
(Trans. Test)
reg. wave (kA = 0.0125)
reg. wave (kA = 0.0187)
reg. wave (kA = 0.025)
reg. wave (kA = 0.05)
Num. results (NK base flow)
Num. results (DM base flow)
1.5
1
Catamaran
0.5
Monohull
0
/L
CONCLUSIONS
An experimental investigation has been carried out to
analyze the flow field around semi-displacement monohulls and catamarans both in calm water and in incident head sea waves. The mono-hull model has been
shaped identically to a catamaran demi-hull to investigate the interaction between the demi-hulls of the catamaran and the related influence on the rooster tail developing from the transom stern. The chosen mono-hull
geometry implies a much smaller beam-to-draught ratio than the one characterizing the usual mono-hull high
speed vessels. A dedicated error analysis of the tests has
been performed confirming a general reliability of the
measurements. The physical investigation was focused
on the wave-field features at the bow, along the hull
and downstream the transom stern. In the steady experiments, very detailed measurements of the wave pattern were performed for both models, including the inner region between the two catamaran demi-hulls. The
influence of the Froude number has been analyzed by
varying such parameter in a wide range. The experimental data were compared with the results by a linear
3D RPM code and a nonlinear 2D+t method. For the
mono-hull, the 3D RPM simulations are able to capture the wave pattern along the hull for Froude numbers
smaller than 0.6. They do not succeeded in handling the
stern and wake flows for F r 0.5. This is because a
wet transom is assumed while at those speeds both the
experimental mono-hull and catamaran transoms were
dry. At F r 0.6 the nonlinearities become relevant
and the linear method gives only a qualitative information. The opposite trend is shown by the 2D+t results.
These are not satisfactory at the smaller Froude due to
the relevance of the transverse wave pattern. For F r
greater than 0.6 they fit well with the experiments. The
stern and wake flows are properly described since a dry
transom condition is enforced. For the catamaran, the
same trend is observed but the 2D+t theory gives globally the best agreement at smaller speeds than for the
mono-hull. For both geometries this model predicts a
wide extension of the lobes near the bow region. This is
not observed from the measurements. The 2D+t model
has been used to investigate the physical mechanisms
causing the flow features downstream the transom, and
to quantify the related influence of the interaction between the catamaran demi-hulls. In the unsteady experiments, both a transient test technique and regular in-
coming waves have been used to simulate seaway conditions. The former method was applied to identify the
heave and pitch resonance frequency regions. Then regular incoming waves were generated within such areas
of interest. This means we studied a frequency range
where nonlinearities matter for the wave-body interactions. During the tests the Froude number and the amplitude of the incoming waves have been varied and the
importance of nonlinear effects brought into the problem has been deduced. The interaction between the
steady and unsteady wave fields was studied by combining in a synergic way the information from the experiments with the results from a linear unsteady 3D code.
The results confirmed that the interaction plays a relevant role and should be properly accounted for. For the
considered speeds and within the heave and pitch resonance ranges, the experiments showed that the mean
trim and sinkage of the catamaran are mainly governed
by the steady flow. This is relevant for instance for the
wetdeck slamming.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Present research activity is partially supported by the
Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures, NTNU, Trondheim, within the Green Water Events and Related Structural Loads project, and partially done within the framework of the Programma di Ricerca sulla Sicurezza
funded by Ministero Infrastrutture e Trasporti.
REFERENCES
Bertram, V. Fulfilling Open-Boundary and Radiation
Condition in Free-Surface Problems Using Rankine
Sources. Ship Technology Research 37(2), 1990.
Bertram, V. Numerical innvestigation of steady flow
effects in three-dimensional seakeeping computations.
Proceedings 22th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. Washington D.C., USA, 1999.
Colagrossi, A., C. Lugni, M. Landrini, and
G. Graziani. Numerical and experimental transient
tests for ship seakeeping. Int. Journal Off. and Ocean
Struct., Volume 11, pp. 6773, 2001.
Doctors, L. Hydrodynamics of the flow behind a transom stern. Proceedings of 29th Israel Conference on
Mechanical Engineering, pp. 111. Haifa, Israel, 2003.
Maki, K., A. Troesch, and R. Beck. Qualitative investigation of transom stern flow ventilation. 19th International Workshop on Water Waves and Floating Bodies.
Cortona, Italy, 2004.
Faltinsen, O. Numerical solutions of transient nonlinear free-surface motion outside or inside moving bodies. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Num. Ship Hydr., 1977.
Michell, J. The wave resistance of a ship. Philosophical Magazine Vol. 45, pp. 106123, 1898.
Molland, A., J. Wellicome, and P. Couser. Theoretical
prediction of the wave resistance of slender hull forms
in catamaran configurations. Technical report, Report
No. 72, Southampton University: Ship Science, 1994,
September).
Molland, A., J. Wellicome, and P. Couser. Resistance
experiments on a systematic sense of high speed displcement hull forms: Variation of length-displacement
ratio and breadth-draught ratio. The Royal Institution
of Naval Architects, 1995.
Nakos, D. Ship Wave Patterns and Motions by a
Three Dimensional Rankine Panel Method. Ph. D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, 1990.
Ogilvie, T. F. Nonlinear high-Froude-number free surface problems. J. of Engineering Mathematics 1(3), pp.
215235, 1967.
Ohkusu, M. and O. Faltinsen. Prediction of radiation
forces on a catamaran at high froude number. Proc.
of 18th Symp. on Naval Hydrod., pp. 520. National
Academy Press, Washington D.C., USA, 1990.
Ohkusu, M. and O. Faltinsen. Prediction of radiation
forces on a catamaran at high froude number. Proc.
of 18th Symp. on Naval Hydrod., pp. 520. National
Academy Press, Washington D.C., USA, 1991.
Scorpio, S. and R. Beck. Two-dimensional invscid
transom stern flow. 12th International Workshop on
Water Waves and Floating Bodies. France, 1997.
Vanden-Broeck, J. and E. Tuck. Computation of nearbow or stern flows, using series expansion in Froude
number. 2nd International Conf in Num. Ship Hydro.
Berkeley, California, 1977.
Zhao, R. and O. M. Faltinsen. Water entry of twodimensional bodies. J. Fluid Mech. Vol. 243, pp. 593
612, 1993.
DISCUSSION
Volker Bertram
ENSIETA, France
Ship seakeeping, particularly for high
Froude numbers as treated by the authors, poses
still many challenges and requires considerable
skill in determining the appropriate simplification
in the model. The authors have chosen too possible
models in their analyses, namely a linear 3-d
Rankine panel method without transom stern model
and a 2.5 D method which models (at least in good
approximation) also the highly nonlinear wave
deformation.
I find the validation against detailed and
repeated experiments most interesting. We need
more such validation, preferably with more
research groups and different methods involved.
The Gothenburg 2000 workshop, Larsson et al.
(2003), showed the benefits of such comparisons
for steady flows, with a recommendation to move
towards unsteady flows. Benchmark tests in Japan,
described in English in Bertram and Iwashita
(1996), for ship seakeeping at high Froude numbers
yielded also interesting insight, but almost a decade
later numerical methods have progressed
considerably.
Could
hull
geometry
and
experimental results be made available in electronic
form for everybody?
For the steady case, I am puzzled by the
good agreement between computation and
experiments in Fig.4, though. Does the 2.5 D
method consider trim and sinkage? Often the nonlinear aspect is limited to a treatment of the nonlinear free-surface deformation. The 3-D RSM has
definitely no trim and sinkage considered.
However, at Froude numbers of 0.5 and 0.7 there is
quite good agreement for the wave profile
measured free in sink and trim and I would expect
at least a noticeable sinkage. What were measured
trim and sinkage for the mono-hull in the steady
experiments? Were the plotted results corrected for
trim and sinkage or can you explain the good
agreement despite different treatment of trim and
sinkage?
Steady trim and sinkage could be
predicted e.g. by a nonlinear wave resistance code
and then be considered in any seakeeping method
as average position. As a first insight, one could
take the measured values and repeat the numerical
seakeeping simulations to see the influence. It
would be interesting to see how a simple estimate
of trim and sinkage influences the results with
standard linear seakeeping codes for cases as the
one considered here with high Froude numbers.
AUTHORS REPLY
We appreciated the precious comments
and suggestions of Prof. Bertram and we thank him
for that.
[1] All the experimental and numerical
results, as well as the geometry of the model are
REFERENCES
Lugni C., Colagrossi A., Colicchio G., Faltinsen
O.M., (2004), Numerical and Experimental
Investigations on semi-displacement Mono and
Multi-hull., Proc. of HIPER Conf., Rome, 2004.
Iwashita, Nechita, Colagrossi, Landrini, Bertram, A
critical assessment of potential flow models for
ship seakeeping, Osaka Colloqium (2000)
DISCUSSION
Makoto Ohkusu
Japan Agency for
Technolgy, Japan
Marine-Earth
Science
and
of
DISCUSSION
Jinzhu Xia
Australian Maritime College, Australia
The disagreement in modern prediction as
shown in Figure 17 may be due to nonlinearity with
respect to ambient wave height rather than steady and
unsteady flow interaction as suggested by Bertram
(1999) for the S175 container ship. In fact, for the
S175, both model tests (ODea et al, 1992, ONR) and
theoretical prediction (Xia, Wand and Jensen, 1998,
in Marine Structures) have confirmed that the
disagreement is very likely due to nonlinearity. I
would like to see some further careful study for the
unsteady case presented in this paper.
As for the results of trim and sinkage in
Tables 3 and 4, it would be interesting to see a
comparison
with
numerical
predictions.
Congratulations for a very valuable contribution!
AUTHORS REPLY
Thank you for your observation that has
been a source for more refined study about the linear
potential seakeeping model.
There are many effects to be considered as
possible error source, for instance:
a) nonlinear effects,
b) local steady and unsteady flow interaction,
c) transom flow,
d) sinkage and trim,
e) hull interaction,
What we have focused on are the points b) and e) in
the paper. Our comments related to the other error
sources are as follow.
Generally speaking, we agree with Dr. Xia
about the role of the nonlinearities. Nevertheless, to
predict how the nonlinearities matter, during our
experiments we considered several regular wave
systems with different steepness.
Further, we
performed also the transient seakeeping test, with a
small steepness of the wave packet. The comparison
with the numerical results, (see fig. 17), has shown
that the nonlinear effects matter but
are not
dominant.
On the other hand, the new numerical study
we recently performed (see fig. A) has shown that a
correct modeling of the transom stern flow in steady
condition, is very important for a more reliable
prediction of the ship motions at high Fn. This latter,
in fact, causes a conspicuous damping due to the
effect of the hull lift (see Faltinsen 2004).
Faltinsen (2004), Hydrodynamics of high-speed
marine vehicles, Book in press.
1 Introduction
1.1 Previous Work
The matter of wave generation of vessels is of
great importance when considering the operation
The purpose of this effort was to avoid a considerably more elaborate approach, such as that of
Doctors and Day (2000a), in which a near-field analysis was developed in order to ensure that the pressure acting on the surface of the hollow is zero (atmospheric). This method is further complicated by
the fact that one must iterate the hollow shape to
achieve this aim. The results of this more sophisticated and intellectually satisfying theory were no
better than the results based on an a priori estimate, described above.
Another effort in this area was that of Doctors
and Zilman (2004). They showed that a transomstern model based on the classic backward-facingstep problem, such as the one analyzed by Hall
(2001), worked remarkably well. This latest model
assumed the factor 3.340 for the length of the hollow (slightly larger than the factor noted above).
Additionally, a positive or negative convergence of
the stern of the vessel, either in plan or in profile,
was accounted for by considering the shape of the
hollow and matching it to the stern. For example,
a positively converging stern would create a shorter
hollow.
The matter of the rate of decay of the wave
pattern has been the subject of much debate over
the last decade. In particular, one is interested in
the rate at which the envelope of the maximum (or
A(y/y1 )N
(1)
Doctors (2003b) considered a series of SES designs, based on a total displacement of 60 t, in which
different proportions of the total weight were carried by the sidehulls and the cushion. In the case
of deep water, a reduction of 54% is possible at a
speed of 40 knots, when the cushion supports 60%
of the weight. Under the same conditions, in water
of depth 7.5 m, the expected reduction is 59%.
Raven (2000) has presented ship-wave calculations based on nonlinear inviscid theory using the
panel method. Brizzolara and Bruzzone (2003) and
Janson, Leer-Andersen, and Larsson (2003) have
implemented a novel combined method. The near
field is computed on the basis of a fully nonlinear
method, while the far field is computed using the
linear method. This technique should prove to be
efficient and is justified because the waves in the far
field have a lower amplitude.
For these nonlinear methods, there is the serious matter of whether one can achieve both a numerically converged solution for each test geometric
configuration and also a sufficient number of iterations to obtain an optimized result in a reasonable timeframe.
The idea of predicting the wave system in a totally realistic waterway (one with an arbitrary cross
section) is attractive. Work in this area has been reported by Henn, Sharma, and Jiang (2001) and by
Hong and Mutsuda (2002). Doctors and Renilson
(1993) also studied the impact of a non-rectangular
waterway in the towing tank by the use of flat banks
with a constant slope. It was shown that the formula for the wave resistance applicable to a rectangular channel could still be used with reasonable accuracy by employing in this formula the same water
depth together with an effective width that provides
the same cross-sectional area of the channel.
In the current investigation, the following theoretical considerations will now be taken into account: (a) the length of the hollow that is generated behind the transom stern of the vessel, (b) the
surface tension of the water, (c) the viscosity of the
water, and (d) the presence of surfactants (modeled
by the inclusion of surface elasticity). The last three
aspects are likely to be more relevant at model scale
and might cast some doubt on extrapolation of tests
for wave generation conducted in an ocean basin at
relatively low speeds.
2 Theory
2.1 Definition of the Problem
Figure 1 provides a definition of the physical
problem, indicating the principal dimensions of the
vessel and its hollow. In the case of a catamaran,
model tests can be effected on just one demihull, as
illustrated in Figure 1(a). The vessel length L, the
effective spacing between the demihulls s, and the
effective width of the channel w are indicated.
The hollow behind the transom is estimated on
the basis of the flow behind a backward-facing step,
described in some detail by Hall (2001). This is indicated in Figure 1(b). The shape of the hollow is
known to be roughly elliptic; this knowledge can be
employed to fit the geometry of the hollow so that
the effective surface for the hull-hollow combination
is smooth and does not suffer any discontinuity in
slope. In fact, the computer program estimates both
the profile and the plan of the hollow, with the maximum of the two values of the length assumed.
Item
Displacement mass
Waterline length
Waterline beam
Draft
Waterplane-area coef.
Maximum section coef.
Block coefficient
Prismatic coefficient
Slenderness coefficient
Symbol
L
B
T
CW P
CM
CB
CP
L/1/3
Value
3.745 kg
1.500 m
0.1113 m
0.04623 m
0.7866
0.7292
0.4860
0.6665
9.654
Item
Overall length
Effective width
Water depth
Value
60.0 m
7.100 m
0.300 m
1.500 m
Symbol
l
w
d
Q
exp(k|z z 0 |)
4k
Q
exp(k|z + z 0 + 2d|)
4k
+A(k, ) cosh[k(z + d)] ,
(7)
(2)
must be satisfied throughout the domain of the water, together with the kinematic free-surface condition,
xx + yy + zz
z + U x
0,
0,
(3)
0.
(4)
Here, U is the speed of the vessel, g is the acceleration due to gravity, is the density of the water, and
is the surface tension. This equation was used, for
example, by Webster (1966). On the bottom of the
channel, we have:
z
0 on z = d ,
(5)
+,
(6)
4r 4r0
where r and r0 are the radial distances,
p
(x x0 )2 + (y y 0 )2 + (z z 0 )2
r =
p
0
(x x0 )2 + (y y 0 )2 + (z + z 0 + 2d)2 .
r =
1
2
1
2
Z
Z
(x, y) exp[i(kx x + ky y)] dxdy
Z
Z
2Q
Z
0
2
X
0
3
dky
k0 k +
k
U 2
j=1
cosh[k(z 0 + d)]
cosh2 (kd)
sin[kx (x x0 )] cos[ky (y y 0 )]
. df
.
(8)
(1)j kx
dk
cosh[k(z + d)]
(U )2 f .
(9)
2
. df
4i X X 0
j
(1) kx k
x =
w i=0 j=1
dk
exp(ikx x) cos(ky y) (U iV) , (10)
Item
Demihull spacing
Symbol
s
Value
0.300 m
0.400 m
0.500 m
1.000 m
0.500 m
3.000 m
10.500 m
y1
y
y2
Lcut
Item
Displacement mass
Waterline length
Waterline beam
Draft
Waterplane-area coef.
Maximum section coef.
Block coefficient
Prismatic coefficient
Slenderness coefficient
Symbol
L
B
T
CW P
CM
CB
CP
L/1/3
Value
12.804 kg
1.596 m
0.2002 m
0.08047 m
0.7958
0.7996
0.4990
0.6241
6.817
1
2
for i = 0
for i 1
(11)
In this equation, A0 is the area over which the cushion pressure p(x, y) is defined.
2.5 Damping due to Viscosity and Surface
Elasticity
kx
q
k 2 ky 2
(12)
ky
2i/w ,
(13)
and
k0
g/U 2 .
(14)
The Fourier transform of the modified combined free-surface condition (the dispersion relationship) was published for the case of deep water, by
Zilman and Miloh (2001, p. 161, Equation (61)),
and for the case of water of finite depth, by Hansen
and Ahmad (1971, p. 30, Equation (82)). We shall
base our work here on the latter source, even though
the difference in the numerical results would be
slight. This is because only relatively short waves
are damped and these would be classified as deepwater waves:
f
= [ 2 (gk + k 3 ) tanh(kd)]( 2 mk 2 )
k 3 (gk + k 3 ) + 4i 3 k 2
+ 42 2 k 3 [m tanh(kd) k]
= 0.
(17)
(18)
(19)
Equation (19) is equivalent to that given by Wehausen and Laitone (1960, p. 632, Equation (24.3)),
except for the additional terms involving the viscosity and the surface elasticity. These terms introduce
an imaginary component to the wave number of the
free-surface waves and this produces a spatial damping factor.
The additional symbols in Equation (18) represent the circular frequency of the wave:
U kx
(20)
and the complex wave number in the vertical direction for the stream function which describes the
(small) rotational component of the flow:
p
m =
(21)
k 2 i/ .
= k 3 (gk + k 3 ) + 4i 3 k 2
+ 42 2 k 3 [m tanh(kd) k]
(24)
and
We can now adapt the analysis of Hansen and
Ahmad (1971, p. 22, Equation (46)), in which we
consider a first-order correction to the value of the
wave number. The complex wave number is:
k
k + i ,
df
dk
= [2 2 /k (g + 3 k 2 ) tanh(kd)
(gk + k 3 )d sech2 (kd)]
( 2 mk 2 ) .
(25)
(22)
where k is the standard (inviscid) solution of Equation (19). We substitute this definition into Equation (19) and apply just one iteration of Newtons
method. Hence:
df
= Im f /
.
(23)
dk
The viscous damping factor that is to be included for each component of the wave spectrum is
then
V
Some understanding of the nature of the function to be solved can be derived from an examination of Figure 2(b).
3 Numerical Aspects
3.1 Discretization of the Hull
Figure 2(a) shows how the centerplane paneling is used to represent the hull and the hollow in
the water behind the transom stern. The panels
are, in effect, tent functions, which overlap. They
have been employed previously by Doctors and Day
(1997), for example. Typically, one requires only
about 60 tents in the longitudinal direction and 20
tents in the vertical direction in order to obtain converged results.
4 Catamarans
4.1 Experiments
The subject vessel is depicted in Figure 3(a).
It is a slightly modified version of the original Series 64 hull, which was described by Yeh (1965). Its
hydrostatic particulars are listed in Table 1.
The dimensions of the towing tank are presented in Table 2 and the experimental arrangements are shown in Table 3.
4.2 Surface Tension, Viscosity, and Surface
Elasticity
Figure 4 shows a comparison of the experiment
and theory for the wave profile along one longitudinal cut for which y/L = 1.333. It is noted, for
Item
Overall length
Width
Water depth
Symbol
l
w
d
Value
35.0 m
12.0 m
0.450 m
0.900 m
However, the phasing of these oscillations is imperfect. It is thought that this difference may be related to the precise geometry of the transom hollow,
which affects the equivalent wavemaking length of
the vessel.
4.3 Demihull Spacing
Finally, Figure 6 presents the effect of demihull spacing s on the root-mean-square wave elevation for the two different water depths. It is seen
that increasing the spacing leads to a lower wave
generation.
The experimental phenomena are predicted
accurately by the current enhanced theory, with the
exception already noted by Doctors (2003a). This
is the problem of vessel speeds corresponding to a
depth Froude number of unity, where the theory behaves poorly, if the width of the waterway w is also
finite.
5 Trimarans
5.1 Experiments
The subject vessel is depicted in Figure 3(b).
The centerhull is Model 9 of the AMECRC series,
which was described by Bojovic and Goetz (1996).
Its hydrostatic particulars are listed in Table 4. The
sidehulls were constructed as geosyms of the centerhull, with the linear scale factor 0.4590.
The dimensions of the ocean basin are presented in Table 5 and the experimental arrangements are shown in Table 6.
The experimental setup permitted the stagger
(the longitudinal position of the transom of the sidehulls with respect to the centerhull) to be adjusted.
Three values of the stagger were selected.
Item
Sidehull stagger
Symbol
r
y1
y
y2
Lcut
Value
0.640 m
0.160 m
0.320 m
1.000 m
0.500 m
4.500 m
8.000 m
Item
Displacement mass
Waterline length
Waterline beam
Draft
Sidehull spacing
Waterplane-area coef.
Maximum section coef.
Block coefficient
Prismatic coefficient
Slenderness coefficient
Symbol
L
B1
T
s
CW P
CM
CB
CP
L/1/3
Value
30 t
30 m
1.000 m
1.500 m
10 m
0.8333
0.8000
0.6667
0.8333
9.655
Vessel
Type
Sidehull
Beam
B1
(m)
Catamaran
SES
SES
SES
SES
Hovercraft
1.000
0.800
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000
Cushion
Depression
(m)
0.000
0.040
0.080
0.120
0.160
0.200
Total
Displacement
(t)
60
60
60
60
60
60
6 Surface-Effect Ships
6.1 Parent Sidehull
The chosen parent sidehull can be seen in Figure 9(a). For the sake of simplicity, this was based
on the classic Wigley (1934) hull. Specifically, the
bow half of the sidehull possesses parabolic waterlines and its sections are also parabolic, but with
some wall-sided portion below the waterline. The
stern half of the sidehull possesses parallel waterlines and its sections blend in with the sections of
the bow.
The stern, having a transom, is typical of the
SES, because this permits the traditional waterjet
installation. The geometric data of the parent sidehull is given in Table 7.
7 Concluding Remarks
of this improvement is quite marginal with regard to overall wave measures, such as the rootmean-square wave elevation.
3. The effect of including molecular viscosity and
surface elasticity into the calculations is miniscule, even at the very small model scale and at
the lowest Froude numbers considered in this
work. Nevertheless, the very small influence is
favorable as it further reduces unrealistic peaks
in the predictions of the wave profiles.
4. The strong theoretical oscillations in the curves
of root-mean-square wave elevation at low
speeds have been verified by extensive experiments documented here.
5. An air-cushion assisted catamaran generates a
much milder wave system than a traditional
catamaran. The calculations have shown that
a craft in which 40% of the weight is carried by
the displacement and 60% is carried by the air
cushion produces a configuration that is nearly
optimal over the entire speed range. The reduction in wave generation can be around 54%
in the case of deep water and up to 59% in the
case of a water depth of 7.5 m for the 60 t vessel
operating at 40 knots.
Research work planned for the future includes
the following:
1. Repeating the experiments on the model trimaran in a longer test facility, such as a towing
tank, with the aim of achieving steady-state
wave data.
8 Acknowledgments
The model tests were performed in the Towing Tank and the Ocean Basin at the Australian
Maritime College (AMC) by Mr Olav Opheim and
Mr Stephen Helmstedt, students at UNSW, under the supervision of Mr Gregor Macfarlane and
Mr Richard Young of the AMC.
Dr Stephen Hall of UNSW provided much useful theoretical advice regarding the shape of the
transom-stern hollow.
The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of the Australian Research Council (ARC)
Discovery-Project Grant Scheme (via Grant Number DP0209656).
The in-kind support of this work by The University of New South Wales and Tel-Aviv University
is also greatly appreciated.
9 References
Bojovic, P. and Goetz, G.: Geometry of AMECRC Systematic Series, Australian Maritime
Engineering Cooperative Research Centre, Report AMECRC IR 96/6, 53+v pp (1996)
Brizzolara, S. and Bruzzone, D.: Near and
Distant Waves of Fast Ships in Unlimited
and Limited Depths, Proc. Seventh International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation
(FAST 03), Ischia, Italy, Vol. 3, pp H.1H.12
(October 2003)
Day, A., Clelland, D., Nixon, E.: Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Arrow Trimarans, Proc. Seventh International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation (FAST 03),
Ischia, Italy, Vol. 3, pp D2.23D2.30 (October
2003)
Day, A.H. and Doctors, L.J.: Concept Evaluation for High-Speed Low-Wash Vessels,
Proc. Sixth International Conference on Fast
Sea Transportation (FAST 01), Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Southampton, England, Vol. 1, pp 121133 (September 2001)
Degiuli, N., Werner, A., and Doliner, Z.:
Determination of Optimum Position of Outriggers of Trimaran Regarding Minimum Wave
Pattern Resistance, Proc. Seventh International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation
(FAST 03), Ischia, Italy, Vol. 3, pp D2.15
D2.22 (October 2003)
Doctors, L.J.: The Use of Pressure Distributions to Model the Hydrodynamics of AirCushion Vehicles and Surface-Effect Ships,
Proc. High-Performance Marine Vehicle Conference and Exhibit (HPMV 92), American Society of Naval Engineers, Washington,
pp SES56SES72 (June 1992)
Doctors, L.J.: A Versatile Hull-Generator Program, Proc. Twenty-First Century Shipping
Symposium, University of New South Wales,
Sydney, New South Wales, pp 140158, Discussion: 158159 (November 1995)
Doctors, L.J.: The Influence of Viscosity on the
Wavemaking of a Model Catamaran, Proc.
Eighteenth International Workshop on Water
Waves and Floating Bodies (18 IWWWFB),
Le Croisic, France, pp 12-1124 (April 2003)
Doctors, L.J.: A Comparison of the Environmental Wave Generation of Hovercraft and
other High-Speed Vessels, Proc. Fifth AirCushion Technology Conference and Exhibition, Hovercraft Museum, Chark Lane, Leeon-the-Solent, England, 13 pp (October 2003)
Doctors, L.J. and Day, A.H.: Resistance
Prediction for Transom-Stern Vessels, Proc.
Fourth International Conference on Fast Sea
Transportation (FAST 97), Sydney, Australia, Vol. 2, pp 743750 (July 1997)
Doctors, L.J. and Day, A.H.: Steady-State
Hydrodynamics of High-Speed Vessels with a
Transom Stern, Proc. Twenty-Third Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Val de Reuil,
France, pp 12-112-14, Discussion: p 12-15
(September 2000)
Doctors, L.J. and Day, A.H.: Wave-Free
River-Based Air-Cushion Vehicles, Proc. In-
Doctors, L.J. and Day, A.H.: The Generation and Decay of Waves behind High-Speed
Vessels, Proc. Sixteenth International Workshop on Water Waves and Floating Bodies
(16 IWWWFB), Hiroshima, Japan, pp 3336
(April 2001)
Doctors, L.J., Phillips, S.J., and Day, A.H.:
Focussing the Wave-Wake System of a HighSpeed Marine Ferry, Proc. Sixth International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation
(FAST 01), Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Southampton, England, Vol. 1, pp 97
106 (September 2001)
Doctors, L.J. and Renilson, M.R.:
The
DISCUSSION
Dr A.H. Day
Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde, Scotland
I would like to congratulate the authors on
an interesting study. I was particularly interested to
see the effect of the inclusion of surface elasticity on
the mathematical model.
With regard to the inclusion of molecular
viscosity in the calculation of ship waves, I have
carried out similar calculations to the authors, and
found similar results that is, that the near field
waves are essentially unaffected when the physically
correct value for the molecular viscosity is employed,
both in deep water and in finite depth.
However, following Tuck et. al. (1), and
Doctors (2), it was found that the use of values of the
viscosity around three orders of magnitude higher
had a significant impact in some cases. The divergent
wave system, and the transverse waves in the
relatively near field (within around 1km of a vessel of
around 100m waterline length), were still essentially
unaffected, but in the extreme far field (of the order
of 5km downstream of the vessel) the inclusion of the
higher values of viscosity led to the removal of short
wavelength ripples observed on longitudinal cuts
calculated away from the centreline of the vessel).
These ripples in some cases could add
substantially to an estimation of the height of these
waves albeit in a region in which the waves are
quite small compared to the leading divergent waves.
I would thus like to ask if the authors have found any
similar effects using their more sophisticated theory,
and ask for their comments on the appropriate values
of the viscosity and surface tension to optimise
correlation with physical measurements.
On the subject of wave decay, I was
interested to see the further confirmation of the
variation of decay rate with speed and vessel
geometry. I would be interested to know if the
authors have carried out any systematic comparisons
of catamarans and monohulls in this regard.
In some calculations I have carried out
recently I compared the waves generated by a
monohull and catamaran of the same total
displacement, and with similar underwater hull form.
I found that whilst the maximal height wave
generated by the catamaran along a given cut
(relatively close to the vessel track) was generally
smaller than that of the monohull, the rate of decay of
the wave height with distance from the vessel track
could be considerably less particularly in the high
sub-critical speed range. However the calculation of
the decay exponent in these cases was based on a
REFERENCES
1.
2.
AUTHORS REPLY
The authors would like to thank Dr Day for
his contribution, by way of questions and comments,
to the discussion of their paper.
It is interesting to note Dr. Day's
confirmation that the use of the molecular viscosity
in the calculations of the wave elevation has a very
minor impact on the result. It is necessary to consider
very great distances downstream of the vessel before
any appreciable damping of the wave pattern can be
discerned.
The authors agree that one must choose a
turbulent viscosity many orders of magnitude greater
than the molecular viscosity in order to provide any
reasonable damping of the waves. Unfortunately, it is
difficult to physically justify such large values of the
turbulent viscosity. It is also unclear how it
influences the wave elevation along longitudinal cuts,
which are outside the viscous wake generated by the
vessel. In the case of the catamaran tests discussed in
the paper, the wave probes were stationary and
transversely located in order to avoid interference
with the passage of the model and its wake.
Therefore, we chose only to use the molecular
viscosity in our calculations.
In a similar manner, realistic values of a
surfactant film elasticity have a minor influence on
the wave system as long as relatively short distances
aft of the ship are considered. On the other hand,
variations of the surface tension itself provides a
slightly greater modification, at least at the model
scales studied here. Practically, its influence on the
final results is also insignificant.
Dr. Day also makes the point that ripples
(that would be damped by appropriate choices of the
turbulent viscosity or surface film elasticity) can
affect the estimation of the wave elevation at great
distances downstream. We cannot suggest what are
suitable values of the turbulent viscosity or of the
NOMENCLATURE
ABSTRACT
Air cushions are used to support a number of
floating platforms, e.g. surface effect ships, and
hovercrafts. These platforms suffer from what is termed
the cobblestone effect arising from a resonant
condition due to restoring force provided by the air
cushion. Model testing of air cushion vehicles have
suffered from a potential problem of non-scaling of
atmospheric pressure. Thus although the dynamic
pressure may be properly scaled, a model air cushion is
at a much higher pressure than the corresponding
prototype, resulting in a stiffer air cushion.
A
consequence of the increase in stiffness is the natural
frequency of the model is much higher, hence the
cobblestone effect may not be seen altogether in a
laboratory.
In order to scale the air cushion pressure one
of the following may be deployed:
1. Using a low pressure laboratory facility.
2. Using a reservoir to increase air volume.
3. Deployment of air stiffness correction devices
The first two methods need specialized laboratory or
equipment.
Earlier work from the Netherlands
employed a membrane diaphragm correction device
that allowed the pressure to be scaled properly.
Although some satisfactory results were obtained, there
were difficulties in implementing the device. In the
present paper, we propose a lenticular balloon (i.e. a
balloon with a large diameter ring inserted into it) as an
effective correction device.
The heave natural frequency is theoretically
formulated for the case of a rectangular air cushion
vehicle fitted with a correction device. The pressurevolume relationship of a lenticular balloon is developed
using linear elastic theory. A set of experiments was
conducted for lenticular balloons to evaluate their
volume pressure relationship which are then
compared to the theoretical formulation.
Ab
b
D
E
hb
KB
L
M
Ma
P0
Pa
R
Rr
t
t
V
M=
Ab P0
g
(1)
( P0 + Pa ) = a ,
(2)
= a 1 +
1
1 + Pa
(3)
P0
P = P0 + Pa + p and = p
P0
. The volume of
Ab
hb
VB
= KB
,
t
t
(4)
hb
1+
Pa
P0
3
+
= 0.
t
t
(5)
23
= Ab P0 .
t 2
(6)
3 (t ) = {30 e
in t
},
W (t ) = b ( hb + 3 (t ) ) dx +VB (t ) . (12)
L
P
1+ a
P0
n =
P
g
1+ a ,
Cm hb
P0
(9)
n ,model
,
n,prototype
instead of
Ab g
n2 =
(7)
(8)
n 0 + Abn30 + VB 0n = 0 ,
(13)
(t ) = {0 ei t } .
(11)
(M + M a )
(10)
W = b ( hb + 3 (t ) ) dx .
VB = VB 0 eint .
Cm
W
1+ Pa
(14)
+ KB
P0
KB =
Ab hb
P0 Pa ( 1)
. (15)
( P0 + Pa )( P0 + Pa )
p =
2t
2
d T + T dt
Rr
Rr
(17)
d T =
E
d
1
(18)
dt
=
2d T
t
E
(19)
d =
1 dA
2 A
(20)
d =
dR (1 cos )
R 2 cos
(21)
2
1
V = R 3 (1 cos ) RR 2 R cos
3
3
dV = 2 R 2 (1 cos )
(22)
RR2
dR .
cos
(23)
Rr
R
KB =
dV
P0
dP
= 2 R 2 cos
RR2
(1 cos )
P0 Rr R (1 )
( 2
T0
E t
(24)
As before the value for the lenticular balloon is twice
the above value.
y
x
Figure 2. Schematic of circular diaphragm
8.E-05
Theory
Moulijn (2000)
4.E-05
2.E-05
200
P0
400
600
0.E+00
Volume (m )
dV/dP
6.E-05
5.E-03
5.E-03
4.E-03
4.E-03
3.E-03
3.E-03
2.E-03
2.E-03
1.E-03
5.E-04
0.E+00
Theory
Exp
200
400
600
800
1000
Pressure (Pa)
EXAMPLE CALCULATION
We consider a rectangular box supported by
an air cushion. Particulars are given in Table 1 below.
For this calculation we are interested in a scale factor of
100. The scaling correction factor (KB) is shown in
Figure 6. It is seen that five balloons are required to
achieve the correct scaling for the model.
CONCLUSIONS
The paper has presented and discussed the
theoretical formulation of a circular diaphragm type
device for scaling air cushions in a laboratory. A
development of the diaphragm idea is a lenticular
balloon described in this paper. The balloon is easier
to deploy than the diaphragm, as it requires lesser deck
space on the model. Further, the number of balloons
and the prestressed diameter may be easily modified to
obtain the required scale ratio.
It was noted during our experiments that the
performance of the balloon is very sensitive to its
thickness and Youngs modulus. Thus time and effort
needs to be allocated to accurate measurement of these
parameters.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The balloon calibration tests were performed
by Kellie Bacon as part of her vacation employment at
the University of Western Australia. Sean Galvin at the
School of Mechanical Engineering assisted with the
0.010
0.008
0.006
KB
No. of balloons
5
4
KB (per balloon) m /Pa
0.002
KB (total) m4/Pa
0.008
0.004
0.002
0.000
0
500
1000
1500
P0 (Pa)
2000
DISCUSSION
Larry J. Doctors
The University of New South Wales, Australia
Thank you for a very interesting paper.
1.
2.
AUTHORS REPLY
Thanks for the comments.
1. At present, the calculation is focused on the
scaling issue, and hence the added mass was
considered a constant. It was assumed to be
similar to a closed bottom box, i.e. about
80% of displacement. We could consider
using the added mass estimation from
Professor
Ogilvies
report
as
an
improvement.
2. It would be quite difficult to control the
balloons in full scale I think.
Abstract
In this study we use the Navier-Stokes Equations
(NSE) for viscous incompressible fluid flow. The NSE
are solved using Large Eddy Simulation (LES) methodology combined with an interface capturing algorithm in a finite volume framework. This enables simultaneous computations of the air-water flow around
a surface ship including the evolution of the water surface, i.e. the Kelvin wave pattern. The ability to compute the entire flow field gives the possibility to assess
design parameters. It, also, and maybe more important
in the case of surface combatants, enables the study of
the turbulent wake behind the ship. Beside this it can
be used for design and optimization issues. In this
study we use the DTMB 5415 model hull representing
a modern surface combatant with transom stern and a
sonar dome configuration below the bow. This design
has become an important case for validation of numerical ship hydrodynamics simulation methods. The
results presented in the present study are from an ongoing research project. They are in reasonable good
agreement with available experimental data.
Introduction
Traditional naval hydrodynamic design procedures
rely on regression analysis and towing tank testing using data bases. These data bases are developed from
decades of model test results correlated with full scale
ship experiences. For new ship types, the existing da-
tabases do not always provide the necessary design information. The lack of information becomes even
more critical due to increased demands for stealthy operation for future surface ships. During the past decades Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) has developed into an efficient and powerful tool for design and
validation. It also is an important tool for investigating
the physics of complex flow phenomena. Over the past
twenty-five years there have been several international
workshops on ship flow calculations (Larsson 1980,
Larsson et al. 1990, Kodama 1994, Larsson et al.
2000). A development from potential flow methods to
simple and more advanced Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) models can be seen on these
workshops. An interest in addressing more complex
flow fields, such as including the free surface, propulsion, manoeuvring and sea-keeping can be seen at conferences like the International conferences on Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics, where the 8th was held in
South Korea last year and the Symposiums on Naval
Hydrodynamics, where this conference is the 25th.
Still, there is much to be done before all important
physical phenomena are accurately calculated or modelled. One step in this direction is to turn to LES models.
The ability to accurately predict the wave pattern of ships and submarines are of importance for
drag assessments, signatures and secondary effects
such as costal erosion. Furthermore, the behaviour of
the free water surface affects the flow field around surface ships and submerged vessels near the surface.
Their motion generates a disturbance on the water surface which is important for proper understanding of
the flow around these vessels. The free surface affects
the location and magnitude of vortices produced by the
motion of the vessel. Vortices that originate from the
bow, appendages, propulsors and rudders can greatly
affect the performance of the propulsors.
In the present study we use the NSE for viscous incompressible fluid flow. The NSE are solved
using LES methodology combined with an interface
capturing algorithm in a finite volume framework.
This enables simultaneous computation of the air and
water flow around a surface ship. This includes the
evolution of the water surface resulting from the pressure disturbance due to the ship motion, the Kelvin
waves. The ability to compute such flow fields using
LES not only gives the possibility to provide assessments of design parameters. It also, and maybe more
important in the case of surface combatants, enables
the study of the turbulent wake behind the vessel. A
ship that moves through the water does not only create
the detectable surface wave pattern but also a persistent trace of turbulence, vortices and waves underneath
the surface. This viscous wake, and its interaction with
the Kelvin wave pattern, creates a distinct trace for up
to 20 kilometres astern of the ship, which creates possible means of detection or for wake homing torpedoes.
In this study we use the 5415-model hull,
(see: Model 51415 web page in reference list), fabricated at the David Taylor Model Basin (DTMB), Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, as an
early design variant of the DDG51 Arleigh Burkeclass destroyer currently deployed in the U.S. Naval
fleet. For this hull several experimental investigations
have been made, (Model 5415, Larsson et al. 2000),
which makes it suitable for validation of CFD models
and verification of numerical results. However, there
are some differences in the experimental data sets from
different facilities. The 5415 model represent a modern
surface combatant with transom stern and a sonar
dome configuration below the bow. The experiments,
(Model 5415), cover several Froude numbers (Fn) but
only Fn=0.28 is considered here to avoid breaking
waves and their inherited difficulties. This problem
will be addressed in future studies.
A long-term goal of the research into numerical simulations is to develop the ability to study the
performance of a full ship design. This including the
interactions of the flow fields around various appendages, sonar domes, rudders, shafts and propulsors. The
resulting complex flow field is of interest as the ship
maneuvers in response to changes in the settings of the
rudders and propulsors in various sea-states. To accomplish this goal, efficient and accurate free surface
simulations are needed. Other necessary components
Computational Methods
As the available computational power increases significantly every year, the frontiers of CFD is constantly expanding towards more complex problems
and more advanced models and algorithms. Thus, taking more of the physics into account and also allowing
for cross-disciplinary studies such as fluid/structure interactions,
hydro-acoustics
or
magnetohydrodynamics. Even so, the possibility to do Direct
Numerical Simulations (DNS) in which all scales of
the flow field are resolved is restricted to simple flows
at low Reynolds number (Re), emphasizing the need
for modelling at higher Re. Potential flow methods do
an excellent job if only the wave pattern on the water
surface and the wave resistance are of interest. However, the viscous effects are neglected and more advanced models are needed when the viscous effects or
the viscous flow field are of interest. Today the RANS
equations are the most commonly used flow model for
practical applications. Here, the NSE are filtered in
time to produce a model for the time-averaged (or
mean) flow. RANS is often quite adequate for mean
flow predictions, but provide only limited information
about turbulence characteristics and almost no details
on the large-scale unsteady structures of the flow field.
RANS also gives reasonably good results with short
turnover time for flows where the large eddies are almost stationary and the modelled fluctuations are isotropic. However, for more complex flows this may not
be true, and an improved method may be required. For
these types of flows a more appropriate method is
LES.
In LES, (Ferziger and Leslie 1979, Lesieur
and Metais 1996, Boris et al. 1992, Sagaut 2001), all
scales larger than the grid cells are resolved using a
space/time accurate algorithm and only the effects of
the small scales on the large scales are modelled. The
direct computation of the large energy containing eddies (being flow and geometry dependent) gives LES
more generality than RANS, utilizing models for the
entire spectrum of turbulent motions. At present, there
is hardly any study in the open literature where LES is
applied to flow around ship-hulls including the nearwake. The main reason obviously lies on the computer
resource limitation which increases with the Re-
number. In particular, for the near-wall region, it is estimated that the number of grid points required for a
wall-resolved LES scales as O(Re2), where Re is
the friction velocity based Re-number, (Bagget et al.
1997). Moreover, unless the grid is sufficiently fine,
the anisotropy of the flow will cause anisotropy of the
subgrid flow, necessitating subgrid models capable of
handling simultaneous flow and grid anisotropy. Consequently, high Re-number flows, especially in complex geometries, are too expensive to compute with
LES unless particular techniques are invoked to alleviate the severe resolution requirements near the wall.
Here we will follow (Fureby et al. 20003, Wikstrm et
al. 2003), and use a separate wall model, based on the
solution to the classical boundary layer equations.
The NSE (1) which are the equations governing fluid flow, (Lions 1996), consist of conservation
and balance laws for mass and momentum supplemented by constitutive equations. For a viscous, incompressible, Newtonian fluid, with density variations
they can be expressed as,
t (v )+(v v )=p+S +g,
v =0,
(1)
v =0,
t ( )+(v )=0,
(2)
v =0,
( )+( v)=b,
t
(3)
able than DNS. Presently, two modelling strategies exist: Functional modelling consists in modelling the action of the subgrid scales on the resolved scales. This
is basically of energetic nature so that the balance of
the energy transfers between the two scale ranges is
sufficient to describe the subgrid scale effects, cf.
(Fureby 2001b). Structural modelling consists of modelling B without incorporating any knowledge of the
nature of the interactions between the subgrid and the
resolved scales. Such models can be based either on
series expansion techniques, transport equations, scale
similarity or other deterministic approaches, e.g.
(Fureby 2001b). For the purpose of this investigation
we use functional modelling in which the energy transfer mechanism from the resolved to the subgrid scales
is assumed analogous to that of a Brownian motion
superimposed on the motion of the resolved scales.
Accordingly,
B D =B 13 ( trB)I =2 k D
(4)
where BD is the deviatoric part of B and k is the subgrid eddy viscosity. To close (4) we need models for
k and for this we assume the existence of characteristic length and velocity scales and we infer separation
between resolved and subgrid scales, viz.,
k =c /3 k ( 1)/ 2 1+/3 ,
(5)
t (k )+(kv)=BD +(( + k )k ),
=k 3/ 2 /,
(6)
Numerical Methods
LES require high-order numerical methods to avoid
masking B by the leading order truncation error. In
can be used to derive the semi-discretized LES-equations. By integrating these over time, using e.g. a
multi-step method, (Hirsch 1999), the discretized
equations become,
i t
[F C, ] n + i =0,
VP m f f
t
= i (gradp ) nP + i t + i (f ) nP + i t ,
m
n + i i t
C, n + i
i = 0( i () P + VP f [Ff ] )=0,
Wall Functions
LES of wall bounded flows becomes prohibitively expensive at high Re if one attempts to resolve the small
but dynamically important eddies in the near-wall region. These structures can be captured in a wallresolved LES in which the grid is approximately such
that y+<2, x+<200 and z+<30. Here, + denotes
non-dimensionalization by the viscous length scale
/u and the friction velocity, u =1w/ 2 , where
w =(v / y)| w is the wall-shear stress. The number of
grid points (degrees of freedom) N necessary, scale as
NRe2, (Bagget et al. 1997), which is nearly the same
as for DNS. The classical remedy to this problem is to
modify the subgrid model, by means of damping functions, that provides the correct scaling of k with y+ as
the wall is approached. Following (Fureby et al. 2003,
Wikstrm et al. 2003), we here instead use an explicit
wall model together with the OEEVM. Following
(Wikstrm et al. 2003) we determine (locally) the friction velocity u from the law-of-the-wall,
y + if y + 11.225,
v + = 1
+
+
ln( y )+ B if y >11.225.
(8)
The approximate wall boundary condition can be implemented by adding a subgrid wall-viscosity BC to
the molecular viscosity on the wall so that the subgrid viscosity becomes,
k = + BC = w /(v / y) P =u y P / v P+ ,
(9)
Figure 2: Perspective view of the hull surface and selected parts of the volume grid for the half hull configuration.
time for the free surface wave pattern to develop. During this process the half domain, using the centreline
symmetry, and a coarser mesh of 500.000 cells was
used together with the Smagorinsky model. After this
initialization period the OEEVM model with wall
function (OEEVM+WM) was used throughout the remaining simulations for a total of two flow-through
times equal to ten flow-past times. The results from
this initialization process where mapped to the finer
grid and mirrored to the complete domain.
Numerical Results
The results presented here is a part of an ongoing research project. The focus of the present study is not
only to compute the evolution of the free surface but
also to give an accurate description of the sub-surface
wake and flow field resulting from the ships motion.
These different features are important not only for design optimization with respect to performance but also
with respect to the creation of a detectable trace in the
ocean. The present calculations are based on the experience from earlier computations including the free
water surface on coarser grids with other subgrid mod-
Figure 5: Comparison of computed (top) and experimental (bottom) wave contours around the DTMB
5415 hull at Fn=0.28 and Re=12.6 106.
In figure 5, the computed wave pattern is presented and compared with experimental data (LES at
the top of the figure and experimental data below) using an iso-surface of the volume fraction variable at
=0.5, coloured wave height, h/L. The smearing of
the divergent waves and the stern waves due to numerical diffusion, grid stretching and comparatively
large grid spacing is easily seen, but still the amplitudes and positions of the primary wave crests close to
the hull are in good agreement with the experiments.
The differences in wave height also depend on the
value of chosen for the iso-surface. Due to the continuous constraint on the volume fraction field, the
Waveheight z/L
0.002
-0.002
-0.004
0.006
DTMB exp
LES
-0.006
0.004
-0.008
-1
Waveheight z/L
0.002
-0.5
0.5
1
Distance x/L
1.5
2.5
-0.002
-0.004
-0.006
-0.008
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Distance x/L
1.2
1.4
1.6
0.006
DTMB exp
LES
0.004
Waveheight z/L
0.002
-0.002
-0.004
-0.006
a
-0.008
-1
2
3
Distance x/L
c
Figure 10: a: Normalized axial velocity and secondary
velocity vectors, overview with the line z/L=-0.02
used in figure 11, b: Contours of experimental, and c:
computed, normalized axial velocity, v x /v, at
x/L=0.935 for the DTMB 5415 hull at Fn=0.28.
flat surfaces without pressure gradients, while the hull
form is far from a flat surface. Therefore, the wall
model should not be expected to give completely correct predictions here. As in the experiments the boundary layer is relatively thin close to the keel and the free
1
INSEAN exp
LES
0.95
U/Uinf
0.9
0.85
0.8
Acknowledgements
0.75
0.7
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
Distance y/L
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
This work is supported by the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration under the grant MarinLES.
References
0.25
V/Uinf INSEAN
V/Uinf LES
W/Uinf INSEAN
W/Uinf LES
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
Distance y/L
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
b
Figure 11: Axial (a) and secondary (b) velocity profiles along the line z/L=-0.02 in the propeller plane.
Concluding Remarks
A computation, from an ongoing research project, of
the flow field around the DTMB 5415 model hull including the free water surface has been presented. The
computational grid was concentrated around the hull to
resolve the boundary layer and the near field wake.
The wave pattern was therefore predicted with reasonably accuracy only close to the hull. The grid out-
Gaskel, P.H. and Lau, A.K.C., Curvature Compensated Convective Transport: SMART, A new Boundedness Preserving Transport Algorithm, Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, 8, 1988, p 617.
Ubbink, O., Numerical Prediction of Two Fluid Systems with Sharp Interfaces, PhD Thesis, London
University, 1997.
Wikstrm N., Svennberg U., Alin N., and Fureby C.,
Large Eddy Simulation of the Flow Past an Inclined
Prolate Spheroid, proceedings of TSP 3, Sendai, Japan, 2003
DISCUSSION
Takanori Hino
National Maritime Research Institute, Japan
Did you compare the resistance of the ship
with the experimental data?
Do you employ the sub-grid scale modeling
for the transport equation of VOF?
AUTHORS REPLY
No we have not computed the resistance.
This is naturally a parameter of interest for any
surface ship simulation, but not a primary objective
for this project. Also, no boundary layer profiles are
available experimentally which makes it difficult to
do any estimates on coefficients based on the wall
shear stress in the simulations.
No there is no sub-grid modelling for the
VOF transport equation. This volume fraction field is
a passive scalar field convected with the local
velocity field, which in turn, of course, is affected by
the SGS-model. The VOF transport equation is not a
physical part of the N-S equations but only a method
for capturing a discontinuous interface. The CICSAM
scheme is constructed in such a way as to minimize
diffusion and dispersion errors while preserving a
bounded solution.
DISCUSSION
Jacek Pawlowski
TRDC Inc., NL, Canada
Would you be able to indicate how much
computing effort in you computations typically is
committed to the initial transient response, and how
much is spent on free surface resolution?
AUTHORS' REPLY
The time to initiate the free surface wave
pattern is typically of the same order as the time
spent to develop the LES solution, at least for the
near field. Typically this is 2-5 flow past times for
any unsteady simulation. That is, there would be no
significant increase in the overall computational time
due to the development of the Kelvin wave pattern.
However, the computational effort in each time step
is increased by 5-10% for the free surface solution
with the method used, i.e. volume of fluid using the
CICSAM scheme.
DISCUSSION
Sung-Eun Kim
Fluent Inc., USA
1. The mesh is too coarse to capture largescale structure so what the authors did is essentially
use an algebraic turbulence model.
2. I wonder what justifies the use of LES for
these sort of applications where the boundary layers
are thin and there arent many significant large-scale
structures that impact significant hydrodynamic
performance of naval ships.
AUTHORS REPLY
Well, the grid is not too coarse to capture the
large scale structures, but it is too coarse to resolve
all important scales for their correct development.
However, The sub grid model used is a one equation
model, i.e. If the grid is far too coarse and the grid
and time dependency is ignored it will not end up
being a algebraic model it will be an one equation
RANS model. Furthermore we have seen worse
results from more advanced RANS model. Therefore,
we are not totally unhappy with the results.
The primary motivation for these
computations are the interest in wake physics and the
related signature aspects including propulsion and
manoeuvring. These phenomenon are not possible to
capture using RANS or URANS. The grid is fine
enough to capture the necessary large scale physics in
the wake using LES. But, the grid used here is not
sufficiently fine for a completely accurate flow field.
However, these computations are among our first
steps from academic test cases towards complex free
surface ship simulations of engineering interest for
the navy. We are currently working on refined grids
to improve the results. The signature computations
are generally not allowed to be published in the open
scientific literature but the underlying CFD results
are.
DISCUSSION
Michel Visonneau
Ecole Centrale Nantes/CNRS, France
The results concerning the free-surface
distribution indicate that the grid is too coarse to
capture accurately the free-surface elevation. Even if
the compressive CICSAM scheme is used, one
should build a region of refined grid where the
interface between air and water is supposed to be
located. Could you comment on that?
AUTHORS REPLY
Yes, we are aware about that the grid
resolution is not sufficient to resolve the free-surface
elevation. However, the project funding these
computations is primarily interested in the wake
physics. Therefore the grid is concentrated to the
boundary layer and the wake region. Our
computational resources were not sufficient to also
resolve the free-surface region but we are expanding
our computational resources and are working on a
finer grid. Also, local grid refinement could of course
solve the problem with the interface resolution, but
for transient simulations such as maneuvering, which
is the goal of this project, adaptive grid refinement is
very expensive.
Fn 2 V 1 1 + V 2 2 + V 3 3 w = 0 .
(4)
0.4
0.3
y/Lpp
0.2
0.1
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
x/L pp
0 .0 0 5
z/Lpp
-0 .0 0 5
m id ship
-0 .0 1
0 .1
0 .2
0 .3
0 .4
y/L pp
S e r ie s 6 0
3 ,4 ,5
2
1
2
3 ,4 ,5
- 0 .5
F .P .P .
x / L pp
0 .5
A .P .P .
4 ,5
3
2
1
3 ,4 ,5
2
1
- 0 .5
F .P .P .
x / L pp
0 .5
A .P .P .
S eries 6 0
0 .0 1 5
istep 4 ,2 ,1
istep 8
0 .0 1
z / Lpp
0 .0 0 5
istep 2 ,1
istep 4
istep 8
-0 .0 0 5
Parnassos
-0 .0 1
-0 .0 1 5
-0 .5
F .P .P .
x / L pp
0 .5
A .P .P .
0 .0 1 5
y / L p p = 0 .2 3 9 5
0 .0 1
istep 1
istep 2
istep 4
z / Lpp
0 .0 0 5
istep 8
Experiment
-0 .0 0 5
-0 .0 1
-0 .0 1 5
-0 .5
F .P .P .
x / L pp
0 .5
A .P .P .
Computational effort
All computations have been performed on a PC with a
single Intel Pentium IV 2.4 GHz processor. As stated
earlier, in the grid study two free-surface updates were
performed on each of the four meshes. The CPU time
required for the RANS/FS computation on each mesh
was 2.1 hours on the coarsest mesh, 2.6 hours on the
second coarsest mesh, 7.7 hours on the second finest
mesh and 23.9 hours on the finest mesh, respectively,
adding up to 36.3 hours CPU time for the entire grid
study.
Scale effect on the wave system.
To study the Reynolds effect on the wave system the
flow around the Series 60 Cb=0.6 at full scale Reynolds
number Rn=8.4x108 and Froude number Fn=0.316 was
D y n e ta n k e r
1
2
3 ,4
0
2
3 ,4
1
0 .0 1 5
2 ,3 ,4
y / L p p = 0 .0 7 5 5
z / Lpp
-0 .0 0 5
-0 .0 1
x / L pp
0 .5
A .P .P .
- 0 .5
F .P .P .
x / L pp
0 .5
A .P .P .
F .P .P .
0 .0 0 5
-0 .5
0 .5
A .P .P .
y / L pp = 0 .2 1 8 2
0 .0 1
-0 .0 1 5
x / L pp
D y n e ta n k e r
in viscid flow
`h / L ;Y /L ;V 3
viscou s (m od el)
`h / L ;Y /L ;V 3
viscou s (sh ip)
`h / L ;Y /L ;V 3
experim ents (T od a et al.)
`h / L ;Y /L ;V 3
F .P .P .
S eries 6 0
0 .0 2
- 0 .5
Dyne tanker
Most RANS/FS solutions published have been for
rather slender ships, e.g. the Series 60, the Kriso
container ship (KCS) or the DTMB model 5415.
However, just for fuller ships the interaction between
the viscous flow and the wave system is important.
Furthermore simulations at low Froude numbers
require grids that would lead to excessive CPU-times
for most methods. In this section results are presented
for the Dyne tanker at model scale Reynolds number
Rn=8.5x106 and a Froude number Fn=0.165. The ship
has a cylindrical bow, a block coefficient Cb=0.87 and
it was used as a test case in (Larsson et al., 1991). The
D y n e ta n k e r
- 0 .5
F .P .P .
0 .5
0
x / L
pp
y / L
pp
= 0 .2 1 8 2
y / L
pp
= 0 .1 4 7 0
y / L
pp
= 0 .1 0 4 3
y / L
pp
= 0 .0 9 0 0
A .P .P .
Figure 11: Validation of the free-surface elevation at four wave cuts. Experiments by Lundgren & hman. Thick
solid line: viscous-flow computation, thin solid line: inviscid-flow computation.
y / Lpp = 0.0900
istep1
istep2
-0.5
x / Lpp
istep1
istep2
0.5
y / Lpp = 0.2182
)
u
u
)
q w = w e kx + sz dkds
)
-0.5
x / Lpp
0.5
(5)
(6)
1 3
1 2
D x =
(7)
2e + e
2
x 2
D cz D z+ + D cx D x+ = 0
(8)
(9)
(10)
Re(k/k0)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
k.dx
Im(k/k0)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
k.dx
Re(k/k0)
1
third order
0.9
0.8
balanced scheme
first order
0.7
second order
0.6
40
20
10
Gridnodes / wavelength
0.4
Im(k/k0)
0.3
third order
0.2
first order
second order
0.1
balanced scheme
40
20
10
Gridnodes / wavelength
second order
y/Lpp = 0.2395
third order
balanced scheme
istep1
istep8
istep2
istep4
x / Lpp
Figure 15: Grid dependence study for various
discretisations. Pressure patch, longitudinal cut at
y/Lpp=1, for grids with 6, 12, 25 and 50 cells per
wavelength.
-0.5
0.5
x / Lpp
Figure 16: Grid dependence for a wave cut at
y/Lpp=0.2395. Series 60 model. Computation using
balanced discretisation schemes.
2hx
-0.5
x / Lpp
0.5
0.5
hx
-0.5
x / Lpp
3.
4.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Part of the full-scale computations for the Series 60
case were carried out under the EC-funded EFFORT
project, 'European Full-scale Flow Research and
Technology', G3RD-CT-2002-00810. The financial
support is gratefully acknowledged.
The Dyne tanker wave data were kindly provided by
Dr. C.-E. Janson of Chalmers University Gothenburg.
REFERENCES
Dacles-Mariani, J., Zilliac, G.G., Chow, J.S.
and Bradshaw, P., "Numerical/experimental study of a
wingtip vortex in the near field", AIAA Journal,
Vol.33, Sept. 1995, pp. 1561 - 1568.
Ea, L. and Hoekstra, M., "Numerical
prediction of scale effects in ship stern flows with
eddy-viscosity turbulence models", 23rd Symp. Naval
Hydrodynamics, Val de Rueil, France, Sept. 2000.
Hoekstra, M., "Numerical simulation of ship
stern flows with a space-marching Navier Stokes
method", Thesis, Technical University of Delft,
October 1999.
Larsson, L., Patel, V.C. and Dyne, G. (Eds.),
"SSPA-CTH-IIHR workshop on viscous flow",
Flowtech Research Report 2, Flowtech Int. AB,
Gothenburg, Sweden, 1991.
Larsson, L., Regnstrm, B., Broberg, L., Li,
D.-Q. and Janson, C.-E., "Failures, fantasies and feats
in the theoretical/numerical prediction of ship
performance", 22nd Symp. Naval Hydrodynamics,
Washington D.C., U.S.A., 1998.
Lewis, M.R., "Numerical methods for water
flows with free-surface gravity waves", Thesis, Delft
University of Technology, June 2004.
DISCUSSION
Michel Visonneau
Ecole Centrale Nantes/CNRS, France
This paper describes a new steady coupled
free-surface fitting algorithm to compute viscous
flow with free-surface. Its efficiency in terms of
speed of convergence is remarkable and convincing
illustrations of its accuracy are provided, for instance,
with the simulation of the flow around the Dyne
tanker for a low Froude number (Fr=0.165).
My question concerns the formulation of the
equation resulting from the combination of the steady
kinematic equation and the normal dynamic
condition. I guess that the term w z included in
Eq. 3 is due to a typographic error. However, I do not
understand why V3 , 3 is still present in Eq. 4 since
V3 should vanish on the steady free-surface which is
a zero mass-flux surface at convergence. Could you
comment on that and explain also the role played by
the artificial fourth boundary condition needed to
close the system?
AUTHORS REPLY
The term w.z is required, as is seen as follows.
The dynamic condition relates the wave elevation, a
function of 2 variables, with the pressure field, a
function of 3 variables:
(x,y) = Fn2 (x,y, (x,y))
Thus the derivatives of in the kinematic condition
require an additional contribution in / z, and
using the kinematic condition again this produces the
term w.z , as follows:
u / x + v / y =
= Fn2 .[(u (/x + / z . / x ) + v ( /
y + / z. / y ) ] =
= Fn2 (u / x + v / y + w / z)
The term V3 . / 3 as a matter of fact vanishes
upon convergence, but is nonzero during the iterative
solution process; thus including it or not can affect
the convergence rate. In practice, it is now dropped
for robustness reasons.
The 4th boundary condition is not a real
boundary condition, but a condition only required to
make the set of equations complete. This equation
has to be sufficiently weak. E.g. a condition
d/dn=0, as seems to be used in some methods,
gives wrong results. Therefore, we use the
momentum equation normal to the free surface, with
some small simplifications only.
1.
Introduction
2.
~
l SA = min(l SA , C DES ) ,
where is the largest dimension of the cell, not the
cube root of their sum,
= max(x, y, z ) .
U =
1
N
1
N
(U U )(V V )
uv =
N
0
uv n =
uv are given
U n 1 (n 1) + U n
n
)(
uv n 1 (n 1) + U n U n V n V n
n
20
16
14
12
u+
10
8
6
4
2
0
-1
y+
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
tanh ((1 )q )
y
,
= p + (1 p )1
L
tanh (q )
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
where,
1
128x8
128x16
128x32
128x64
128x128
0.9
n
N
0.8
0.7
0.6
y/
Kim DNS
128x8
128x16
u +=y +
128x32
128x64
u +=1/0.4*ln y ++5.5
128x128
18
y/
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
(c) Profile of t
Figure 1: Profiles of velocity t and for
channel flow with different grid resolutions
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.12
0.1
0.1
z/d
z/d
0.14
0.2
SA
DES
Exp
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
U/U
0.9
0
0.5
DES x/d=-0.5
DES x/d=0
DES x/d=0.5
Exp
0.6
0.7
0.8
U/U
0.9
3.
-0.01
-0.02
z/d
-0.03
-0.04
-0.05
-0.06
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
y/d
Figure 4: Velocity vectors and vorticity contours of the flow in the propeller plane of the KVLCC2 model
25
DWL
z (m)
20
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
y (m )
100000
200000
80
83
-1.17
-0.92
0.47
2.2
0.71
80
84
-1.11
-0.98
0.41
2.1
0.68
70
-1.00
-0.78
0.17
1.6
0.79
1
Exp
DES
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
P
324
72
52
0.0098
0.002
0.002
2,760,960
Nc
Nr
Nh
Sc
Sr
Sh
Total cells
200000
Exp.
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
20
40
60
(degrees)
(a) Experiment
(b) DES
-0.5
-0.5
-0.4
-0.4
-0.3
-0.3
-0.2
-0.2
-0.1
-0.1
y/d
y/d
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
-0.5
0
x/d
0.5
(a) Experiment
0.5
-0.5
0
x/d
0.5
(b) DES
1.5
1.4
U/U
1.45
Exp
DES
-0.5
1.25
1.2
0.5
U/U
1.15
1.1
z/d=0.50
0
-0.5
1.05
0.5
U/U
1.5
U/U
1
-0.5
z/d=0.75
1.3
z/d
1.35
0.5
0.5
z/d=0.25
0
-0.5
0.5
1.5
2
x/d
2.5
3.5
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
z/d
z/d
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0
-2
0
U/U
2 -0.5
0
W/U
0.5
0.05
0.1
u u
0.05
0.1
v v
0.05
0.1
w w
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
z/d
z/d
(a) x/d=0.83
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.5
U/U
1 -0.4
-0.2
W/U
0.02
u u
0.04 0
0.05
v v
0.1
0.05
0.1
w w
(b) x/d=2.5
Figure 11: Profiles of velocity and normal stress components in the wake of the cylinder (+ Experiment, DES)
Figure 11 shows profiles of velocity
components and Reynolds stresses with respect to z/d
at various locations in the x/d direction. The profiles
of U velocity are quite close to the experimental
values except in the shear layer near the cylinder
where the peak rise to the free-stream velocity is
slower. The later attachment means that the flow
near the ground is reversed for longer and is also
stronger due to the flatter vortex. The W profiles
follow the shape of the experimental curves but the
maximum downwash is less due to the shallower
angle of the shear layer. The agreement in the lower
half of the profiles is quite good. Looking at the
normal stresses, u'u' is over-predicted in the shear
layer close to the cylinder, as is w'w'. v'v' is under-
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
z/d
z/d
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
-0.6
-0.4 -0.2
0
y/d
0.2
0.4
0.6
-0.6
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
-0.6
-0.4 -0.2
0
y/d
0.2
0
y/d
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.6
z/d
z/d
-0.4 -0.2
0.4
0.6
-0.6
-0.4 -0.2
0
y/d
0.2
Figure 12: Vector plots of the flow in transverse planes in the wake of the cylinder
way as the previous simulations, the differences can
be attributed to the longer recirculation region.
5.
6.
Conclusions
7.
References
Bearman, P. W., "Near wake flows behind twoand three-dimensional bluff bodies," Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics,
No. 69-71, 1997, pp. 33-54.
Bressloff, N. W., "A parallel pressure implicit
splitting of operators algorithm applied to flow
at all speeds," Int. Jnl of Numerical Methods in
Fluids, Vol. 36, 2001, pp. 497-518.
Constantinescu, G. S., Pasinato, H., Wang, Y.Q. and Squires, K. D., "Numerical investigation
of flow past a prolate spheroid," Aerospace
Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada, AIAA, 2002.
Eisemann, P. R., "A multi-surface method of coordinate generation," Journal of Computational
Physics, Vol. 33, 1979, pp. 118-150.
8. Appendix
formulations
8.1
S-A
and
LES
Spalart-Allmaras model
where,
8.2
Large-eddy simulation
The approximation,
where,
DISCUSSION
Michel Visonneau
Ecole Centrale Nantes/CNRS, France
This paper presents an experimental and
computational study of the flow around a truncated
cylinder of aspect ratio 1 mounted on a ground plane.
This study illustrates the potentialities and
weaknesses of DES turbulence closure. Then, based
on a PIV visualisation of the flow at the stern of a
KVLCC2 model mounted on a ground plane, the
authors argue about the necessity of using DES to
compute ship flows.
I should say that I am fully convinced by the
arguments against the use of DES for ship flows
given by the authors in paragraph 5. A ship flow is
fundamentally a boundary layer flow which is
gradually evolving towards a thick boundary layer
giving rise to steady longitudinal vortices because of
the regular geometrical modifications of the hull. I
have therefore the feeling that the bad behaviour of
DES on pure boundary layer flow (illustrated by the
authors in their computations of the flow around the
truncated cylinder) does not predispose this closure
for the computation of turbulent flows over elongated
bodies. Moreover, when full scale free-surface flows
on realistic hulls with complicated appendages are
now reasonably well computed with steady RANSE
solvers using sophisticated turbulence closures
(EASM or RSM closures, for instance), the cost in
terms of CPU time of an unsteady DES approach will
be too high for industrial applications with limited
benefits. Could you comment on that and convince
me about the potentialities of DES for ship flows in a
near future?
AUTHORS REPLY
M. Visonneau is understandably sceptical
about the application of DES to ship flows. The
authors concede that the weakness in the boundary
layer prediction in the region between the RANS and
LES modes shown in this paper is a major hurdle to
its application to ship flows, which are dominated by
boundary layer flows. However, if this problem can
be overcome there are potential benefits in the
amount in information that can be obtained on the
turbulence in the wake of the vessel. This could be
particularly useful for investigating the noise and
vibration induced on the hull and propeller due to
turbulence. From an industrial point of view the
current RANS methods are good enough to predict
the time-averaged flow around the wake and will
continue to be used for some time to come. From a
research point of view however it is important to
investigate all the options in order to obtain as
ABSTRACT
A Large-Eddy Simulation (LES) technique based on a
finite-volume method is applied to investigate the
turbulent flow around a Wigley and a Series
60(Cb=0.6) double models. Four types of turbulence
models in the present LES are tested through the
numerical tests for the turbulent channel flow at
Re = 180 . For the simulation of turbulent ship flow,
1/5-, 1/2-, 1- and 2-million grid points are used, and all
computations are performed on a 24-node PC-cluster
parallel machine composed of 2.6GHz CPU, which are
installed in the Advanced Ship Engineering Research
Center(ASERC, http://www.aserc.pusan.ac.kr) at Pusan
National University, Korea.
INTRODUCTION
Governing equation
In LES, each flow variable f is decomposed into as
follows,
f = f + f
(1)
(2)
G ( x1 , x2 , x3 ) = 1 / 3 , (3 = x1x2 x3 )
Discretization
(3)
( ui u j ) p
ui
+
ij + 2 Sij
t
x j
xi x j
u i
=0
xi
(4)
(5)
d
udV = T dS
dt CV
CS
(8)
u dS = 0
(9)
CS
u u j
S ij = i +
x
x
j
i
T = uu PI +
(6)
(10)
ij = (u i + ui )(u j + u j ) u i u j
= u i u j u i u j + u i u j + u iu j + u iu j
14243 14243 {
Cij
1
T
u + ( u )
Re
+ u u
Lij
(7)
LES models
Rij
ij = 2 L2S S ij S ij
S ij =
1 u i u j
+
2 x j xi
(11)
(12)
S ij = 2S ij2
(13)
(12)
=3 V
(13)
(0.4u )
+
u =
e = C
(0.4u )
+
24
u
y+
and u + =
y Re
u
(14)
2 < M ij M ij >
u i
u j
+ ejl
xl
xl
(20)
~
~
3C B (u i u i )(u j u j )
S
~
~
(u u k )(u k u k )
(21)
ij = eil
(15)
eil = C s 2
2
(19)
(0.4u )
(18)
2 u i +1 2u i + u i 1
+ O(4 )
24
(x1 ) 2
where,
~
~
3C B (u i u i )(u j u j )
~
~
(u u k )(u k u k )
C B =1.0.
Structure Function (SF) model
The SF model was suggested by Metais &
Lesiur (1992), and the turbulent eddy viscosity can be
derived from energy spectrum as follows.
u j
ij = e ij il
xl
u l
x j
(22)
(16)
(i = j )
(i j )
(23)
where,
M ij = S S ij S S
2
ij
with =
(17)
{ [u (x ) u (x + x )]
+ [u (x ) u (x x )] }
F2 il (x, x ) =
1
6
j =1
(24)
Here,
15
Ideal Speed
6
0.20*10
6
1.00*10
12
Speed-Up Ratio
P ro ce sso r 1
P ro ce sso r 2
P ro ce sso r 0
P ro ce sso r 3
co m p u ta tio n a l d o m a in
1,000,000
grids
200,000
grids
12
15
Number of Processor
th e d o m a in w ith
g h o st p o in ts
urms
Ly=2
Top wall
20
40
y
z
80
Lz=
Bottom wall
60
x
Present LES, 32x65x32
Present LES, 64x65x64
Kim et al. (1987, DNS)
Tafti et al. (1997, LES)
Lx=3
vrms
20
15
+
u =y
u = 2.5ln(y )+ 5.5
S-Model
DS-Model
GNS-Model
SF-Model
0 0
10
101
20
40
102
20
0
u+ = y+
10 0
40
60
80
10 1
20
u+ = 2.5lny+ + 5.5
shear stress
u+
10
80
15
60
y+
w rms
u+
10
102
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1
-0.5
0.5
Grid
points
CT
Cp
Cf
2105
3.366 10 3
0.144 10 3
3.222 10 3
5105
2.750 10 3
0.165 10 3
2.585 10 3
10105
2.601 10 3
0.170 10 3
2.431 10 3
20105
2.583 10 3
0.172 10 3
2.411 10 3
0.2
CT & Cf ( 10 3)
0.16
CT
Cp
Cf
0.14
2.5
Cp ( 10 3)
0.18
3.5
0.12
0.5
1.5
0.1
2.5
0.00
Cp
0.6
8
16
12
x/L = 0.899
28
24
0.02
20
Present, Waterline
20
Exp. Sarda
0.4
Present, Keel
20
0.04
20
z
0.2
0.06
0.0
0.0
0.08
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.00
x/L
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.9
0.95
0.02
x/L = 1.000
15
15
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.02
0.04 12
9
present cal.
exp. (Sarda)
0.04
0.06
x/L = 0.899
0.06
0.08
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.9
0.02
present cal.
exp. (Sarda)
0.04
x/L = 1.000
0.06
0.08
0.00
0.04
y
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.8
0.9
0.0
-0.04
0.02
0.04
1.0
0.06 0.08
0.1
0.12
-0.02
-0.06
Computed
Measured
6.0x10
-03
5.0x10-03
4.0x10
-03
3.0x10-03
2.0x10
-03
1.0x10
-03
0.0x10
+00
NKK
IHI
SHI
Hiroshima Univ(4.0M)
AL Mitsui
Univ. of Tokyo
Kyushu Univ.
Yokohama Univ.
Hiroshima Univ(1.8M)
Kodama Cal. CT
Kodama Cal. Cf
Scheonherr
Present Cal. CT
Present Cal. Cf
6
10
X
X
10
Reynolds number R e
CONCLUDING REMRKS
In the present study, a LES with MPI-parallelizing
algorithm was applied to investigate the turbulent flow
around a Wigley and a Series 60(Cb=0.6) double
models. Through the comparison with experiments and
other numerical results, it can be seen that the present
technique has been validated with reasonable accuracy.
However, the present LES is required more validations
for the wider range of Reynolds number and the
various shapes of ship hull form near future.
0.8
u=0.9
Computed
Measured
REFERENCES
Germano, M., Piomelli, U., Moin, P. and Cabot, W.H.,
A dynamic sub-scale eddy viscosity model, Physics
of Fluids, A Vol. 3, No. 7, 1991, pp. 1760-1765.
Horiuti, K., A proper velocity scale for modeling
subgrid-scale eddy viscosity in large eddy simulation,
Physics of Fluids, A , Vol. 5, No. 1, 1993, pp. 146-157.
Kim, J., Moin, P. and Moser, R., Turbulence statistics
in fully developed channel flow at low reynolds
number, J. Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 177, 1987, pp.
133-166.
Kodama, Y. , Computation of Ships Resistance Using
an NS Solver with Global Conservation - Flat Plate and
Series 60 (CB=0.6) Hull - J. of the Society of Naval
Architects of Japan, Vol. 172, 1992, pp. 147-155.
Lilly, D.K., A proposed modification of the Germano
subgrid-scale closure model, Physics of Fluids, A, Vol.
4, No. 4, 1992, pp. 633-635.
Miyata, H., Akimoto, H. and Hiroshima, F. , CFD
Performance Prediction Simulation for Hull-Form
Design of Sailing Yachts, J. Mar. Sci. Technol., Vol.2,
1997, pp. 257-267.
Sarda, O.P., Turbulent Flow Past Ship Hulls An
Experimental and Computational Study, Ph.D. Thesis,
1986, Mech. Eng., Univ. of Iowa.
Shearer, J.R. and Cross, J.J., The Experimental
Determination of the Components of Ship Resistance
for a Mathematical Model, Trans. Royal Institute of
Navel Archi., Vol. 107. 1965.
Smagorinsky, J., General Circulation Experiments
with the Primitive Equations. I. The Basic
Experiment, Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 91, 1963,
pp. 99-164.
Spalding, D.B., A Single Formula for the Law of the
Wall, J. Applied Mech, 1961, pp.455-458.
Takakura, Y., Ogawa, S. and Ishiguro, T., Turbulence
Models for Transsonic Viscous Flow, AIAA paper,
1989, No. 89-1952CP.
Toda, T. et al., Mean Flow Measurements in the
Boundary Layer and Wake of a Series 60 CB=0.6
Model, IIHR Report No.326., 1988
ABSTRACT
Calculations using the Reynolds Averaged
Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations are performed for
two naval combatants, an aircraft carrier and a
destroyer. The carrier configuration consists of a bare
hull with skeg, bilge keels and outboard propeller shaft.
The destroyer consists of the hull, shafts and shaft
struts. These computations demonstrate the significant
effect propeller shafts and struts have on the propeller
inflow as compared to bare hull configurations. This
is demonstrated at both model and full scale Reynolds
numbers with the model scale computations comparing
well with experimental data. Without the propeller
shaft the dominant effect is the forward bilge and bow
dome vortex, particularly at model scale.
For
calculations at full scale the flow entering the
propellers is very nearly inviscid without the shafts
present. The shaft wake is shown to have a significant
impact on the flow entering the propeller and shaft
rotation further impacts this inflow.
INTRODUCTION
To better understand the flow into the
propeller of naval combatants a Reynolds-Averaged
Navier-Stokes (RANS) code is used to compute the
flow fields about both a carrier and a destroyer
configuration. For naval vehicles the flow into the
propellers is significantly influenced by the upstream
hull form, Gorski (2001). This includes the boundary
layer generated on the hull as well as any vortical flow
that may form such as that from the bow/sonar dome or
bilges. Additionally, wakes are formed from upstream
bilge keels, shafts, and supporting struts. Of particular
significance for many naval combatants are the shaft
and strut wakes, which are immediately upstream of
the propellers. RANS codes provide a means of
predicting such flow fields and have been demonstrated
for a variety of complicated ship flow fields, Gorski
(2002).
Major features of the carrier configuration
are shown in Fig. 1. These include a bulbous bow, a
2
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
3
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
4
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
5
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
6
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
7
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
CARRIER COMPUTATIONS
The carrier configuration consists of a bulbous
bow, a transom stern, bilge keels, a docking skeg,
propeller shafts and struts. The hull is sunk and
trimmed appropriately, based on experimentally
obtained values, and run at model and full scale
Reynolds numbers, based on hull length, of 35 x 106
and 48 x 108, respectively. Both cases are for a Froude
number of 0.277 when using the linearized free surface
boundary condition with the grid generated up to the
design waterline. Individual hull effects are evaluated
by performing a number of calculations.
These
include a coarse grid bare hull calculation without bilge
keels and a fine grid calculation of the bare hull with
bilge keels. Both of these bare hull calculations
include the skeg and are performed at model and full
scale. The outboard propeller shaft is also included for
a number of calculations. Unfortunately, it was not
possible to include the supporting struts or inboard
shaft arrangement in the current calculations. With the
outboard propeller shaft present propelled calculations
are done using an actuator disk model with and without
the shaft rotating.
Again, these calculations are
performed at both model and full scale.
Grid Generation
c) Shaft and strut calculation; Uave = 0.939 (Grid 1),
Uave = 0.938 (Grid 2).
8
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
which compares the bare hull grid to the grid with the
outboard shaft. Again, both grids have 129 points
going out radially from the hull to the far field. Only a
single grid is generated for the case with shaft. A
second grid reclustered to the walls for full scale
calculations is not generated. However, full scale
calculations are performed on this grid and the results
presented in later sections. Again, only the outboard
shaft is included. This grid with the outboard shaft is
split into 160 blocks for parallel processing.
9
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
10
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
11
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
12
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
13
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
14
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
15
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
REFERENCES
16
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
DISCUSSION
Stephane Cordier
Bassin dessais des Carnes, France
Reynolds number effects: You show large
differences in wake fraction due to Reynolds number
effect. Can these be correlated to powering data at
model and full-scale?
Shaft wake deficits: Your comparison of
wake deficit due to the shaft between computation
and experiments. Given that the shaft wake is mostly
due to hull boundary layer being entrained by the
longitudinal vortices along the shaft, can you point to
some explanations on these differences?
AUTHORS REPLY
No attempt was made in the present effort to
correlate the Reynolds number differences in wake
fraction with powering data from model to full-scale.
In fact, the difference is probably larger than would
be experienced by a real ship as no surface roughness
effects are included in the present full-scale
calculation.
For Model 5415 the shaft wake is well
captured in the computation from the comparisons
shown in Figs. 8, 10, and 16.
For the carrier
computation the shaft is included in the computation,
but the mounting struts are not.
Although the shaft
wake may be mostly due to the hull boundary layer
being entrained by the longitudinal vortices along the
shaft the strut wakes can accentuate the overall
shaft/strut wake. For the carrier this involves two
pair of struts for each shaft, which can accentuate the
wake deficit into the propeller considerably. The
authors feel the lack of mounting struts in the carrier
computation is the main reason for the discrepancies
between the computation and experiment.
ABSTRACT
flat plates were calculated for different shaft angles, incident boundary layer thicknesses and Reynolds numbers
(Hally, 2001a). The numerical predictions were compared favourably with the experimental data of Pinard
(Hally, 2001b). An additional set of calculations added
an adverse pressure gradient (Hally, 2001c).
In none of the aforementioned calculations was
there any cross-flow across the shaft: i.e. the plate was
the xy plane, the flow was in the x direction, and the
shaft, initially lying along the x axis, was tilted up by rotating around the y axis by an angle : see Figures 1 and
2 for a description of the shaft geometry. The present paper describes a new series of calculations which include
flow across the shaft: i.e. the shaft is also rotated through
an angle about the z axis. The wake was calculated for
a shaft angle of 10 , Reynolds number of 105 based on
shaft diameter, and flow angles of = 0 , 2 , 4 , and 6 .
The effect of shaft rotation has also been examined. The rotation rate of the shaft is quantified by the
non-dimensional rotation parameter :
Rs
(1)
V
where is the shaft rotation rate, Rs is the shaft radius,
and V is the speed of inflow. Therefore is the speed of
the fluid at the the shaft surface relative to the speed of
inflow. For a ship the rotation parameter can be related
to the advance coefficient, J, by
=
INTRODUCTION
The flow into a propeller significantly affects the extent
to which it cavitates and consequently the noise radiated
by the ship. Extra velocity deficit in the propeller disk,
due either to the hull boundary layer or wakes from the
propeller shaft or appendages, tends to promote cavitation and increase radiated noise.
Pinard (1997) and Cordier et al. (1997) have
shown that there can be a significant interaction between
the wake of the propeller shaft and the hull boundary
layer of a twin screw ship resulting in an increase in
wake fraction. In an attempt to understand this interaction, the wakes of inclined cylinders protruding from
J=
Rs
Rp
(2)
y
y
x
Incident flow
1.2
1
H
0.8
Velocity
0.6
0.4
0.2
CALCULATION SET-UP
0
0
v
if z d
z
z
v
2
if z d
d
d
0.5
1
1.5
2
Distance to Wall
2.5
RESULTS
The nominal propeller disk
For the purpose of displaying results in a familiar way,
a nominal propeller disk was chosen at a distance of 20
diameters along the shaft from the shaft/plate junction.
The diameter of the disk is 5 shaft diameters and the
clearance of the edge of the disk from the plate is 1.01
shaft diameters (0.202 propeller diameters).
Coordinate systems
It will prove convenient to represent the velocity in two
different coordinate systems. In the propeller coordinates one axis is aligned with the axis of the shaft. The
component of the velocity in this direction is the axial
velocity. The tangential velocity is the velocity which
remains after the axial velocity has been removed.
In the plate coordinates one axis is aligned with
the flat plate and the other with the free stream flow. In
this coordinate system the tangential velocity is the velocity that remains after the component in the direction
of the free stream has been removed.
(3)
Tangential
Propeller Coordinates
Axial
Tangential
Plate Coordinates
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
= 0
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.1 V
0.50
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
= 2
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.1 V
0.50
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
= 4
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.1 V
0.50
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
= 6
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.1 V
0.50
Figure 5: Flow into the nominal propeller disk at different cross-flow angles; no shaft rotation.
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.1 V
= 0.2
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.1 V
= 0.4
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.1 V
= 0.6
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.1 V
= 0.8
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.1 V
= 1.0
Figure 6: Flow into the nominal propeller disk at different shaft rotation rates; no cross-flow.
4
0.8
0.6
Vorticity
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-0.5
0
Omega
0.5
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.90
0.95
0.85
0.90
0.80
0.85
0.75
0.80
0.70
0.75
0.65
0.70
0.60
0.65
0.55
0.50
0.60
0.1 V
0.55
= 0.6
0.50
0.1 V
d = 5Ds
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.90
0.95
0.85
0.90
0.80
0.85
0.75
0.80
0.70
0.75
0.65
0.70
0.60
0.65
0.55
0.50
0.60
0.1 V
0.55
= 0.0
0.50
0.1 V
d = 10Ds
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.90
0.95
0.85
0.90
0.80
0.85
0.75
0.80
0.70
0.75
0.65
0.70
0.60
0.65
0.55
0.50
0.60
0.1 V
0.55
= 0.6
0.50
0.1 V
d = 15Ds
Figure 8: Flow into the nominal propeller disk at different shaft rotation rates with cross-flow; = 6 .
Figure 9: The velocity field on three disks at different distances, d, from the shaft/plate junction: = 6 ,
= 0.6. The tangential velocities are in plate coordinates. The gray areas are above the plate outside the
region of flow.
0.020
0.010
0.015
0.008
0.010
0.005
0.006
0.000
-0.005
0.004
-0.010
0.002
-0.015
-0.020
0.000
1.00
0.8
0.95
0.90
0.75
0.85
0.7
0.80
Vorticity
0.75
0.65
0.70
0.65
0.6
0.60
0.55
0.55
0.50
0.1 V
= 0.6
0.5
0.45
1.00
0.5
1
1.5
2
Relative cell size
2.5
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.1 V
= 0.6
Figure 12: The flow in the nominal propeller disk for
= 6 and Re = 106 . The tangential velocity is in the
plate coordinate system.
Figure 12 also shows clearly that the shaft wake
in the inner part of the propeller disk is deeper when
= 0.6 than when = 0.6. This is also true at the
lower Reynolds number but cannot be seen so clearly in
Figure 8. Therefore, part of the effect of the vortex is
to redistribute the velocity deficit, removing it from the
shaft wake into the core of the vortex. The vortex then
carries its portion outward toward the edge of the disk
at the same time as it is diffused over a larger area. On
an inward turning propeller there will be relatively more
velocity deficit near the edge of the disk, but perhaps less
near the shaft. The redistribution can have repercussions
for the types of cavitation produced by the propeller, tip
vortex cavitation being most sensitive to velocity deficit
near the edge of the disk, while sheet cavitation is more
sensitive to velocity deficit somewhat closer to the shaft.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The flow calculations shown in this paper suggest that
cross-flow and shaft rotation can have a significant effect on the propeller inflow by generating a vortex which
convects velocity deficit into the propeller disk from the
hull and shaft boundary layers. Both cross-flow and
shaft rotation can result in increased wake fractions. The
vortex is most intense when the cross-flow angle and rotation rate have different signs, the typical case for a ship
whose propellers turn inward over the top.
7
Spalart, P. R. and Allmaras, S. R., A One-Equation Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic Flows, AIAA Paper
92-0439, 1992.
REFERENCES
Pinard, J-C., Etude experimentale et numerique du sillage en amont dune helice, Ph.D. thesis, Ecole Doctorale Sciences pour lIngenieur de Nantes, 1997.
Cordier, S., Legrand, F., and Pinard, J. C., Hull
and Shaft Wake Interaction, in Proceedings of Propeller
and Shafting 97, Arlington, USA, 1997.
Hally, D., On scaling the wake behind an inclined cylinder protruding from a flat plate, DREA ECR 2000-130,
Defence R&D Canada Atlantic, 2001a.
Hally, D., Flow past an inclined cylinder protruding
from a flat plate: comparison of numerical predictions
with experiment, DREA ECR 2000-168, Defence R&D
Canada Atlantic, 2001b.
Hally, D., On scaling the wake behind an inclined cylinder in an adverse pressure gradient, DREA ECR 2000131, Defence R&D Canada Atlantic, 2001c.
8
DISCUSSION
Stephane Cordier
Bassin dessais des Carnes, France
Could you give further information on the
insight this model can give in terms of Reynolds
number and the presence of a shaft bossing on the
propeller wake?
AUTHORS REPLY
Although the calculations at different
Reynolds numbers have not yet been very extensive,
all those that have been performed suggest that the
principal effect of Reynolds number is to reduce the
velocity deficit in the wake; the strength and location
of the vortices vary very little with number.
Therefore, the principal conclusions, that the shaft
rotation is important and that the wakes from inward
and outward turning propellers may be significantly
different, are likely to hold at full scale as well as
model scale.
The model is too simple to shed much light
on the effect of the shaft bossing. Recent calculations
suggest that any discontinuity in rotation along the
shaft (i.e. passing from a portion of the shaft
protected by a sleeve or bossing to a portion which is
open to the flow) is sufficient to generate a vortex of
moderate strength. However, how efficiently the
vortex entrains velocity deficit from the shaft
boundary layer may well depend on the details of the
bossing geometry.
The
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics
St. Johnss, Newfoundland and Labrador, CANADA, 8-13 August 2004
ABSTRACT
(1)
#
#
(2)
#
(' ' ) # '
'
3
7689:
<;>= is the Reynolds number,
3 '
9(;@? A
is the Froude number, and
is the Kro
#%$
# &
#%$
( '
#
' ) #
#
#
%
&
#
#
' # '
:' # '
#
# *, +%-/.0
where the new pressure field, , is defined as:
B
#
#$
COMPUTATIONAL METHODS
The complementary RANS equations were derived in
Kim et al. (2003). In this section a summary of the
derivation of the equations is presented and the corre
model used for the turbulence
sponding modified
computations is discussed. All variables are nondi-
#
' # '
(4)
(5)
and
'
#
#%$
#
#$
# '
3 '
# ' #
%
#
#
#
'
# '
# ' ( ' # '
#
#
#
'
#
#
#
'
'
* +
(11)
# '
(12a)
# #
# ' # '
.
(12b)
#
' #
'
#
(7)
# '
B
.
(13)
* +
* +
(14a)
(14b)
(8)
(9)
#
#$
'
#
#
#
' #
'
(6)
#
9/
The conventional
turbulence closure of Chen
and Patel (1985) is chosen to model turbulence in this
study, that is
is defined as:
(10)
#
#
'
#%$
# '
# #
#
# '
'
#
#
#$ ' # '
# #
# ' # '
3
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
#
' # '
#
' # '
.
(16a)
(16b)
!
of the convection terms eliminates the need for explicitly adding artificial dissipation terms to the right hand
side of the momentum equations to stabilize the numerical algorithm. Following the recommendations of
Kim et al. (2003), the second additional term is combined with the convection term of the conventional
RANS equations for all the simulations presented in
this study.
An implicit fractional-step method (Chorin, 1968)
is used to integrate the RANS equations in time to
steady state. The first step in this implicit two-step
procedure, involves the implicit discretization in time
of the convection and diffusion terms in the momentum equations while the pressure gradient term is evaluated explicitly using the available pressure field at
that time step. The solution of such discretized equations obtained by using an approximate factorization
method renders an intermediate velocity field that is
not divergence free. Consequently, to satisfy the compressibility constraint, a pressure correction is computed in the second step, the continuity step, by solving a Poisson-type equation whose source is the nonzero divergence of the intermediate velocity field. The
pressure correction obtained from the continuity step
is then used to update the pressure and to correct the
intermediate velocity field computed in the first step
of the fractional-step method. The resulting velocity field is now divergence free. The solution of the
equation resultant in the second step is obtained by
also using the same approximate factorization method
(Beam and Warming, 1978) used in the first step.
In the approximate factorization method, the original
multi-dimensional difference equations are replaced
by a series of one-dimensional difference equations,
which can then be formulated by a tri-diagonal matrix equation. The method allows a speedy solution
of relatively complex systems of differential equations
(Hoffmann and Chiang, 1993).
(17)
where is a perturbation potential. The potential velocity is derived by following a similar methodology
to that described in Kim et al. (2003). A Rankine
source type desingularized method (Cao, et al. 1991,
Beck, 1994) is employed for the potential solver with
sources located inside the two-dimensional body. Unlike the traditional panel method, the kernel function
is not singular when desingularized sources are used.
The general formulation of the potential velocity in
two-dimensional flow is as follows:
.
'
'
. '
'
'
'
. '
'
(18)
(19)
),# zero
# streamwise velocity gradients at the exit (i.e.
;
), recovery
of the free-stream velocity at the outer boundary (i.e.
) and symmetry boundary conditions at
the centerline, upstream and downstream the foil (i.e.
# #
;
). The numerical results presented herein
were obtained for a CFL number of 1.65 and the code
was run until the residuals, defined by the summation of differences between the current and the previous iterations, were reduced by at least four orders of
magnitude. In these calculations a body-fitted potential, obtained by applying the desingularized method
of Beck (1994), was used and compared with the results obtained from employing a uniform potential solution. The body-fitted potential had singularities inside the foil. The simulations presented in this study
were performed with 359 sources and a wake source
(Kim, et al. 2003, Kim, 2004) was used in the computations to eliminate the stagnation point at the trailing
edge.
flow over a flat plate and the flow over a NACA 0010
foil. In this study a follow up of the latter investigation
is performed with the intent of assessing the impact of
the chosen potential on the overall performance of the
complementary RANS equations solver. The ability
of the new equations to produce comparable results
to the conventional RANS equations but in coarser
grids will be explored to assess the performance of
first and second order discretization schemes for the
convection terms in the equations. Finally the solver
is used to solve the turbulent flow over a NACA airfoil
to identify the advantages or disadvantages of the new
set of equations when dealing with turbulence.
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-2
-1
upstream
foil
downstream
u*:Coarse:First
u*:Medium:First
u*:Fine :First
u*:Coarse:Second
u*:Medium:Second
u*:Fine :Second
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.1
0
1
0.1
1.05
1.1
u*+u p
0
1
1.15
Figure 2:
-profile at
u :Coarse:First
u :Medium:First
u :Fine :First
u*:Coarse:First
u*:Medium:First
u*:Fine :First
(NACA 0010,
1.15
)
* +
u :Coarse:Second
u :Medium:Second
u :Fine :Second
u*:Coarse:Second
u*:Medium:Second
u*:Fine :Second
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
1.05
1.1
u*+u p
(b) with Body-fitted
0.4
0.1
0
1
u*:Coarse:First
u*:Medium:First
u*:Fine :First
u*:Coarse:Second
u*:Medium:Second
u*:Fine :Second
0.1
1.05
1.1
u and u*+u p
0
1
1.15
1.05
1.1
u and u*+u p
Figure 3: - and
(b)
upwind
(NACA 0010,
6
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
1.15
*,+
)
* &
)
&
) . ;
(20)
u*:Coarse:BF
u*:Medium:BF
u*:Fine :BF
u*:Coarse:UF
u*:Medium:UF
u*:Fine :UF
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.1
0
1
1.05
1.1
u*+u p
0
1
1.15
)
Figure 4:
*,+
u*:Coarse:BF
u*:Medium:BF
u*:Fine :BF
u*:Coarse:UF
u*:Medium:UF
u*:Fine :UF
-profiles at
1.05
1.1
u*+u p
(b)
1.15
upwind
for both uniform potential (UF) and body-fitted potential (BF) (NACA 0010,
with Uniform
with Body-fitted
0
0
To accomplish a smaller-gradient potential solution, the location of the control and source points was
changed in the trailing edge region as shown in Figure 7 to obtain a modified potential solution at the
trailing edge. The purpose was to have a fairer flow
around the trailing edge, and to that end a circular arc
was used for the potential solver, the size of which was
controlled by the length of the trailing edge to the end
of the arc. The results obtained following this more
careful selection of the potential solution are shown
in Figure 8. In the figure, a comparison of the distribution of , when the wake source is used, with the
results from the modified potential with a faired trailing edge (faired-TE potential), are presented. Figure 9
shows the distribution of the complementary velocity
at the foils trailing edge and along the centerline for
)
( 8
u*-code:
u*-code:
u*-code:
u*-code:
-0.75
Very Coarse[36x21]
Coarse[71x41]
Medium[141x81]
Fine[281x161]
1.1
w/ wake source
w/ faired-TE
-0.8
up
u*
-0.85
-0.9
0.9
-0.95
0.8
-1
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
x
0.8
1.1
1.2
Figure 6:
in the neighborhood of the trailing edge
*,+
)
and along the centerline (NACA 0010,
0.9
-0.8
u*
-0.85
-0.9
-0.95
-1
0.8
0.98
1.2
x x
L tail
0.96
1.1
xx
x
Figure 9:
in the neighborhood of the foils trailing edge and along the centerline with the faired-TE
*,+
)
potential (NACA 0010,
x
x
0.9
source points
control points
u*-code:Very Coarse[36x21]
u*-code:Coarse[71x41]
u*-code:Medium[141x81]
u*-code:Fine[281x161]
-0.75
1.02
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
8
6
4
2
0
(a) u-code
10
Very Coarse vs. Fine
Coarse
vs. Fine
Medium
vs. Fine
8
6
2
0
5
4
3
2
1
Figure 10: Comparison of RMS differences and CPU times (NACA 0010,
10
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
*,+
)
0.3
0.1
0.1
-C p
0.2
-C p
0.2
-0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.2
0.8
0.9
1.1
0.3
1.2
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
(b) Medium
Figure 11: Pressure coefficient distribution along the foils trailing edge and the centerline (NACA 0010,
*,+
)
Figures 10 (a)-(c) show the overall RMS differences corresponding to the four grids for the
conventional RANS solver (10 (a)) and the complementary RANS solver with the body-fitted potential
(10 (b)) and the faired-TE potential (10 (c)). The corresponding CPU times are presented in Figure 10 (d).
The time savings and accuracy obtained with the very
coarse grid with the faired-TE potential (1.65%) is remarkable by comparison to the results for the same
grid with the uniform potential (6.56%).
A comparison of the pressure coefficient distribution along the computational domain centerline and
over the body is shown in Figures 11 (a) and (b) for
the very coarse and medium grids respectively. The
results presented in each of the figures correspond to
both the original and faired-TE potentials. As shown
in Figure 11 (a) for the very coarse grid, the u*-code
with the faired-TE potential gives smaller fluctuations
than that with the wake source, especially after the
trailing edge. It is more obvious in the medium grid
shown in Figure 11 (b).
-C p
0.5
-0.5
. The foil choice was driven by the availability of experimental and numerical data that could
be used for comparisons. As mentioned earlier in the
Numerical Methods Section, a modified
model
-1
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
)
11
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
u
u
u
u
u
u
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0
1
0.1
1.05
1.1
0
1
1.15
u
(a) u-code
u*:Coarse:First
u*:Medium:First
u*:Fine :First
u*:Coarse:Second
u*:Medium:Second
u*:Fine :Second
0.4
0.4
:Coarse:First
:Medium:First
:Fine :First
:Coarse:Second
:Medium:Second
:Fine :Second
)
1.05
1.1
u*+u p
1.15
(b) u*-code
(NACA 0012,
A similar analysis to that conducted for the laminar flow was done in this case to assess the impact
of the order of accuracy of the discretization scheme
used for the convection terms and also of the chosen
potential solution. Figures 13 (a) and (b) show the
horizontal velocity profiles, at
, corresponding to the conventional and the complementary RANS
solvers respectively. Each figure displays the results
for both first and second order accurate discretization
schemes for the coarse, medium and fine grids with
the faired-TE potential. The results reveal that very
similar conclusions to those drawn for the laminar
flow studies can be establish for this case. The conventional RANS solver shows very large discrepancies among the various grids for the first order scheme,
and smaller but still significant errors with the second
order scheme. On the other hand the agreement is excellent even with the first order upwind scheme for the
results from the complementary RANS solver. The
data not only shows good agreement between the first
and second order schemes but also between the various grids, and especially so compared to the results
from the conventional solver.
0.59
0.32
0.60
0.50
0.50
0.33
1.69
21.88
1.65
19.38
1.72
20.50
grid for the conventional RANS solver. For the turbulence computations the results from the first order
scheme show less error than those found for the second order scheme of the conventional RANS solver.
The impact of the chosen potential flow solution was
also investigated in this study. It was concluded that
the closer the potential solution is to the real fluid flow,
the more beneficial the complementary RANS equations will be. Because of the smaller gradients of the
solution, a less resolved grid can be used.
with Uniform
with faired-TE
0
0
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work was supported by grants from the Office
of Naval Research (ONR). The computations performed in this study were done mostly at the Computational Marine Mechanics Laboratory of the University of Michigan (funded by ONR and DARPA).
Additional support was supplied by the U.S. Department of Defense High Performance Computing Modernization Program (HPCMP). This support is gratefully acknowledged.
Figure 14: Comparison of RMS differences in horizontal velocities between the coarse grid (
*,+ )
8 ) (NACA 0012,
REFERENCES
Beam, R.M., and Warming, R.F., An Implicit Factored Scheme for the Compressible Navier-Stokes
Equations, AIAA Journal, Vol.16, No.4, 1978,
pp.393-402.
Beck, R.F., Time-domain computations for floating
bodies, Applied Ocean Research, Vol. 16, 1994, pp.
267-282.
Campana, E., Di Mascio, A., Esposito, P.G., and Lalli,
F., Domain Decomposition in Free Surface Viscous
Flows, Proceedings, 6th International Conference on
Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics, Iowa City, U.S.A.,
1993, pp. 329-340.
CONCLUSIONS
The complementary RANS solver was shown to give
less grid dependent results not only for laminar but
also turbulent flows. In fact, due to the larger velocity gradients present in turbulent flows, the benefits of the complementary RANS solver are possibly
larger. The ability of the solver to give equally accurate results in less resolved grids than the conventional
RANS solver was contrasted with the accuracy of the
discretization scheme used for the convection terms.
It was shown that for the laminar results the first order
upwind scheme can give as good results in the coarse
grid as a second order scheme will give in the medium
Cao, Y., Schultz, W.W., and Beck, R.F., A ThreeDimensional Desingularized Boundary Integral
Method for Potential Problems, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 11,
1991, pp. 785-803.
Chen, H.C., and Patel, V.C., Calculation of TrailingEdge, Stern and Wake Flows by a Time-Marching
Solution of the Partially-Parabolic Equations, IIHR
13
Chen, H.C., Lin, W.M., and Weems, K.M., Interactive Zonal Approach for Ship Flows Including Viscous and Nonlinear Wave Effects, Proceedings, 6th
International Conference on Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics, Iowa City, U.S.A., 1993, pp. 341-363.
Kim, K., Beck, R.F., and Sirviente, A.I., A ViscousInviscid Interaction Study using Complementary
RANS Equations, Proceedings, 8th International
Conference on Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics, Busan, Korea, 2003, pp. 248-260.
Kim, K., A Viscous-Inviscid Interaction Study using Complementary RANS Equations, Ph.D. Thesis,
Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, University of Michigan, 2004.
Chen, H.C., and Lee, S.K., RANS/Laplace Calculations of Nonlinear Waves Induced by SurfacePiercing Bodies, Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
Vol. 125, No. 11, 1999, pp. 1231-1242.
Gregory, N., and OReilly, C.L., Low Speed Aerodynamic Characteristics of NACA 0012 Airfoil Section,
14
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
DISCUSSION
Jacek Pawlowski
TRDC Inc., NL, Canada
To preclude possible misunderstandings in
the discussion, I would like to point out that the
approach taken in the presented work depends on a
flow superposition, with the superposed flows being
defined on the same domain. This may cause some
confusion for researchers who are used to thinking in
terms of matched regions of potential (or ideal
fluid) and viscous (e.g. boundary layer) flows.
My paper in this symposium elaborates on flow
superposition in a general and formally defined
context.
AUTHORS REPLY
The authors thank Dr. Pawlowski for his
comment. The approach used in this study indeed is
based on a superposition of flows within the same
computational domain. This approach offers the
advantage of giving equally accurate results in less
resolved grids than the conventional approach to
solving RANS equations, where such superposition
of flows is not done.
ABSTRACT
The experimental survey of the 3D velocity
field of a DDG551 ship model in forced rolling motion
have been carried out at the INSEAN Circulating Water
Channel with the aim to obtain suitable data for CFD
validation. Results are presented and discussed for the
bare hull and fully appended configurations. Flow field
is resolved in phase with the roll motion to point out
flow structures by using laser Doppler velocimetry. The
effectiveness of the bilge keels in damping the roll
motion is demonstrated by the generation of strong
vortical structures which are dominating in the flow
field.
INTRODUCTION
Safety of ship operation in a seaway has the main aims
to prevent damages to the avoidance of ship and to
secure the human safety. In this context, the prediction
of the motion of a ship in seaway has been the main
goal of the hydrodynamic research for many years.
A small amount of information about the geometry of
the ship and the sea state are sufficient to predict well
the response of the ship in the vertical plane (heave and
pitch motions). The added mass, the wave damping and
the restoring terms are the main contributes to the
hydrodynamic field. In this context the potential flow
theory is able to represent both the global motion
(Sclavunos, 1996, Colagrossi et al, 2001) and the local
flow field (Iwashita et al., 2000).
The rotational terms have been taken into account to
well predict the response of the ship in the lateral plane
(sway and yaw) and a Euler model can be used to
reproduce the hydrodynamic field around the hull.
Differently, roll motion is the most difficult to predict.
Roll motion is a lightly-damped and lightly-restored
motion and the roll natural period of the conventional
ship is very close to the richest region in the wave
energy spectrum.
EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP
The experiments were carried out at the INSEAN
cavitation channel. This depressurized free surface
facility can reach a maximum speed of 5.3 m/s. The
test section has a rectangular cross-sectional shape, and
is provided with large viewing windows on the lateral
sides. The main dimensional characteristics of the test
section are: length = 10 m, width = 3.6 m, max. water
depth = 2.25 m with 1.0 m of freeboard above the free
B1
4873
B2
4305
B3
3731
B4
2823
B5
2152.5
B6
1578.5
B7
861
B8
Measurement errors
Error sources can be classified into three different
Deviation =
(2)
Experimental results
Free decay test
( j)
ln( ( j + 1)
j =1
6 =
5
5
Fr = 0.138
0.068
0.076
0.077
0.095
Fr = 0.207
0.080
0.101
0.110
0.142
Acknowledgements
This work was carried out in the frame of 6DOF Project,
sponsored by the Italian Navy.
REFERENCES
Broglia, R., Di Mascio, A. Unsteady RANSE calculations of
the fow around a moving ship hull. 8th NSH Busan, Korea,
2003.
Yeung, R., Liao, S., Roddier, D. On roll Hydrodynamics of
Rectangular Cylinders, Proc. Int. Off. and Polar Eng. Conf.,
Montreal, 1998.
Roddier, D., Liao, S.,Yeung, R., On Freely-Floating
Cylinders fitted with bilge keels, Proc. Int. Off. and Polar
Eng. Conf., Seattle, 2000.
Yeung, R., Cermelli, C., Liao, S. Vorticity fields due to
Rolling Bodies in a Free Surface-Experiment and Theory,
21st ONR Symposium, Trondheim, Norway, 1996.
Sclavunos, P.D, Computations of wave-ship interactions,
Advances in Marine Hydrodynaimics, Editor: M.Ohkusu,
1996.
Iwashita, H., Nechita, M., Colagrossi, A., Landrini, M.,
Bertram, V., A critical assessment of potential flow models
for ship seakeeping, Proc. Osaka Colloquium, 2000.
Colagrossi, A., Lugni, C., Landrini, M., Graziani, G.,
Numerical and Experimental Transient Tests for Ship
Seakeeping, Int. J. Off. and Polar Eng., 11, No.3, 2000.
Ikeda, Y., Himeno, Y., Tanaka, N. A prediction method for
ship roll damping, Rep. No. 00405 of Dep. of Naval Arch.,
Univ. of Osaka, 1978.
Himeno, Y. Prediction of ship roll damping-state of art",
Dept.of Naval Arch. And Marine Eng, Univ. of Michigan,
Rep. No. 239, 1981
Felli, M., Di Felice, F., Romano, G.P., Installed Propeller
wake analysis by LDV: phase sampling technique,
Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Flow
Visualisation, Edimburgh, 2000.
Felli, M., Di Felice, F, Analysis of the propeller-hull
interaction by LDV phase sampling techniques, Journal of
Visualization, Vol. 7, No.1, 2004.
Lloyd A.R.J.M. Seakeeping: Ship Behaviour in rough
wather John Wiley and Sons ,New York 1989.
Figure 9 Evolution of the 3D wake: bare hull (left column) and fully appended (right column) configurations (planes
B4 and B6)
Figure 11 Evolution of the TKE: bare hull (left column) and fully appended (right column) configurations (plane B4
and B6)
Figure 12 Evolution of the TKE: bare hull (left column) and fully appended (right column) configurations (plane B8)
DISCUSSION
Stephane Cordier
Bassin dessais des Carnes, France
Can you give the choice of axis of rotation
used and what would be the influence of a change of
axis of rotation on the damping?
How does this choice compare to totally free
(6DOF) roll axis in natural decay test?
AUTHORS REPLY
We thank you very much for your question
which allows us to clarify some physical aspects not
well described in the paper.
The axis of rotation has been chosen as the axis
parallel to the keel line of the ship and passing
through the center of gravity of the model.
During the seakeeping tests with towed
model, it is common to consider the center of gravity
as center of rotation. In our experiments, in fact, the
model was kept fixed at the trim and sinkage values
obtained from the calm water test.
Therefore, the coupling between the vertical and the
roll motions plays a more important role than the
change of axis of rotation.
The figure below gives a recent
experimental result showing the non-dimensional
damping coefficient as a function of the roll mean
angle (left plot) and of the Froude number Fn (rigth
plot) for the ship model considered in the paper.
ABSTRACT
Todays use of potential flow programs for the
prediction of roll motion of surface ships is severely
limited, as empirically-based formulations must be
used to account for viscous effects around the hull.
Adding to this limitation is the fact that the most
widely-used formulations do not reflect the state of
the art with respect to hull form geometries. It has
been shown that unsteady RANS is sufficiently
accurate for the forward speed diffraction problem
and that extensions for six degree of freedom (6DOF)
simulations are promising.
As a result, a
comprehensive research program has been
established for the development, verification, and
validation of a six-degree-of-freedom motion
Reynolds-Averaged-Navier-Stokes (6DOF RANS)
prediction program. In the short term, application of
a 6DOF RANS program would provide the naval
architect with a means to apply ship-specific roll
damping coefficients in support of potential flow ship
motion predictions. Longer term, the use of 6DOF
RANS would allow for a rigorous and direct
assessment of ship motions in waves problem.
Within the context of this initiative, a
systematic series of model tests are planned to
explore the viscous flow field in the region of the
bilge keel of a ship.
Using particle-image
velocimetry (PIV) measurements, two-dimensional
unsteady flow patterns around the unclassified
DTMB model #5415 have been gathered and
analyzed. This paper will discuss the application of
PIV within an overall experimental fluid dynamics
(EFD) program of research in support of a 6DOF
RANS ship motions prediction program. Technical
issues related to the use of PIV systems in support of
viscous flow measurements for a ship at speed
undergoing roll motion will be discussed. Among the
issues to be addressed are the overall system
configuration, imaging optics, and particle injection
method. In addition, results from measurements and
INTRODUCTION
The Department of the Navy has a clear and urgent
need to accelerate the integration of Computational
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) techniques into the design
cycle of its surface-ship fleet. At present, CFD based
on solving the Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes
(RANS) equations has matured to the point that most
complex turbulent flows can be computed. However,
its application to the design of surface ships in
complex wave conditions under a wide range of
operating speed continues to be limited by a low level
of confidence in the solution accuracy, a lack of
robustness in the computational techniques, and a
high demand on computational memory and time.
Remedies are needed for all these difficulties, with
the establishment of confidence in the solution
accuracy being of particular importance. To achieve
this goal it is essential to have accurate and reliable
experimental data, which are especially tuned to the
needs of CFD validations. The main objective of this
research program is to perform a series of captive
roll-decay
experiments
to
obtain
detailed
hydrodynamic data suitable for the validation of CFD
techniques based on RANS, such as flow field, rolldecay coefficients, and appendage force and moment
measurements. Focus is placed upon the roll motion,
where viscous effects are dominant, with a special
emphasis on flow dynamics around the bilge keels.
This paper describes results from experiments
performed in April 2003, which includes roll-decay
measurements and two-component velocity field
measurements with PIV near the mid section of the
DTMB model #5415 bare hull with bilge keels.
Ongoing and future work at NSWCCD includes bilge
keel, rudder, and propeller force dynamometry on
fully appended and bare hull with bilge keels
configurations in calm water and waves, along with
BACKGROUND
5415 Model
Metric
552 kg
0.25m
5.72m
0.76m
0.382m
0.305 m
0.077m
2.836 m from AP
2.836 m from AP
0.39
24.824
TEST SETUP
The DTMB model #5415 was held rigidly to the
towing carriage by a heave-post mechanism, which
allowed precise adjustments of hull pitch angle and
sinkage. The heave-post mechanism was designed to
give the model the complete freedom to roll about a
pivot axis located longitudinally along the hull VCG,
while restricting all other degree of freedom motions.
Camera and light sheet strut assemblies were attached
to the main support beam, which was suspended
below the towing carriage at the forward and aft
ends. The strut assemblies were designed so that
they could be rotated out of the water for accessibility
to the instruments, and in the lowered position, be far
enough away from the model as not to introduce any
undesirable hydrodynamic interference. The camera
strut supported two camera housings placed side-byside, one focusing at the LCG plane, and the other at
one station aft LCG. The light sheet strut supported
two light sheet housings, which illuminated the two
planes of interest. The data acquisition computers
and dye lasers were placed on the carriage deck,
along with all other accompanying instruments.
Figure 4 illustrates a CAD rendering of the test setup,
while Figure 5 is a photograph of the setup with the
camera and light sheet struts in the raised position.
20
PIV 45
15
PIV 46
PIV 47
PIV 48
10
PIV 49
PIV 50
PIV 51
PIV 52
PIV 53
0
PIV 107
0
10
15
20
25
30
PIV 108
PIV 109
-5
PIV 110
PIV 111
PIV 112
-10
PIV 26
PIV 27
PIV 37
-15
PIV 41
PIV 43
PIV 44
-20
TTL
-25
Time, sec
TEST PROCEDURES
Figure 6: Overlaid roll angle vs. time for 21 runs at
Fr = 0.138 with an initial roll of 20 degrees
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
-5
Fr = 0, 20 deg
Fr = 0.069, 20 deg
Fr = 0.138, 20 deg
Fr = 0.28, 20 deg
-10
-15
-20
-25
Time, sec
Nj = 1/ * ln (j / j+1),
for j = 1, 2, 3,
for j = 1, 2, 3,
(1)
(2)
0.18
0.16
Damping coefficient
0.14
0.12
Fr =
Fr =
Fr =
Fr =
Fr =
0.1
0.08
0.06
0, Free Roll
0, 20 deg
0.069, 20 deg
0.138, 20 deg
0.28, 20 deg
0.04
0.02
0
0
10
15
20
2.34
2.32
Fr
Fr
Fr
Fr
2.3
2.28
2.26
=
=
=
=
0, 20 deg
0.069, 20 deg
0.138, 20 deg
0.28, 20 deg
2.24
2.22
2.2
2.18
0
10
15
20
Cycle
Design Waterline
X/L = 0.504
Vorticity, xTo
96
0.85 secs
-14.16 Roll
Fr = 0.0
Initial Roll angle = 20
Hull Centerline
64
32
0
-32
-64
-96
(d)
0.17 secs
13.64 Roll
(b)
1.19 secs
-14.59 Roll
(e)
0.51 secs
-1.71 Roll
(c)
1.53 secs
-4.27 Roll
(f)
1.87 secs
8.55 Roll
(g)
2.89 secs
-1.69 Roll
(j)
2.21 secs
14.23 Roll
(h)
3.23 secs
-10.45 Roll
(k)
2.55 secs
9.26 Roll
(i)
3.57 secs
-10.61 Roll
(l)
DISCUSSION
Joseph Gorski
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
The authors have done a nice job of creating
a data set that will provide much needed time
dependent data for the very relevant problem of ship
roll motion that can be used to validate RANS and
other computational techniques.
It appears great
pains have been taken to ensure repeatability of the
data, which is demonstrated for roll angle vs. time.
Would the authors please comment on the
repeatability of the PIV data and specifically what
has been done to differentiate between mean data at a
particular instant in time of the roll decay and the
instantaneous measurements, particularly at the
higher Froude numbers where the turbulent boundary
layer may be impacting the instantaneous field. Also,
could the authors comment on how their data
compares to that obtained at IIHR and INSEAN.
AUTHORS REPLY
PIV measurements were conducted at Fr =
0, 0.069, 0.138, and 0.28 for an initial roll angle of 20
degrees and at Fr = 0 and 0.138 at 10 degrees. For
each of the six conditions, 15-20 experimental
realizations were performed. In order to gauge the
consistency of the data, the velocity residual for each
of the velocity components was calculated. The
velocity residual for u for N averages is defined as
the following:
Ru , N =
(u
u
avg , N
uavg , N 1 )
AllFrames AllVectors
avg , N =10
AllFrames AllVectors
DISCUSSION
Arthur M. Reed
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
A set of very impressive experiments.
have several comments:
1.
2.
3.
4.
AUTHORS REPLY
The discussers comments added valuable
insights to the discussion already presented in the
paper. The authors strongly agree that similar
experiments should be performed in at very large roll
angles. Such data do not currently exist, and all
previous measurements have been at relatively mild
roll angles. In order to improve the prediction of
capsizing events, it is crucial to understand the
physics of roll damping at such large angles and
obtain experimental data for motion predictive tools
such as FREDYN.
DISCUSSION
William L. Thomas III
U. S. Coast Guard Engineering Logistics Center,
USA
I would like to congratulate the authors for
presenting a fine paper that examines a fundamental
measurement typically associated with seakeeping
model tests: This is the use of roll extinction tests in
the measurement of roll damping. My observation
has been that in recent years, most model tests in the
seakeeping arena have been dedicated to
developmental or applied aspects of R & D. It is very
nice to read about seakeeping model tests oriented
toward more fundamental research. The Maneuvering
and Seakeeping Basin at NSWCCD needs to perform
more testing at this level.
Having assisted in a number of roll
extinction tests, I was very pleased to view concrete
and irrefutable evidence that ship motion data, in this
case roll extinction tests, are very repeatable when
steps are taken to sufficiently control the
experiments, as illustrated in Figure 6 of this paper. I
have no doubt that most people performing
seakeeping tests believe that the model performance
during any run is repeatable, provided that all initial
conditions and external forces are precisely the same.
The frustrating fact that seakeeping model testers
face is that budgets for experiments are very seldom
sufficient to allow the elaborate set-up required to
prove this. Thank you for providing an excellent
example.
Close examination of Figures 7, 8, and 9
deserve comment. In Figure 7, one observes the
classic increase in roll damping as speed increases.
One often attributes this to lift effects, for example an
increase in lift experienced by the bare hull. Your
paper also implies that the vortex shedding at the
bilge keep might also play a significant role,
exhibiting non-linear speed dependant behavior.
Would the authors like to comment on this?
An inspection of Figure 8, starting from the
right hand side of the plot, working left, one observes
expected trends in roll damping with the exception of
very small mean roll angles. The expected trend is to
observe larger damping at higher speeds due to lift,
and larger damping at higher mean roll angle angles
due to higher roll velocities experienced during larger
roll cycles. The sudden increase in roll damping
displayed at small roll angles (perhaps 1 degree or
less) during the runs at speed differ significantly from
measurements that I have observed in the past.
Would the authors like to comment on this? Could it
be that the measured data at such small angles has
fallen in the uncertainty region of the test
F=
1
1
dU
DCd U U + D 2 Cm
2
4
dt
ABSTRACT
Towing-tank experiments are performed for an
advancing surface combatant in free roll decay and
coupled pitch and heave motions. For free roll decay
experiments, results are presented for motions (surge,
sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw), forces (resistance,
sway and heave), moments (pitch and yaw), phaseaveraged velocities (U, V and W) for measurement
region near bilge keel and free surface elevations. For
coupled pitch and heave experiments, results are
presented for pitch and heave transfer functions, and
pitch and heave phase angles. The geometry of interest
is DTMB model 5512, which is a 1/46.6 scale geosym
of DTMB model 5415 (DDG-51), with L=3.048 m. The
experiments are performed in a 3x3x100m towing tank
equipped with a plunger-type wavemaker.
The
measurement systems include Krypton contactless
motion tracker, 4-component load cell, towed 2-D
particle image velocimetry (PIV) system, and servo
wave probes with 2-D traverse. Uncertainty assessment
following standard procedures is used to evaluate the
quality of the data.
Pitch and heave transfer functions and phase angles
collapse to a single value independent of wave
steepness. Free roll decay results show the addition of
bilge keels to a ship model increases roll period and roll
damping. Results show non-linear roll decay for Fr
0.138 and linear roll decay for Fr 0.190 for both
without and with bilge keels. Phase-averaged flow-field
velocity results show the evolution and subsequent
decay of the bilge keel vortex. The vortex trails the
motion of the bilge keel rotating clockwise for counterclockwise model rotation (rolling to port) and rotates
counter-clockwise for clockwise model rotation (rolling
to starboard).
The phase-averaged wave-field
resembles the steady wave pattern (Kelvin wave
pattern) with a superimposed oscillation due to the
rolling motion of the model. As the model rolls,
alternating crests and troughs radiate from the hull
shoulder and dissipate forward, toward the bow with
time. The data set obtained in this research is extensive
and will be useful for validation and development of
INTRODUCTION
TEST DESIGN
Facility
Model
Data-Reduction Equations
Data-reduction
equations
are
used
with
individually measured results to compute additional
variables of interest.
2.3.1
coupled
motions
incident
incident
nD
(1 +UB )
8000t
e = 2f e
2.3.2
(1)
34
1 Frh2
(2)
n=
x4 m =
(4)
01
where x31 is the 1st-harmonic amplitude of the heave
response.
The encounter frequency, fe in hertz is calculated
using the incident wave frequency, fw in hertz. The
incident wave frequency is calculated as:
fw =
fd =
n =
Uc
(7)
(10)
d
2
(11)
(12)
1 2
x4 , j + x4 , j 1
(6)
(9)
x
1
ln 4n
2 x4 n+1
(8)
x
1
ln 4 1
n 1 x4 n
1
x
4 2 +
ln 4 1
n 1 x4 n
(13)
2
(15)
(16)
1
fd
(17)
Tn =
1
fn
(18)
C k ,i
Fx g
0.5 ( T )U c2 S
CS =
Fy g
0.5 ( T )U c2 S
Fz g
CH =
0.5 ( T )U c2 S
CM =
pa
x =
0.5 ( T )U SL
Mzg
CY =
0.5 ( T )U c2 SL
2
c
Lobj
Lobj
1 M
S k ,i
S k ,i ( t j ) =
Limg tU c M j =1
Limg tU c
(25)
W V
y
z
(26)
(20)
(21)
(19)
pa
2.4
M yg
(24)
fn =
Limg tU c
(14)
Lobj S k ,i ( t j )
(22)
2.4.1
1 M z nf ,i
1 M z ff ,i
( t j ) or =
(tj )
M j =1 L
M j =1 L
(27)
(23)
2.5
2.5.1
Test Procedures
Ballasting
3.1
Background
Carriage Speed
UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS
3.3
Motions
4.1
Wave Elevations
10
Flow field
11
Wave-field
12
REFERENCES
ASME, Test Uncertainty, ASME PTC 19.1-1998,
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
1998, 112 pp.
Gui, L., Longo, J., and Stern, F., Towing Tank PIV
Measurement System, Data and Uncertainty
Assessment for DTMB Model 5512, Experiments
in Fluids, Vol. 31, 2001a, pp. 336-346.
Gui., L., Longo, L., Metcalf, B., Shao, J., and Stern, F.,
Forces, Moment, and Wave Pattern for Surface
Combatant in Regular Head Waves-Part 1:
Measurement
Systems
and
Uncertainty
Assessment, Experiments in Fluids, Vol. 31,
2001b, pp. 674-680.
Gui., L., Longo, L., Metcalf, B., Shao, J., and Stern, F.,
Forces, Moment, and Wave Pattern for Naval
Combatant in Regular Head waves-Part 2:
Measurement
Results
and
Discussions,
Experiments in Fluids, Vol. 32, 2002, pp. 27-36.
Irvine, M., Towing-Tank Tests for Surface Combatant
for Free Roll Decay and Coupled Pitch and Heave
Motions, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Iowa,
IIHR-Hydroscience and Engineering, expected
August 2004.
Journee, J. M. J., Experiments and Calculations on
Four Wigley Hull Forms. Technical University
Delft, Report No. 909, Delft, 1992.
Larsson, L., Stern, F., Bertram, V., editors, Proceedings
of the Gothenburg 2000: A Workshop on
Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics, Chalmers
University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden,
Sept. 2000.
Longo, J., Rhee, S.-H., Kuhl, D., Metcalf, B., Rose, R.,
and Stern, F., IIHR Towing-Tank Wavemaker,
Proceedings of the 25th ATTC, Iowa City, Iowa,
1998.
Longo, J., Shao, J., Irvine, M., and Stern, F., PhaseAveraged PIV for Surface Combatant in Regular
Head Waves, 24th Symposium on Naval
Hydrodynamics, Fukuoka, Japan, 8-13 July 2002
Longo, J., and Stern, F., Uncertainty Assessment for
Towing Tank Tests With Example for Surface
Combatant DTMB Model 5415, Journal of Ship
Research, 2004
Stahl, R., Ship Model Size Selection, Facilities, and
Notes on Experimental Techniques, Carderock
Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center Report
CRDKNSWC/HD-1448-01, 1995.
Weymouth, G., "RANS CFD Predictions of Pitch and
Heave Ship Motions in Head Seas," MS Thesis,
University of Iowa, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic
Research, 2002.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was sponsored by Office of Naval
Research under Grant N00014-01-1-0073 under the
administration of Dr. Pat Purtell whose support is
greatly appreciated. Special thanks are extended to
University of Iowa mechanical and civil engineering
undergraduates Pieter Beyer, Brad Carlson, Brad
Flaminio, Tanner Kuhl, and Adrian Stamper for their
efforts in the data-acquisition phases of this study.
13
14
Length, L
Beam, B
Draft, T
Wetted Surface Area, S
Block Coefficient, CB
Table 7.
Full-Scale
142.04 m
17.99 m
6.20 m
2
2977 m
0.506
BX (%)
PX (%)
UX (%)
Heave, x3
88.3
11.7
0.70
Roll, x4
60.8
39.2
0.64
Pitch, x5
61.2
31.8
0.81
Table 8.
Table 2.
Froude Number, Fr
0.0, 0.190, 0.280, 0.340,
0.410
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 9.
Region
Near-Field (1)
Wake (2)
Wake (3)
Far-field (4)
Far-field (5)
Far-field (6)
Total
30.48 mm
30.48 mm
50.80 mm
50.80 mm
101.60 mm
101.60 mm
30.48 mm
30.48 mm
50.80 mm
50.80 mm
101.60 mm
101.60 mm
CT
CS
CH
CM
CY
Wave Steepness, Ak
0.025, 0.050, 0.075
Froude Number, Fr
PX (%)
98.9
99.8
99.7
96.5
99.7
UX (%)
1.4
12.4
15.2
2.1
12.8
Pnf (%)
Unf (%)
Position 1
0.30
99.70
5.0
Position 2
0.01
99.99
7.8
#
Points
1632
418
182
220
52
108
2812
Fr
Bias ( )
0.069
0.020
0.096
0.015
0.138
0.027
0.190
0.040
0.280
0.074
0.340
0.122
0.410
0.206
DTMB 5512
0.163 m
0.762 m or 0.25*L
0.149 m or 0.385*B
Table 6.
BUc
93.3 %
PUc
6.7 %
% b44 (bilge
keels)
EFD
78.1
21.9
SMP
16.0
84.0
UUc
0.5 %
15
Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
16
0.08
Damping Ratio,
x4i = 2.5
x4i = 3.0 o
o
x4i = 4.0
x4i = 5.0 o
o
x4i = 7.5
o
x4i = 10.0
o
x4i = 12.5
o
x4i = 15.0
x4i = 20.0 o
o
x4i = 2.5
o
x4i = 3.0
o
x4i = 4.0
o
x4i = 5.0
x4i = 7.5 o
o
x4i = 10.0
x4i = 12.5 o
o
x4i = 15.0
o
x4i = 20.0
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.2
0.4
Froude Number, Fr
Fig. 7.
Fr =
Fr =
Fr =
Fr =
Fr =
Fr =
Fr =
Fr =
Fr =
Fr =
Fr =
Fr =
Fr =
Fr =
0.1
Damping Ratio,
0.08
0.06
0.04
Fr = 0.138
0.03
0.02
0.01
Fig. 9.
0.069
0.096
0.138
0.190
0.280
0.340
0.410
0.069
0.096
0.138
0.190
0.280
0.340
0.410
0.05
5
o
0.04
0.02
10
15
20
25
Fig. 8.
17
18
10.0
(a)
x4( )
5.0
0.0
-5.0
-10.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
t (sec)
10.0
(b)
5.0
x4( )
0.0
-5.0
Roll signal (6 cycles)
Quarter phases for five roll cycles
-10.0
0.0
1.7
3.3
5.0
6.7
8.3
10.0
t (sec)
Fig. 17. Roll decay signal for one carriage run (a) and
truncated roll decay signal (b) where flowfield
and wavefield data are analyzed through five
roll cycles.
19
20
Fig. 19. Contours of phase-averaged axial velocity (U) for five roll cycles at quarter phases for model 5512 at
Fr=0.138 and x4i=-10.
21
Fig. 20. Contours of phase-averaged transverse velocity (V) for five roll cycles at quarter phases for model 5512 at
Fr=0.138 and x4i=-10.
22
Fig. 21. Contours of phase-averaged vertical velocity (W) for five roll cycles at quarter phases for model 5512 at
Fr=0.138 and x4i=-10.
23
Fig. 22. Contours of axial vorticity (x) for five roll cycles at quarter phases for model 5512 at Fr=0.138 and x4i=10.
24
Fig. 23. Steady wave pattern (a) for all zones, for model 5512 at Fr=0.138 and typical unsteady residuals (b)
resulting from phase averaging free surface elevations at t=0 sec.
25
Fig. 24. Phase-averaged wave elevations of the first five roll cycles at quarter phase angles for all zones, Fr=0.138 and x4i=-10.
26
Fig. 25. Phase-averaged wave elevation perturbations of the first five roll cycles at quarter phase angles for all zones, Fr=0.138 and x4i=-10.
27
1 ABSTRACT
This paper documents the development of the
SWENSE (Spectral Wave Explicit Navier-Stokes
Equations) approach, a new method for studying
wave-body interactions. This work has been motivated
by the accuracy and efficiency requirements for
simulating hulls manoeuvring in waves. The
SWENSE method is applied to the case of a ship kept
fixed at the dynamic trimmed and heave conditions in
heading regular waves with forward speed. After a
description of the theory, the test case is presented :
the DTMB Model 5415 has been chosen because of
the availability of experimental data. Unsteady
resistance, heave force, pitch moment, nominal wake
and free-surface elevations are compared to
experiments (Gui et al., 2001). Results show an
overall good agreement with experiments. The
accuracy and effectiveness confirm the viability of the
method. Finally, future developments of the proposed
approach are discussed.
2 INTRODUCTION
Free surface flow problems in the naval or
ocean engineering contexts are more and more often
addressed using viscous flow solvers based on the
solution of Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes
Equations (RANSE). This is especially useful in
situations where viscosity or flow separation effects
play an important role. A number of useful codes have
been developed and used by ship designers, and
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) techniques have
been recently incorporated into non linear hull shape
optimisation procedures. In this way, CFD simulation
now plays an important role in ship design.
The classical method used to simulate a ship
3 THEORY
In this section, the numerical method is
described. After defining the coordinate system,
governing equations (previous RANSE and modified
SWENSE) are presented and followed by boundary
conditions (previous and modified). The model used
for the incident flow is presented and the numerical
method for solving the whole set of equations is
presented.
x1
x2
(1)
U i
U i
2U i
i j
1 P
+U j
=
+
uu
t
x j
xi
x j xi x j
(2)
Where
components, xi ,
Ui
2
+ ij k
3
(3)
vg =
U i U j
T i = t
+
x j
U i
xi
are the grid velocities.
t
1
1
=
+ t
Re eff Re
(a ) ,
1
Jg ji are the control grid functions,
J i
2
P = P + k is the dynamic turbulent pressure
3
ij
(4)
Where :
(a ) ,
i {1,2,3}
j {1,2,3}
i {1,2,3}
j {1,2,3}
(5)
(6)
(7)
k
i
U
U j i
1
+ ai U vg i
f j aki ti akj
j
Reeff
t
k
2
1
k P
ij U
i t
j U
g
a
= a
+
+ ak
k Reeff
j i
i
j
U i = U Ii + U Di
P = PI + PD
h = h + h
I
D
(10)
U Di j
U D
2U D 1 PD
( + t )
+
+ U I + U Dj tj
2
t
x x j
x
x j
= U Dj
U I
2U I t
+ ( + t )
+ j
U Ij + U Dj
2
x j
x x
x j
aik
U Di
=0
k
(11)
(12)
U D j j
t j U D
1
i
f j a ki
ak
+ ai U I + U Dj v g
Reeff
t
i j
2U D
P
1
g kk
+ ak D
2
Reeff
k
k
(8)
Where :
(9)
2U D
1
g jk
Reeff
j k
+ a ki
k l
t j
a
U Ik + U Dk
i
j
U I k j
1 jk 2U I
a j U D a ij ti
g
+
+fj
Reeff
j k
j
U I
(13)
n j t1i + ni t1 j
n t +nt
i 2j
j 2i
) Ux
(
(
=0
(16)
U
=0
x j
Ui = 0
h
h
h
+U1
+U 2
=U3
t
x1
x 2
(14)
P = g h 2 ( + t )
U
ni n j
x j
1 hD hI
U D +
x + x
2
h h
h
= U I D + I
t x1
x1
3
I
hD hD hI
+
+
t
x1
x1
(15)
1 hD hI
U I
x + x
2
PD g hD = g hI PI 2 ( + t )
n j t1i + ni t1 j
n t +nt
i 2j
j 2i
i
D
j
) Ux
) Ux
i
D
j
2
U D U D3
i
I
j
) Ux
) Ux
= n j t 2 i + ni t 2 j
U Ii + U Di
ni n j (19)
x j
= n j t1i + ni t1 j
(18)
2
U I
i
I
j
(20)
(21)
U Di = 0
U D + a 2j hD + hI
j j
h
h
h
1
= U I3 I a1j D + I U I1 v g
j j
t
h
h
2
a 2j D + I U I2 v g
j j
2
U D U D3
(23)
nj =
a ij
ai
a 3j
a3
i {1,2}
j {1,2,3}
, j {1,2,3}
(25)
= g hI PI 2 ( + t )
a i3 a 3j a kj U Ii + U Di
2
j
a3
(26)
k 3
U Di
U Ii
k 3
k 3
k 3
a
a
a
a
a
a
=
+
a j a j a1i + a j a i a1 j
j
j
i
j
i
j
1
1
k
x j
i
i
n t + n t U D = n t + n t U I
i 2j
j 2i
i 2j
j 2i
x j
x j
(
(
( )
( (
))
(28)
PD g hD
i (x1 , x 2 , t )
(x1 , x 2 , t ) =
i =0
cosh ikx 2
t ij =
(27)
(x1 , x 2 , t ) =
A0
+
2
A cos(ik (x ct ))
i
(29)
i =1
4 RESOLUTION
This section gives some information about
the numerical method applied to obtain the solution of
the previous set of equations. Then an overview of the
organization of the SWENSE resolution is presented.
Incident flow at t
(potential model)
Diffracted flow at t
Iteration on time
Iteration on the
nonlinearities
UNITS
DTMB 5415
DTMB 5512
28.8316
46.6000
5.72
3.048
Beam B
0.7242
0.3859
Draft T
0.4020
0.2142
4.8273
1.3707
3.2228
0.9151
0.8426
0.1275
0.5060
0.5060
Displacement S
Block coefficient
Fn =
Ak =
(30)
gL
2A
(31)
g
2
fe = fw +
(32)
(33)
( )
Fn
Re 10 6
Ak
fw
fe
0.19
3.153
0, 0.025
1.5
0.584
0.811
0.28
4.647
0, 0.025, 0.05
0.34
5.642
0, 0.025
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
1.012
0.715
0.584
0.584
2.016
1.218
0.919
0.991
5.1.2 Conditions
Test conditions applied here are the same as
the IIHR experiments. The tests were conducted on
the DTMB Model 5512 without appendages. The
transition to turbulent flow is initiated at x=0.05 (by
studs in experiments), and the ship is kept fixed at the
dynamic sinkage and trim condition, which are
determined in calm water condition (without waves)
for each Froude number, see table 2 (experimental
conditions).
Fn
FP (m)
AP (m)
0.19
-0.004
-0.0004
0.28
-0.0094
-0.0022
0.34
-0.0122
-0.0058
5.1.3 Grid
C M (t ) =
T (t ) =
M Y (t )
0.5 U 2 SL
(36)
z ( x, y , t )
L
(37)
where FX , FY , M Y and z are the measured timevarying resistance, heave force, pitch moment and
free-surface elevation, respectively. S is the wetted
surface area for the static condition and is the water
density.
The previous variables are compared to
experiments in terms of Fourier components (FS).
This decomposition is realized in a moving window of
one encountered wave period long. The FS for time
history X ( X = CT , C H , C M , T ) is determined as
follows :
Figure 3 : view of the O-O grid system
X (t ) =
X0
+
2
2
cos(2nf e t + n )
(38)
n =1
X n = a n + bn
bn
an
n = tan 1
(39)
(40)
FX (t )
0.5 U 2 S
(34)
C H (t ) =
FZ (t )
0.5 U 2 S
(35)
z D = zT zT z I
POINTS
90 x42 x 25 = 94 500
124 x 39 x 44 = 212 784
201 x 62 x 71 = 884 802
Table 4 : Size of the computational grids
UNSTEADY
Grid
Grid 1
Grid 2
Grid 3
Exp.
CT ,0
0.00965
0.0092
0.00938
0.00925
4.3
2.1
1.4
0.0069
0.0071
0.0072
0.00608
2.8
1.4
18.2
-0.067
-0.064
-0.065
-0.068
4.7
1.5
4.4
0.041
0.038
0.04
0.036
7.9
11.1
-0.0019
-0.0014
-0.0016
-0.0012
( %)
CT ,1
( %)
C H ,0
( %)
CH ,1
( %)
C M ,0
( %)
CM ,1
0.012
( %)
35.7
12.5
33.3
0.01
0.0105
0.0108
20
4.8
2.7
STEADY
Grid
Grid 1
Grid 2
Grid 3
Exp.
CT
0.0089
0.0083
0.0084
0.00884
(%)
CH
6.7
1.2
4.9
-0.067
-0.064
-0.065
-0.0633
( %)
CM
4.5
1.5
2.7
-0.001
-0.0017
-0.0015
-0.00187
41
11
19.7
( %)
t/T=0.
pattern
t/T=0.5
t/T=0.75
Figure 14 :Oth and 1st harmonic amplitude for the total unsteady
free surface elevation. Up : numeric, Down : experiment.
t/T=0.
t/T=0.25
t/T=0.5
t/T=0.75
7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors express their thanks to the
Dlgation Gnrale pour l'Armement (DGA) which
is supporting this work. The IIHR Institute, Iowa, is
gratefully acknowledged for making the experimental
results available online.
8 REFERENCES
Alessandrini, B., Delhommeau, G., A multigrid
velocity-pressure-free surface elevation fully coupled
solver for calculation of turbulent incompressible flow
around a hull, Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on Numerical Methods in Laminar and
Turbulent Flows, Atlanta, 1995, pp. 1173-1184.
Di Mascio, A., Landrini, M., Lalli, F., Bulgarelli, U.,
Three Dimensional non linear diffraction around
fixed structures, Proceedings of the 20th Symposium
on Naval Hydrodynamics, 1994.
Ferrant, P., Simulation of strongly non-linear wave
generation and wave-body interaction using a 3D
MEL model, Proceedings of 21st Symposium on
Naval Hydrodynamics, Trondheim, 1996.
DISCUSSION
Hoyte C. Raven
MARIN, Netherlands
In the approach proposed by the authors, the
velocity field is decomposed in a known field
connected with the incoming wave system, and an
unknown field containing the diffracted waves, the
steady wave pattern and the boundary layer and
wake. This seems a quite sensible step and avoids the
need to have a fine discretisation just to represent the
simple incoming wave accurately.
However, the diffracted field and steady
wave pattern also ask for a fine discretisation, and the
results shown indicate that this is still hard to
achieve. The question that comes to mind then is,
whether alternative decompositions could alleviate
those requirements as well. E.g. if the known field UI
is defined as containing also the diffracted field
according to potential theory, or even the steady
wave pattern, could the accuracy be improved
further? Could you please comment on this option?
AUTHORS REPLY
We have already think of considering the
inviscid solution as the incident field because as you
said we are sure that this would permit us to improve
our results and especially in the far field even by
using coarser grids. But the implementation of this
new incident field would lead to many problems. If
we add the steady wave pattern and the diffracted
field in the incident field we would not be able to
conserve a spectral method to generate it. As a
consequence the method that we would use would
create a field which would not be continuously
defined through and above its free surface. Or this is
a crucial point to apply the SWENSE method.
Nevertheless, I think that this idea should be
performed in the next future because it should give
accurate results of the viscous wave pattern of a ship
in waves in the both near field and far field by using
coarse grids so low CPU time requirements.
INTRODUCTION
The use of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) tools
for predicting the powering performance of ships remain
challenging because of the numerous physical difficulties
which characterize the flow around a real ship. Among the
hard points which have to be solved to get a reliable simulation of ship flow, one can list, without being exhaustive, the accurate simulation of ship stern flows which is
highly dependent on turbulence modelling, the modelisation of the hull/propeller coupling and the simulation of
the free-surface deformation. On one hand, one must notice that the accuracy of CFD tools for predicting crucial
global quantities like resistance and self-propulsion factor
is still limited. On the other hand, CFD is complementary
to towing tank tests because it provides a large amount of
detailed information on the flow which helps the designer
to improve the performance of new ship. Therefore, as
long as simplified configurations are considered, the large
increase of computational power and memory makes possible to have recourse to CFD codes which may be inte-
also extended this method to the computation of threedimensional free-surface flows by using an explicit error
indicator.
This paper is devoted to a presentation of the specific discretisation schemes which are required to get an accurate
description of a density discontinuity. Moreover, the influence of the number of grid points and discretization
schemes is analysed by comparing the respective numerical solutions to an extensive experimental database (7)
related to the Series 60. In the second part of the paper,
an automatic grid refinement and coarsening is applied to
the simulation of the free-surface flow around a Wigley
hull. The advantages of this approach are demonstrated in
terms of accuracy, optimal use of discretisation points and
user-friendliness.
Ui dV +
Ui ( U U d )
n dS
V
S
Z
Z
= (ij Ij pIi )
n dS +
gi dV
Z
ci dV +
ci ( U U d )
n dS = 0
Flow solver
The ISIS flow solver, developed by DMN (Division Modlisation Numrique i.e. CFD Department of the Fluid
Mechanics Laboratory), uses the incompressible unsteady
Reynolds-averaged Navier Stokes equations (RANSE).
The solver is based on the finite volume method to build
the spatial discretization of the transport equations. The
face-based method is generalized to two-dimensional,
rotationally-symmetric, or three-dimensional unstructured meshes for which non-overlapping control volumes
are bounded by an arbitrary number of constitutive faces.
The velocity field is obtained from the momentum conservation equations and the pressure field is extracted from
the mass conservation constraint, or continuity equation,
transformed into a pressure-equation. In the case of turbulent flows, additional transport equations for modeled
variables are solved in a form similar to the momentum
equations and they can be discretized and solved using
the same principles. Incompressible and non-miscible
flow phases are modelized through the use of conservation equations for each volume fraction of phase.
(1c)
n directed outward.
The effective flow physical properties (viscosity and
density ) are obtained from each phase physical properties (i and i ) with the following constitutive relations:
X
X
X
=
ci i ; =
ci i ; 1 =
ci (2)
i
COMPUTATIONAL APPROACH
(1b)
When the grid is moving, the so-called space conservation law must also be satisfied:
Z
Z
dV
Ud
n dS = 0
(3)
t V
S
Numerical framework
dV +
( U U d ) n dS = 0
(1a) early from the quantities themselves and their available
t V
S
q qU
qD qU
0.7 Co
0.7 0.3
Co > 0.7
qf = qC
if
CDS
1/2
UDS
1
(4)
~
qf
if
0.3 6 Co 6 0.7
(5)
~
qC
CDS
1/2
1
UDS
~
qC
DDS
CDS
1/2
1
UDS
m =1/2
~
qC
Number of
grid points
6.52 105
2.82 106
3.89 106
Number of
processors
16
32
32
Total
CPU time
7 hours
2.5 days
5 days
0.5
1.5
0.035
0.5
0.030
0.4
0.4
0.025
0.3
0.3
0.020
0.2
0.2
0.015
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
-0.1
-0.1
0.000
-0.2
-0.2
-0.005
-0.3
-0.010
-0.3
0
=10: Coarse (MGDS:KWSST)
0.5
x/L
1.5
=z/L
y/L
0
0.5
GDS
MGDS
0.010
0.005
= 0.001
-0.015
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
= 10 : Port : Fine(KWSST)
0.50
x/L
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.5
0.5
0.035
0.4
0.4
0.030
0.3
0.3
0.025
0.2
0.2
0.020
0.1
0.1
0.015
0.0
0.0
-0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.2
0.000
-0.3
-0.3
-0.005
0
=10: Medium (MGDS:KWSST)
0.5
x/L
1.5
= 0.001
=z/L
y/L
0
0.5
GDS
MGDS
0.010
0.005
-0.010
-0.015
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
= 10 : Starboard : Fine(KWSST)
0.50
x/L
0.60
0.70
y/L
0.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
-0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.2
-0.3
0
=10: Fine (MGDS:KWSST)
-0.3
0.5
x/L
1.5
= 0.001
Figure 4: Free-surface elevation on the waterline. Comparison of GDS and MGDS discretisation schemes for a
drift angle of 10 degrees
tion.
Additional illustrations of the influence of the compressive property will be given in the section relative to wave
cuts which will confirm this analysis.
0.5
1.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.2
-0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.2
-0.3
-0.3
0
=10: Fine (GDS:KWSST)
0.5
x/L
1.5
-0.3
= 0.001
-0.3
0
= 5: Fine (MGDS:KWSST)
0.5
(a) GDS
0.5
x/L
1.5
= 0.001
(a) Computations
1.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
-0.1
-0.1
0.0
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
-0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.2
-0.3
0
=10: Fine (MGDS:KWSST)
-0.3
0.5
x/L
1.5
= 0.001
y/L
y/L
0.5
y/L
y/L
0
0.5
-0.3
0
= 5: Experiment
-0.3
0.5
x/L
1.5
= 0.001
(b) MGDS
(b) Experiments
(b) Experiments
Figure 13: Evolution of the longitudinal vorticity around the Series 60 for a drift angle of 10 degrees - Comparison
between computations and experiments
structure. Apart from a weaker predicted level in the upper part of the ABV vortex, the fine mesh density is able
to capture the location of the near-wake structure. Endly,
it should be pointed out that, due to the free surface capturing method, the wave-breaking vortex (WBV) is even
observed numerically although much more diffused (in
the transversal direction) when compared to the experiments. The SST-K turbulence model is used without
any modifications to account for free surface effects and,
since this vortex results from a strong interaction of the
free surface with the flow, a high (abnormal ?) level of
turbulent viscosity is produced at the vicinity of the free
Adaptive techniques
The ultimate goal of an adaptive procedure is clearly to
reduce the discretization error for reaching a solution of
prescribed accuracy for a low computational cost. But,
one also wishes to equidistribute the error over the whole
computational domain for the solution to be of similar ac-
0.5
1.5
1.05
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
-0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.2
-0.3
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
x/L
y/L
0
0.5
0.75
-0.3
0
=10: Fine (MGDS:KWSST)
0.5
x/L
1.5
0.80
= 0.001
0.70
0.65
(a) Computations
GDS
MGDS
=0.02L
0.60
y/L
0.5
0.55
1.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
-0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.2
-0.3
0
=10: Experiment
-0.4
x/L
1.5
0.0
y/L
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.50
0.45
-0.3
0.5
-0.2
= 0.001
=0.02L
0.40
0.35
(b) Experiments
GDS
MGDS
x/L
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
curacy everywhere. In order to do so, each control volume marked for grid refinement is subdivided into several
smaller ones of the same topology. As the initial mesh can
possibly be too fine in some region for the desired accuracy, it can be coarsened by an agglomeration algorithm.
The steady adaptive procedure, described in Figure 15, is
included in the ISIS code making it an automatic single
numerical tool. It starts with the computation of a first
numerical solution on an initial uniform grid with an arbitrary number of cells. The numerical error is then estimated by various methods described in (5) or (6) and this
information is used to decide which changes should be
made on the current mesh. The criteria of selection of a
cell i on the current Gridj are the following :
Refinement : ErrGridj (i) > TolR ||ErrGrid1 ||L1
Unrefinement : ErrGridj (i) < TolD ||ErrGrid1 ||L1
The parameters TolR and TolD control the intensity of the
procedure during one adaptive step for the refinement and
the unrefinement process respectively. The numerical solution is then mapped on the new adapted mesh and the
computation is resumed on this grid and this procedure is
repeated until the error estimate is below a desired value.
0.05
0.00
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
y/L
0.2
0.4
0.6
1.05
1.00
0.95
0.90
x/L
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
=0.02L
0.60
0.55
-0.4
-0.2
= 5: Fine (MGDS:KWSST)
0.0
y/L
0.2
0.4
0.6
=0.02L
Grid alteration
During the refinement process, each control volume to
be refined is split into several smaller ones of the same
topology. Thus, the topology of the element on any part
of the mesh will always be the same and only their size
will be adapted. The refinement process can occur with a
possible directional sensitivity for flows with simple features. A non-refined neighbor of a refined cell presents a
so called hanging node which is accounted for naturally
by our face-based finite-volume method : a face with a
hanging node is simply seen as several smaller faces.
The agglomeration algorithm permits to unrefine the
selected parts of the mesh by grouping neighboring cells
0.35
min=-15, max=65, =5
0.30
0.25
0.00
0.20
z/L
0.15
0.10
y/L
0.05
=0.02L
-0.05
0.00
-0.05
-0.05
-0.10
0.00
0.05
y/L
0.10
0.15
-0.15
-0.20
-0.25
-0.30
-0.35
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
= 5: Fine (MGDS:KWSST)
0.8
x/L
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
min=-15, max=65, =5
2.0
z/L
0.00
-0.05
0.35
0.30
-0.05
0.00
0.05
y/L
0.25
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.15
(b) Experiments
0.10
y/L
0.05
=0.02L
0.00
-0.05
-0.10
-0.15
-0.20
-0.25
-0.30
-0.35
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
x/L
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
CFD SIMULATION
ERROR ESTIMATION
Reduction of residuals
of several orders
Computation of the
error a posteriori
Initial Mesh
ADAPTATION
INTERPOLATION
Refinement
Unrefinement
Criteria
reached ?
No
Yes
2.0
End
Mesh update
When a new node is added on the surface of the body, two
requirements have to be fulfilled:
1. the node must be placed on the exact geometry which
should be described either analytically or by a CAD
description readable by the flow solver,
Figure 16: Agglomerated cells
2. for convex boundaries and high aspect ratio cells, the
inclusion of a new node on the surface of the body
should not generate neighboring cells with negative
generalizing the mesh deformation tools already included
volumes as illustrated by Figure 20,
in the flow solver and previously used for the shape optiTo avoid the apparition of ill-conditionned near-wall cells, mization studies.
it has been decided to move the three-dimensional grid in
For two and three-dimensional cases, a lineal and toraccordance with the discrete boundaries deformation by sional spring analogy is employed to control the defor-
Margin added
Initial Mesh
Adapted Mesh
Exact Boundary
(2)
(1)
(3)
Initialization t c = t o
Initialization of the
mesh
Figure 20: Illustration of situations for which a grid deformation tool is required
Residual reduction
reached ?
Yes
No
Time of adaptation ?
tc = Mod (to ,Nt)
Yes
No
Need of adaptation ?
Yes
No
Adaptation of the
current mesh
Interpolation
mation of the grid (20). The lineal spring analogy is commonly used to deform the mesh in shape design strategies.
A lineal spring is attached along each edge connecting two
nodes i and j, with a stiffness inversely proportional to the
kij
1
2
lij
(6)
on boundaries,
(7)
q=q
Table 2: Characteristics of the grids used for the computations of the free-surface around the Wigley hull
Free-surface
The elevation on the waterline for the grids with different generations of refinement, the fine reference grid and
the experiments are given in Figure 22. The convergence
towards the results obtained on the fine reference grid is
well established, even if some local differences indicate
that the grid built with 3 generations is likely too coarse
in some regions of the flow. Figures 23 illustrate the structure of the mesh near the waterline for all the generations
of refinement. On one hand, one can observe that the interface is very well captured by the last locally adapted
grid. On the other hand, one may fear a certain lack of
grid points away from the interface which may deteriorate the global quality of the simulation since the position
of the interface depends on the flow field in its proximity.
For the purpose of comparison, Figure 24 shows the same
information with the fine reference grid.
A gobal view of the free-surface elevation is shown by
Figures 25. Computations relative to the fine grid of reference are compared to that obtained on grids containing
0.02
Experiments
ISIS : NGen=0
ISIS : NGen=1
ISIS : NGen=2
ISIS : NGen=3
ISIS : Fine Mesh
0.015
Z
X
Y
Z/L
0.01
0.005
0
-0.005
-0.01
X/L
0.5
Z
X
Y
two and three levels of local refinement in a prescribed region indicated above. These preliminary results are very
encouraging : the free-surface behaviour is very well captured in the immediate vicinity of the hull on the adapted
grids. The deterioration of the accuracy of the simulation observed in the far-field is likely due to a lack of grid
points in the vertical direction on both sides of the density
discontinuity.
From all these first results on the use of automatic local
grid adaption for the modelization of free-surface flows,
one can draw the following conclusions :
a complex automatic unstructured grid refinement/coarsening strategy has been successfully implemented in a complex CFD code,
Z
X
Y
X
Y
Z
X
Y
z/L=0.001
0.5
0.4
Ngen=2
0.3
0.2
y/L
0.1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the scientific committee of CINES (project dmn2050) and IDRIS (project
1308) for the attribution of CPU time.
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
Fine
-0.5
0.0
x/L
0.5
1.0
REFERENCES
[1] R. Duvigneau and M. Visonneau, On the role
played by turbulence closures in hull shape optiJ Mar Sci
mization at model and full scale,
Technol, Vol. 8, 2003, pp. 1125.
z/L=0.001
0.5
0.4
Ngen=3
0.3
0.2
y/L
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
Fine
-0.5
0.0
x/L
0.5
1.0
[6] A. Hay and M. Visonneau, Adaptive error control [18] S. Muzaferija and M. Peric,
Computation
of free surface flows using interfacetracking and
strategy : Application to a turbulent flow. AIAA
CFD Conference, Orlando, June 2003.
interface-capturing methods, vol. chap. 3, pp. 59100. Computational Mechanics Publications, WIT
[7] J. Longo and F. Stern, Effects of drift angle on
Press, Southampton, nonlinear water wave interacmodel ship flow, Experiments in Fluids, Vol. 32,
tion ed., 1998.
2002, pp. 558569.
[8] I. Demirdic and S. Muzaferija, Numerical method [19] G.B. Deng, R. Duvigneau, P. Queutey, and M. Visonneau, Assessment of turbulence model for ship
for coupled fluid flow, heat transfert and stress analflow at full scale, Comp. Mech., WCCM IV, Beiysis using unstructured moving meshes with cells of
jing, China, September 2004.
arbitrary topology, Comput. meth. Appl. Mech.
Eng., Vol. 125, 1995, pp. 235255.
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
Cameras
The cameras (Roper Scientific ES 4.0), with a spatial
resolution of 2048 pixels x 2048 pixels and a full
frame rate of 15 Hz, were fitted with 50 mm lens and
placed in submersible housings with an umbilical of
30 m in length. For the SPIV measurement in this
study, no Scheimflug mechanism was installed on the
cameras. Instead, the lens was stopped down to an fnumber of 4.0 to provide the necessary depth of field,
allowing cameras to focus on the entire measurement
plane. The camera housings utilize modular design
with interchangeable nose, center body, and main
bulkhead sections and incorporate remote focus and
moisture-sensing features. The electronics in the
camera housings are kept dry by purging the internal
volume with dry nitrogen periodically during the
experiment. Images from each camera are captured
and stored on a data-acquisition computer capable of
Laser sheets
Illumination was provided by a flash lamp-pumped
dye lasers, operating at 585 nm. The pulse laser
operates with a maximum optical energy output of 1
J/pulse 10 microsecond-long pulses at a maximum
rate of 15 Hz. The beam from the laser was coupled
into 600-micron optical fibers and formed into laser
sheets at the output end, using a series of beamforming optics placed in submersible housings. The
relatively long pulse duration (three orders of
magnitude longer than the typical 10 nsec pulse for a
Nd:YAG laser) makes it possible to launch the beam
into the fiber. The usage of fiber optics greatly
facilitates the placement of laser sheets, as mirrors
and open beams are eliminated from the optical
setup, with acceptable performance in terms of
TEST SETUP
The ONR Body-1 model was held, with the sail
mounted sideway, rigidly to the towing carriage by
two vertical struts, placed 1.83 m apart. The two
struts were fixed to a planar motion mechanism,
which allowed precise adjustments of the hull drift
angle. During a test run, the model was towed past
the stationary SPIV setup, set in place in the middle
of the basin. The submersible cameras and laser
sheet optics were fastened to an array of support
structures on a submersible hydraulic table. The
hydraulic table is a modified manlift, equipped with
pressurized sealed lines and an upper deck with a
rotating platform. The table allowed the vertical
position of the entire system to be set and easy
accessibility to the instruments during rigging. The
two cameras viewed a common area of interest but
from two different perspectives. SPIV calibration
was achieved by taking pictures of a calibration grid
at two axial positions 15.24 mm apart. Figure 3
illustrates a CAD rendering of the test setup (the
hydraulic table, except for the rotating platform, is
not shown), while Figure 4 is a photograph of the
overall setup.
2.00E-04
0.00E+00
-2.00E-04
X'
Fully Appended
Hull w Sail
Bare Hull
-4.00E-04
-6.00E-04
M =
-10
-5
10
15
20
(degrees)
1.40E-02
1.20E-02
1.00E-02
8.00E-03
6.00E-03
Fully Appended
Hull w Sail
Bare Hull
4.00E-03
2.00E-03
0.00E+00
-2.00E-03
-4.00E-03
-6.00E-03
-10
-5
10
15
20
(degrees)
4.50E-03
4.00E-03
3.50E-03
(Z 1 + Z 2 ) (Z 1 + Z 2 )0
(1)
1
U 2 L2
2
3.00E-03
2.50E-03
Z'
Z =
-1.00E-03
Y'
[(Z 2 Z1 ) (Z 2 Z1 )0 ] Lh
Fully Appended
Hull w Sail
Bare Hull
2.00E-03
1.50E-03
(2)
1
U 2 L3
2
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
0.00E+00
-5.00E-04
-10
-5
10
(degrees)
15
20
2.00E-04
1.50E-04
K'
1.00E-04
Fully Appended
Hull w Sail
Bare Hull
5.00E-05
0.00E+00
-5.00E-05
-1.00E-04
-10
-5
10
15
20
(degrees)
5.00E-04
4.00E-04
3.00E-04
2.00E-04
M'
Fully Appended
Hull w Sail
Bare Hull
1.00E-04
0.00E+00
-1.00E-04
-2.00E-04
-10
-5
10
15
20
(degrees)
3.00E-03
2.50E-03
2.00E-03
1.50E-03
N'
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
Fully Appended
Hull w Sail
Bare Hull
0.00E+00
-5.00E-04
-1.00E-03
-1.50E-03
-10
-5
10
15
20
(degrees)
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
-0.05
Cp
-0.05
Cp
-0.1
-0.15
Beta=18
Beta=12
Beta=6
Beta=0
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
Fully Appended
BH w Sail
Bare Hull
-0.2
-0.25
-0.25
-0.3
-0.3
-0.35
0
-0.35
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
30
360
60
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
-0.05
Cp
Cp
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
Beta=18
Beta=12
Beta = 6
Beta = 0
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.2
Fully Appended
BH w Sail
Bare Hull
-0.25
-0.25
-0.3
-0.3
-0.35
-0.35
0
30
60
90
120
150
180 210
240
270
300
330
360
30
90
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
Fully Appended
BH w Sail
Bare Hull
-0.15
-0.2
Cp
-0.05
Cp
60
Beta=18
Beta=12
Beta = 6
Beta = 0
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
-0.25
-0.3
-0.3
-0.35
-0.35
0
30
60
90
30
60
90
SPIV MEASUREMENT
A small sample of SPIV measurement around the
ONR Body-1 at a hull drift angle of 12 degrees is
shown in Figure 19 for the bare hull case and in
Figure 20 for the fully-appended case. These results
include only 1/64 of the numbers of velocity vectors
obtained with the measurement, and only every other
SPIV velocity vector field is shown.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In-plane forces and moments
Figures 5-7 present the force coefficients data as a
function of drift angle, for all three model
configurations, while Figures 8-10 show the plots of
the moment coefficients. The set of curves in Figure
6 show that the lateral force on the bare hull increases
monotonically with drift angle.
This trend is
expected since the cross flow velocity component
increases with drift angle and contributes to an
increasingly larger lateral force on the hull. The
presence of the sail and stern appendages contributes
even more to the magnitude of the lateral force due to
the fact that they act as lifting bodies at an angle of
attack.
As for in-plane moments, Figure 10 shows
that the highest yawing moment is exhibited in the
bare hull with sail configuration. This is obviously
due to the presence of the lift force on the sail acting
forward of the center of gravity, contributing to a
positive yawing moment. Even though a fully
appended model experiences the highest lateral force
for all drift angles, the yawing moment on a fully
appended model is actually the lowest of all three
configurations, due to the fact that the forces on the
sail and rudders create opposite signs of yawing
moments and act to counterbalance each other around
the center of gravity of the model.
Out-of-plane forces and moments
Figure 7 along with Figure 9 show that the bare hull
model experiences little normal force and pitching
moment at all drift angles. This is entirely expected
since the bare hull model is azimuthally symmetric
around the centerline of the model, and cross flow
velocity on the bare hull model being at a drift angle
can only exert in-plane forces. The flow field around
the bare hull model at angles of drift is expected to be
symmetric deck and keel sides. An example of SPIV
2.
3.
4.
5.
CONCLUSIONS
A systematic series of model tests to explore the
viscous flow field around an unclassified submarine
model ONR Body-1 at angles of drift has been
performed. Using stereo particle-image velocimetry
(SPIV) measurements, flow patterns with all three
velocity components around the model have been
gathered and analyzed for three model
configurations: bare hull, bare hull with sail, and
fully-appended.
These flow-field measurements
were then used to correlate to the measurements of
the pressure distribution and the overall forces and
moments on the model to explain the effects of
dominant flow features such as the sail tip vortex on
the flow development and the cross flow separation
around the hull. It was found that the presence of the
sail tip vortex exerts a significant influence on the
downstream flow development and pressure
distribution. It is hypothesized that two competing
Longitudinal
Velocity
u/U
12 Drift
Bare Hull
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
x/L =
0.634
0.4
0.2
(d)
x/L =
0.284
x/L =
0.808
(e)
(b)
x/L =
0.459
x/L =
0.983
(c)
(f)
Vorticity, x
(1/sec)
12 Drift
Bare Hull
40
24
8
-8
x/L =
0.634
-24
(g)
(j)
x/L =
0.284
x/L =
0.808
(h)
(k)
x/L =
0.459
x/L =
0.983
(i)
(l)
x/L =
0.634
Longitudinal
Velocity
u/U
1.8
1.6
1.4
12 Drift
Fully Appended
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
(d)
x/L =
0.808
x/L =
0.284
(e)
(b)
x/L =
0.983
x/L =
0.459
(c)
(f)
Vorticity, x
(1/sec)
140
12 Drift
Fully Appended
100
60
x/L =
0.634
20
-20
-60
(g)
(j)
x/L =
0.284
(h)
x/L =
0.808
(k)
x/L =
0.459
x/L =
0.983
(i)
(l)
DISCUSSION
Jerome P. Feldman
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
This paper provides valuable experimental
data for the continued development and validation of
physics-based six degree-of-freedom ReynoldsAveraged Navier-Stokes (RANS) and large eddy
simulation (LES) computer codes. These codes are
used for predicting the hydrodynamic forces,
moments, and pressure distributions that are
developed over the hull and appendages of
submarines.
Reference (1) and other papers indicate that
the hydrodynamic force distribution at small angles
of attack or angles of drift can be predicted
satisfactorily by potential flow theory over about 80
percent of the length of the hull from the nose. The
remaining portion of the hull increasingly deviates
from potential flow due to viscous effects. Potential
flow theory indicates that the nondimensional yawing
moment derivative Nv for the unappended hull is
equal to X u& 'Yv& ' which is the difference between the
longitudinal and lateral nondimensional added mass
derivatives. This destabilizing moment is reduced by
the addition of rudders and other stern appendages
and increased by the addition of forward appendages.
It would be interesting to compare the experimental
value of the yawing moment coefficient shown in
Figure 11 with the value calculated using potential
flow theory.
In a turning maneuver the local angle of drift
x varies along the length of the hull according to
x
tan x = tan
R cos
where is the angle of drift at the longitudinal
location of the center of buoyancy, x is the distance
from the center of buoyancy (negative aft), and R is
the steady radius. Hence, lift is developed on the
bridge fairwater due to its local angle of drift. There
is a bound vortex at the quarter chord of the bridge
fairwater and a tip vortex that trails aft. An image
vortex is located inside the hull. This system of
vorticity sets up circulation around the hull aft of the
sail. The combination of the circulation and the local
cross flow velocity causes the hydrodynamic pressure
over the deck to be greater than the hydrodynamic
pressure over the keel. This difference in pressure
results in a downward normal force over the hull aft
of the sail and an up pitching moment as seen in
Figures 8 and 10.
The lift on the sail YF is proportional to
Ub and the normal force on the hull ZH is
DISCUSSION
Joseph Gorski
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
The authors are to be commended on getting
such a comprehensive data set including forces,
pressure, and velocity under the same operating
conditions as such complete measurements are
invaluable for understanding physics as well as good
CFD validation. The authors show PIV data for a 12
degree drift angle. Is PIV data also available at other
angles of drift, which might help verify the authors
hypothesis regarding the out of plane forces? Also,
since the model is being towed past the stationary
SPIV setup how stationary is the vortex on
subsequent runs and how different is the ensemble
averaged flow field, which is what is needed for
RANS
comparison,
to
the
instantaneous
measurements?
AUTHORS REPLY
SPIV measurements were conducted at 0, 6,
12, and 18 degree drift angle for the fully appended
configuration. At 12 degree angle of drift, SPIV
measurements were also performed with the bare hull
and bare hull with sail configurations. For each of
the six conditions, 10 experimental realizations with
the model towed through the stationary SPIV were
performed. In order to gauge the consistency of the
data, the velocity residual for each of the velocity
components was calculated. The velocity residual for
u for N averages is defined as the following:
Ru , N =
(u
u
avg , N
uavg , N 1 )
AllFrames AllVectors
avg , N =10
AllFrames AllVectors
INVESTIGATION OF THE
TURBULENT BOUNDARY LAYER FLOW
ON A MICROFILAMENT TOWED ARRAY
Cd =
D
1
U 2 As
2
(1)
Cylinder
Figure 2: Control volume for cylindrical boundary
layer analysis.
The presence of the boundary layer causes a
reduction in the mass flow rate as well as momentum
flux through the boundary of the control volume.
The relationship between momentum thickness and
the velocity profile for a cylindrical boundary layer
is:
2 + 2 a = 2
a +
u (r ) u (r )
r dr (2)
1
U
U
1 a + u (r ) u (r ) r
1
w
dr = Cd
1
=
2
2
U L a U U a
(3)
2 + 2a aLCd = 0
(4)
dx1
dx2
Laser Sheet
d0
Lens
Lens
d1
Image Plane
Tow Strut
High Resolution
Cameras
Tow Point
Fairing
Seeding Particle
Manifolds
Laser
Probe
Hydraulic
Lift
DRAG RESULTS
Total drag measurements were used to calculate the
tangential drag coefficient and momentum thickness
from equations (1) and (4). For the 0.89 mm
diameter cylinder, data was obtained by towing the
cylinder at four speeds and decreasing the length
from 145 to 25 m in 7.5 m decrements. This data
was combined with previously reported results
(Cipolla, 2003b) to determine the variation of as a
function of L, where L=nx, 1 n 19 are discrete
values . The results show that for a fixed diameter
array and tow speed, the momentum thickness at the
end of the array increases with increasing length and
that the momentum thickness in an axisymmetric
boundary layer develops more slowly than that of a
flat plate (see Figure 5). In particular, the values of
are 20-50% of the values predicted for a flat plate
turbulent boundary layer (Schlichting, 1979). A
thinner momentum thickness is consistent with a
higher wall shear stress, based on flat plate results.
Figure 6 shows values of the wall shear
stress w(xn) at discrete streamwise locations
xn=x/2+nx, n=0,1,2. for the 0.89 mm diameter
cylinders at four tow speeds. These values were
calculated from the difference in the measured drag
for the cylinders of decreasing length and combined
with previously reported results (Cipolla, 2003b).
The spatially averaged values of w have been
associated with the center point of each length x,
which assumes a linear change in w over each x.
3.1 m/s
5.2 m/s
9.3 m/s
14.4 m/s
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
500
2
TEST PROCEDURES
6 kts
10 kts
18 kts
28 kts
400
300
200
100
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
I'=
(I I )
i =1
avg
(5)
8a.
( x) =
n* A
n =1
(6)
8b.
8c.
Figure 8: Average velocity profiles for a tow speed
of 13 m/s illustrate the flow pattern resulting from
the array boundary layer flow in the downstream
array portion of the test apparatus. a. 50 meters aft of
the leaderline along the array b. 100 meters c. 140
meters.
9a.
10a.
9b.
Figure 9: Boundary layer profiles as a function of
distance for 25 knots a. 0.9 mm array. b. 2.5 mm
array
Boundary layer profiles were determined from the
averaged flow fields by azimuthally averaging
around the array. Figures 10a and 10b show the
boundary layer profiles for the 25 knot 2mm in
planes occurring at 10 meter increments along the
array.
All velocities are scaled with pixel
displacement where 1 pixel corresponds to 4% of the
towing speed. From the profiles, it is again evident
that there is a relaxation occurring. The profile in
plane 1, figure 10a, shows there is high shear, high
momentum fluid near the boundary. There is a
reduction in planes 2 to 4. In figure 10b, planes 5
and 6 have lower momentum and lower shear in the
near boundary region, which then increases in planes
7 and 8. This corresponds well with the previous
shear and boundary layer growth data.
10b.
Figure 10: Boundary layer profiles for the 25 kt 2.5
mm case. a. 10m through 40 m. b. 50 m thorugh 80
m.
Turbulence profiles were calculated by
averaging the turbulence field azimuthally around the
array. Figure 11 shows the turbulent profiles for the
25 knot 2.5 mm case and Figures 12, 13 and 14 show
the turbulent levels in the boundary layer flow and
wake for the 7.5 knot condition. The profiles
illustrate that the fluctuations approach wake values
far from the boundary of the array. Near the array, at
distances of 50 mm and below, the fluctuations grow
significantly. Comparing the wake turbulence to the
boundary layer turbulence, the boundary layer
turbulence levels are more than 10 times the
background fluctuation values. In addition, for the
25 knot 2mm case, looking at plane 6, 7, 8, 10, and
12, the turbulence levels peak at a distance of 8 to 16
mm away from the boundary. For the 7.5 kt case,
there are peaks in planes 2,3,7,10,11,12,14 and 15 at
distances 8mm to 24 mm from the boundary. These
distances are on the order of 1000 viscous lengths
defined as:
l+ =
(7)
13a.
13b.
Figure 13a. Turbulence profiles for 7.5 knot, 2mm at
planes 5,6,7 and 8 (50, 60, 70 and 80 m). b.
Turbulence profiles for wake at planes 5,6,7 and 8.
14a.
14b.
Figure 14a. Turbulence profiles for 7.5 knot, 2mm at
planes 9, 10, 11 and 12 (90, 100, 110, and 120 m). b.
Turbulence profiles for wake at planes 9, 10, 11 and
12.
CONCLUSIONS
12a.
12b.
Figure 12.a. Turbulence profiles for 7.5 kt, 2mm at
planes 1,2,3, and 4 (10m, 20m. 30m and 40m). b.
Turbulence profiles for wake at planes 1,2,3 and 4.
7.
8.
9.
References
1. K.M. Cipolla and W.L. Keith, Momentum
Thickness Measurements for Thick
Axisymmetric Turbulent Boundary Layers,
Journal of Fluids Engineering, vol. 125,
2003, pp. 569-575.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
DISCUSSION
Neil Bose
Memorial University, NL, Canada
You found that the filament moved around
in the lateral plane which might be considered a form
of galloping or partial galloping. How did this
movement affect the boundary layer growth and was
this the cause of the periodic reduction/gain in
thickness of the boundary layer?
AUTHORS REPLY
The movement of the array caused external
fluid to be conveyed close to the boundary of the
array.
This effectively changes the upstream
conditions for the local boundary layer development.
This incoming flow introduces low momentum fluid
closer to the array wall which effectively thinned the
local boundary layer. With this understanding, the
movement of the filament was a direct contributor to
the periodic reduction and growth in boundary layer
thickness results.
INTRODUCTION
The prediction of the internal wavefield produced by a
submarine as it traverses horizontally through a vertically stratified ocean has been an objective of naval hydrodynamics since the 1960s. These waves are produced by the vertical displacement of the fluid as it flows
over the submarine body and by the disturbance of the
fluid from motions in the submarines wake. The wake
motions consist of turbulent eddies and the bulk motion due to the collapse of the partially mixed wake region towards its equilibrium density level. In littoral regions of the ocean, where stratification is strong and submarines travel slowly, waves generated by the submarine
body predominate. In the open ocean, where stratification is generally weaker, the waves generated by waketurbulence predominate.
We use ray theory and laboratory experiments to
gain some insight into the generation and propagation
of internal waves produced by submarines travelling in
the littoral regions of the ocean. We focus on the ide-
THEORY
We consider a stratified fluid in the Boussinesq approximation. Internal waves are generated by a source moving
horizontally through the fluid while oscillating vertically
at frequency . The coordinate system is r = (x, y, z),
with z positive upwards, and is fixed to the mean position of the oscillating source. In this reference frame,
the background flow is U = (U (z), V (z), 0). The background buoyancy frequency is N (z).
= kU lV.
C = 2i(
mQ/Bm )0 ,
B=
2 m2 (N 2
2 )(k 2 + l2 ),
Q(k, t) =
(4)
The
R wave phase has the usual WKB form of an integral
mdz (e.g. Bender & Orszag (1978)). For a depthdependent background the wave phase generally needs
to determined by numerical integration. The wave amplitude |b| can be determined from the conservation of
wave-action. Here this reduces to the constancy of the
vertical flux of wave-action cg3 A, where A(k, l, z) is the
wave-action density and cg3 =
/m is the vertical
group velocity. The wave-action density A is related to
the wave-energy density E by (e.g. Lighthill (1978))
A = E/
,
E=
1
0 N 2 |b|2 ,
2
(5)
R EFLECTED WAVES
(6)
So far we have only considered waves that move upward from the source. To compare with our experimental
results, we must allow wave reflections from the upper
and lower boundaries of the tank. From here on, we
where
G N 2 cg3 /
.
j1 (Ka)
3 2 3
i a U0 k + heit m
, (11)
4
Ka
(10)
(9)
The depth is treated parametrically and is not transformed. The factor eit accounts for all of the timedependence in the present model. This can be considered as the long-time limit of an initial value problem in
which the motion is started from rest.
Rz
(8)
r (k, l, z) = b(k, l, z) ei
The factor C = C(k, l) in (8) depends on the spectrum of the source and on the form of the dispersion relation. Broutman & Rottman (2004) derived the following
form for C
(2)
m(k,l,z 0 )dz 0
m = (k 2 + l2 )1/2 (N 2 /
2 1)1/2 .
(r, t)
(1)
Z
Z
Rz
(7)
2
ein2mH
n=0
imD
= ie
/2 sin mH.
(12)
(13)
EXPERIMENTS
RESULTS
Figure 3: A comparison for F r = 1 of tank experiments (upper panel) and theory (lower panel). The plotted variable is u,
the x-component of the velocity of the wavefield, in units of
cm/s.
Figure 4: As in the lower panel of Figure 3 but calculated without the contribution of the waves reflected from the upper and
lower boundaries of the tank.
6
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
CONCLUSIONS
This work is a step in seeing how well ray theory can
simulate the internal wavefield generated by stratified
flow past an obstacle. In Broutman & Rottman (2004),
we used the present method to study the refraction of
such a wavefield by a depth-dependent current without
boundaries. Here we considered a uniform background
with reflecting boundaries, for comparison with tank experiments. Our view based on these studies is that the
present method can effectively describe the diffraction
7
We are planning to follow this up with better representations of the source, dependent on the Froude number and including a distribution of oscillating sources to
model the wave generation by eddies in the wake. A
useful approach might be to match the ray solution to
a numerical simulation of the near-field around the obstacle. The numerical model would in effect replace the
analytic source function used here. The matching would
take place in a Fourier-transform domain, and thus could
probably be done at short distances from the obstacle.
The results of this approach may suggest better ways to
parameterize the source function.
Acknowledgements
This research is supported by ONR under contract numbers N00014-01-C-0191 and N00014-96-1-0001. Dr.
Ronald Joslin is the program manager.
References
Bender, C. & Orszag, S., Advanced Mathematical Methods for
Scientists and Engineers, McGraw-Hill, 1978.
Broutman, D., Rottman, J., & Eckermann, S., Maslovs
method for stationary hydrostatic mountain waves, Q. J.
Roy. Met. Soc., Vol. 128, 2002, pp. 11591171.
Broutman, D., Rottman, J., & Eckermann, S., A simplified
fourier method nonhydrostatic mountain waves, J.
Atmos. Sci., Vol. 60, 2003, pp. 26862696.
Broutman, D. & Rottman, J., A simplified fourier method for
computing the internal wavefield generated by an
oscillating source in a horizontally moving,
depth-dependent background, Phys. Fluids, submitted.
Dupont, P. & Voisin, B., Internal waves generated by a
8
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
WBB%g*!Vp!BfLLB'
Ba> wts>LT!!ZvV'g
!
"#%$&'
$)(*,+ -
./0 %213
$
4658795;:<>=@?BADCEGF@H65;IJ<>KB?L?BAM=NEGF;O5;PQ@K%<>RTS@EVU WXFZY[5;\T]T<>=@=^RN<>K%_`WaFZb[5@c
dfeg=TW
h E Oji@kadglm<`K%?Y.=en]M<>KB?LenopSqAarsHt<>uvi=AMdgAa_XSwF
W \wCj<>xef?Liyz<{r|<`=?B<}49<>?B<`kXKBuvic_a<>=@uGSTFZPJ~p
,>Z,J
gjL^fpf|0' LpZfTtnVL,gg>ff
BMpjpvjfp,|Lp
fTp @6E|WpE|;wf%{wp^p
fgffL|TfL'LLp
fZ|fwapfvf^p w%%
LLLBpDa%gf!! 6LL
pLV!D`f%@p-!`
BLL>fag{`wTD`MfX`gg
'f|w^L'pf,BfNLVfp
LJ|Xf;pp;f>NgTL
f%fw|'@VfNLfp
gMM@pgf^fff%fTvpf
fVTpff|Lv^
f>f!VM@p|gB
afVfLfLL>!gtfVf
fJ|G|pwJftZ,D`,p
ffVT!`|Lf%p^pXVp
|ffwZfLtf|NLL
f'p^B8VfB|%gnB
LLL^'fJwpLfp|gpn
ffL{qsvp[
LLsgV
Vf-wp@LLNsfq-
V
f'!`f L!'V[BL
pf%w^sfNLf%VBfZ|'
Lp
%p%tf^fvff
npf@f@fMg
f>fgafTLG|`v|nT;fanM
fL;'LLapTfp>f
%;ZZBL{!VM`MJfV;f
LtLL^|pwfV%^VTf
%%pf,L%%|fn'LL
ZJs
wzp-BfpLfq
vJfffssVLX
n}pf%Vpnp;#
|fpnpBpn^p!^f0fp
Vpgfp%>f@M%@|%Dw
Zs|pff8BLfNL
BgLDwBBfLLB'TfpLf
fnffB%pp|nMw
pfptVLpp|BLLp
%p>NL{f!L`LgNgfL`|
LNf;f%f,!vgfL
V
;gvp%%
p|fB
B!w%;vV
|Gn%p 'fE%^
ps'fEB,LLv Jfp
vpp>fL>| .pf@T
ffBff%Tftf^>f
gf|f>-,ff|Bp'wg%f|
^f-pfZp^f-ffLf
MfXf'f*fJ|JL
gfLVN^gjBpffwV
vpf|LLw^pBfvf
p%fpNgf%g9tf
fLnsf^|%f@n^fff
v;pfgDf,V
fTZvfp%!|Jfp
wLpTpg'npf{%^f!f@LL
fnfVp'pfBLvf|f
vVppnv|nTL|f%!
v|nTfftfL^TpfL^sL
awfVgf|f`fTwp>w
VfL @gf>pp%|
)Bgf !-gp
gg M` M|f,f
V6nf' Bvp9!`Gp
vLsfpN'LLMwZ nw`
gf L0p-fffpjpL6f
tf%w^f;|',V|pfB
.fJgXgpsLL8wppf
gfLfwvpN`V9fwL|pD-
fB!|BfLsf!gfLs^f'
LD`!|Lpf'^fnpGf
p'Ba^fjpvpw,fVf
pfNJvffN!LVp
fLB8fpgpnLL'B
wL g|
wfpNtV
-gpfB;L|! ^ 0Bvpt'
ft s|Lv%p`f|ffG|XLfff
Z%D'g8fNLLV
TN%sfBp>fL
LLfV;Zvjgjpj|vft|'
LpfMf|gJf;fJfg-
MfVTN!`TLVf>aVMZ!`
LVVpZpf^f8v;>
,|VvMNf^f-g'||g
pLBG
t M
@
-!|fLa ^ BvpD`
>s|Lpfa!pa%fp;|
fnjpfB8%8ptn
v^f}69BtnL
>%TL|f-,D`|L
VBpBn%Vfvpf Z VMJg@p,
fffJf G fBL
'%wwsfg,f;p
f%VMLJwf9fp'p
NntppTLV@fLp
vff;ftVw8{XjBjff
f-|Vg,|V.f
|ff9f[ >0gfL0
fV^L|pMNfNZpg'fZpB
LV D`G,|'f'L
pfMp ,vp'TVf
f@@ftpp|ff|L8 @L
pg,V6gff
Tpff%ppZV
pp L||,p!L'
V6@ B|wf%
f%9fptLV^ff-Lfpf|
>V^p'^'p-.
f-psfv gs-VsV
LLV|8fp wfpNML
pfTD.Bps8T f;V;L
gff; Vfj B>p
!BfBf !Bw`pa%
|{a%{Bv'%pf-LLXp
|Jp}gfLgV9V|LLVw
J|zfpgfT^tf
gfLsv@pZgp%pp@tf
VN'ftLVp|TqBf|
%f{
TpLVf%9pV%L}B
>f L.B;pf @fBV%
Tfj%
gj%
pL
p| L-BVf. Lppf
%@^p%'LVfLLv|nT
@qp !@mV|LznV
gff{@f^|f|gpwDfVp
LL,-fpn,VV}|
pNpLV-gfLfffLBp'
pf|.ff|Bgf
| VB6|p
pjgpg}!gwf
|Lpf|L n>gfpL{pLpp
ff G%w^fTffL
ft; 6pV0,fpfvf,p
VBjpJnLVjV
ffMgff>pZvMLVfp@fg{
p6;fffpJVVX^zL
%f|f^f6f-p
%ZBgVffL
'Tf|!'LLwfg'f
ftv'BLf;%V
LgTV`fLBpg
%|gp6fpstf
wp,papg-fLp
fDf^fVBfgL ZZfw g8f
LL8!gG @vv
fs.%.pVX fBT
w@nMNMp%Tgff>``M@ggf
nff!wB8Mf|ffN
LVX{fVJff{p,L
!L>p^LfZ|%XL%
JvpZf'gfLvff
|f|fgfVftvpMfp
f'f%!f@ f^f
pg-pfNf,|LLff|N,Lpf
>gftNvp
. N N
wTBp%wNpvBf ;%p
9pVffjpf
sft!Bgn%@%VDf sLL
8p|DwMff'vVftptLff
B,BL,^f'f '
^U
wU
n
; U U U
^ ff JL
N f^B w-ff
Bgn%faVfTptfsN^ff
8 U
U
^ 9'Bn f9
ff W fBfNgfp
f
MfpfNgfp
fLp tTfNBV@Bffn
wzMpfN LL
f^Bgn%fN%pf'p
,fLgfff
N|'Lpffa vU
GU
G^ vU
TfZ;Vtpf
wff vV
-B-ftBpaJB
fBVf!f
^.|G|
pfg8fqp
fvZ%f ^fBDv^LL{
%Lfpp}VpfpJf%fg
V@ !BVpp%LJpNpp
Dzw[pv Bvp
!`LLX!ff^ps|
.
DC
JALKGM
ON
@ JM PC DQSR<M
@ "T
Y\
=K
]4Z0[
cb
fe
g
3
63 d
YhZU[ Y:i
Y \jY
_
"b
.
43
65 +7
pkq>nF
[ @
K
Yr\:YZs]ut
Kv^
_
8/ 1
Za
^K`_
0/21
@ BA
E>GF
VXW YZ0[
+%
-!
DC
UN
"!
#
BA
&, &%
=
<;
HI>
*) +%
4
?>
V
w-|fL|v6p%p
@VG@fXB^f;'f%
afV^JNwvfJv!Bv
TN>LXZw|vBp
saBLLj!pz sapp
VLLsap9;NwBD@pLfB
|f`psJpL'fBf
pv LasDwTpBDLVZp`Mf'L;L
fwpB8%%MLL@V %
pN`fp!LTVT p^s.pZLf
f%fgf|fMpgpaJ{f@f
VT%Xp %sw^agffJ
|fgN!!TtfZV
E BW B^ s9 wJ^f,f
pJwJgffppLpfNfL
m^fp'ZV
Lv%ppTf%
wVpVt!vfVBL,%J@B D
LL{wf@ ^|>%p @
EW'LE,gf'|gfpBn
p;BV%|fn Gwwf>8 Df
|fVp%X>p@ff
g@fp%nsf'Lnpt
gfV;fpvL>W 0fwf|nfpL
n wwLLL|;^;f^f
%pJf^fz|Z'^9|B
%f;pXpwpapvLXB
$#
:
_
K Yj\
[
lkm>nF
0km>nF
o Y
[ o @
faLp;fLfNVDf
gg8pBfTfLnJvtf
LgpzT%;v m -tf
BgTfNV
J W E W E
W
U
^jB E
'
fffV^ 'fVG BBf
fzgf6f-M
^ {wfff;B
fffJ wM| %
ff%st0LLt^
f'zf9-Lff%.BBL
fB^%
X^-
fZJfpfvf!%pf V
pTL|LTvf%g{p T @f
w^ @%fw p
s|
^!gfJ!f'pnpJZnf
%pDg!f@!|'LfafXLL%%
%DBanL;XfV^fpXf!p
[g.%p-LLNsLgp!
;L ;gDv^fpfnN
fvNvfZL|,Bv fp
pBfB;Bpw|'Lpf6f
ff |XaVMf;p
Lvf%fVfLN|'Lffw
f%n%Dw|G|apvfg^Xp^p
^tLgfBLsptfgnMgB|L
LL`|Lg^fTNLf;fZ!fpf
!fpg'Zvp%fLff
p,|Lq'wp{'LL
w
z}| | _~||
| | R
(_
$>
JA
xN
D_z
y_{z
?_
?b
mw}LL,f[g8fmnff
Nf XZffTffBBfL
f!gp@w! B
fLL|p'L;Bffn fg8f
B|fGDpLL,LBpf;g
p
U
wW
J
wfpXLLpZ|fsf
p}pf pg'fV
f|Gtp!ff.'zff
pMJ@LLBp,f'pp
BGp|T`,|ff;LL8TZs|B
gJ 9p6^[p6Lf
fgpV
tI
n+X+
Z0[
Z0[
3<P
g2
D3
e
vON
.
$O
5 &,
|| d||
I8
<
Y\
Y\
Y(
65 2
rO
(K~
L**6O
g Z
3<P
D
e R R
jX
r.
=.
X
VW
"_
f'L^tafL%B|%gns'LL
@f'% ^f wfpf
v|nTfgnM.p%fft0fV^
sVN`f J> n%Jw,L
Lfn Bw BsT n%
!fpLBpfj9f
Tff,BBvpff@pgVJv|ff
fpf'|f;^fBv'%X@
{%BB
8
w`B%pf{[fM|>VgXf
fL,p@wB
U
%
ff-fLBN-vJ|Lf
3<x
D.
X?-+
<
63<x d
_5
gB
(_
R*
.
43SP
~_K
3 P
"_
P| | DQu| n|
h3<P
&""X(~-&
&0Gjn"
Y g
y_
-gT@>wf- gfs0v
pLZ@wpf ^fTf
ZBVgfp W{
W
{ @Lp
gpfB[fzB|pffp
p'fBn `^
^fZTgpgf^w;%
vvf'%ff ^
wp|X%p|^jZff,fJ
@{w;ffp{L,ffqw
LLf'gsLLDBs'ppX
Tfp^fVBLfN|f|w'p
^f !wpDNpf%{Z-'L
gfa fMN|LDT%LLf|`^Zf
9DV^Ln 8p|
TjL|6BptfL|n
*fNw8|wp
[EE WWU
! EE WW g
wMpfLVfaTBvp;;v
%fjB-LffwpB|%gn
ff'|pBffn fTXf
VwZgL8ft%|fn|
t
N `
U g%
^f;f|L Lpf^V;%n
vLVfpzVppfp,g
fJv%!T*fNwp
@ @ J
a,LTBp'a,vp
f|pf'LfsfZ'fpf%
VffTpfTVNNNfB!w'LB
ZL|TpfwfLZD%fpf
f`M%pBff^^Lf wfpfJ
ZLp>g 8
^s
NgL8f,fgp' Xfs
w}|'Lpf0fg%f}p
LZ^f;;LfffVf
^pfL|V;vp
p-f|`ff'gn
^ffpf 'p.-f
w-fpZpftpZjg8f
p
fVa%f|X^f!fg'fpXp'fBa
gfVs
E
E
nU
g
W f W
^f9Lp6f}p
9
LLwp^s|v%pfL9nff
fffp|^9ftfgf
p
BpjLLpfp|jp
Mf!BVsBf BB
^8p|v^p-pfLpfBf;
Zf-|'Lf p9gfZ|Lpg
LLJ8Tpf8X%w, NL%ff
fNLLT,fNB
D_
N4
lNS
s LB'JgLGfL
%pTfLVL`p N%8fg`^f
fffNgfXfB^VTapw
Bp@npXfX>@'LLfafg
fjfp'pB'pLgV
f> t;pf;gf
fB8 j'LL{fZ%
fv|nTf!fg'fpXf@gX8f
pNp'LLB^f
j
fLL{f;ffpg^v|nTf;
wffJ^ L Ba
fJL-LLMf-Z
fZg8f,gfTfg^wLL
E
g
W U
^f NLf X j-
|'%fp!Z''%Vp!B
wJgfp%g8wppgpnz
T|f{
Y\
K
Yl\
Y g
63 P d
4jD~U8:n8
.
e
8
r.
&U
&
v3
9l
:
N
'pGTvL 'V|f
|LvfJVZ ^JVffLNfg
ff!L%pp.vftL,
65
V / V P|
3<P
0| |
G3
tZ
$3 P
.s.
3<P
.s.
3S
.
r.
=.
p3 |
&~&
0.
-3<P
=
>
*?
(N4!+
N| |
g
x| |
GM.f|J|Lfff
!pg|Lfp'gBff
^fsNwpB8M`LVpN
pf,^fs%f%|Lf^JgfL
V
TBJfn
w |f LL fp
VfBnT|G|w,n;;fp;f
p!psfnfB
|Lpf f
fg0Lp gv|
;|BL^wp^|tfB|fff
ff9LL'^T9.pvf
fffJLgfLf9f-,Bwtf|
f9f^;gf.|Lv%
fftfpgfff%f
V^a|Lf!|'Lpf
LL@gfqB,f'LVffpf
DfJf9^J;|Lv-Jf
vp>TpvLMwfg
{fa!`XLVfpf
LLLffN'fN|JV0pfw
^LV^JfLVfg!'LL
MLpfJv
gf.
wLG%ppf`'!Z
M>MLV@^fJE E^p WE
'fXp.j!`MfV^
.L ^W ,GE^f-f
`fL'fgvf@|%pgDf
Nft!`,|LpfsT|nTf
`pX^fNfMvpapp
f|fpBXB^fZwwpLnp{g
Gp tp ,T@Np|%pg
fv
wpjgLpf ^ff
fpn{%`p{VjNMg
pf,m !Vs`BTp
.wfsp.pf B
^
p
E|
aN g
XgE
f!%f L
p
@fM>f TVpBLp >
qf %fp|p ,B,g B ; v! E|WtE
^ LE L W
E nE|
tw^fgg|%
fNsf;vp,!pfB`^
]
D^DwfwLMf|Dfffpvf
!`'LV
|B|ffsv6f %pG;
fLpw,nM|Lvg
|8TB^G !^^f
pp| 9%g,%sp p'%n
Tf
w%pfwffpftf'f|
pfJpf%-v%^f,%V
ffpf'fp|fpf'f%%
w tL|n%8ffJpjf
g !nBv!L|f`w@pf%Xf;
T{B;vXgffXgn%p;T{
B;vV ^vgf,NL|
%V^BpLnpn'p|>f'
LL|'vfffNT^f^
pp|Lf
NT@ @Z |
wj|LpfZgpLLNsv
%|B@paLp| %
%g0z-9|nf0;fj^
f8^fsZ|!N%`p
gfpwBLpZfwLf|DnM@f
W LV^gfT|`
fpgwZLpGp!L
p.|L'pJf T'ftL
p|LfffsL|f
(
Q
5,)+,
e
e
e
/ 1
X5
R
&
65 '
f@fL|n,L%fZTDgp
gf'.zf'wpt^fgf
|f EZff|nfpqp
^BM w'f |sDw^f
pf%>`f%>gpT|
f B,fNfJfLft^Vf!
G
N>
DN ffN%f^L|nJ
w^Vf'fBfnXpGa| f@af8vLL@pMD`TLV
Df;npV,vpwfN%gN
fB8f^f'V^f8vLL
pNf;p`Tgff>ppZfTT`TDf
%gpMwT@f'DvpN
^tLaL^;!fff!L
%DwD`N|BfDV`g`p
fw|LLMvpZv
ff,wBV V@|fL
^ZgBp
w6fLfmgfm*npf D@MM%Tp %$ '& tfNB8
v|wp^f'pT|LL;{
w'fgLptfZf
LpXf@L|vL@Tfffp
LnsfVf@vpfv%
ff%gBv|f@f TV>pfDw|
LzBB|Vgpgf
p ^;fNpj V
p# JpT^Jf,LwT
fgDVafpfXBgp;%Bf'p
|f`V@B@fwfgD%ppg
%!fp
^!f;fpfLZvp,
fp9gfLNpBn|fpf D >%f'`pNf!gg|>pLgn
|Lv|f9fff`
ZpwfM%vfa%D9vp>V| pwfZgffpDfZ>N|Lpf
|aL||f'V`f^gDfwfV
;TpgNfB'fpp
fMBfV^|`!ZZDL G^gf'pX'g%( pL|
|MNvpZ|Vp{v n;pfNgg|wp
%agV^>
Lfj !jLLJ@LVp 9fp9VNX||Vjtp
fstf%fsp>NB
vp^^g%pgppv%
`VT^f;pvnp'f -p,f9wftf,fpfvff
|ffgffp{Gff fgZLnpJpBTpff;LV^>
"j
*!4:"
(N
?| | d||xK| | [
||
1
0.8
0.2
0
0.2
0
0.5
v/v
0.4
0.2
0.5
v/v
0.6
0.4
r/r
0.4
0.6
r/r
0.4
0.6
r/r
0.6
midship
1
0.8
midship
1
0.8
midship
1
0.8
midship
1
0.8
r/r
r/r
midship
OEEVM
MM
OEEVM fine grid
MM fine grid
EXP DTMB AFF1
0.2
0
0.5
v/v
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.5
v/v
0.5
v/v
D L|nf-.|V9|Lf%0gffmV
65 )+,
65 ' 2
s!
5 ' +,
65 '
65 '+,)
r.
L.
70
60
50
u+
40
30
20
10
10
10
+
y
10
10
afLDf!fLfL|n;fpf
TL^wf|pLBfffp;f^T
LLMfZ|wL|nJZ|
|fgfT8 VB-gJw
fT8Tpjf'fpNf8Np
zpB@fVfg
|LjnBp|Lvv,N9fn
ffL%^fLpfffV,f|f|
fL| LgVBv'%pMVs
ff|fpDfNB^!pD|L D N ffN%f^L|nJ
,@fpBvp,w f%Lp% f@af8vLL@pMD`LV
p,Bv'%Z%pGVN
.
"+*,j
.- +
*!4:"
[g|fpfLjf
v LLT;|pNppMwfp
f;LDp;fwLLLf
pB`|V
wV0VTf;'BLLgL
fLVtBtffB|gpvJf
|{Tpffff8.B
f,
%Zf-ppBf-V
gZftfpwtffB|ff|
Zfftf8>fLpMf
ff|B'B|X%f|f^ff!L
gfLf%>VwpvXL
!pnpLZf|ff|pw'fp
%fJ^ffgfL.%f%
DfVsvgv|fp'f9V n
ffVT>ZBva>nfpfv
fpfpff|fBff|-f%
fp^|%fwfZL|ntpfL
.|nf'pfB8!f-
fLVf>^fVgtf8vLL
LVtBfZgpfLvwsp
ftpJfftL%9wtvp
JppJzf^L,v|
^sfNpgL%|pf
fV}V@f'ffLfsN
|pffMvaf%
CP
0.5
/1032
/5462
-0.5
D !>|DpMV9p!fTL8vLL
fp'f9B;fV^sf9ggB
g|p v0%ff ^ B D qw
gpfg|B|J87 9
vpJ^pJZf{wp
'f;'fLpsNfZB{^fZfVT
>
p;ffB|g|{ZN|L
gfLTMZTp8DB|MfTggB
g|'|X,LnwpfpVT fNvp@V`gfNpvf
f;B`,tv;p!f;fpJLZ B@pv>%JNLgg
fwp%fpf n%|G|pfwB|fVV fL%,0fjgff*B
VVff
pfnT,fffLnpL%pffsL| ffJfg;pfLp,Tfp
Tt'%fV0'fVwpXfNp !,pT |Lpgp%TVp
LL|np|%Xp'| `^` Z>fwvpf%fpBpf
%t!JLL-ffB|ffZL TfgLZ`fLJ|%pZfwgL8fNLL
.fftVw,pffft| %V %ffff|pf
p9pgLfVwpf%8
!f-f j'gf nggf fL
L|Js%fJ^f-z LpTf,fL`fgs sMpv|
Bf}ffV
}| Bfpfpvp,f
pf8wpV^;vLjgpL pvfj pTftB8f|fLgf
ffn@L|sV Lf
Zf Bnfffppf9
pgfff.ffLjpf9B%fLL Zp@!,@gffLffNgf'|
fpgvf,pNf%fB8^ VNpffZpgNBfTgfLZpBTa
VG|af@Lnpf%wnffTLnfL ggB8ff|{
fzs%8vpjwVV
fp'aVfB;fp'f; gpfDgj|tB|gJVZ f7 9LpnfL9jp^fL
fV6JZL'%T`Nfg p[jjBNsfVT[!`f
fJp^VTf nfv|nT,fNp{pJf |XfgJT@@L,fNB
p
v'%pBpVff@D^NfBv
`VT f
n f Tf,!`tf,jg;
vpXfwp,%|a%f|f V-fNNfgv!`9f
v|jff
vf ff[f L%p%pzfjvX fLp
q
pM';!wvXZVM`gg Mw%L`;vp;
pp;|f8pV^ff|`ff;V fLLL fJppXB
ffwpDfN%ff^^ggB vLLg,p{B8# 7 9 w {%^JT
fpvff|@f-f-pwfJ BB'%^f>V@
LNwfff|fpL j8Lpps B{% ffp
-1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
x/L
=
n
.s.
.
@LG|`7 9pZvX;nMNML
%N -aLVf VG|p
f;g
ff,f9p
tZ|JfM!JfpMfJ
fLJ|%f@pLNLnfL: 7 9
VXna@f!vXL^pG^B8
L9jgfjnVfJfff
|B%f!p'v@ 9
gf;f;fV^Jg
f|af%; 7 9jV < pf
Mjv;fg' 79p p= <
gfNpvp^^pf>DMpf" 7 9wLgf
L pJ|Lf%pNT^
BL@pJvp'X ppf'L
v^ntMvp
p j
^f,BgpLvf |nMg8f
LL^L` V%L%LL
f@f@MX@f'fvp
ffpDnpp|
ff.'fsVM E 'gffzpL
vgV^vT!,VM> 7 9;Vpap
wpffpLwfVf0'%
^ff%wzfLvg
|? 7 9v|nTfVMJn
ppTp%fpf!X^f
gTVB MLVp>ffLf
pwp`fZ spf%
Dfg%;|'pfj^f
f!p';Lp&;gf p^fwL
nMs tp,|Lv
nJ|v%" $
%`p^fZfVTsfp z {
MpgT|L'!LfL
NV.6 0fLf, j!`
g @BBswv|nTZ s,f
|LvpBVDLpNZw^a
^f|Lvpp'Vp fLN
f $ & pf% fBLfX fp !ffL
p'Gv|nT,
fLsLL@pf{!w;f'p
pLfp}pvp}-G
LTvpffVpBL%DV>fwg
paBLLjfjp^,BL'fL
ftf'LfZgfL%vV!f
fJgwp>fNgft,f@Ltg
f|
.
1
towed hull OEEVM
towed hull MM
self-propelled hull OEEVM
self-propelled hull MM
EXP DTMB AFF8
r.
#
0.5
-0.5
&%
-1
0.2
0.22
0.24
.s.
!
0.5
-1
0.87
0.88
0.89
/14@2
0.9
x/L
0.91
0.92
0.93
Dqw
gpfg|B|J87 9
j%f,fMpZsf,v'fL
Tp= < p p < pNppspwf
fvLfVM,!`f
v
2.5
5 '&,*)
1.5
r/r
/21
-0.5
0.3
*) +%
/ 1
0.28
midship
r.
/1032
CP
0.26
x/L
0.5
.
.s.
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
v/v
-!
65 '+,)
BA DC(-C(&&&
n
-fVftf8fgf;f
fpfLL;gMpfN@pwf;pf
f%f^vpvf!f`wg
f|ftfJ^ft;wp%LfZ;
gg|@ffgf*LV
f9gwp Tfg%f9fjpg
fLL|f@^pVf;|g
pL|f0ZfvtfBz|LvL
fZfsvg-fp@L
6VGpwfpf%Jf.g
p.VfB8ff|
Lff'%f%pf-f
p'f!fp@|pf^fZVNvB
ffg^jgnfp^fpVf>
zf
fgw%fNgwf@JLn
fLfNV{fMLfXLXLV|
LLD|LgDpB!%f|`fTv`|
f,p,fNgfp*VN
fMfGGg;@f'V
pf9gf8Jf%JV^
n%6wvtg9jL
fJBZpwLZfsfp;V;
fN^@^f!|%^pDp^fZL
fp[LVpZZ|L[[f
LfzwsVf.pppff
pwfD^ffTV9LnNp
Lf0fsp[p8pg.s
LNw'LLV}L|n|
pVf'v@fpfVf'pJ
|^afXjpf;tLVm|
Bnspp8pgGMw!npfsn
zf@V B8pfp
L|0wGv|nT
vX^fJLf!%;va{Lap'V
p,
f^B;v-p
|fpfwf @n MVV8f
fD' ng %p|
w^t%n
ff9sfgz%JLnfL
fVgpNXv;pV
pfjp@fLVNtwJ|L
|pTfLLaZsfJ|
ffpfmBn,|pVf
fLpjf'|
fsBV^v!vgZ,'fVNf'|L
/1032
Kt, 10*Kq
1.5
0.5
0.5
/14@2
1.5
D Mpfp!|f f
VfL'LL^pvV,vTpf
g
BVpfaZLp|B|J|%`
>LfTp8pg^DLG%`L8
w'fVfgLfZfgv!gp%s
zfLVLfwLVJpsf
ZffJLntVG^fZv
v^TpVM@fL%,ff
fst%|.|G|JM!'fL
Bpf8ff|Mpp^v,ffg%f
Dfg fg'; Vf
mTpffn0f L
vfV @BDB LL-Tg
w^%MgV^pffjn%Tw
L{N|fp86v%
Kt
10*Kq
Kt EXP Taylor et al
10*Kq EXP Taylor et al
Kt EXP Chesnakas & Jessup
10*EXP Chesnakas & Jessup
.
zLg[LV|-B;vsp %B*w
p af|Lv%T@f%gfpff
vsL|8f[ffVNp[L|p
pVgJw|pf-' LDp
,%fV^'{vVpsf'p
%f fsf fB8}Df
vDfgXN|pf'pvfLp
Egfgsf%-|B|J@
1 F=G %ZpzI HK
J 1 F=G BXfv
^f E >fafg) Jza'% GsfTL
pwL|n@ FsNLgn,p *fNLpf^
f'f @BL'%LpV D M%gfffV^p
fN%ffpDpf|L
Vfjp
V ff6f8v
>|Lpf
MLNC C
ZNtT8BV^VNLpMf
vsff|p0jg wp> ntfJ^|LjL
wpt^Jsf|fpfpf9ffL L|f,fZfgfpV0L|
gfpp;ffL|VfsgpLV
Lf6p%f0Lpp TfNpt^0jg,pnMfpps*w-;wpgg`%
vvpzfVf9fBp
f;p^f8 wp@TZNgfg;V Bfff%f'f^t^fg.f9sfT^fT%.V*gBp|fff
fw!
Bvp,>@fT;^'MT wpLsfLfvffpMff
ff%gp|fpfgLfsLLpf
Lv LMfZ n |ffNZZTf^Lgf
ff!pfXMf'fVX!p Lfp# 7 9^Tfa'fLp@XXBp
vO ;vVNp;;LgjLVp%;v; vpffVTp'f@gv'f
[E W B
fL.ptpfftgfjV
!zg
.f.fn fVTJD`fwLG|TpZf
|TpLfMvnf@pvaVjV fpjBvBf|fv|nT9f,fVT
fpv[g0pfjgff@LpsV gv,gMfff{MB
ffntpf%'p nf%wv v|f{ jftfjg'p^fgff9Vw
Np-gBJVpBfff'Lgf VfMgp%DG;v^L|{
L
LfjfL|Bp wf@LGwp@pf,Bfv
vV@ZfM'LVfMBngf[ %fBsVf^-gV
fv@M'pZLXf;pL ff^pLgf^L%X
%fpLpL|nzLgfftpg fJ%g,BNvMapf'f
BfpVf0pZf*V^nfp v!;Zgfpf^pDfNB
f;ZTptf^@f
pwJv`fJVLvf'pjL
pf-B,f^JwJg^fV}'pff-B p& LfppBpL|n|
ffpffpfTJj|% %, $ ^p.B Lwv|nT.
pwf@g^L|pBpfffL fL|f.p6fVTzpmfg
gfpq|'^;g!%^!f fNf>V 9 {|LZp
f8vwp`Jffa%fpXf@f fwfX|Lv%pV^{XVMpB
ppvpNwp^|'ptfNVM LV.gsf8v
T
T:
=T
X&
(-
S
(&&
I
5 +,
G/21
6!
5 '&,*)
! `gafgfp6|G|BfMf
pX|f!BgpMV>fMf>L
fpaJp'ff@Bvvp'
^;|vfNfMBBfN`p
fJpvp8pfg|fBgf|
|fV%L,.ft^6
w>fVf
> ,Q P
-afg%f@af^>p Npf
;f, Vg;t! Bvp
|Lp
fzV EWE|f9t9pL
LL8T>wpfB!'LLw!`
swJD`|Lpf-Z%ffng|
s-|'LLMBL|
VNL^N!`^pMNp
VpfJvpzT^
BV^6f
jLL[vf||
fg
|f!p^f
spXff>f,VfVN|%p
p,|V0VfwwgZL
|LfffB|wps8ff|fBgf
gfL vp@L
gfNL%gfp;|VVf^!
p6|Bffzg
vsTtL
f.f>|LpfffVfzg
vgf^VXLLX fpDXff'
V^TXN ftf
ps'L
LL8
jB,vpftfM^f,;T
LL{wfNpwwpGfpf%
`ZVppf^!|f!pfX
GGMZ;ps^f|Lv%p`V
zL%DfZLLVM
JBLp%X^f!|LvX^f
pNVp> 'NfffBn>p
ff|Bnaf'B8'N
.f!fzzfjp@fsV
vff'B^Tg'f
L%Vsp9g;pff
f
g.L[!Jpfz!
ftL|JJ,gfjg|sL|
p@fT!VfZV|'fzf
|Lpf@wLfpX s8f
fJg8fLLsgp%N
h
sfaL,-LLfp
V{LfVZpvL>fTgpV Nf
;fp^B 'VG%T ff>
%vg!f'ff,fVZf|
|sgwpV
!pfafm^,wpfVf
!f f@gL8fLL;V
fmfv;ppfZa`;|'
Lpfgg0f9LVpg
VT Nsppgv|nT9|Lv%
0 [g;pf!TV-p
|Lf%^gg9f-s|L
LVfp;LL w|
Zfp{LLJpf;^fw
f|gfL0f;pf0Zff
^,%pfgNBfvff
wvf|wpv|LfwLf%
f|f8ff'f@sL@Lf
^f|LvftgL %V^9zL|p
^^pg%Zp|
-ft%'fafpfpfZ g
,fL@fVpfpDLL
Vf;Vff'Vf!pfJL
N|fgw^Lg
vff'|Lv%
J R S @
w0Mfq[ggBfBTLg|
| Vffp6 ^LgfVf @mL
%J f9 G! f|tMLg
[ wJf|,ffVBLB J
Bf}pff%0fffp
Mp' !gnJD`
r.
r.
.s
.
@ N
L%v ;_ TqDgBfLjDVmL|
!gsp |ITVT a` LVn
%L
; G
gBNXBVpgfZB'D;\ LT n Z)
>
LZB;L
V{ 8B>pTLNDV] Tp
!n!; BLpB L
@f j Z wp0T
Zb T|0B p!B @Jp L !fg
n LLc Tp BLXD {Bp
@pGt G pLf
Uf}Bp;>BpV BD@>p L
Lpfzp>%JDVW VM`
v L%M
@n T T p B T|
! `% DV
Lp%3 !gvf p |
% f pfp %fV
d Tp MfL|Np f
pe YV!f{pB
@Va; pM j GB T @
|fM pgf ! ^ # !M @
B] Tp vf! f Yp!!pp
!p; B,^X @VXZ Bv
Tp%f0w @V^@G T ff%,p
DVV!^L^f B'fTB t^f Xf
!fLvpwVfBB !{@L LBBv%p'% g TV
%LLB !f
%pg h
Ug %p D
|fB,ML ` VML
|fB^8 f V
pB
%pZ Xwga'vp!MX
{
V > jGf T|^DG*! >T
> B;V |LL^`L B
d Tpn! JpV%p%L%
G: T|'ffg
ZBw>f| L,LpfI TVB%X
!sXD > G%
V; ; Tw>Bp%fZpa`f
.
w
4.
.
c.
:.
w
.
.
.
r.
6.
2
.
.
$.
u
w
S
% Z
TBfL LLD
vf|;B;pfpD`% DVw
TM>Z!Bm TVVM BL
% L%sBV
Lff% T @ pM|pf Lv
^fN f % pf>wMwg
Bv'%I TV %f- G {%
Lppf N6 ZZ%f| j^p[
9G p TM%jf 0fn p
'a^J;B !q YV L
f%. Tp%^LV|w@ \ Yp G>g!!
%MMLn @\ YV @fB
M;{%L
Lp ' T pBfp |ZTB @f
pa%ff B{a`p LNB;V
D`= TVD > pG LB
D' nZaXp p;a@r T|w Tp
VffM|pfgfLf f
v^,DJBZwfB%D
LTL] Tp vfXT% %BV
@ @g@Gp ffZ T p
nMLf !'`%Bf`L
f.>p L9B;V. TVXD
%Vv%s L
- BpNpff; \ T B>!;v
v!s%f|fNpX`%M
DV TVL` > ppGB L
-Z 'Dpv '%pJZvpf%
T9`ff%@Tf n
%f`%] TpDM BBf Ta%L
s
Ln mZ BBf ZZp,f%
. T>p sB;pfpfZDV6g^
| fpf!BB TV fLXL %
L%pp
|2 >f| LLT
NM)Lgf{
|!g !fMD
>f B^!;v] Tp !BX!{X!
{Bae i ffpMj
>L@@ T|%fBfsB|
Mff fLLd TVB;Vp LL
p>%DV VfB^ @Mn
p j! k
>kXG{ - a !B !fn
gB ;pV w|pp` f: T|| TV>!B >Gf
D vpGB L
w + l" T|Bgfpf f f L;L
fJBJp fLI TV > wf
pMp' !gnspw> p|
vBTLLgLwpnp%p%
G VpGp NVf: T sf L
ffXpBfn'LL @fL LLaX|
L9f f%Z.`%'|@ TV
` > % LGpBs
p Zm p
Uf!f9`gfpBfp LLW V
npv Vv
Va;%ft>p 9Ga T>f L
B;V.`%JDVqVzBf%'
|fm TV!n! pv V%L%p
ff[XNB6![LgfL; T
fpff |L;>f L
B;V. TVD ppLBs%L
% n T|w p%fp.>pf
p|^s>f LB;pfI Tf
`f|I o`f|Np^fMg {
' aff!pf BBf- B
B fp{Bs
Lp >f LLpft|'
gN`V *Bf Lv
p
LL ; ^p0Vwp ;; T%Vgf
@Vf[ | f.B;V
p -%!`f%
MX `V TV
VpfM;pf; L" l
l fps-gg-Mv!pff
p LL
8
j.
2
=.
r.
s.
.
.
.
u
`.
(
`.
<
.
8.
X
.
<.
S
w
v.
s2
.
.
I.
w
.
c.
s
w
w
(.
.
.
s.
"
Re L
Improvements to the modelling of control surfaces typical of autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) are
examined. An instrumented scale model is used in wind
tunnel and towing tank experiments to measure performance of bowplanes and sternplanes under a range of
operating conditions. The experiment findings are compared to semi-empirical predictions available in the literature. The existing and improved control surface
models are then used in a control and dynamics simulation program.
Although significant differences were noted
between the control surface models from existing predictions and experiment, vehicle performance in simulation was not significantly changed. The findings
suggest that it is not necessary to include detailed models of control surface performance for preliminary control system design and vehicle simulation. Changes to
control surface geometry and layout on the vehicle were
also examined in simulation and were found to have a
significant influence on vehicle performance.
NOMENCLATURE
wave amplitude
aspect ratio, 2b exp C or 2b C
b , b exp
C
cj
chord length
error sensitivity to parameter j
CL
coefficient of lift
D
E, e j
hull diameter
depth to hull centreline
error, error for parameter j
J 1, J 2
performance indices
vehicle length
timestep, total number of timesteps
pitch rate
hull radius
n, N
q
R
u, v, w
w wave
velocity in x , y , z direction
wave velocity in z direction
x plane
x position of plane
Z' bp
Z' bp
angle of incidence
bowplane tip vortex strength
bp , sp
eff
ae
bowplane
sternplane
sp
bp
Z bp
Z sp
INTRODUCTION
Control and stability of an autonomous underwater
vehicle (AUV) depends on appropriate management of
the vehicle control surfaces. In order to compensate for
errors in position or pose, the vehicle controller determines the required orientations of control surfaces to
achieve corrective action. During vehicle and controller
development, particularly in the initial stages, sea trials
are often impractical and prohibitively expensive. Simulation is often the only means available by which to
examine performance. As AUVs are complex and nonlinear, the validity of such simulations is expected to
depend on the accuracy and realism of the vehicle
model used.
There is a wealth of information available to
predict the performance of AUV control surfaces for
simple conditions (see, for example, Dempsey, 1977,
Aucher, 1981, Whicker and Fehlner, 1958, or Lyons and
Bisgood, 1950). For more complicated conditions, it is
common practice to treat an AUV as a set of decoupled
subsystems (Lea et al., 1999); the coupling and unmodelled effects that remain as assumed to be small and are
treated as disturbances (Jalving, 1994, Healey and
Lienard, 1993). In terms of the control system, greater
precision is required in model accuracy as the closedloop bandwidth is increased; conversely, the requirements on model accuracy are relaxed if the closed-loop
bandwidth is decreased (see, for example, strm and
Wittenmark, 1997).
The current work focuses on the inter-relationship between control surface modelling and simulation
for an AUV. Systematic experiments were conducted in
wind tunnel and towing tank facilities with the objective
of improving the understanding of control surface
hydrodynamics. Particular attention was given to nonlinear control surface performance characteristics and
coupling effects. Flow interactions between control surfaces, the effect of the body in yaw and trim, and the
free surface influence were examined in detail. Numerical models characterizing the control surface behaviour
were created and used in a control and dynamics simulation package in the Simulink environment in MATLAB.
Through simulation, the significance of
including or neglecting the new control surface hydrodynamic information was determined. In addition, simulations were used to examine the performance of a
range of control surface configurations. Although not
discussed in this paper, the new control surface models
were also used in an attempt to develop of a more robust
control system. Existing tools used in control surface
hydrodynamic modelling are discussed in the next section. Following sections describe the design and results
of physical experiments and the development and find-
(1)
where is the flow angle of incidence, a e is the effective aspect ratio, is the quarter-chord sweep angle,
and is the taper ratio. The effective aspect ratio for an
isolated plane is defined as
2b exp
a e = ------------C
(2)
(3)
(4)
R2
*
R
C L = --- 1 ------ * 1 ------ 1 + --- 1 3 ---- (5)
C
2
11
b
b2
b
* = ---- 1 -----2-
C
b
(6)
(7)
qx
w
wave
plane
- is the trim angle, --------------------------------------- is the angle
hull, --U
plane
U
w w wave qx plane
local
resultant
flow vector
yR
(8)
eff
R 2
= + 1 + 1 + --- dy
y
(9)
Considering specifically the influence on submarinelike control surfaces there is limited information available. In calm water, Waldin et al. (1955) experimentally
demonstrated that there is negligible surface effect on a
rectangular plate at an angle of incidence for depths
greater than roughly one chord-length. Surface waves
on the other hand produce a cyclic flow field that diminishes in magnitude with depth. Since the wave induced
velocity is typically small in comparison to the forward
speed of the vehicle, it is common practice to approximate the wave effect on the planes by simply computing
the wave induced change to the angle of incidence (see,
for example, Field, 2000, or Bystrm, 1988). For a single frequency sinusoidal wave, particles trace out circles
with a constant speed of
Value
overall length, L
8.534 m
hull diameter, D
1m
dry mass
4500 kg
(-0.489, 0, 0.022) L
power
350 HP
top speed (while equipped with a tow- 9.3 m/s (18 knots)
fish housed at the keel)
2d
2g- e --------
U wave = a --------
(10)
b exp L
ae
standard (bowplane)
0.0613
3.07
standard (sternplane)
0.0613
3.07
long
0.0810
4.06
short
0.0530
2.66
(11)
Table 3: Plane Locations
Name
EXPERIMENT DESIGN
Experiments were conducted using a scale model in a
towing tank and a low speed wind tunnel both at the
University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada.
The 60 m towing tank had a carriage capable of moving
at speeds up to 3.5 m/s and a wave maker. The open circuit wind tunnel had a 1.5 x 2.4 m cross-section and
maximum windspeed of approximately 20 m/s. A
sophisticated one-quarter scale model of the International Submarine Engineering (ISE) DOLPHIN Mark II
AUV was designed and built for this research (see
Figure 1). Basic specifications of the full-scale DOLPHIN are outlined in Table 1.
All-movable, NACA 0025 planes were used
with the model. The planes were interchangeable and
were constructed in a range of different geometries (an
abbreviated list is outlined in Table 2). The model was
constructed such that the plane positions on the vehicle
could also be changed; a shortened list of plane posi-
dihedral
0.261
0.010
standard sternplane
0.906
-0.002
anhedral bowplane
0.261
-30
Y-tail (sternplane)
0.882
0.008
45
keelplanes
0.557
0.225
standard bowplane
EXPERIMENT RESULTS
Five main areas were considered through experiment:
the performance of isolated planes; the performance of
body mounted planes; the effect of body orientation on
plane performance; the flow interaction between bowplanes and sternplanes; and the effect of the free surface
on plane performance.
Force
C L = ----------------------------1--- 2
U b exp C
2
Z bp
Z' bp = -------------------1
--- U 2 L 2
2
2.0 10 6 ).
(13)
(12)
0
Experimental Data
-0.001
Aucher (1981)
-0.002
-0.003
-30
-20
-10
0
bp [deg]
10
20
30
Experimental Data
-0.2
Aucher (1981)
-0.4
CL
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
eff = + 1.5
(14)
-1.4
0
10
20
[deg]
30
40
The bowplane force is expressed in terms of the effective deflection as the independent variable in Figure 6.
As shown, the data for different trim angles are well
described by a single curve. Thus, by using the effective
deflection from above, the representation of the bowplane performance in trim was greatly simplified; this is
desirable for modelling and control system design due
to both simplicity and predictive capability.
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.001
Z'bp
Z'bp
0.000
Trim angle [deg]
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
-0.001
-0.002
0.000
Yaw angle [deg]
10
8
6
4
2
-0.001
20
-20
16
-16
8
0
-8
Error scale
-0.002
-30
-20
-10
10
20
30
-30
-20
-10
bp [deg]
10
20
30
bp [deg]
0.002
Z'bp
0.001
0.000
Trim angle [deg]
-10
2
-8
4
-6
6
-4
8
-2
10
0
-0.001
-0.002
-30
-20
-10
10
20
30
0.0004
0.0002
Z'sp
0.0000
Standard Planes
-0.0002
Anhedral Bowplanes
Predicted Interaction
-0.0004
-20
-15
-10
-5
10
15
20
bp [deg]
(b)
Figure 8: Sample helium bubble flow visualization images
showing (a) the migration of bubbles to the vortex core,
Re L = 2.5 10 6 , = 0 , bp = 16 ; and (b) the path of the
tip vortex (identified by the arrow) in relation ot the vehicle
Re L = 2.5 10 6 , = 6 , bp = 8
(15)
(16)
---------2g
Z' wave, g = C 0 ---------- a 2 e
(17)
0.3
Z'sp
Z'bp
Z wave
Z' wave, g = ---------------1
--- gL 3
2
0.2
0.1
this case). The agreement between prediction and measurement is good for d D 1 . At d D = 0.5 , hull
immersion was noted and as a result the prediction overestimated the wave induced force.
0.0
-10
-5
0
[deg]
10
15
30.0
Experimental Data
25.0
Predicted Value
20.0
Z'wave,g
-15
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0
0.5
1.5
2
d/D
2.5
3.5
WD
Navigation
Module
r+
Controller
Sensors
and Filters
Submarine
Model
Data
Recorder
1.0
Experimental Data
0.8
SN
Predicted Value
d/D = 1.5
Z'wave
0.6
0.4
d/D = 3.5
0.2
0.0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Fr
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT
Simulations were conducted to determine the importance of accurate control surface hydrodynamic modelling and to examine the effect of control surface
geometry and location on vehicle performance. The
vehicle control and dynamics simulation package was
developed in the Simulink environment of MATLAB based on work originally conducted by Field
(2000). The layout of the simulator is shown in
Figure 13. In short, the navigation module determined
the appropriate trajectory for path following based on
the current vehicle position and velocity; the controller
computed the required plane deflections for corrective
action to an error in position or velocity; the submarine
model represented the dynamics and hydrodynamics of
the submarine; and realistic measurements of the vehicle state were modelled with noise and filters and then
used to complete the feedback loop.
The information describing the hydrodynamic
performance on control surfaces was contained in the
submarine model block. The structure of this block is
Wave
Influence on
Flow Angle
Transport
Delay
Wave Forces
on body
Actuator
Dynamics
Plane
Saturation
Plane
Forces
Inverse Mass
Matrix
Integrator
Body Forces
Body
Influence on
Flow Angle
Figure 14: The submarine block diagram is shown. The plane forces are computed based on the computed angle of incidence, ,
and are combined with body forces. The vehicle acceleration is computed and is integrated to determine the vehicle state.
(18)
120 m
x
depth change
R
2R
~145 m run-out
Symbol
Error Weight
lateral position
c y = 20 m 1
vertical position
c z = 20 m 1
roll angle
c = 36 rad 1
trim angle
c = 36 rad 1
yaw angle
c = 44 rad 1
x
3.0 m
3.5 m
z
n=1
(19)
where N was the total number of time-steps not including the turn (N = 2700 for results presented in this
paper). The second performance index was the significant amplitude from the error response spectrum for
straight line motion in head seas of sea state three. That
is,
J2 = 2
S E ( n )
(20)
n=0
SIMULATION RESULTS
Four aspects in particular were considered through the
simulations:
the influence of an inaccurate model of control surface hydrodynamic performance on vehicle behaviour in simulation
the influence of an inaccurate model of control surface hydrodynamic performance on the control system design
the influence of changes in control surface geometry
to vehicle performance
the influence of changes to control surface placement on the vehicle to vehicle performance
The results described in this paper are based on
an LQG/LTR controller as outlined by Field (2002). It
must be stressed that the effect of control surfaces on the
overall vehicle performance is jointly dependent on the
hydrodynamic characteristics and the utilization (controller design). Although not presented here, additional
work has been conducted with PD, sliding mode, and
fuzzy logic to examine the control system influence.
The reader is referred to (Ostafichuk, 2004) for further
information.
Six different cases involving the accuracy of
the control surface hydrodynamic model used in simulation were examined. These simulations were conducted
in calm water only. The baseline condition was a standard model developed from existing information in the
literature (as given by Aucher, 1981, and Whicker and
Fehlner, 1958, for example). The effects of trim, yaw,
plane stall, and bowplane-sternplane interaction (as out-
Condition
J1
Max ( E n ) 10 3
standard model
2.63
48.9
trim effect
2.35
39.7
yaw effect
2.48
51.8
plane stall
2.51
42.7
plane interaction
2.20
39.4
all effects
2.27
58.1
Condition
J1
Max ( E n ) 10 3
Condition
J1
J2
Max ( E n ) 10 3
standard model
2.27
58.1
standard planes
15.4
479
64.3
trim effect
2.27
58.1
anhedral bowplanes
16.0
231
55.3
yaw effect
2.27
58.1
Y-tail
13.6
430
32.3
plane stall
2.27
58.1
keel planes
33.8
338
172.3
plane interaction
2.42
63.9
18.5
430
50.6
all effects
2.42
63.9
There were significant variations in performance when the plane geometry and placement were
varied. Results for an abbreviated list of test cases is
summarized in Table 7 and Table 8. The plane geometries considered included the standard bowplanes and
sternplanes; the long bowplanes with the standard sternplanes; the short bowplanes with the standard sternplanes; and the standard bowplanes with the long
sternplanes. The plane locations considered included
the anhedral bowplanes with the standard sternplanes;
the standard bowplanes with a Y-tail (dihedral sternplanes); and the keel planes with the standard sternplanes. (See Table 2 and Table 3 for the geometric
details of these configurations.) In all cases, simulations
were conducted at sea state three.
Table 7: Plane Geometry Influence on Performance
Condition
J1
J2
Max ( E n ) 10 3
standard planes
15.4
479
64.3
long bowplanes
12.6
222
39.1
short bowplanes
20.4
397
71.2
long sternplanes
14.1
308
49.8
bowplanes with the Y-tailwas also examined. Unfortunately this combination did not show any significant
improvement in performance compared to the standard
configuration.
CONCLUSIONS
The performance of all-movable control surfaces on an
AUV was examined through experiment and simulation.
The experiments showed that existing methods in the
literature used to predict the performance of isolated and
body mounted planes are reasonably accurate. These
methods do not model stall behaviour so the physical
operating range must be sufficiently small. The wave
influence on plane performance measured in experiments also closely agreed with analytically derived predictions from linear wave theory. Significant changes in
plane performance were noted with changing body orientation (trim and yaw). In addition, there was strong
interaction (downwash) measured on the sternplanes as
a result of the bowplane tip vortices. The interaction
was accurately predicted with a simple potential flow
model and was found to be strongly dependent on control surface layout and body orientation.
The descriptions of hydrodynamic performance of the planes drawn from the literature and from
the experimental work were incorporated in a control
and dynamics simulation program in MATLAB. Simulations showed that the differences in the models used
to represent control surfaces behaviour had only limited
effect on the overall vehicle performance. The control
was designed based on an assumed model of plane
hydrodynamics but again only limited differences in
vehicle performance were noted as the plane model used
in controller design was changed. Finally, the influence
of changes to control surface geometry and placement
on the test vehicle was examined with the simulations.
Significant changes in vehicle performance were noted;
in particular, lengthened bowplanes and planes oriented
with dihedral (or anhedral) typically showed either
REFERENCES
An, E. and Smith, S.M., "An Experimental Self-Motion
Study of the Ocean Explorer AUV in Controlled Sea
States." IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, Vol. 23,
No. 3, July 1998.
strm, K.J., and Wittenmark, B., Computer Controlled
Systems, 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, NJ, 1997, pp. 183-6.
Aucher, M. Submarine Dynamics, Ingenieur general
de l'armement, Excerpted from Sciences et Techniques
de L'Armement, Memorial de lArtillerie francaise,
Paris, France. 1981.
Barlow, J.B., Rae, W.H. Jr., and Pope, A., Low-Speed
Wind Tunnel Testing, 3rd Ed., John Wiley and Sons,
Toronto, 1999, pp. 315-20.
Bullivant, W.K., Tests of the NACA 0025 and 0035
Airfoils in the Full-Scale Wind Tunnel. NACA Report
No. 708, 1941.
Bystrm, L. "Adaptive Control of a Submarine in a
Snorting Condition in Waves." Proceedings of Warship
88, the International Symposium on Conventional Naval
Submarines, 3-5 May, 1988.
Dempsey, E.M., Static Stability Characteristics of a
Systematic Series of Stern Control Surfaces on a Body
of Revolution, Report 77-0085, August, 1977,
DTNSRDC, Bethesda, Maryland.
Dominguez, R. Effects of Yaw on Bowplane Performance on DOLPHIN. Dissertation, University of British Columbia, Canada, 2000.
Feldman, J. "DTNSRDC Revised Standard Submarine
Equations of Motion." report DTNSRDC/SPD-0393/09,
June 1979, David Taylor Naval Ship Research and
Development Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
Whicker, L.F., and Fehlner, L,F., Free-Stream Characteristics of a Family of Low-Aspect-Ratio, All-Movable
Control Surfaces for Application to Ship Design,
x, u, X
p, K
q, M
r, N
y
z
W = mg
x, y, z
x0 , y 0 , z 0
xB , y B , z B
xF W , z F W
xG , y G , z G
x
X, Y, Z
XP
r , s , b
, ,
NOTATION
Standard notation is used (Feldman, 1979). Nondimensionalization is indicated by a prime 0 and
is based on `, , and U ; eg, m0 = m/( 21 `3 ),
g 0 = g`/U 2, q 0 = q`/U , etc.
B = V g Buoyancy.
BG
g
F V , FH
Gravitational constant.
Vertical and horizontal plane forces or
moments.
m, m0
K, M, N
`
p, q, r
R
u, v, w
Overall speed: u2 + v 2 + w2
Volume of the external hydrodynamic
envelope, including main ballast tanks.
U
V
y, v, Y
z, w, Z
U
v
v 2 + w2
Weight within V .
Submarine body fixed axes.
Inertial (earth-fixed) axes.
Center of buoyancy (centroid of V ).
Sail center of pressure coordinates.
Center of gravity (centroid of m).
Axial coordinate of blown mass centroid.
Body axis forces.
Effect of propulsion on X force.
Rudder, stern, and foreplane deflections.
The small quantities: y 0 , , , v, p, r.
Yaw, pitch, and roll Euler angles.
v = U sin sin
p
v 2 + w2 = U sin
(1)
second order products in lateral force, rolling moment, and yawing moment damping terms. The Ecriterion stability limit does not explain the diesel
submarine instabilities discussed in this paper.
Booths second F3 -criterion requires a numerical solution. It contains hydrostatic terms and,
Booth suggests, becomes relevant at high incidence
and when the blown mass centroid is well forward.
However, this and the E-criterion instability are just
two of five possible stability criteria that can be extracted from his analysis. This has not been pursued in favor of the analysis presented below, which
is thought to be more general. Booths effort was
admirable given that his analytical analysis would
have been done by hand, a limitation that modern
mathematical software has eliminated.
Booth (1977b) also considers the near vertical ascent case (very high flow incidence). He retains the
same coefficient model as for forward motion but,
appropriately, carries out special high incidence experiments to acquire coefficient values that better
describe this flow regime. As he acknowledges, his
quasi-steady stability analysis does not model the
unsteady forces associated with separation and vortex shedding at very high incidence.
In both of Booths papers, qualitative results
from experimental tank tests are presented. These
tests, with an unpropelled buoyant model, show that
roll is coupled strongly with yaw, a significant result.
Papoulias and McKinley (1994) also calculate the
stability of a submarine-like body during buoyant
ascent. Their analysis uses the same second order
coefficient model throughout the entire flow regime
which includes pitch and roll angles of 180 degrees.
Although such a model cannot be realistic, unsteady
forces aside, they suggest that it should nevertheless
provide qualitatively meaningful results. They discover an interesting inverted pendulum stability at
extreme pitch angles and discuss a roll instability
about this point, but this is of little interest to submariners who prefer to maintain low to moderate
pitch angles and are almost always able to do so. It
is not clear what the flow incidence angles are in this
analysis.
Haarhoff and Sharma (2000) consider the horizontal plane stability analysis of a surface ship. They
provide a good description of the mathematics and
physical insight for the terms in their equations.
The above methods analyze stability in 3 DOF
and are based on body axes state variables v, p, r
and roll angle , with the assumption that yaw angle is unnecessary because it does not explicitly
appear in the equations of motion. We show below
INTRODUCTION
PREVIOUS WORK
Stability Analyses
that should be included and, in fact, that its inclusion leads to a new stability limit.
These stability analyses are generally complex,
with limited analytical results available. Watt
(2001) does obtain a simple analytic expression modelling the balance in rolling moment between the stabilizing static and destabilizing sail hydrodynamic
forces in an ascending submarine. This 1 DOF analysis in extracts only a single stability limit and
ignores any coupling from yaw and sideslip motions.
Nevertheless, we show below that the result still provides a good estimate for this mode of instability.
The current 3 DOF analysis restricts itself to the
0 to 30 degree incidence range where model test data
are available that span the flow incidence and orientation angles (, ) of interest in the trials. That
is, we do not consider very high flow incidence where
unsteady vortex shedding makes maneuvering inherently unpredictable.
2.3
Submarine maneuvering simulations are traditionally based on the Gertler and Hagen (1967) quasisteady equations of motion. However, the quasisteady assumption in these equations limits their
usefulness.
Tinker (1978) studied unsteady effects on an unappended, blunt nosed body of revolution and concluded there were no appreciable fluid memory effects that needed to be accounted for. But he did
not consider the interaction of body vortices with
any appendages, or between sail shed vorticity and
the tailplanes.
Feldman (1975,1978) adds quasi-unsteady terms
to Gertler and Hagens coefficient based model.
These account for time history effects resulting from
vorticity trailing from the sail in an unsteady flow.
This vorticity is generated at the sail by the crossflow at the sail. The vorticity convects downstream
generating out-of-plane force on the afterbody (force
normal to the local crossflow) and rolling moment on
the tail. These are proportional to the local vortex
strength, which is itself proportional to the crossflow
at the sail when the vorticity was generated, approximately d/u seconds previously, where d is the local
distance aft of the sail. So quasi-steady theory is
used to predict locally generated vorticity and force,
but vorticity is allowed to convect unsteadily.
Boat
10001500
2
10001500
36
TRIALS DATA
x 0
x 0 =
(2)
The axial velocity u is measured by an electromagnetic (EM) log located on the top of the hull on the
center plane. For zero roll, the local velocity at the
log is u. As roll progresses, the local velocity will be
somewhat larger because of interference from crossflow over the hull. By assuming the measurement is
always u, the calculation of errs on the low side.
In Figure 1, the largest boat is at depth when
it pitches up to the desired angle for the rising
maneuver. It then blows two of its four main ballast
tanks. The downward force from the sternplanes and
the forward momentum initially generate a positive
w velocity before the blow progresses enough that
buoyancy makes w negative. Although propeller
rpm is constant throughout the maneuver, the axial
velocity u increases because of the buoyancy component in the axial direction, and from the thrust resulting from the hull sailing in the crossflow. Flow
incidence increases as the blowing progresses but
tapers off after blowing stops. The air continues to
expand in the ballast tanks, but incidence is kept in
check by the increasing forward speed. The maneuver was nominally carried out in a vertical plane (the
rudder was fixed) but the heading still varies.
Roll angle is small through most of the rise,
until just after the ballast tanks empty. At this time,
the continually expanding air in the tanks begins
escaping and possibly interacts with the sail. When
the submarine rises above the surface, it temporarily
loses static stability until water has drained from
the sail and deck casing. A large surface roll angle
= 4%
U
Complete
Blowing
Begin
Blowing
Ballast
30
20
10
0
10
20
20
40
30
60
40
80
50
10
10
20
20
40
z0
30
60
sensor limit
40
0
10
20
time (sec)
80
30
40
20
10
10
10
20
20
40
30
60
40
80
10
20
20
40
0
10
20
time (sec)
10
20
30
time (sec)
100
40
, , , (degrees)
U,
20
100
50
z0
, , , (degrees)
40
30
0
30
30
U (m/s), (%)
20
time (sec)
z0 (m)
, , , (degrees)
20
10
U (m/s), (%)
z0 (m)
, , , r (degrees)
sail
broach
nose
broach
30
30
30
20
10
10
20
20
40
30
60
40
80
50
100
60
0
10
20
30
time (sec)
40
50
120
U (m/s), (%)
z0 (m)
, , , (degrees)
Depth
Tanks
Empty
40
z0 (m)
0
Sail
Broaches
U (m/s), (%)
m
X
a0m sinm
m=2
m even
Conventional 6 DOF simulations of these maneuvers have been unable to reproduce any roll, yaw,
or sway instability, even with asymmetry added to
induce these motions when stability is lost.
4
n
X
n=1
m
X
(3a)
(3b)
m=2
0
= a11 cos sin sin
FH
n
X
n=1
m
X
m=2
(4a)
(4b)
p
v 2 + w2 |
(4c)
K = Kv uv
M = M u2 + Mw uw + M|w|u|w| + Mww |w
p
+ Mw|w| w v 2 + w2 + Mvv v 2
p
N = Nv uv + Nv|v| v v 2 + w2 + Nvw vw
(4d)
p
v 2 + w2 |
(4e)
(4f )
These are fit to the data over the usual 18 degree test range. Except for the third terms in (4c)
and (4e), which result in unrealistic discontinuities
in slope, these terms are all included in (3). Watt
(2001) discusses how the standard rolling moment
model reduces to (4d) for the HST wind tunnel tests.
The HST data are useful for the four quadrant
perspective they supply. Figure 9 plots the HST fits
against for constant values ((3b) is odd in ,
so the = 0 to 90 degree region reflects the negative
region in Figure 8).
We show below that horizontal plane stability is
determined by the slopes through the origin of the
curves in Figure 9. These slopes are not well rep-
0
2
30 20 10
6
Y 0 100
4
2
0
2
4
6
1
0
1
2
3
10 20 30
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
++
++
+++
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
++
+
+
+++
++
+++
++
+
+
+
+
+
+
++
+
+
+
++
+
+
++
+
+
+
30 20 10
2
1
+
+
++
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
++
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
++
++
++
+++
++
30
60
90
1
2
30 20 10 0 10 20 30
degrees
2
1
150
120
90
++++
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+++
+ ++
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
0
1
10 20 30
M 0 1000
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Z 0 100
+
+
+ +
+
+
+
K 0 1000
X 0 1000
+
++
+
+
+
+
+
30 20 10
3
1
0
1
2
10 20 30
++++
++
++
++
+
+
+
+
+
+
N 0 1000
+
+
++
++
+
+
+
++
++++
3
4
30 20 10 0 10 20 30
degrees
30 20 10 0 10 20 30
degrees
Figure 8 STR HST data; solid lines = fit with (3); dashed lines = fit with (4). The key applies to each plot.
2.5
2.0
K 0 1000
Y 0 100
24
18
12
30
1.5
1.0
0.5
N 0 1000
= 30
0.0
2
1
0
1
2
30
30
Figure 9 Cross plotting the HST fits from Figure 8; solid lines = fit with (3); dashed lines = fit with (4).
resented by the standard model for incidence angles
over 18 degrees. In fact, the model breaks down
at high incidence angles throughout the entire
range. Watt (2001) presents static rolling moment
data taken with the same generic model shape for
values up to 90 degrees (from a different facility).
Inherent unsteadiness aside, these data are even less
well represented by the standard model.
4.2
1.5
X 0 1000
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
44
4
44
44
444
44
44444444
+
44
+
+
+
+
+++
+
++
++
+
4
+
+++
44
++
+ + + + ++
+++++
44
4
4
44
444
444
444
44
44444444444
2.5
2.0
20
+ ++ + + +
+++++
++
1.5
1.0
++ +
+ + ++
+ ++ + + + + + + + +
10
0.5
0.0
4
444444
4444444444
44444444444444
+ ++ + + +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
10
20
30
3.0
30
Y 0 100
2.0
30
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
+
+
4
+
+
++
4
+
+
4
++
4
44
+++
4
44
+
4
+
44
4
+
4
4 ++
44
++
44
4
++
44 + + + +
4
4 ++
+
+
44 + + +
4
+
+
4
+
44
4
4
+
4
4
+
4
+ +
+
+
+
444
4
44
444
+
4
+ 4
+
444
4
+ 4
+4
+
++
4 4
+
4
4
4
4
+
4
+
+
4
+
+
4
+
+
4
+
4
+
+ + + + + ++ +
4
+
+
+
+
+
4
+
+
+
4
+
+
4
+
+
4
+
+
+
+
+
4
4
+
4
4
4
+
4
+
10
degrees
20
2.0
++ + + + + + + + + +
++ + +
++++++ +
++ + + +
++++
4444
44444444
444444
4444444444444
1.0
1.5
30
K 0 1000
Z 0 100
4
4 444444
4444
444
444
444
444
444
44
44
1.5
20
++ + + + + + + + + + +
444444444444444444444444444444 4
+ ++ + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
0.0
1.0
0.5
10
0.5
0.0
10
30
20
30
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
++
4
+
4
++
4
+
4
+
4
+
4
+
4
4 ++
44
4 +
44
4
4 ++
4
4 +
44
4 ++
44
4
4 +
44
4 + +
4
+
4
+
4
+ + 444 + + + + +
4
+
4 ++ ++
4
+++
+ + 44
4
+
44
4
++
4444
4 +44
++
44444
+
+
+
44
+ +
4444
4+
4
4
4
+
4
4
+44
+
+
+
+
4
4
4
4
4
4
+
+
4
4
4
+
+ ++ + + + + + + +
4
4
++
++
+
+
++
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
4
+
+
4
4
10
degrees
M 0 1000
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0
44
4
+ + ++ + + +
4+ + + + +
+ ++ + +
+ + ++ + ++ + + + + + + +
44
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
+
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
44
4
++
+4
+
+4
4444
4
4444
4
4
44
44444444
+ 4
+
444
+
+
+ 4
4
+
+
+
+ + +
44
+
4
++
++
++
+
+
4
+
+
++
+4
+
+ ++
4
+
+ ++
4+ + + + +
+
+
4
44
+
4
+
4
4
4
4
+
4
+
4
4
+
4
4
++ 4
4
++
44
+
4
4
44
+ +444
4
4444444
++++
1
10
N 0 1000
0.2
20
1.4
4
44
44 +
4 +
4 +
+
+
44
+
++
4
+
4
4 +
++ + +
+
4 ++
4
+
+
44
4
++
+
4
+ + + + +
4
44
+
4
4
44
+
+
4
+
44
+
4
+
4
+ 444
+
4
+ 4
+
+
4
+ 44
+
4
+ 4
+
4
+
+44
+4
4
+
+ 4
+4
4
4
+
+
4
+
4
4
4
+
+
4+
+ ++++ ++
+
4
+
+
4
+
4
4
+ +
4
4
4
+
4
+
+ +
+
+
+
4
+ + + + + + +
4
+ ++
+
+
+
+
4
+
4
+
+
4
4
44
4
+
4
4
44
4
4
4
4
4
44
444
4 44444
4
30
2
10
10
30
20
20
degrees
0.2
0.0
degrees
10
30
2.5
2.0
20
20
30
10
degrees
20
degrees
Figure 10 HSSDT roll sweep data and fits; , = 0 to 30 degrees with increments of 2 degrees.
8
30
20
10
0
30
Coefficient
1000
Standard
Error
Error
Bound
X0
0.07
0.3
Y 0, Z0
0.41
0.8
0.03
0.13
0.12
0.2
M ,N
0.9
Cd 0.8
0.7
0
Figure 11
= Cd
xn b(x)w(x)|w(x)| dx + O 2
`
(7)
`2
Az
(9)
R
where Az = ` b(x) dx. Shown in Figure 11, this
function models the variation in the drag coefficient
with incidence, though the variation is not large at
moderate to high incidence angles where it matters.
The ZHST function is used since it was fit to two
quadrant data, unlike the HSSDT data. Thus, its
coefficients for even and odd functions in w should
be well resolved. In any case, Az is exactly the same
for the HST and HSSDT configurations.
The addition of (5) and (7) to the equations of
motion duplicates Cd ()v|w| and Cd ()w|w| terms
already present in the Figure 10 fits. These functions
must be subtracted from the fits to ensure consistency at q, r = 0. This is done in the modified Y, N
forces Ymod , Nmod in 4.6 below.
xn h(x)v(x)|w(x)| dx + O 3
30
tare and interference correction procedure. The error bound is a simple summation of the magnitudes
of all sources of error in a single measurement. In all
cases, the RMS error of the fits shown in Figure 10
is less than the standard error in Table 2.
10
20
degrees
(5)
100
0.4
F (, )/
FHSSDT (, )/ =0
Extrapolated Feldman N
model, Boat B
0.2
0
Nopf
=0
0.6
0
Yopf
=0
100
STR Y data
N0
NHSSDT
Extrapolated Feldman Y
model, Boat B
10
20
10
20
degrees
30
Figure 13 Normalized STR generic model stability derivatives. The N derivatives are separated
to avoid a singularity; they are each normalized by
|NHSSDT /| at = 30.
30
degrees
Figure 12 The Y and N out-of-plane force contribution to the steady state stability derivatives for
Boat B and the generic STR hull form.
4.4
F = KHSSD
3
0
F = Y0
STR N data
When the ratio N/Y is plotted using (10), the effective point of application of the out-of-plane force
is seen to be x = 0.2` at = 0 and to gradually move forward through x = 0 at = 22 to 25
degrees, the location of the zero in Nopf . This is consistent with our understanding that vorticity trailing
from the sail progressively separates from the afterbody, from the tail first and moving forward, with
increasing incidence.
The deck on the HSSDT model is not large and
so the out-of-plane force contribution to rolling moment is small and is ignored. However, the trailing
sail vorticity does interact with the tail. As previously noted, the tail interaction is subtracted out
of the rolling moment stability derivatives by basing
them on HSSD steady state rolling moment data.
Figure 13 shows how the stability derivatives
change when the tail is removed and the out-of-plane
force is subtracted to create the F0 forces. There is
a reduction of about 30% to the N derivative at
moderate incidence angles, a common state during
buoyant ascent. The change to the K derivative
is initially large but falls off quickly as the trailing
vortex separates from the hull and tail. The change
to the Y derivative is largest at moderate incidence
angles. These changes would be much larger if they
were based on the standard model. The change in
K, for example, would result in the 80% increase at
= 0 remaining constant at all incidence angles.
The zero crossing in N0 / at 25 degrees
is, we show below, the source of an instability that
moves to lower values under certain conditions.
Quasi-Unsteady Effects
4.7
The , angles are a convenient way to conceptualize the forces for the rising stability problem. They
simplify roll sweep descriptions when acquiring test
data. They allow Fourier analysis to be used as a
guide for choosing high order fitting functions and
for ensuring that the flow description for a given
harmonic is complete. And they simplify the calculation of roll stability derivatives since is linear in
the perturbation variables while is independent
of them (within O(2 )).
The downside to using this flow description is
added complexity when sweeping through zero incidence, as illustrated in Figure 8 by the discontinuity in that results. When choosing Fourier terms
for fitting data, one must be careful that unnatural discontinuities in the flow characteristics are not
introduced by the discontinuity.
5
5.1
(12a)
(12b)
Nvisc = Nmod (, ) + Nr ur + Np up
STABILITY ANALYSIS
Theory
Yvisc = Ymod (, ) + Yr ur + Yp up
u = x 0 cos z0 sin
(14a)
v = x 0 ( sin ) + y 0 + z0 cos
(14b)
w = x 0 sin + z0 cos
(14c)
p = sin
(14d)
= w x 0 + y 0
(13a)
q =
(14e)
r = cos
(14f )
11
means that u, w, q do not respond to the perturbations and therefore can be treated as merely parameters in the stability analysis. Since only the
horizontal plane equations take an active role in the
analysis, we call it a 3 DOF analysis. However, since
the vertical plane equations have been accounted for
and are used below to determine vertical plane velocities, this could be considered a 6 DOF analysis.
The linearized horizontal plane equations of motion are:
m v wp + ur + zG (qr p)
+ xG (qp + r)
= Yv v + Yp p + Yr r + Ywp wp + Ypq pq
+ Yvisc (B W ) cos
B W = B
(15a)
= Kv v + Kp p + Kr r + Kwp wp + Kpq pq
+ Kvq vq + Kwr wr + Kqr qr
+ Kvisc + (zB B zG W ) cos
(15b)
= Nv v + Np p + Nr r + Nwp wp + Npq pq
(15c)
(16a)
v = w
+ w x0 x 0 + y0
cos
p = sin q
= Zu u + Zw w + Zq q
Iy q + m zG (u + wq) xG (w uq)
= Mu u + Mw w + Mq q
(16b)
(18a)
(18b)
sin q
q
r = cos q
+ Zvisc + ZS u2 s + Zb u2 b
(B W ) cos
(17)
xB x
1
The mass m and the moment of inertia I dependence on and x is accounted for. Any vertical
or lateral displacements of the blown mass centroid
are ignored.
m w uq zG q 2 xG q
and xG =
(18c)
F (, ) =
+ Mvisc + MS u2 s + Mb u2 b
x 0
y
+ 0
w
w
(19)
since F (, 0) = 0, F/ (, 0) = 0, and =
v/w + O(3 ) (see (3b), (1), and (14b)).
generic analysis that follows, the x 0 term is written in terms of u, w, and using (14a and c). This
expression is differentiated in time to give x0 as a
function of u, w, , q, u,
and w.
Then, u and w are
obtained from the axial and normal force equations
of motion with Xw , Xq , s , b = 0.
This leaves u, w, , q, q.
We solve for stability in
U, space which is based on the u, w parameters.
The solutions are a function of the parameters , q, q
and the blown mass parameters , x . Appropriate
values are chosen based on the trials results.
We also assume self-propulsion at zero incidence
for all speeds. That is, XP = XHSSDT (0, 0).
Ys2 + Y s + Y
Ks2 + K s + K
Ns2 + N s + N
Ys2 + Y s + Y
Ks2 + K s + K
Ns2 + N s + N
(20)
(22)
www.maplesoft.com
13
a) q 0, q0 = 0
= 0.04
x = 0.05
d) q 0 = 0.5, q0 = 0
= 0.04
x = 0.05
2
max(<(s))
max(<(s))
2
Unstable
1
0
25
20
15
10
Stable
5
0
14
12
10
25
20
15
10
6
U m/s
max(<(s))
max(<(s))
12
10
6
U m/s
1
0
1
0
5
0 14
12
10
25
20
15
10
6
U m/s
5
0 14
c) q 0 = 0, q0 = 2
= 0.04
x = 0.05
12
10
6
U m/s
f ) q 0 = 0, q0 = 0
= 0.055
x = 0.35
2
max(<(s))
2
1
0
25
20
15
10
e) q 0 = 0, q0 = 2
= 0.04
x = 0.05
25
20
15
10
0 14
b) q 0 = 0.5, q0 = 0
= 0.04
x = 0.05
max(<(s))
1
0
5
0 14
12
10
25
20
15
10
6
U m/s
5
0 14
12
10
6
U m/s
Figure 14 Stability calculations based on Trial A parameters and Trial B and C pitch rates. The red lines
are the zeros in the simplified A5 coefficient. The blue lines are from a simplified 1 DOF rolling moment
analysis in which local flow incidence at the sail as a function of q is accounted for.
14
Negative q, q values result in a receding instability and strong movement of the A5 instability towards = 0, especially at high speeds.
The Figure 14 calculations use = 0.04, except
for Figure 14f. When is doubled in the baseline
calculation of Figure 14a, there is a slight filling out
of the bulge and the A5 stability limit decreases to
about = 23 degrees. This is only a minor effect.
However, we show below that what really matters is
an increase in the product x , as shown in Figure
14f where and x values from Trials C are used.
Only the forward ballast tanks are blown in Trials
C so the blown mass centroid x is relatively far
forward. When this happens, the A5 stability limit
moves much closer to the origin.
Figure 14f provides an explanation for the instabilities in Trials C4, C5, and C6, all of which occur at
relatively high incidence, large negative pitch rates,
and with a large x value. However, the instabilities in Trials A and B remain unexplained. The
discrepancy in Trial A, for example, is equivalent to
either a 50% error in the BG value or an error half
as large in ship speed, which is consistent since the
hydrodynamic forces go as the square of the speed.
This gives:
A0 (m0 Yv0 )(Ix0 Kp0 )(Iz0 Nr0 ) cos
A5 x00 C0 + Cq q 0 + Cq q0
C0 = B 0 cos
Cq =
0
1 Nmod
0
+
+ Cd H1 (w, q)
(m
w0
0
1 Ymod
0
0
+ x m0
+ Cd H0 (w, q)
(27b)
w0
I y = Iz ,
Mq = Nr
Yv0 )
0
1 KHSSD
w0
(27c)
(24)
zB = BG,
0
1 KHSSD
(m0 Yv0 ) Nr0 u0 +Cd H20 (w, q)
0
w
+ x m00 (Yv0 Yr0 )u0 + Cd H10 (w, q)
Kr0 u0
=0
xB , xG , zG , Izx = 0
0
BG 0
1 Nmod
0
(m Yv0 )
+
C
H
(w,
q)
d 1
`
w0
0
BG
1 Ymod
0
+
C
H
(w,
q)
+ x m00
d 0
`
w0
0
1 KHSSD
(27a)
(m0 Yv0 )
w0
for stability in . The HSSD rolling moment is determined almost entirely by the sail so it is reasonable
to replace in KHSSD / in (23) with:
(w xF W q)
u + zF W q
(26b)
where:
F W = tan1
(26a)
For normal blowing of all main ballast tanks simultaneously, the x terms in (27) can probably
be neglected, greatly simplifying this expression. In
addition, when q, q = 0, the only term left is the
second line of (27a). Thus, the zero in N0 / in
Figure 13 is the basis of the zero in A5 .
The effect of pitch angle on the stability limit is
generally small, as seen in the cos terms
in (23) and
(26b). The limit in (23) reduces as cos which is
only a 15% reduction at = 45 relative to = 0
degrees. There is no effect on (26b) if q, q = 0. But
the effect on (22) is more interesting; it shows that
(25)
15
REFERENCES
Binion, T.W., and Stanewsky, E., Observed Reynolds
Number Effects: Low Aspect Ratio Wings and Bodies,
Reynolds Number Effects in Transonic Flow, AGARD
AG303, December 1988.
DISCUSSION
Hoyt, E.D. and Imlay, F.H., The Influence of Metacentric Stability on the Dynamic Longitudinal Stability of
a Submarine, DTMB Report C-158, October 1948.
Lambert, J.D., The Effect of Changes in the Stability Derivatives on the Dynamic Behavior of a Torpedo,
ARC R&M no. 3143, March 1956.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Papoulias, F.A., and McKinley, B.D., Inverted Pendulum Stabilization of Submarines in Free Positive Buoyancy Ascent, Journal of Ship Research, vol. 38, no. 1,
pp. 7182, March 1994.
16
New Analysis
Perturbing in y0 and :
Watt, G.D., Estimates for the Added Mass of a MultiComponent, Deeply Submerged Vehicle, Defence Research Establishment Atlantic TM 88/213, October
1988.
v = y 0 x 0
v = y0 x0 x 0
r =
r =
(32)
instead of v and r gives the system an extra degreeof-freedom, resulting in a cubic characteristic equation:
A000 s3 + A001 s2 + A002 s + A003
(33)
Wichers Schreur, B.G.J., The Motion of Buoyant Bodies, Ph.D. Thesis, Trinity College, Cambridge, September 1990.
We compare simplified conventional and new horizontal plane stability analyses to get a physical feeling for the meaning of the new stability limit. Conventional Gertler and Hagen (1967) hydrodynamic
coefficients are used in the equations of motion, the
rolling moment equation is ignored, and we set:
w, q, p, = 0
(34)
(35)
m(v + ur + xG r)
= Yv v + Yr r + Yv uv + Yr ur
Nv mxG Nr mxG
Nv
< min
,
Yv
Yv m
Yr m
Iz r + mxG (v + ur) = Nv v + Nr r + Nv uv + Nr ur
(29)
(36)
Conventional Analysis
Consider the effect of perturbations in v and r by
setting v, r est . The characteristic equation is:
(m Yv )s Yv u
(mxG Yr )s + (m Yr )u
(mxG Nv )s Nv u (Iz Nr )s + (mxG Nr )u
(30)
A01
x0 > 0
Nv mxG
N
N mxG
< v < r
Yv m
Yv
Yr m
A00
(28)
Nv
mxG Nv
Yv
m Yv
(31)
DISCUSSION
Jerome P. Feldman
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
This paper provides an improved
understanding of the dynamic stability of a submarine
during buoyant ascent. It also provides a more
accurate method of predicting the motions of the
submarine performing this type of maneuver, as well
as a better understanding of the complex
hydrodynamic phenomena.
The hydrodynamic coefficient mathematical
model described in Reference (1) is now used at
NSWCCD primarily for performing trade-off studies
of candidate submarine designs, and then only to
predict mild maneuvers. A multi-vortex computer
simulation code is the current method for both
estimating the hydrodynamic forces and moments on
the submarine hull, appendages, and propulsor and
for performing computer simulations of the motions
of the submarine. The code is a physics-based, semiempirical method that uses two-dimensional potential
flow strip theory, discrete vortex representation of the
flow separation from the hull, and lifting line theory
for the appendages to determine all of the
hydrodynamic forces and moments except for the
longitudinal force. The trajectories of the vortices
shed from the hull and appendages are calculated, as
are the induced forces on the hull and appendages
that are downstream of the vortices.
Experimental data are required to develop an
accurate mathematical model of the submarine to
predict buoyant ascent. As indicated in Reference (2),
NSWCCD performs captive-model experiments to
measure the hydrodynamic forces and moments on
the entire submarine, as well as the forces and
moments on all of the appendages and the propeller.
The experiments are performed in the NSWCCD
straight-line basin using a yaw table. These tests are
performed over a range of angles of attack from -180
to +180 degrees and angles of drift from -20 to 180
degrees. Rotating arm experiments are performed
with a strut-supported model over a range of
nondimensional yawing angular velocities, angles of
drift, rudder angles, and propeller rpm's. Additional
rotating arm experiments are performed with a stingsupported model, but without a propeller, over a
range of combined rolling, pitching, and yawing
angular velocities and combined angles of attack and
angles of drift.
Almost all of the experiments that
NSWCCD has performed at large angles of attack or
drift have been with a fully appended model.
However, it appears that the stern appendages have a
AUTHORS RESPONSE
Thank you very much for your detailed
review.
Your discussion indicating that the standard
equations now play a reduced role in your analysis
of extreme maneuvers is consistent with our
experience that they do not predict the rising
instabilities in our trials. Your multi-vortex method
sounds interesting; presumably it is computationally
fast but requires much empirical input from the many
experiments you describe. For our part, we are
developing the capability to carry out a 6 DOF RANS
simulation to explain rising stability dynamics; this
will
minimize
the
necessity
for
costly
v
+ O ( 3 )
w
F
( 0 ,0)
+
F (, ) F ( 0 ,0) +
x&
y&
v
= 0 + 0
w
w
w
DISCUSSION
Jerome P. Feldman
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
I am not sure why you converted the
translational and rotational velocities from a body
coordinate system to velocities in a fixed, inertial
coordinate system. Why not perform your analysis
entirely in the body coordinate system? What effect
does this have on the stability analysis? If you had
not made the conversion, would there have been a
quadratic characteristic equation?
Also, why did you leave terms multiplying
qr, qp, wp, and pq in Equation (15a), and terms
multiplying qr, pq, wp, wp, pq, vq, wr, and qr in
Equation (15b)? The product of two small quantities
is so small that it can be neglected when you linearize
the equations.
AUTHORS RESPONSE
Inertial coordinates were used in the stability
analysis because of our mind's eye view of what was
going on physically, as described in the first
paragraph of Section 5.1. A true, fixed vertical plane
is best described using inertial coordinates, or so it
would seem. This also addresses a concern we had
with the trials data where we had no measure of
lateral velocity and so did not know to what extent
the vehicle was moving away from a fixed vertical
plane. This approach also let us work directly with
the heading , and the trials data clearly show that
is undergoing some instability.
In the paper we suggest that by working
with inertial coordinates we introduce an extra degree
of freedom (r and r& are replaced with , & , and &&).
But, in the simplified analysis presented in the
Appendix, by itself this does not give rise to a higher
order characteristic equation even though it does
result in nonzero Y , N coefficients in the equations
of motion (cf, Equation 20). In the Appendix
analysis, if &x&0 is set to zero, then the nonzero Y , N
coefficients combine with, and are cancelled by,
Y y&0 , N y&0 coefficients so that the A3 coefficient in
(33) is zero. In other words, it is only by accounting
for a nonzero &x&0 term that the characteristic equation
increases in order and a new stability limit is found.
Could the new stability limit have been
found in an analysis based on body axes velocities?
We haven't tried this, but the &x&0 term in (32)
suggests that an analysis based on is required.
ABSTRACT
A theoretical model for the analysis of marine propeller
wake flow is presented. The proposed methodology is
based on a boundary integral formulation for the velocity potential. A wakealignment technique is formulated
in which the near wake shape is determined as a part of
the flowfield solution, whereas a far wake model allows
to include the effects of the vortices extended to infinity.
A viscousflow correction to the potential field is determined through Lighthills transpiration velocity concept.
Numerical results by the proposed methodology are presented in order to verify the numerical scheme and to validate propeller slipstream flow predictions against model
propeller measurements by using PIV and LDV velocimetry techniques.
INTRODUCTION
The development and validation of a theoretical model for
the hydrodynamic analysis of marine propellers wake flow
is addressed.
The issue of wake flow modelling is related to the
correct evaluation of propeller performance. The mechanism of lift/thrust generation is intrinsically connected to
the amount of vorticity that is generated on the body surface and is shed downstream in the wake. In the theoretical analysis of isolated marine propeller flows, wake flow
modelling is of particular importance when the propeller
operates below design point, the wake pitch is small and
the trailing vorticity pattern tends to be packed close to the
propeller disc plane. Wake flow modelling is also important for cavity inception and tipvortex cavitation investigations and for the analysis of the mutual interactions
between propellers and other components as in the case of
propeller/rudder systems of conventional arrangements or
in the study of propeller/strut flow for podded propulsors
THEORETICAL FORMULATION
The boundary integral formulation for the perturbation velocity potential is briefly reviewed, whereas descriptions
of both trailing wake alignment and far wake modelling
are presented in detail. Fully inviscid flow conditions are
considered first. Next, the issue of viscosity induced correction to the potential flow solution through the transpiration velocity concept is discussed.
flow are neglected, the perturbation velocity v may be expressed in terms of a scalar potential as v = . The
total velocity field in the propeller frame of reference results
q = vI + .
+ q2 +
+ gz0 = vI2 +
,
t
2
(2)
= vI n
n
on SB .
(3)
p = 0;
(4)
= 0; on SW ,
n
where the symbol denotes discontinuity across the
wake surface sides. Combining the Bernoulli Eq. (2) and
p = 0, one obtaines that is constant following wake
particles
(x, t) = (xT E , t )
(1)
on SW ,
(5)
G
(x) =
G
dS(y)
(6)
n
n
SB
Z
G
G
dS(y),
+
n
n
SW
where n is the unit normal to SB and to SW . The quantity G = 1/4kx yk denotes the unit source in the
unbounded threedimensional space.
In the limit as x tends to the body surface, Equation (6) provides a boundary integral equation for . The
resulting equation is formally equivalent to Eq. (6) with
(x) replaced by 21 (x) if x is a regular point on SB .
x G x
dS(y) (7)
x (x, t) =
n
SB n
Z
G
x G x
dS(y).
+
n
n
SW
The symbol x denotes the gradient operator acting on
x. Next, wake points xW are moved parallel to the local
velocity field q = +vI by using a Lagrangian scheme
xW (t + t)
= xW (t)
(8)
Z t+t
+
xW , t + vI dt.
r dy
1
,
r r
(11)
vn = 4 Sn r3
r/r vn ,
r < r
where vn is evaluated by the BiotSavart law for r = r .
far wake: the wake portion downstream the intermediate wake and extended to infinity.
Both near and intermediate wake portions are explicitely
taken into account when solving Eqs. (6) and (7),
Figure 1: Representative discretization grid on the wake surface: near wake portion (in blue), intermediate wake (in red)
and far wake disc (in black).
(12)
Denoting by SN IW the wake surface in the near and intermediate regions, it may be found that the following integral representation for is valid at an arbitrary field point
I
G
(x)
=
G
dS(y)
(13)
n
n
SB
Z
G
G
dS(y),
n
n
SN IW
with boundary conditions on the body surface as follows
(compare Eqs. (3) and (12))
Z
= (vI + vF W ) n
n
on SB ,
(14)
) dS(y), (15)
(G
nv
SD SC
= x
v G dS(y).
(16)
SD
+ qv [t qv ] t + 2 qv t =
(qv q) d
t = 1/qv
0
T = 1/qv2
(qv q) q d;
0
fW = W e + W e
(qv t ) + t qv2 T
t
are introduced
1
f
W
where qv denotes the total velocity field computed by using the corrected quasipotential flow (see below), and
qv = kqv k. In Eq. (17) the following tensor quantities
2 Model propeller flows are typically in the range of the Reynolds
number ReD = nD2 / 106 , where D is the propeller diameter and
the kinematic viscosity. Larger values can occour at full scale.
(18)
yN
= R (t )x
yN
= R (T )x
yE
yE
;
RT ,
(19)
Different closure equations are imposed in the laminar and turbulent regions of the boundary layer. Downstream the blade leading edge the flow is assumed to
be laminar, and a twodimensional Thwaites collocation
method (Thwaites, 1949) is used. Transition to turbulent
flow is detected through Michels method (Michel, 1952).
The turbulent portion of the boundary layer and the viscous wake are solved by coupling the LagEntrainment
closure model by Green et al. (1973) for twodimensional
flows with a Johnstons triangular velocity profile model
to include threedimensional effects (Johnston, 1957).
Specifically, the following quantity is introduced
Ac = qYE / qv qXE = Ac (W )
(20)
where W is the angle between the flow at the solid wall
and the inviscid flow. Equation (20) allows to express
crossflow displacement thickness, momentum thickness
and wall tangential stress as a function of the corresponding quantities along xE (see Salvatore and Testa, 2002, for
details).
The boundary layer solution is matched with the inviscid flow solution by means of Lighthills transpiration velocity concept (Lighthill, 1958). Basic assumption is that viscosityinduced effects may be included into
a quasipotential flow model by suitably modifying the
boundary conditions on the body and on the trailing wake
in order to take into account the streamlines displacement
induced by the boundary layer thickness. A mathematically rigorous generalization of this approximated model
is presented by Morino et al. (1997). It may be shown that
modified boundary conditions Eq. (3), and the second of
Eqs. (4) yield
= vI n + v , on SB ;
n
= v , on SW .
n
(21)
qv ? +
qv ?
(22)
Solution procedure
A propeller hydrodynamics computational tool has been
developed by combining the trailing wake alignment technique, the far wake model and the viscosity effect correction into a nonlinear boundary element methodology. The
solution procedure used in the present analysis is valid for
uniform upstream flow vA = vA ex and constant propeller
rotational velocity n, and hence the flowfield is stationary if observed in the propeller frame of reference. The
numerical approach is based on a twosteps iterative procedure where viscous flow correction is applied first, and
next wake alignment procedure is performed.
The core of the procedure is the solution of the boundary integral equation for the velocity potential on the
body surface. As stated above, this equation is obtained as
the limit of Eq. (6) as x tends to SB . Neglecting far wake
and boundary layer effects, this boundary integral equation is solved with /n on SB known through the impermeability condition (3), whereas conditions given by
Eqs. (4) and (5) are imposed on the wake.
By using a prescribed wake geometry, a firstguess
solution for may be obtained. The evaluated potential flow is used to solve the boundary layer equation (17)
and to determine the transpiration velocity distribution by
Eq. (22). Thus, a corrected potential flow solution may
be determined by solving Eq. (6), with Eqs. (3) and (4)
replaced by Eqs. (21). This process is iterated until convergence of the velocity distribution qv . It should be observed that the viscousflow correction is performed here
only to provide an estimate of global boundary layer quantities. An approximated numerical solution of Eq. (17) is
obtained using a striptheory approach, with explicit solution of the flow in the chordwise direction and crossflow
contributions assumed known from past iterative steps.
Next, the wake alignment model is switched on and
the evaluated potential field on the body surface is used
to estimate the perturbation velocity at wake points by using the boundary integral expression given by Eq. (7). In
particular, the vortex core radius r0 and the growth factor r in Eq. (10) are determined through the boundary
layer flow solution. The resulting total velocity field is
used to deform the initial guess wake surface according
to the flow alignment technique through Eq. (8). The updated wake surface is then plugged into Eq. (6) and a new
estimate of the potential field is obtained. The process is
repeated until convergence of the wake shape.
In case the far wake model is used, the above procedure is still valid once the far wake velocity is evaluated by
Eq. (16) and the modified inflow vI + vF W is used to replace vI . Thus, the most general expression for boundary
conditions over the body surface including both viscous
transpiration velocity and far wake induced velocity reads
= (vI + vF W ) n + v ,
n
on SB ,
(23)
and with the pitch given by the propeller mean geometrical pitch. At each step of the wake alignment iterative
procedure, wake nodes locations are updated according to
Eq. (8), that, in discretized form reads
i t
xp+1
= xpi1 + q
i
(24)
The numerical scheme consistency, i.e. the effect of blade and wake grids refinement on the wake
alignment procedure is discussed by considering different discretizations for the analysis of the propeller flow
at advance coefficient J = vA /nD = 0.88, where D
is the propeller diameter. Specifically, five grids with
MB = NB = 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, and MW = 5 MB =
60, 90, 120, 150, 180, and NW = NB are considered.
Figure 2 depicts calculated propeller thrust and torque
coefficients, KT = T /n2 D4 and KQ = Q/n2 D5 . Numerical results by using both prescibed and flowaligned
wake surfaces are shown.
The effect of grid refinement on the flowaligned
wake shape is illustrated in Fig. 3. Only three representative grids among the grid set introduced above are considered: MB = 12 (coarse grid), MB = 24 (medium grid),
MB = 36 (fine grid), and MB = NB , MW = 5 MB .
Specifically, the predicted tipvortex radial location as a
Another issue concerning the verification of the iterative solution of a nonlinear problem is the analysis of the
influence of the initial guess wake geometry on the converged solution. Five initial guess geometries, that differ only by the pitch distribution, are considered, while
the meshing grid is kept fixed. Specifically, the helicoidal
surface whose pitch equals the propeller blade mean geometrical pitch 0 is chosen as the reference geometry, and
four surfaces with = k 0 with k = [0.6, 0.8, 1.2, 1.4]
are also considered. Figure 5 depicts the convergence history of the radial position of a selected wake panel centroid located, considering the initial guess wake shape, at
x/R = 0.2. As expected, the converged position of the
centroid, after about 60 iterations, presents a negligible
dependence from the initial guess wake shape.
Next, the performance of the proposed far wake
model on the propeller flow prediction is investigated.
Consider first prescribed wake calculations. Figure 6
shows calculated thrust and torque coefficients against the
extension of the near/intermediate wake, given in terms of
the total number of wake turns considered, Nspiral . Numerical results with and without the far wake model are
compared. The figure clearly explains the practical utility
of the far wake model. Predicted loads by using only two
wake turns and the far wake disc are equivalent to those
using five wake turns without the far wake model. Thus,
using the far wake model it is possible to limit the extension of the wake surface in the calculations and hence the
The computational advantages related with the introduction of the far wake model become apparent in the
case of wake alignment. Figure 7 shows the effect of
reducing the intermediate wake extension LIW with the
near wake lenght LN W kept constant on propeller thrust
and torque calculations. Results by using the far wake
model are compared to those obtained without the far
wake model. It is important to notice that the inclusion
of the far wake model allows to reduce the intermediate
wake portion with small effects on both thrust and torque
predictions, whereas if the far wake is not included, the
rate of variation of calculated loads with the intermediate
wake lenght is higher.
The effect of the far wake disc distance dD from the
intermediate wake and the effect of grid refinement on the
far wake disc are also studied. Tables 1 and 2 show the ef-
KT
0.1483
0.1476
0.1476
0.1477
0.1477
10KQ
0.2878
0.2867
0.2868
0.2869
0.2869
KT
0.1483
0.1476
0.1476
0.1476
10KQ
0.2878
0.2868
0.2868
0.2868
surfaces and an infinite number of wake turns are considered (see extrapolating polynomials in Figs. 6). Specifically, the MB = NB = 18 and MW = 90 discretization
combined with far disc model yields KT predictions that
differ about 1.3% from the extrapolated values. Finally,
the verification task yields an adequate procedure to determine the vortex core radius value. In particular, results
in Fig. 9 prove that the estimated boundary layer thickness falls in the range of r values that allow both stable
and resolved wake rollup. For the particular case considered here, J = 0.88, r = 1.5 102 is the boundary layer
thickness value that is obtained from the boundary layer
analysis. Such value is obtained by combining suction
and pressure sides thicknesses at the blade trailing edge
and averaging along span. Similarly, an estimated value
of the growth factor r is obtained.
Figure 9: Predicted boundary layer quantities on blade and near wake, pressure side (label: Back) and suction side (label:
Face), at J = 0.88, ReD = 1.5 106 . Top: thickness; center: displacement thickness, bottom: friction coefficient.
flowfield, whereas in the calculations its position is identified with the outmost streamwise wake node line.
The detailed characterization of the slipstream flow
by means of LDV and PIV techniques provides a powerful means to investigate the accuracy of the wake flow
calculations. To this purpose, measured velocity in both
longitudinal and transversal planes are processed to determine the trailing wake pattern. The vorticity may be
evaluated by finite differentiation of the pointwise velocity
measurements whereas turbulence intensity is determined
as the standard deviation of axial velocity samples (root
mean square). In the flow region of interest here, the two
approaches provide comparable locations of the trailing
wake pattern.
Experimental data considered hereafter represent turbulence intensity levels of the axial velocity. Such data
processing is used in Fig. 11 to depict the intersection of the wake with transversal planes at different distances from the propeller disc plane. Specifically, flow
conditions at J = 0.88 and four planes at x/R =
0.2, 0.65, 1.15, 1.65 are considered. Experimental data
are compared to the locations of the calculated trailing
wake surface on the same planes. The pictures show a
good agreement between measured and predicted wake
locations. In particular, both wake pitch distribution in
the radial direction, wake rollup at the tip and slipstream
contraction are fully captured at small distance from the
propeller. Some minor discrepancies appear in the two
planes far downstream, x/R = 1.15, 1.65.
This analysis is further investigated considering the
wake flow in a longitudinal axial plane, as shown in
Fig. 12. In this case, three different flow conditions are
given: J = 0.748, 0.88, 1.012. Results for the same value
of J considered in Fig. 11 above (mid picture), reveal that
the prediction of the trailing wake pattern is good not only
close to the propeller but also at more than two diameters
downstream, througout the flow region where experimental data are available (0 < x/R < 4.6). For completeness, the whole wake surface explicitely considered in the
calculations is given, in order to appreciate the increasing
rollup of wake sections moving from the blade trailing
edge to downstream. This geometrical trend is associated
with vorticity concentration towards the tip, and reflects a
physical feature that is evidenced by the size and intensity
of the measured tipvortex core. It is worthwhile to notice
that at large x, the observed vortical field may be correctly
approximated by the semiinfinite cylindrical model that
has been proposed above to introduce the far wake disc
concept.
Similar conclusions may be drawn by analysing results for flow conditions at J = 0.748 and 1.012, in
Fig. 12. For these two cases, the flow region where experimental data are available is limited between x/R = 0
and 2.8. In the case J = 0.748, corresponding to higher
0.748
.2285
.2182
.2306
.4209
.3818
.3997
0.880
.1615
.1670
.1721
.3182
.3133
.3211
1.012
.0973
.1116
.1123
.2141
.2366
.2381
Table 3: Measured thrust and torque coefficients compared to calculations using a prescribed wake model
(P.W.) and a flowaligned wake model (F.W.). INSEAN
E779A model propeller.
Figure 10: Radial location of the INSEAN E779A model propeller wake tipvortex at J = 0.88. Numerical predictions
compared to experimental data.
Figure 11: Measured axial velocity turbulence levels in the propeller slipstream compared to numerical predictions of the
trailing wake path (dashed black lines). INSEAN E779A model propeller at J = 0.88. Transversal planes at: x/R = 0.2
(top left), x/R = 0.65 (bottom left), x/R = 1.15 (top right), and x/R = 1.65 (bottom right).
Figure 12: Measured axial velocity turbulence levels in a longitudinal axial plane downstream the propeller compared to
numerical predictions of the trailing wake path (dashed black lines). INSEAN E779A model propeller at J = 0.748 (top),
J = 0.88 (center), J = 1.012 (bottom).
CONCLUSIONS
A theoretical model for the analysis of marine propeller
wake flow by a nonlinear boundary integral formulation
for the velocity potential has been presented. Wake flow
modelling is performed by assuming that the trailing vorticity path is part of the flowfield solution. Contributions
from the vorticity field far downstream the propeller and
viscous boundary layer effects to the potential field are
taken into account through physically consistent models.
Numerical results by the proposed methodology are
investigated in order to evaluate the numerical scheme
performance and the capability to describe propeller wake
flow features. The analysis of predicted vorticity pattern
in the wake demonstrates that the trailing vorticity shedding process is accurately represented and global features
as the wake pitch distribution and the slipstream contraction are in good agreement with measured data in a large
flow region extending twothree diameters downstream
the propeller disc plane. Numerical results are validated
over a range of variation of the advance coefficient below
and above design conditions. The improvement of propeller loads calculations by using wake alignment is also
analysed against experimental data.
It may be concluded that the proposed methodology
represents an appealing tool for the analysis of isolated
propellers wake flow. The reduced computational effort
allows to apply this methodology to the analysis of propeller wake interactions with other components in operating conditions.
Further activity on the proposed methodology is
aimed to improve the numerical solution of the three
dimensional boundary layer equations. The extension of
the wake alignment procedure to the analysis of unsteady
flow conditions and additional validation of numerical results is also underway.
REFERENCES
Batchelor, G.K. (1967), An Introduction to Fluid Dyn
amics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Campbell, R.G. (1973), Foundations of Fluid Flow
Theory, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.
Di Felice, F. and Romano, G. P. and Elefante, M.
(2000), Propeller Wake Evolution by Means of PIV.
Proceedings of the 23rd ONR Symposium on Naval
Hydrodynamics, Val de Reuil (France).
Di Florio, D., Di Felice, F., Felli, F. and Romano, G.P.
(2004), Experimental Investigation of the Propeller Wake
at Different Loading Condition by PIV, to appear in
Journal of ship Research.
Gennaretti, M., Corsetti, E., and Morino, L. (1998),
Coupled
Free-Wake-Aerodynamics/Blade-Dynamics
Analyses of Rotors in Forward Flight, AIAA Paper
98-2241,
4th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustic Conference,
Toulouse, France.
Giordani, A., Salvatore, F. and Esposito, P.G. (1999),
Free Wake Analysis of a Marine Propeller in Uniform
Flow, XXI World Conference on BEM, Oxford, U.K.
Greeley, D.S. and Kerwin, J.E. (1982), Numerical Methods for Propeller Design and Analysis in Steady Flow,
SNAME Transactions, Vol. 90, pp. 416453.
Green, J.E., Weeks, D.J. and Brooman, W.F. (1973), Prediction of Turbulent Boundary Layers and Wakes in Compressible Flow by a LagEntrainment Method. A.R.C.R.
& M. Tech. Rep. 3791.
Hoshino, T. (1989), Hydrodynamic Analysis of Propellers in Steady Flow Using a Surface Panel Method,
2nd Report: Flow Field Around Propeller, Journal
of The Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol. 166,
pp. 7992.
Jessup, S.D. (1989), An experimental investigation of
viscous aspects of propeller blade flows, PhD thesis, The
Catholic Univ. of America.
Johnston, J.P., (1957), Three Dimensional turbulent
Boundary Layers. Doctoral thesis, M.I.T., Massachussetts (USA).
Kawakita, C. (1992), A Surface Panel Method for
Ducted Propellers With New Wake Model Based
on Velocity Measurement, Journal of the Society
of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol. 172, pp. 187203.
Kerwin, J.E. and Lee, C.S. (1978), Prediction of Steady
and Unsteady Marine Propeller Performance by Numerical Lifting-Surface Theory, SNAME Transactions,
Vol. 86.
Kinnas, S.A. and Pyo, S. (1999), Cavitating Propeller
Analysis Including the Effects of Wake Alignment,
Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 3847.
Lighthill, M.J. (1958), On displacement thickness.
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 4, pp. 383392.
Liu, P. and Colbourne, B. (2002), A Study of Wake Discretization in Relation to the Performance of a Propeller
Panel Method, Ocean Engineering International Journal,
2002.
Michel, R. (1952), Etude de la Transition sur les Profils
daile - Establissment dun Point de Transition et Calcul
de la Trainee de Profil en Incompressible. ONERA Tech.
Rep. 1/1578, France.
Morino, L, Chen, L.T. and Suciu, E. (1975), Steady
and Oscillatory Subsonic and Supersonic Aerodynam-
DISCUSSION
Ismail B. Celik
West Virginia University, USA
While the authors were trying to calibrate
their vortex potential core model they showed
experimental data from LDV and PIV measurements.
The peak velocity in these measurements showed
about 30% difference between the two techniques.
The numerical modelers (I am one of them) would
have tried to match either of the two data sets 100%.
Could the experimentalist author comment first on
such large differences, next on how they can warn the
numerical modelers that not all experimental data are
perfect!
AUTHORS REPLY
Prof. Celik is referring to results that were
shown at the symposium and are here included in the
reply to Dr. P. Liu, Fig. 4.
The figure shows comparison of BEM
calculations with PIV and LDV data of the velocity
field at x/R=1.15. Experimental data show important
differences in the estimation of the velocity defect of
the blade wake. This should always be expected
because every measurement techniques has
limitations. In the present case, such behavior is due
to the different characteristics of the measurement
volume of LDV and PIV. In fact LDV measurement
volume size is of the order of 0.1x0.1x4.0 mm3
whereas PIV measurement volume, in the present
case, is 100 times larger (2.5x2.5x1.5 mm3 ). In such
a case PIV is not able to resolve the thin blade wake
and is providing a mean value in the measurement
volume smoothing the blade wake velocity defect.
A detailed report of the PIV and
LDVperformance in measuring the E779A model
propeller wake is given in Felli et al. (2002).
REFERENCES
Felli, M., Di Florio, D., Di Felice, F. (2002),
Comparison between PIV and LDV technique in the
analysis of propeller wake. Journal of Visualization
Vol. 5, n 3, 2002, pp. 209-210.
DISCUSSION
Ki-Han Kim
Office of Naval Research, USA
The discrepancy between predicted and
measured KT and KQ at off-design conditions is
somewhat higher than that by other potential flow
prediction methods, including lifting-surface method.
Can the authors comment on the possible causes of
the discrepancy? How did the authors treat the blade
frictional drag?
AUTHORS REPLY
The issue of loads prediction is only briefly
described in the paper because enphasis is posed on
the validation of slipstream flow predictions.
For this purpose, the INSEAN E779A model
propeller was selected as a test case due to the vast
velocity field dataset available. At present, propeller
loads at only three different values of the advance
coefficient, J = 0.748, 0.88, 1.012, are available from
cavitation tunnel measurements. The comparison
between measurements and numerical results (paper
Table 3) shows that predicted thrust and torque are in
good agreement with measurements close to design
conditions, J = 0.88. At lower J, predictions
underestimate both thrust and torque.
This trend is partly confirmed by
considering another test-case, the DTRC 4119 model
propeller tested by Jessup (1989). Predicted and
measured thrust and torque coefficients are compared
in Fig. 1 below.
REFERENCES
Jessup, S.D. (1989),
"An experimental investigation of viscous aspects of
propeller blade flows," PhD thesis, The Catholic
Univ. of America, Washington, DC, USA.
Figure 1
DISCUSSION
Pengfei Liu
National Research Council, Canada
This paper showed an excellent combination
of numerical and physical modeling studies
conducted at INSEAN.
In the paper the authors used the Biot-Savart
law to find induced velocity in the process of realigning the wake vortex sheet. From our experience,
the predicted induced velocities are very sensitive to
the vortex filament core radius cut-off value. The
effect of this value on the induced velocities is much
greater than on the wake roll up geometry, though a
good prediction of induced velocities also depends
largely on the wake pitch modeling. In our previous
work, a modified cut-off value formulation (1) based
on the work by Maskew (2) was determined by
geometrical relation between a vortex filament and a
field point. Similar works on induced velocities
downstream of a propeller can also be found in the
proceedings of the 22nd ITTC RANS/Panel Method
Workshop (3).
In the paper, a unique equation of vortex
core radius cut-off value (equation 10) was
established. The value is a function of boundary layer
thickness which links physical phenomena to a
potential flow solution procedure which is reasonable.
Although with a tight space limit of a conference
paper it is impossible to address the issues and
present all the major findings, it would be great if the
authors could address the following concerns:
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
AUTHORS' REPLY
The authors wish to thank Dr. P. Liu for his
valuable comments and suggestions for further work.
Comments highlight some basic issues on propeller
slipstream flow predictions by BEM.
First, the proposed vortex-core model is
addressed. The present approach stems from defining
the vortex-core as the flow region surrounding each
vortex filament where the induced velocity departs
from Biot-Savart law for inviscid flows. Close to the
vortex, viscosity effects are not negligible and a
velocity defect is present. Equation (10) in the paper
provides a simple model of the vortex-core diameter
growth along a wake streamline, as proposed by
Morino and Bharadvaj (1985). This two-parameter
law provides a realistic description of the viscous
wake thickness downstream the blade trailing edge.
This is illustrated in Fig. 1 here below, where
quantity r from paper Eq. (10) is compared with
predicted boundary layer thickness distribution in a
limited wake portion close to the blade (see paper
Fig. 9). Flow conditions in Fig. 1 are J = 0.88,
ReD = 1.5E6. In particular, the vortex-core radius at
Figure 2
Blade T.E.
Figure 1
Figure 3
Due to lack of space, results of propellerinduced velocity predictions were not included in the
paper. Nevertheless, some results were shown during
the conference presentation and are given here in Fig.
4 for the measurement plane at x/R = 1.15.
Figure 4
REFERENCES
Morino, L. and Bharadvaj, B.K. (1985),
"Two Methods for Viscous and Inviscid Free Wake
Analysis of Helicopter Rotors," Report CCAD-TR
85-02-R, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA.
Greek Symbols
- : fluid density, Kg/m3
- : flow vorticity (s-1)
- : propeller open water efficiency,
() = (J.KT) / (2.KQ)
INTRODUCTION
Application of Dynamic Positioning
(DP) systems is increasing in the offshore oil and
gas industry. As operations move into more
hostile and deeper waters, the need for DP
system has become of greater and greater
importance. There are different types of thrusters
used in DP systems, but the majority are
steerable over 3600 and mounted below the hull,
or placed in tunnels crossing the hull from one
side to the other (Fay, 1990). A historical review
of the application and of different types of DP
systems is provided by Morgan (1978). DP
systems have been available since the early
1960s, but they have become in much more
common use since the exploration and
development of offshore fields moved into deep
waters. Thrusters working at low advance ratio
are employed in a number of marine and
offshore DP systems, on FPSO (floating,
production, storage and offloading) systems,
shuttle tankers, and mobile offshore units.
Information on the hydrodynamic characteristics
of these thrusters is still limited. More studies are
required in order to gain knowledge on and
prove the reliability of such systems.
The tests described here were done to
obtain experimental information on the flow
field in the wake of these thrusters. The main
objective was to analyze the DP thruster near and
far wake experimentally when operating with
and without a nozzle under variable operating
conditions.
NOMENCLATURE
-
D: propeller diameter, m
J: advance coefficient, (J) = VA /(n.D)
KQ: torque coefficient, (KQ) = Q / (. n2.D5)
KT: thrust coefficient, (KT) = T / (. n2.D4)
n: angular speed of propeller shaft, rev/s
p: propeller pitch, m
Q: torque, N.m
T: thrust, N
VA: velocity of advance, m/s
X: axial downstream distance, m
EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP
Tests were done at INSEAN, the Italian
Ship Model Basin, Rome, Italy, in their large
cavitation tunnel. This is a free surface channel
with a test section of 10 m in length, 3.6 m in
width and 2.25 m in depth. The maximum
allowable water speed is 5.2 m/s.
Tests were carried out at a propeller
pitch ratio (P/D) of 1.2 and at propeller speed of
20 rps. The propeller model was a ducted
controllable pitch propeller. The principal
dimensions and particulars of the propeller, the
model and the nozzle are given in Table (1)
below (Doucet, 1996).
Propeller Particulars
Number of Blades
4
Diameter
3.0 m
Hub to Propeller Diameter Ratio
0.367
Propeller Model Particulars
Number of Blades
4
Diameter
0.2 m
Expanded Area Ratio (EAR)
0.604
Nozzle Model Particulars
Length
0.100 m
Inside Diameter
0.202 m
Nozzle Contraction Ratio
1.2223
Table 1: Ducted propeller model and model
nozzle particulars (Doucet, 1996)
CO-ORDINATE SYSTEM
A Cartesian (0-x, y, z) co-ordinate
system was used. As shown in Fig. (2), the x-axis
is along the propeller shaft centerline and points
downstream, the y-axis is horizontal, and the zaxis is vertical pointing upwards. As shown in
Fig. (2) the longitudinal velocity is U and the
cross-flow velocity components are V and W.
W
y
U
x
Figure 2: Coordinate system
The mesh of the propeller and the Nozzle were
generated using PROPELLA (Liu and Bose,
1998; and Liu, 2002)
The analysis of wake velocity was done
firstly by constructing the instantaneous 3D
velocity vector field for each image (129
images/plane) from the combination of the 2D
encoded velocity vector fields of the left and
right camera. Then the mean 3D velocity field
PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
A series of performance tests on the
same propeller model were performed by El
Lababidy (2003) in a cavitation tunnel. Fig. (3)
shows the performance curves of a DP thruster
with and without the nozzle at propeller speed of
20 rps. The results of these tests indicated that
the thrust generated from the propeller only
without the nozzle is higher than that generated
with the nozzle working at the same advance
coefficient as would be expected.
VELOCITY FIELD CHARACTERISTICS
AROUND THE PROPELLER
All the results presented in the
following are obtained by phase averaging the
measurements for a blade position having the
trailing edge at the 12 oclock position.
Fig. (4) shows the distribution of the
propeller
wake
velocity
components,
longitudinal component (U) and cross
components (V and W), at 0.4 D downstream
axial position. Results are plotted for the DP
thruster with and without the nozzle at the
bollard pull condition (J=0). The results indicate
some common features between the distributions
of the flow velocity components with and
without the nozzle. The distribution of the axial
velocity shows low values near the hub
increasing radially outwards to reach a maximum
value at a radial position around r/R = 0.6-0.8 for
the measurements with the nozzle and around r/R
= 0.6 for the measurements without the nozzle.
The distribution of the cross velocity
components indicates similar magnitudes of
velocity over the two halves of the propeller
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the Institute for Ocean
Technology of National Research Council
Canada, Memorial University of Newfoundland,
the Italian Ship Model Basin (INSEAN), Rome
Italy, and Petroleum Research Atlantic Canada
for the financial support on this experimental
work, and the Natural Sciences and Research
Council, Canada, for the provision of a PGS B
fellowship to the first author.
This Project was undertaken and
completed with a Grant and the financial
assistance of Petroleum Research Atlantic
Canada. (PRAC). Thanks are due to Norsk
Hydro Canada for their participation in the travel
support for Said El Lababidy to visit INSEAN
through a grant to Dr. Thormod Johansen, and to
the INSEAN large cavitation tunnel technical
References
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
KT Ducted
10 KQ Ducted
Eff Ducted
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
KTOpen
10 KQ Open
Eff Open
1.0
1.2
Figure 3: Propeller performance curve (propeller only)-with and without a nozzle (P/D =1.2 & n =20 rps)
Figure 4: Circumferential variation of velocity components around the DP thruster at J=0 and at X/D =0.4
8
Figure 5: Distribution of velocity total turbulence around the DP thruster at J=0 and at X/D =0.4
With Nozzle
Without Nozzle
Figure 6: Vorticity distribution with and without the nozzle at J=0 and at X/D =0.4
Figure 7: Near wake mean axial flow velocity evolution for the DP thruster with and without the nozzle
at bollard pull condition up to X/D =1.5 downstream
10
Figure 8: Far wake mean axial flow velocity evolution for the DP thruster with and without the nozzle
at bollard pull condition up to X/D =15 downstream
11
DISCUSSION
Christopher Chesnakas
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
In the plots of the flow downstream of the
thruster, no blade wakes or tip vortices are visible. Is
this due to lack of spatial resolution of the
measurements? Was any flow visualization
performed to examine the stability or durability of the
blade wake?
AUTHORS REPLY
We thank Dr. Chesnakas. The DP thruster
blade wake and tip vortices could not be recognized
from the DP thruster wake velocity distribution this is
due to the high loading condition of the tests.
Measurements were performed at propeller pitch
ratio of 1.2 and at bollard pull operating conditions.
On the other hand, the blade wake could be
recognized from the vorticity distribution of the DP
thruster as shown in Figure 6.
A serious of wake survey tests on the same
DP thruster model were performed at INSEAN large
cavitation tunnel at higher advance coefficient values
(0.4, 0.45 and 1.029). The blade wake and tip
vortices of the DP thruster wake became more visible
as the loading condition of the DP thruster is reduced.
DISCUSSION
Stuart Jessup
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
I commend the authors for another
application of PIV, which has been extended, to two
camera stereo imaging. I would like to ask a few
questions which I may have missed in the paper.
The performance data shown in Figure 3
indicates the thrust produced for the ducted rotor was
less that that the rotor tested alone. Did the thrust
shown for the ducted configuration include the thrust
produced by the duct? The thrust of the accelerating
nozzle may a significant contributor to the total thrust
of the unit.
The PIV data was taken at J=0. The tests
were conducted in the water channel. Our experience
with water tunnel tests is that true bollard conditions
are hard to attain due to tunnel recirculation. In
Figure 4, from the contour legend shown, it appears
that there maybe some nonzero flow outside of the
propulsor disk. Can a more precise value of J be
determined from the test data.
For the PIV tests, I did not see a stated test
rpm. Were both the ducted and unducted cases run at
the same rpm?
I believe there is a significant effect of the
nozzle on accelerating the flow, which will be done
in an axisymetric fashion. It will create possibly a
20% increase in flow through the propeller, without
adding blading turbulence. This is consistant with
Figure 5, where the turbulence inside the rotor disk is
much less than the rotor alone case.
Can the authors explain how the PIV
system was calibrated. Was a calibration plate used?
Was it traversed or was a 3-d plate used.
The individual PIV vectors maps were
averaged from the 129 individual images. Has any
consideration been given to averaging the correlation
maps prior to generating the vector maps.
AUTHORS REPLY
First of all, we would like to thank Dr.
Stuart Jessup for his interesting observations and
detailed review of the paper.
The accelerating nozzle has a significant
effect in the total thrust of ducted thruster. It
contributes a bout the 50% of the ducted thruster total
thrust at bollard pull condition. The thrust
distribution of the DP thruster with and without the
nozzle in Figure 3 represents only the thrust of the
propeller without adding the nozzle thrust.
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
r/R
0
1
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
r/R
0
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7
"! $#$%&$#$
'
()
*)+-,./10 )243)5768'#'#9 '#9:1;%<#$.%)2=?>@>A4>B2CD<E)F>4'G'* HHI
JLKNM
prqts
O
O
PRQTSVUXWYPZ
fuoaP9nLQd[Xo
P[]\VS_^
[
^.\VSvUXSwPr\Vf
\Y`aP
QdceP
MxQTn^
oaQy\wP
fegh\V`aP
q{z|K
R'mV
Y ?BX ."'u?
ijWYflkmPn
n.Po
q}QTn~UXnQ\Y^fl[XS
V9l'&
]@.$
. $@
7/3v'%&.3)3%;3/''#
G.3v(%35
/'
3%<*3)Y/G/ /.
G3)3.''5T(.'#$*&')2
(</'%.(*&3)%&&3)#X;
X*/35?33 '#*&/3;'G3
.%*3 6]*&/3/'/
+
7/3'5*&57 %<#
*&/'3x%&.3)3%;#3) #v*/3%3)%68.%&'(3
;3)(.
3)768''(*. 6*&/3V 'G %?*& 6"*/3
%33)%)2
#$3
*&
#3%3*
2
*G3)*& B'#%.#$Y3)(*&3))+h7/3%33%
()(3)3)% *&3)*/3'5t#33'#$G.|*/3%.#$
.# 6*/3;#$3+
?3)/#*&/3%33%
(.
3'5
'3)#() r;3N3'(*&3)%&3#2
5/3)%&3*&/333)(*< 6e; *&//'|'#%33%
&3)%&
3.+7/3
53#$G3 6?*&/'3
'5;3/'#
G3E
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
:<; Y"'&m
4
7@ @-Y1&"m71
m"
4'1m $
>5
$#$3)j&/
$#$3EE.EE H.HE5*&/
( 3]% *& F'E+ I/'.T;3)3
$6.(*%&3#2
()(.%#$G*l*/3T#*<l6*&/3TY=7%
#$3#;
Y'+?7/3%'(' @' %&*&('%6V*&/3y$#$3)
#*/3V;$#$ 'R%&3wG3)9 ;1+EY'#G'+E
%3)&3(*&3) .+7/3R#$&(3
3*BBG..35*&/.$*
'('#$G
*&/'3Y%&'#'#$3%+
=7
>$#$3"'+-E.EE.E$H.HE
Y
:"3)G */3%3'#$('%
?%&3#
*/
A@%G/*
A@&(3)
3*
3**3)#9&%6+-%&3&/
3**3)#9&%6+-%&3B%'##3%
?$(<(
3(3*
D
$+ C
E.+ H'E.
H
H'+ FI'EC
E.+
I
+ F.
H+E
H'+
H
;3E-
/R
$#$3)"G3)
3*%&
G./*
$#$( *&' 6*&/3 &/353)%&3
3(3) % *&*%&.3)3%/' 6*u5*/%&G.3%
#$
3*3%w**&/3
*&3%;;"+V!45?3.3%*/3B33(*
6
*/3)&3
#()*.'V*/3-
3).'%&3#5y%3G..
3#*&;3Y 61
%7%&*'(3.+-7/3%368.%&3
*&/'3w.;$*'3)#3$3)%&
3*#'*3$3(*&3#*;3
6?' %&*&('%w*&3)%&3*w68%Y #*.y'%&.&3))+B
#'#$*.#$3%3*@%'##$3)%*/' *&/33'3#;
Y'/'V;33)y'&3)#d#$%G*/3%3)&*'(3
'#
%'&.]*&3*<+A@%&Gl*&/3d3)$(* ]
3)&%3D
3**&/3Y%'##$3)%5?.?%&3).3)#+
H.
> %&.3)3%4+ E)F
.
%33)%7#3*&3)%
H+ H
*(</R% *&
!"
D
H+
*(</R3
$#&%('*)
D
H+ IH
>4%3)% *&
+-, "+/.
D
H+ CH.H
!4;#$
3*3%%<*
0212"
D
H+E)C.H
4;3)% 6;.#$3)
3
D
;'34 %&.3)3%7G.3
3*&%
=<-4
>B.1
D#$%&3(*&12w5*&/%'G]*&/3G.*'#$'
#%3)(*&6*/3]/"+ >j#$'B;3)*5? D(..%
;(<
5?%#'m( **3%G:A
&
*&3)
68%
4
57t'&3)#2 5/(</
54N*&
3&%3*5?
.%*/G.'V3$(* (.
.3*&B*3.' +
7/'368$(
64*/3R&;
3)%&G.3)#%;3R5?.6 H'+ R2
5*&/*&/3;3) v&'.(Gu;3GH'+ H9+ '%y*&/3
($G%<*.3&%G|
3) A
6 H B
#3*&3)%V'#6EC+
y3G*&/y53)%&3;$*< 3)#+
:&3%;3 uG%33) '#;'3y53)%&33)
.3)#2
5*&/*&/3G%33VG./*/'
G4G%3) *&3)%"3)%68.%&'(3.+
(</Y&3%;3 X(..%"&
( *&3#*.3-3)$(*
(
3).*+
.%#$3)%*&Y
3).'%&3?*&/'37*&/%33#$
3$D
&'3)$(* '3#Y3).(</V.*/#w*&;33&%3)#
*5(3.2'(3 *5?3)$(* y(
3).*<B(#
;3l%3)(%<#$3)#'3e%&'"+ 7/3)%&368%3T*&/3.*
5?3%3e
3).'%&3#68%&.;35 #a68%&.}*/3]#$3+
'%9.*<
#/'';.3*/3%33)%R&/'6*
3&%&3)
3* * G.396wI
DR68%*/3
/3V;3)393%&68%3#+
7/'3
3).%3
3).*<5?3%3(%&%3)#d$*e*&/39
>
*5'G*T5*/.##$*&'?&33#$'G'+ */e*&/'
%..(</*57&&;'3*'(%3).37*/3@# *V%<*3
#%&G
*/3Y
3)&%3
3*<(#$3%< ;' .2(</3
G
d&3)3)#e'l 6*&/3R'*7#'*% *&3R 64l*&T $D
'%&$
*&3) HB*
3+
A@%'GN*/3_ G.% ;'.3#
3).'%&3)3)*j
* *< 46E$2 HHH 3)5?3%3(.3)(*&3)#%'#$
$#$3*3(</%"2#$&%&3)G. %<#$G5/'(</m3)((
.3$(* l(.'3*5?.
%&3(.%#$3#+7/3
B;3%
6 3)
3)&%3)#5*&/*/3G%33;3) 5?.
%$*3 *5(3.%&G.3-5*&/V*/3;'3.3)%
;3)9+7/3(3(*3)#Y# *4 *"3)(</Y
3&%&G7.*
57V&%&*&3##$33#$'GR.*/3
G.%@.&*&d 6
*/3%33%Y;#$3Yd.%#3%V*&.;$*y*&/'33)D
(*3768%7*/3
3V
()(."+
'%d*&/'3'%&.3)3)#/'*&
3;'.3#
3).'%&3D
3).*<5?3%37() %%&3)#B$*2%3)(%<#$'GE
'2 H.HH@'3)68%
3(</R
3)&%'G*)+
7/'3#'*57(.3)(*&3# (
#$%&(( D
.%#' *&3d $*&392@5*/%Gu*&/3T$6Y*&/3
'%&.3)3%&/'6*+T%<#$ #$%3)(*.*/3#*<R5?.
3&%&3#68.%F% H'+ IH2H'+ .$2H'G+ H2H'+ C$24E.+ H.H
'#uE.+E$+@e3).(</e%.#$'*/3
3&%&Gy.*
x(%(683%3*& u#%3)(*&j53)%&368%G'%
G3Y
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
L @
y
."$
NM-'OM- "$P
V/XY\Z2[
V/XY\Z"b
V/XY\Z"`
V/XY\Z9]
E)2
I $E)H.
C.H I.I.FH
'E)CI.CF
C.F I.HH
h4i
+ H
H'+
F'+ IH
E.+ H.H
+(3
&3(*%<*&
E
.
E
CC
$EHH
EKE
FC
G3VF
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
u 1
$ev=w=<"a' MmY1"
% 33%?357*3%*&3*<5?3%3@('#'(*3)# **/3
>5*&/*/34%33)% EF.
H+1G+.C
*&/'3d.3)57*3%R*&3*%3)&*9 %3T(
'%&3#u5*&/
*&/'39#'*68%Y''#+=
'%&G*/3
3).%3
3).*<68.%x#$ (3{(
3(3*x, H'G+
;3*5?33
> '#lY'#$3
*.'6E+ x
ywz '#6y$+ 2I xv y|{ ( L;368'#"+7/3
(.%&%3)&'#$GX#$3)%&3)'(368.%e*&/'3)&3)e3l%&3
$+
C x '}
#
+
xh()&3R*&/3# *y68%&.
> '#
$7 %3V(
'%&3#+
>#'(3(
36+
7/%'*(
36+
%<.'3w(36+
~
y z
w
y|{
E
H +
H.H
H+ $E.E
H+ F. I
H +CI2
H+E)F I
H'+
..
F
H + HH
H+ H.I
H+E I
"E
'%&.'#$3V
B;3%
D
3)
#7
B;3%
/
D
$+E
+
H+
H
E
I E)H
u 1
$ev= Y11tLem71
3*< '(3
*&3)*
5*/
*&/3
Y=7
$#$3)
eEEE.E$H.HE3)3)#m5*&/%&##$3%/3];3)3
3%&68%3#l*&/3*&5Gd* 'e 6
>+>57*3%
*&3)
3)% *&%3
6@"E 2KE D=a57V
3).%3)#y#$%'G*/3
%3)&*'(3d '#%&.u*&3)*)+L7/3y*&3*# *
R(%%&3(*3)#.%#3%*&](#$3%*u;$(< G3
33)(*)2.((%<#$'G**&/'3
3*&/'
#T6$(</
'*3% C+
yG'+E)H*&/3%3)&*'(3(%3V(. %3)#5*&/
*&/'3Y'3)7G3);
Y4'2$;$*< 3)#68%457*3%
*&3)
3)% *&%36E)
H D)=@+Y7/3
3)&%3
3*<y%&3
3' *&3#()(%<#$G**/3
3*&/$#6%#$35*&/
*&/'3=D
%3)&*'(3T('%&.3d'#a
3.+
.3*/3a 3)#$
3'&3)*&/3a5?3**3)#
&%6.(3d %3)e'('#G*&/'3y%'##$3)% +
'E
57'3#+T7/3%3)&*< '(3(%3B&/5& %
G3wI
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
u 1
$ev='-Y11tLeLm71
7/3#$
'
(R*%& 6@*/3%33#Y=7l$#$3)
57
3&%&3#h68%*/3#$3)&G..*2u
3)#$G
pH DH E)I D+ '%&.3)3)#('#$*&&G/*
#$3(%3)&3eX*&%{'#&'G3l(
'%&3#*&u*/3
'%&.3)3)#&/
$#$3
(;3;'&3%3#+ '%
*&/'3:A
3).'%&3)3)*@/53)3)%*&/3V=7$#$3)
57$3)#B*&V*/34(%&% G3
*%&
3#
(#$*.'
*
*/3#$3)&G]#$% 6*)+7/3((*&5?3%3(%D
%3#$*?5*/*&/'3@
3%(
3)&/#$3' *&36
# V/XY\Z2[+
7/3%<*3 6%&3)$*.6*/34%33)%5?.(</.&3
()(.%#$G*& ;"++
G'+wE9$2E)C'2YEl'#.T*&/'3y$ 2*G3)*&
#%<#3$(* (.
.3*l %3'**&3#m
*&/'3w'%&.3)3%&*&%3) H+EA;3)/#%33%
3T68.%e*&/'3
3).%GX.*< *e*&/3%.#$
.&*.F% HC+ w #
*&/3w G. %.&*&|
H
H D 2
H H D/
2 H E)C.
H D'
# H
H D9%3)&3(*.3 +X7/3
# *Y57
.#$3@#
33)-5*&/*&/3w/&3)3)#
$+E
|
<'#*&%< '68%
3)#*&u(
#$%&D
(R(
%<#$*&3 $*&39+%l*&/368'%
3).'%D
G.**/3a'*&3#$ ;3/%]6*&/'35
#$3)3)'#$G*/34;#$3*&"2.3#$GV*/'%&
3) $w*&/'3
35?3)#'*&*&3))2"( ;3
;3)%&.3)#+
7/3
H D9*&]#$3'3)#
#&/';.3*/3
%33)%/' 6*)2y5/3*&/
3 .
H D.&*.L.*<
*&e*&/3d*< %; %<#&#$3+7/3y G%33)
3*;3*53)3
((*& '#Y
3&%&3)
3*.'*3G.$#V68.%1*/3
3).%G.*<
* H E)CH D
# H H D +'%
*&/'3l.*d
* H
H De%&G.3%#(%3''(3)( X;3
#$3*&3)(*&3#l68.%
*&/39%<#$ 7.3
(* .25/(</]#$()*3)
*&/*?*&/3w;G.3.%*3
5?.' *?&$(3* %3)&3#
;
*&/'3dG.%&#+>468%9*/3T.*n
* H
H D*/3
*G3)*& B.3$(* a(
3).*dy*y%3)#$(*3)#
5?3+A3*&3?*/3?'*&**.3?#3%3'(3);3*53)3
3).%3
3).*<7 '#9((*&2$3)%& 3)'(.%G D
GyG%33
3).**/3RG3'3%< (</ %<(*3%*&(B(
;3
68'#"+7/3 '3)#y
3%() %$(3)#%&357
;'3B**&3)%&
3*/3#33'#$3)'( 6*&/3B'5X
*&/'3Y%&.3)3%;'.#$3V*&R3)%& G.
#"+
]G'+-H2*&/'3R
35;3Gy68%&.;3)/'#+ 3&3
' *&3.2l*/'*a*/33)$(* 3(*%<*&/3m'G.%3
%&3.*3%. *&3#j&'(32a/'5G#$3'&3%
.3)(*&%V3#*/' e.(*' 3&%3)#+7/3
*/%'*
G.33)% *&3((3*&%(w&'(3w*&/3Y%33%% * *&3
.*/3T.%*TG.'* '#*&/3* %;. %<#
&#$3l5*&/X*/3l%G'5() '&'G]*&/3%33)%
*3%<*35*&/ %
'Gy'('*.G3))+%
%$*3 N*/
3
H D*&*&/3%&G.3)*
.3$(*&3)w( ;3
3)3"+V>4*&/'G./*&/3*&.%&*&(3
6
*&/33e;#3)#%33)% %3 *d((%<*&3)
%3)&3#&'(32*&/3V.&*.6"*&/3V.%&*&(3)?(
(3 % l;3#$3).*3)#+a7/3 %G3)*$ 3)$(*
G.%.#$3*&'(3( ;3.;'&3%3)#e*&/357 .3
3)y#&/'B;.3*/3%33%&/'6*+R? */
;'G3%&*&(32 *&/'G./e *
B%&.''(3#T5*/
.3)% *&GR%&.3)3%Y.V5*/$*21$'3)'(3*/3
3D
$(* '3)#dy*/Y%&3)Gd(#$3%< ;' .+7/Y(
;3.;'3)%&.3)#T;'&V 6?*&/3#557 %<#w.*'G
.3$(* 3(*&.%T#&/'e ;3*&/'3u%33)%
5/'(</L%&3'3)%&.&*. 6*/3;G3u.%&*&3
'#*&/'39* 'G3*43)$(* l(
.3*
3#
;
*&/3e% *<*G]%33%+|*&/3l5?3T 6*&/3
'%&.3)3%;'.#$3)R*/3e3)$(* 3#a#*&%;3)#2
5*&/#3)(%3).3L*&/3a$ 9 '# '(%&3&3
*&/3*&%< .3%<&(.
.3* 6y*&/33)$(*
.3)(*&%2.#3*&B%&3&&%33)'g ?) *&
33)(*-.
*&/3
*%G3)#G36?*/3'%&.3)3%;.#$3))+eG+F
*/3y() (*3)#].3
(* '3)#]68.%*/3y
3;#3
.&*&dY&/5"+>w68%V*/3
*/3%(
' %.'
;3*5?33)
3&%&3)
3* '#((*&2*&/3
G.33)%4'5 #3*R %3%&3)%
#'(3#u*3G.$#2
#3)&*3' *&* *&39#$3)%&3)'(325/(</%&3R
.*
'%&.(3)#aX*/3l57 .3e3 a;3/'#a*/3&/
'#d68%B*&/
3
H D*&"+9eG'+E '#e I9*&/3
(
'%&.T(%&%3#d$*68%*/3;'.#$3.&*.
I.H D +=.
' %'G9*&/3R3)$(* d'3#T68.%;#3
.&*&
HDG+
H #L FT5*/L;#3
.&*&p
I.
H D@G+$E7 '#
I
*/37*&
3?/'*&.%&
6*/3V'5'3#9( R;3Y *(3)#+
G3Y
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
e/&/6
Ly @ M'1m
: A4
3).'%&3)3)*Y68.%yG.3R&(%&3)5(*< 3%
1
3&&3Y=753)%&3-() %%&3)#@*1Y'%&.3)3)#V #@'$D
%33#9(#$*.' **&/3
>+'%*/3
3)*&D
G. *&5*&/*%'GB%33)%G %;'&3)#
3D
&%&3)
3*@53)%&3(%&%3#*)+7/3*&
3/'*&.%& 9 6
*&/'3-'5#$3)3)'#$G.Y*&/3%33)%1;#$3*&
57V%3)(.%#3)#+d.##$*&T%3)&*'(3.2%&.
#u%33)%9357*3%*&3*<953)%&3d(#$'(*3)#
*&(
'%&3w*&/'3;$*< 3)#9# *
5*&/ ;3w*&3)*
# *+4>@@$( (' *&'6*&/3'5 %#B*/3
&/5*&/%&**'G@%33%/'3?;333%&68%3#+
7/3y3&%3
3* %3'&3)#u68%#*.u%&D
.&3)6V*&/3d( (' *&')+X7/3y3#]'3)%&D
(1
3*/$#9@ ;3Y*%&3)%
#'(3V*/3(
3'$D
*&3).#$ @'5T'3#Y;3/'#*&/3*&%G4%33%3%
5?3+7/3y. *&* *&3(
' %.]&/54&
3
#$&(%&3)' (3))23)&3( %&3B5*//G/G%<D
#$3*)+7/'3. * y 6?*&/3.;$*'3)#d%&3'*<Y
G3)3%< .3% G
$#+
E!v
K$v$/&JvRjRE86
3)'(</ %
'G 6=
$*<*.' '#]A@ .D
'
(68%
/54 h7/
3 w*&/3)
;%G
HH.H %$/'"2
,.%& 6$/3)&3)%(</"2Y.+@2
I $2B4+BE2
%<(</RHHF'2
"
+
.FDCE
I!JRK$
!JRK$
8$$<
WJJ&
&('5j
B*.68.%=
3)*&'
'#R!4G/$D
.35 %3 %&.3)3%<
/93)(</'G. 3)&3)%(</"2
.+I
$2E C
F !
J
R$
_$
(vR
=?A # *&R68%@
%&3V%33)%4'&'G
R'*&%'(*%&3#R3/R;'.3#4>@@R
3*/$#
%
(33#$'G.6Aw0 H.F2I *&/1+>w$D
,$t,.*#'-G.3)3%'Gh
3%
=$683)%&3)'(3.2'!4."2'!57
2 @$>B2,.
D
EE2'HH.F
Ra
WJJ&
4'*&3#$
3%( .3)*&G. *&6"*&/3w*%D
;3*7'5%&.'#
*/3(..*< 3%7&/R
$#$3
Y=7?5*/ '#5*/*4%&.3)3%2
%
(33#$'G.
!
6 w*&/3);'%&G HH.H27> %D
/..R
3%() $/!
#%&$#$
'(
=?$QD>@='5
' 2$3%<$+E2
3$*3;3)%@ H.H.
=?$QV
'3%<$+
2
3$*3;3)%@ H.HF
JJ&Ij
75D3.*&
3)#'#$ D
&(.&*
*%&;'3)'(3
$#$3)?68.%3G.'33%G (*.')2
>4>>4D,.'%&'2FC.2KE I
C Y=@'*
=aE
H'2
2 2
F DC2$$E8IE)F
G3j
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
G.%3J
F @$3)%&
3*&3*68.%Y:1A4>
3)&%3D
3*)2'w
35
G%3B
I $3%
3).*< 3*&68%Y:1A>
3).'%&3D
3).*<26*4
3)5
G3
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
CR*10^3 , CTM*10^3
3
2
1
0
8
10
12
14
16
18 20
Vs [kts]
22
24
26
28
G'%&3 E)H3)&*'(3Y(%&.32Y=7
-0.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
trim angle []
CR KRISO
CT KRISO
CR SVA
CT SVA
Kt (SVA)
10Kq (SVA)
ETA0 (SVA)
Kt (SRI)
10Kq (SRI)
ETA0 (SRI)
Kt (KRISO)
10Kq (KRISO)
ETA0 (KRISO)
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.8
0.6
Advance Coefficient: J [-]
-0.1
0
8
12
16
20
Vs [kts]
24
28
G.%&3
E.EA
'
(w*%&92'V=7
0.5
Kt
SVA
10Kq SVA
Kt
CFD
10Kq CFD
0.6
Wake: w=1-u/U [-]
Kt , 10Kq
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.5
0.5
r/R=0.40
r/R=0.70
r/R=1.00
r/R=0.40
r/R=0.70
r/R=1.00
0.4
0.3
probe
probe
probe
LDV
LDV
LDV
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Advance Coefficient: J [-]
57*&3)%7*&3*
0
0
45
90
135
Angular position []
180
G3VC
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0
0
45
90
135
Angular position []
G.%3E)J
F 1=.'$*&3#Y$ 57 3.#$3%3*"G.%&#
R'%&.3)3% '3
probe
probe
probe
CFD
CFD
CFD
-0.1
-0.2
0
180
r/R=0.40
r/R=0.70
r/R=1.00
r/R=0.40
r/R=0.70
r/R=1.00
45
90
135
Angular position []
180
0.6
0.5
0.4
r/R=0.40
r/R=0.70
r/R=1.00
r/R=0.40
r/R=0.70
r/R=1.00
0.3
0.2
probe
probe
probe
CFD
CFD
CFD
0.1
0
0
Vx/Vm -1 LDV
Vt/Vm
LDV
Vr/Vm LDV
Vx/Vm-1 CFD
Vt/Vm CFD
Vr/Vm CFD
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
45
90
135
Angular position []
180
90
180
270
Angular position of propeller []
360
G%3E94V3
(* d(.'3*)21.&*.H HD2
%\ HC+
2$H+EA;3/''#9'%&.3)3% '3
0.4
r/R=0.40
r/R=0.70
r/R=1.00
r/R=0.40
r/R=0.70
r/R=1.00
probe
probe
probe
CFD
CFD
CFD
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
0
45
90
135
Angular position []
180
G.%3E43&%&3#'#( $*3)#*G3)*&
Vx/Vm-1
Vt/Vm
Vr/Vm
Vx/Vm-1
Vt/Vm
Vr/Vm
0.3
0.2
LDV
LDV
LDV
CFD
CFD
CFD
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
0
90
180
270
Angular position of propeller []
360
G3j
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
0.5
0.4
0.3
Vx/Vm-1
Vt/Vm
Vr/Vm
Vx/Vm-1
Vt/Vm
Vr/Vm
LDV
LDV
LDV
CFD
CFD
CFD
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
90
180
270
Angular position of propeller []
360
Vx/Vm-1
Vt/Vm
Vr/Vm
Vx/Vm-1
Vt/Vm
Vr/Vm
0.5
0.4
0.3
LDV
LDV
LDV
CFD
CFD
CFD
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
0
90
180
270
Angular positionof propeller []
360
G.%3 EKJ
3)$(*
(
.3*<2*&
H E)C.HD2$%\ H+C
2$H+EAa;3)/#'%&.3)3% '3
G%34
3$(*
(
3)*)2.&*.
H H D 2\% H'+G$2H'+E Aa;3/'#R%33)%3
G%3
F V3
(* '3#H+EA;3)/'#T%33)%
'3V68%.&*. . HD@6;#3E2=?A
G%3IV3
(* '3#H+EA;3)/'#T%33)%
'3V68%.&*. I.HD@6;#3E2=?A
G.3EH
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
u j
x j
(1)
=0
ui Fij
+
= Si
t
x j
(2)
Where
Fij = ui u j + p ij
COMPUTATIONAL APPROACH
Numerical Method
The computer code is based on an essentially
non-staggered grid, finite volume method using a
fractional time step approach. Non-orthogonal
curvilinear coordinates are applied with an overall
second order accuracy in both space and time. The
Crank-Nicolson discretization scheme has been applied
for diagonal viscous and diffusion terms and an explicit
Adams-Bashforth scheme is employed for other terms.
The central differencing (CD) scheme (with special
care due to numerical instabilities) is applied to
discretize the convective terms. Detailed information
can be found in Shi (2001).
The current solution method is 2nd order
accurate both in space and time. Theoretically the
higher the order of the numerical scheme, the better the
resolution should be under the same grid spacing (Shi,
2001). However, Rai and Moin (1991) have shown that
higher order of accuracy combined with coarse grid
spacing does not necessarily give better results. Jordan
(1999) showed that the results could be improved by
improving the grid spacing. The power law scheme is
inaccurate under some limitations, in that when
convection is dominant; it reduces to 1st order upwind
scheme (Patankar, 1980). On the other hand, higher
order CD schemes have in addition the problem of
artificial high frequency oscillations that may
contaminate the turbulence field (Rai and Moin, 1991).
In LES, explicit schemes are preferable, but if stability
is an issue, some implicitness can be introduced, i.e.
Crank-Nicolson time splitting. For information on the
LES code, i.e. equations, time advancement and spatial
ui
+ ij
x j
(3)
x
x
S i = 2 S u1 3 u3 1
xi
x
i
(4)
ij = ui u j ui u j
(5)
ij ij kk = 2t Sij
3
where
t is
(6)
S ij =
1 ui u j
+
2 x j xi
(7)
t = Cs ( Sij Sij )
2
1/ 2
APPLICATIONS
(8)
as
= ( x1x2 x3 )
1/ 3
and
Cs is
the
2 x j xi
a function of the filter width and the integral length
scale of turbulence. Cs = 0.2 does a good job for
isotropic turbulence, and for non-homogeneous flows
this value must be reduced by half or more (Ferziger,
1993).
(a)
(b)
Parallel Computations
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 3. Turning ship wake: a) The geometry b)
velocity profile specified at the IDP (top view) c) The
coordinate system and numerical mesh (Only the core
region is shown, distances are non-dimensionalized
with ship length, L)
(a)
(a)
(b)
(b)
(c)
(c)
(a)
(b)
Figure 8 Contours on vertical x-planes of time averaged a) streamwise velocity b) turbulent kinetic energy (parallel
simulations, 108x50x66 nodes per processor)
(a)
(b)
Figure 9 Contours on horizontal y-planes of time averaged a) streamwise velocity b) turbulent kinetic energy
(parallel simulations, 108x50x66 nodes per processor)
(a)
(b)
Figure 10 a) Vorticity magnitude contours obtained for the wake behind a ship on a straight track using parallel
computations with 3 Million grid nodes, b) Preliminary vorticity magnitude contours obtained for the wake behind a
ship on a straight track using parallel computations with 6 Million grid nodes (black lines show processor
boundaries, overlap/communication regions)
(a)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(a)
(b)
(b)
(c)
(c)
10
x/L
(a)
(b)
Figure 19 Resolved turbulence kinetic energy of the
wake simulation of a ship cruising on a straight track
normalized w.r.t. its inlet value along a line of center
z = 0.055, y=-0.012 (Parallel computations)
Comparisons
11
REFERENCES
CONCLUSION
12
13
ABSTRACT
Wakes of surface penetrating cylindrical and
streamlined shapes have been measured in a large, salt
water tow tank facility over a range of Froude and
Reynolds numbers of general interest. The white-water
wake (WWW) pattern was observed as a function of
object shape and speed using optical imagery, with the
camera following the model. Using these data the
evolution and decay of the WWW, which is the bubble
pattern generated by the entrained air, was observed in
detail, and related to the relevant non-dimensional
parameters, the Reynolds number (Re) that is
indicative of the degree of turbulence/air entrainment,
and the Froude number (F) that determines the nature
of the wake pattern. Two major source mechanisms
have been observed to contribute to the generation of
the WWW: centerline turbulence (resulting from
separation at the bow and stern as well as from the
boundary layer on the body) and breaking waves in the
body wake. The Re-F regimes where these
mechanisms dominate have been identified. In
addition to the experiments, surface wave patterns
were predicted using a nonlinear potential flow model.
An acceleration threshold criterion was used to predict
regions of likely wave breaking in the wake. In
addition, the concept of relating acceleration threshold
exceedance to breaking intensity was studied.
INTRODUCTION
Submarine operations in the littoral often
require mast penetrations for extended periods. Such
exposures can lead to detection by observation not
only of the mast itself but also the hydrodynamic
wake. In addition, wakes of obstacles in the coastal
ocean or rivers can provide sites for enhanced
biological activity, and the wakes of bridge and pier
supports can affect their structural integrity. While
substantial research has gone into the study of flow
around these structures, less effort has gone into
understanding the processes in the wake. Toward this
C0-1
C0-2
C0-3
C0-4
C1-1
C1-2
C1-3
C1-4
C2-1
C2-2
C2-3
C2-4
U (m/s)
1.5
2.1
2.6
3.1
1.5
2.1
2.6
3.1
1.5
2.1
2.6
3.1
F
1.17
1.64
2.03
2.41
1.23
1.72
2.13
2.54
1.02
1.42
1.76
2.10
Re (x105)
2.52
3.53
4.37
5.21
2.28
3.19
3.95
4.71
3.33
4.66
5.77
6.88
A salt water facility was desirable for this test as there is evidence
that salinity can affect bubble size distribution in a white water wake
(cf. Scott 1975).
2.
3.
4.
5.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Individual images from each of the
experimental runs (see Table 1), remapped to the
water plane, are shown in figure 42. Clearly the WWW
area associated with the large fairing and the cylinder
are significantly larger than that of the smaller fairing.
This is due to the larger flow disturbance of the larger
fairing and the enhanced mixing in the recirculation
zone behind the cylinder, the diameter of which is
comparable to the thickness of a the smaller fairing.
2
C0
C1
C2
C0
C1
C2
C0
C1
C2
t/c = 1
t/c = 0.5
C0
C1
C2
Centerline Dominated
White Water
Breaking Wave
Dominated White Water
( x , t ) = U (t ) x + ( x , t ) .
The boundary value problem
perturbation potential is as follows,
2 = 0
+
=0
t
z
the
r
x V
P
1
2
+ + g + a = 0
t 2
=0
n
for
r
xS f
r
xS f
r
x Sh
r
x
The
far-field
boundary
condition,
r
,
is
not
strictly
satisfied.
This
0, x
boundary condition is left open in the solution method
described below.
Consequences of leaving the
boundary condition unspecified may include wave
reflections off the boundary and mass flux through the
boundary. These effects appear to be minimal for the
steady, forward-speed problem studied here.
The equations are solved using an EulerLagrange time stepping technique. The free surface
boundary conditions are integrated in time using 4th
order Runge-Kutta time stepping. A mixed boundary
value problem is solved at each time step using a
multipole-accelerated desingularized method (c.f. Cao
1991, Beck et al. 1994, Scorpio et al. 1996 and
Scorpio 1997). Multipole acceleration was originally
developed by Greengard (1987) for solving electropotential problems. The multipole algorithm used
here differs somewhat from the one described in
Scorpio et al. 1996 and Scorpio 1997. In the previous
work, multipole acceleration was applied solely to the
1.5 m/s
2.6 m/s
2.6 m/s
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
Froude Number
2.1 m/s
3.1 m/s
0.7
S ( k ) = 0.004k
2.1 m/s
3.5
3.5 k o 4
exp
4 k
3.1 m/s
L plume = c break
where the scaling coefficient depends on the breaking
intensity. From the observations of Walker et al. and
Ericson et al., the coefficient has a lower limit of about
0.1 for weak (incipient) breaking waves. An upper
limit of 0.5 restricts the plume from extending beyond
the trough ahead of the breaking crest.
Clearly, the potential flow predictions cannot
be used to explicitly determine the dissipation rates
because breaking is not included in the solution.
However, it may be possible to devise a metric that
relates the potential flow solutions to the breaking
dissipation rate. For example, breaking regions where
the downward acceleration is very close to the
acceleration threshold may lose relatively little energy
due to breaking while those where the downward
acceleration greatly exceeds the threshold may have
much higher dissipation rates. This metric gives
Lplume
break
= C (a L at )
linear = 2U 2 / g sin
Zmax
Zmin
/2
0.4 * * (a L -a t)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
0.4 * * (a L -a t)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
0.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0.0
0.4 * * (aL-at)
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
10
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
This work was sponsored in part by
NAVSEA PMS 435, Mr. Swarn Dulai under contract
N00024-03-D-6606 and by internal research and
development funds at the Johns Hopkins Applied
Physics Laboratory. The help of the engineering staff
at the Ohmsett facility in running the tow tank is
gratefully acknowledged. We would like to thank Dr.
T. Gieseke, Mr. B. Jantzen, Mr. C. Henoch, Mr. J.
Skutnik and Mr. E. Rabe from the Naval Undersea
Warfare Center for their collaboration in planning and
executing the experiments at Ohmsett. Dr. D. L.
Porter, Mrs. S. Daniels and Mr. C. Buckingham from
the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory are
acknowledged for there assistance in processing the
images.
REFERENCES
Figure 18: Mean wake images for the C2 geometry.
a, b, c = 1.5, 2.1, 2.6 m/s. Blue circles denote location
of the wave crest predicted by the model. Blue lines
denote plume length predicted by the model.
1.
CONCLUSIONS
2.
3.
4.
11
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
12
DISCUSSION
AUTHORS REPLY
Dane M. Hendrix
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
AUTHORS REPLY
Dimensional analysis leads to the conclusion
that the Reynolds and Froude numbers are the
governing parameters.
Verification of the
dependencies of the wake characteristics on these
parameters would entail a larger data set than
currently available, i.e. one where each of the
parameters could be varied independent of the other.
DISCUSSION
Dane M. Hendrix
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
The second question concerns the
determination of local breaking wavelength. I am
concerned that the method of determining a crest line,
propagation direction, and corresponding breaking
wavelength described in the paper might not be
robust enough for general application. For example,
the first crest at the leading edge of the strut shown in
Figure 15 exceeds the breaking criteria, but does not
have a smooth crest line from which to determine a
propagation direction. Would the authors like to
comment on any ideas for handling such situations?
optimization.
Though the potential flow assumption is often violated
in many flow situations, the computation of potential flows
still serves as a powerful tool for practical applications to
predict hydrodynamic wave forces on ships and offshore
structures. These outer potential flow solutions also play
an important role of providing the boundary condition for
inner viscous problems around the body.
The mixed Eulerian-Lagrangian method based on a
boundary integral formulation, originally developed by
Longuet-Higgins & Cokelet (1976) for free surface waves,
has been the most widely-used computational method for
inviscid free surface problems. See, for example, the review by Beck & Reed (2001) for its application to wavebody interaction problems. A major difficulty of this
method lies in the free surface representation using a distribution of a large number of singularities whose location
and strength must be computed at every time step. Erroneous results are sometimes produced by numerical errors introduced when approximating the singular integrals
and redistributing singularities on the free surface, and care
must be taken when carrying out these steps.
An alternative numerical approach to solve inviscid free
surface problems has been proposed by Fenton & Rienecker (1982) using the Fourier-series expansion. For free
wave problems, Dommermuth & Yue (1987) have further
improved the method by expanding the nonlinear free surface boundary conditions about the mean free surface and
by solving the resulting boundary value problems for each
order using a pseudo-spectral method based on Fast Fourier
Transform (FFT). Liu et al. (1992) then modified this
approach for wave-body interaction problems. Although
these methods have been adopted for practical applications
(Lin & Kuang 2004), it is still a nontrivial task to study
unsteady wave-body interactions since they are computationally expensive and numerical implementation is rather
complex.
t + u = w
p=0
at
at z = (x, t).
t + 12 ()2 + 12 z 2 + gz + p/ = 0,
h z (x, t),
+ = 1 + ||2 W ,
t
1
+ 2 ()2 + g =
t
(1)
at z = h.
1 + ||2 W 2 ,
(11)
(12)
(3)
where V is the body velocity, n is the normal vector directed into the body, and SB (t) represents the instantaneous body position. The bottom boundary condition to
be imposed at z = h is given by
=0
z
1
2
(10)
(7)
= Vn
n
(6)
,
(8)
=
t z=
t
z z= t
,
(9)
=
xj z=
xj
z z= xj
(5)
2 GOVERNING EQUATIONS
2
2 + 2 = 0
z
z = (x, t),
(x, t) = 0 +
(1)n
n=0
n=1
(4)
2n+1
n w0
(2n + 1)!
(1)n
2n n
0 ,
(2n)!
(14)
W (x, t) = w0 +
(1)n
n=1
2n1
n 0
(2n 1)!
(1)n
n=1
2n n
w0 ,
(2n)!
(15)
z=0
= k tanh(kh) 0 +
w0 = w(x, 0, t) .
(23)
(16)
which can be computed after solving the body velocity potential described below. After taking the inverse Fourier
Transform, we have the relationship between w0 and 0 as
3 FORMULATION
z=0
fB,
(25)
(17)
= 0 (x, t)
at
z = 0,
F
=0
at z = h.
z
By using the Fourier transform defined by
F (k, z, t)
F (x, z, t) eikx dx,
B = 0
B
=0
z
(19)
at z = h,
(29)
on SB (t),
(30)
(21)
where k = (k1 , k2 ), the solution of (18)(20) in the transformed plane can be found as
cosh[k(z + h)]
,
cosh(kh)
(28)
B
F
= VB n
n
n
(20)
F = 0 (k, t)
at z = 0,
(22)
(x,t), (x,t)
SF
SB
(a)
h
= F+ B
= 0 (x,t)
=0
n = V.n n
(b)
(c)
Fn = 0
n= 0
Figure 1: Decomposition of the original problem into the free surface and body problems: (a) original problem, (b) free
surface problem, (c) body problem.
where the first term represents the velocity potential for a
source located at (x , z ) for z < 0 and the second term
is for the image potential for the zero free surface boundary condition. For finite water depth, Greens function is
more complicated due to the additional bottom boundary
condition and is given (Wehausen & Laitone 1960, 13) by
be found by various methods including a distribution of singularities, the multipole expansion method, Greens identity, etc. In this paper, B is represented by a distribution
of singularities as
B (x, z, t) =
(x , t) G(x, x , z, z ) dS ,
(31)
SB
G=
where is determined by imposing the body boundary condition (30) and Greens function G(x , x) satisfies
2
2
+ 2 G = (x x , z z )
z
for h z 0,
(32)
|x x |2 + (z z )2
1
4
1
|x x |2 + (z z )2
1
4
|x
x |2
+ (z +
z )2
1/2 ,
1
4
1/2
kh
2e
cosh[k(z + h)] cosh[k(z + h)]
+
cosh(kh)
0
J0 (k|x x |) dk, (36)
1/2 ,
1/2 ,
|x x |2 + (z + z + 2h)2
G=0
at z = 0,
(33)
G
=0
at z = h.
(34)
z
The solution of (32)(34) can be easily found, for infinitely
deep water, as
G=
1
4
(35)
4 EVOLUTION EQUATIONS
4.1 LINEAR APPROXIMATION
+ + () + L []
t
+2 12 2 + L L + 12 2 2 = 0, (43)
+ g + 12 12 2
t
2 + L[] = 0. (44)
(37)
+ L[] = f B ,
t
+ g = 0,
t
Notice that, using the formal expression for the vertical velocity in terms of and , the system of equations (43)
(44) is closed. This is the unique feature of our formulation
different from other formulations for nonlinear free surface
problems. In the absence of the body, the system can be
reduced to that derived by Choi (1995).
(38)
(39)
5 NUMERICAL METHODS
= b ei(kxt) ,
i b + g a = 0 ,
(x, t) =
(40)
Nx
2
n= N2x
N
m= 2y
Nx
where k = |k|.
(x, t) =
Ny
2
W = L[] 2 12 2 ( 2 )
L L[] + 12 2 2 + ||2 ,
where we have used (25) and is defined by
(x, t) = L[] f B (x, t).
2
n= N2x m= N2y
0 = + + L[] + 12 2 2 ,
Ny
2
(42)
(45)
1. compute 0 (x, tn ) from (41) and find its Fourier coefficients using FFT,
2. compute
(46)),
F
n
In order to compute
n in step 2, we need to know
the gradient of F (x, z, t) which can be found from the
Fourier series of F given by
F =
n
Anm (t)
(x, 0) = s (x)
+a0 cos(k0 (1 + p)x) cos(k0 qy),
(x, 0) = s (x)
+ca0 sin(k0 (1 + p)x) cos(k0 qy),
(46)
(47)
(48)
where s and s are the surface elevation and the velocity potential, respectively, for one-dimensional Stokes
waves of wave slope k0 a0 = 0.314 traveling in the positive
xdirection. For small two-dimensional perturbations, we
have chosen = 0.16, p = 0.5 and q = 1.22, for which the
linear growth rate is close to its maximum value (McLean
1982). As shown in figure 2, our numerical solutions of
the evolution equations (43)(44) show the development of
crescent wave patterns first observed experimentally by Su
(1982) and simulated by Xue et al. (2001) using a boundary integral method to solve the fully nonlinear Euler equations. In our simulation, the total energy is conserved typically to 0.01% or less, which demonstrates that our numerical method described in 5 introduces no artificial energy
source or sink.
|SB
B
=
V 3 + 12 |3 |2 ,
t
(a)
1 Order
rd
3 Order
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.2
0.1
/l
0
-0.01
0
-0.1
-0.02
0
1
y/
-0.03
-4
-3
-2
-1
x/
st
1 Order
rd
3 Order
0.01
/l
0
-0.01
(b)
-0.02
-4
0.2
0.1
/
0
-0.1
x/
-1
velocity potential (or Greens function for the body problem) for a three-dimensional dipole of strength is given,
in a frame of reference moving with speed U , by
B (x, z) =
0.02
-0. 5
0.01
/l
-1
-1. 5
-2
- 0.01
-2.5
-3
- 0.02
-3.5
- 0. 5
0.5
(49)
(50)
0.03
x
x
3,
r+ 3
r
where r is defined as
1/2
.
r = |x|2 + (z D)2
0.5
-1
-2
y/
- 1. 5
-3
x/l
y/l
1. 5
x/l
Figure 3: Comparison of wave pattern between firstorder (left half) and third-order (right half)
solutions for
a translating three-dimensional dipole of U/ gl = 1 and
D/l=2.5, where l = (/U )1/3 .
0. 4
0. 2
linear analytic
1st Order
2nd Order
3rd Order
0.15
0.3
0.1
0. 2
0.05
0. 1
/l
g/U
-0.05
-0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.15
-0. 2
-30
-0. 3
-15
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
10
-10
Fourier modes Nx = 15/wavelength to solve the evolution equations (43)(44) and the number of sources for the
body problem NB = 40. See Kent & Choi (2004b) and
Kent & Choi (2004c) for more numerical results for twodimensional translating and oscillating bodies.
G(x, x , z, z ) =
NB
B (x, z) =
-5
gx/U 2
x/l
7 DISCUSSION
We propose a new third-order nonlinear formulation to
solve unsteady wave-body interaction problems in water of
arbitrary depth.
We first find numerically the body velocity potential
(B ) satisfying the exact body boundary condition and the
simplified free surface boundary condition, which can be
easily solved using, for example, a singularity distribution
method. Since the boundary condition at the mean free surface is simple (B = 0 at z = 0), it is no longer necessary
to evaluate complicated free surface Greens functions containing multiple integrals which appear in classical linear
free surface formulations.
After solving the body problem at the instantaneous
body position, it is required to solve the system of coupled
nonlinear evolution equations to update the free surface elevation () and the velocity potential at the free surface ().
It has been shown that the system can be effectively solved
by using the pseudo-spectral method described in 5.
Advantages of our formulation include: (1) compared
(51)
j=1
with other spectral/pseudo-spectral methods, since our system of evolution equations is closed, no intermediate steps
to close the system are required and therefore our numerical method is more effective; (2) as in the boundary integral formulation, we solve only two-dimensional equations for three-dimensional problems; (3) compared with
the mixed Eulerian-Lagrangian method, no distribution of
singularities along the free surface is necessary. On the
other hand, the limitations of the method are that (1) being
perturbation-based, the method does not allow wave breaking to occur, and (2) the method is valid up to third order
in wave slope, though a test with traveling wave solutions
has shown promising results even at relatively high wave
amplitudes.
Here we present numerical solutions of a translating
two- and three-dimensional dipole and a translating twodimensional submerged body in this paper, more general
three-dimensional submerged or floating body problems
are under investigation.
REFERENCES
Beck, R.F., A fully nonlinear water wave computations
using a desingularized Euler-Lagrange time-domain approach, Nonlinear Water Wave Interaction, WIT Press,
1999, pp. 1-58.
Beck, R.F. and Reed, A. M., Modern computational methods for ships in a seaway, Transaction SNAME, Vol. 109,
2001, pp. 152.
Benjamin, T.B. and Feir, J.E., The disintegration of wavetrains on deep water. Part 1. Theory, J. of Fluid Mech.
Vol. 27, 1967, pp. 417430.
Cao, Y., Beck, R.F. and Schultz, W., An Absorbing
Beach for Numerical Simulations of Nonlinear Waves in a
Wave Tank, Proceedings of 13th International Workshop
on Water Waves and Floating Bodies, Delft, Holland,
March 1998.
Choi, W., Nonlinear evolution equations for twodimensional surface waves in a fluid of finite depth,
J. of Fluid Mech., Vol. 295, 1995, pp. 381394.
Colagrossi, A., Landrini, M. and Tulin, M. P., Near shore
bore propagation and splashing processes: gridless simulations, Proceedings of 6th International Workshop on
Wave Hindcasting and Forecasting, Monterey, 2000.
Dommermuth, D. G. and Yue, D. K. P., A higher-order
spectral method for the study of nonlinear gravity waves,
J. of Fluid Mech. Vol. 184, 1987, pp. 267288.
Fenton ,J. D. & Rienecker, M. M. A Fourier method
for solving nonlinear water-wave problems: application to
DISCUSSION
Alan Brandt
Johns Hopkins University, USA
To what extent will your method be able to
simulate a surface piercing flow considering the
importance of wave breaking and entrainment in such
flows?
AUTHORS REPLY
The method presented here is unable to
simulate flows where the free surface is re-entering
the fluid domain and makes no attempt to model such
flows. In fact our formulation is based on the
asymptotic expansion and it is no longer applicable
when the free surface is double valued. The purpose
of this research is to provide a fast and robust method
for simulation of non-overturning free and forced
waves.
It should be noted that other inviscid
methods including the Mixed Eulerian-Legrangian
method are not able to simulate re-entering flows and
either artificial viscosity or pressure patches are often
used to prevent such flows. In our method, a filter in
Fourier space is used to remove the steep waves
leading to wave breaking and is found effective in
many flow situations.
DISCUSSION
AUTHORS REPLY
Lawrence J. Doctors
The University of New South Wales, Australia
For
computation
period with
fourth-order
steps/period.
DISCUSSION
Lawrence J. Doctors
The University of New South Wales, Australia
(d) Can the method be easily extended in
order to incorporate a surface-piercing body, such as
a ship hull?
AUTHORS REPLY
The formulation presented in this paper is
still valid for a surface-piercing body, although the
numerical implementation is more complex. The
work is underway and will be reported in the near
future.
DISCUSSION
Lawrence J. Doctors
The University of New South Wales, Australia
DISCUSSION
Lawrence J. Doctors
The University of New South Wales, Australia
DISCUSSION
Arthur M. Reed
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
(()
*+," - .
0
+
/
+
'
0
$
'
'
'
' '
+
1
1
-
'
3
3
'
$
!
1
'
1
1 '
+
'
+
'
*
.
+
'
1 '
'
'
'
'
+
'
'
$
'
'
/
+
+
/
+
'
+
/
'
0
'
'
0
+
/
2
$
/
4
'
'
/
'
+
'
'
'
!
-
+
'
'
'
.
*
$
6
4
/
-
'
4
4
-
'
. -
'
'
'
+
+
'
4
1
'
' 4
* .
'
'
'
/'
'
*
.
9
(
'
+
*
'
+
'
0
0
'
+
;
'
&$
* 9 .
/'
(
*
+
6
:
' 4
'
* .
*% .
'
% @% =*
'
'
'
< *
;
* .
* .
+
- * .
*
'
.
*% .
4
0
'
.
'
4
'
'
4
+
*% .
. <
'
'
'
4
4
* .
+
+
+
*% .
1
'
'
' 4
*%.
+
*
>
'
'
+
*
. " #!
$
%
&
$
#
!
&' "
&( "
&"
&
& )
)
&
$
& ! " ( *& ) ( " *
&!
&% * " !
&
#%
( "*
)
+) "
( "
*$ (
$
,&
!! !
# "
,
"
&
%
*"
(&
) %
*
-&
) ) *!
%
*
"
! "%
%*
,.-&
)(
%
#
( "
"%
%
%
-&
%
*
*
$ (
$ (
(,
'
'
"
1
'
$ (.
'
'
*
$
'
A
$
1
$
*% .
*% .
'
'
*%BC&.;
(
*
'
+
*& .
4
=
*& .
. <
;
'
*& .
+
5
/
'
;
*& .
:
'
*
+
(
'
'
.
;
*& .
+
4
+
'
'
4
;
%= % *
*& .
<
* .
'
9
+
;
'
'
(.
*&'.
(* .
'
'
>
;
4
'
4
>
.'
,0-
>
'
*& .
'
*& .
'
'
&
*%BB&.
$ (.
>
0
* .
*) .
A
'
*% .;
#
(
%
*) .
$.
'
*) .
+
*
;
*) .
+
;
*) .
;
(
*.
%*
*) .
*)'.
(* .
'
(
;
*E .
+
*) .
%*
0 '
*E .
. <
(* .
*E .
">
(.
*E .
' 4
,1-
)
4
*E .
% =%*
<
*E .
'
4
'
;
'
(.
*E'.
(* .
+
7
* (((. +
'
;
*
%*
*E .
1'
,2-
*
.
'
'
' 4
*) .
*) .
*
*) .;
%
+
;
* .
*C .
'
*C .
%*
'
>
*# .
*
;
%* %
*C .
;
*C'.
(* .
*E .
/
'
;
(
"
%*
*C .
(.
*# .
*) . -
*C .
;
*C .
. <
%*
*) .
*C .
*E .
*E . +
'
*E . >
*C .
/
,4-
!
$
+
>
;
%
*# .
'
*
4
'
4
$.
*# .
'
/
'
*# . +
' *% .
*%
*
'
'
'
*% .
;
'
2
/
'
*C . +
'
>
+
'
*C .
' ;
'
>
;
4
*
!
4
*# .
$ .
'
$
!
*# .
'
*
*) ..
4
4
*C .
%
'
+
1
;
#%
2
"*
%*#
!
"
%
!
5
/
#%
"*
/
;
4
!
" #! /
+
/
6
) )
#%
)
(
#! =
"*
"
.<
*B .
+
0
'
'
'
'
6
'
6 )
;
! !
) (
"*
!
! !
$ ) (
#%
( "*
( "*
" #!
&)
) ( "*
/
+
'
*
(
"*
)
+ )
)
)
! !
"*
#
( "*
%*
) )
! !
)
/
8 4
0
+
'
'
'
'
'
-
'
'
+
'
'
'
'
';
!
*B .
*B .
';
7
)
) "
!
" #! #
*&
( "*
"
) !
-
! !
#!
)
"*
) #%
&)
! (
" #! #
"
$ ) ! !
* #%
7
;
*B .
'
&
%* ) ! !
) ( " *&!
&
% *
"
)
!
&
"
!
$ *& ) ) ( " *&!
&
% *
"
) #%
&
) " ##
# &
%*
$ ) #%
( "*
) #%
) #%
( "*
)
/ )
$
&"
)
! !
&
)
) ! !
) !
) ) " #! #
* #%
/
+
;
"*
+
#! *
" #!
'
!=
&
.<
*B .
5
;
8
!
" #! #
* #%
! !
( "*
" #!
&
)
"
'
#%
'
'
*B .
$ (.
'
*B .
*%% .
.
! !
*%( .
.
"
'
9 ## .
%
)
! !
" #! #
*
(
'
;
!*
*%( .
$ (.
%
'
*%( .
%
%*
) " #! #
*
/
.
9 ##
;
#! *
'
;
*%( .
*%( .
*%( .
)
9 ##
>
(
.
;
" %
%*
)
" #! #
! !
+ )
* #%
/
1
+
'
1
'
;
+
'
'
0
'
'
'
4
*
9
' 4
''
' 4
'
36
.
6
'
/
1+
*B.
*%(.
'
%
!
) " #! #
4
9 ##
! !
"
(
>
'
'
'
'
!
'
'
)
*
'
'
/
+
'
*3
30 3
3 FF
'
'
.
3
3 6
3
3 +
6
3
3
3
3
'
'
"
*
*
$ (.
4
!*
$ (.
'
-
'
'
*%% .
;
*%% .
;
.
' '
'
'
*%% .
*%% .
#! *
'
>
'
6
;
6
*%% .
*%% .
4
*%% .
*%% .
'
:
*
..
$
+
'
*%( .
*C .
'
'
+
'
!
'
'
'
*
'
'
'
* 9 .
'
* 9 .
/
+
+
'
/
'
$ (.
/'
'
+
'
'
!
* 9 .
'
0
'
0
+
/
'
'
+
/
+
+
*
4
'
'
,
'
#! =
'
$ ( .<
!(
$ (.<
!(
;
#! =
'
'
*%
'
'
'
+
'
!=
!(
.<
1
, .-
0 '
$
*% .
!(
'
/
/
!(
'
"
/
+
*%
!
*% .
$ (.
;
) )
*% .
*% .
"
4
4
'
'
0
+
'
+
'
'
H
'
'
'
/ *%BB . H
*%BB).
*
.
+
0
'
'
G / $ $
'
*%B#%. A
>
/$
I
$ $
*%BC%.
/ *%BB .
0
'
;
*%
% *(
*%&6.
+
1
1
% *(
;
, 0-
"
'
'
.
1
+ / '
'
'
'
*% .
*% .
;
*%) .
*%) .
*%) .
4
*%
*% .
:
*
!(
+
1
;
(
*
.
*
*% . *%&.
6
*%& .
*%).
'
7
6
-
/'
$1
0
*%) .
*%& .
%
*% . 1
'
'
'
'
+
'
!
+
(
'
-
*%& .
;
*%& .
*%& .
. <
4
*%& .
*%
'
'
'
* . 5
/
;
(
*% .
*%& .
'
">
'
/'
+
'
1
;
% *(
% *(
*%&'.
%* % !
;
9 ## 0
) )
"
! "* $
%
! "* $ ) "
!
$
4
'
'
/
'
!
+
/
;
*%& .
+
;
*
(.
*%& .
(* .
(* .
+
"
(
%
&)
)
"
/
5
5
/
'
'
9 ##
0 -
'
/
;
0
'
+
!
'
'
* !
! .
#
*
#
#
#
'
!.
*%E .
* .
'
! (
'
:
0
! !*
*% .
'
*%& .
1 +
(
%
* !
"
%".
*%
*%C
*%C
*%C
*%C
*%& .
*% .
'
;
(
'
*E . -
*E . *E .
*% .
*% .
*% .
.
.
.
.
*%C .
*%E .
!.
"
'
0
%
#<
'
#
=
*
#
*%E .
".
*%
'
0
! (
'
3
;
% *(
%* (
+
!
*% '.
;
*%#
*%#
*%#
*%#
*% .
;
!*
*% .
!( * .
(.
'
!( * .
'
!
!(
!(
!(
(
% *(
*% 6
.
% *(
!(
'
#! =
#! =
3'
%
"
'
*C .
*C . *C .
A '
.
.
.
.
, 3-
!=
*%
!
!
(
!
*
*
.<
*%B .
.<
*%B .
! (
! (
.
(
.<
%(
*%B .
#! =
! (
#! =
! (
! (
!=
'
*%B .
.<
.<
*%B .
! (
.<
'
'
*%B .
! (
'
'
(
(
+
4
*%B.
/
1
' 1
1
2
/
,
*%B.
1
9 ## 1
%
& )
#
%
)
#
)
) ) ##
% * "
&
!
) $
"
"
)
/
7
9 ## 1
0
';
'
#%
, 7% "
4
5
/
'
+
#! =
! (
$ (.<
#! =
! (
* ( .
!=
+
'
$ (. <
*
* ( .
!
!
! (
!
! (
4
.<
!
* ( .
H J*%BBE.
$ (.
*% .
*%B.
+
* (.
'
0
'
+
'
0
9 ## 1
'
9 ## 3
)
"
9 ## 1&
)
"
"
" #! %
)) $
" &
)
% "
"
!
! !
$
"
*! /
9 ##
3
'
'
1 '
1 '
/
+
;
'
'
9
4
1 '
'
1 '
'
)
"
%
'
:
4
*%&.
* 9 .
;
* % .
* .
'
* % .
( (
0
+
9
*%
>
2
!
9 ##
'
1
'
/
9 ##
2
1
%%
* % .
>
'
' 4
4
!
'
'
*% .
*E .
*%& . *%C.
*E .
*%B .
'
;
*
* ) .
/'
;
!
'
*
*
.
.
%= % *!
<
* ).
5
5
* ).
;
*
* ) .
;
*
* )'.
*E .
*E .
+
*% '.
*% 6.
'
* %. -
*E . /
* %. %*
*% '.
%*
;
*
* ) .
* ) . * ) .
* ) . -
. -
'
*
* ) .
.
4
*%
'
-
"
"
* ) .
'
%
*
"
* & .
'
4
;
%
1+
'
H
4
* ) .;
&
&
* & .
+
4
>
;
4
*
'
*%
*% .
;
!
&
'
.
%
=*
<
* ) .
+
*E .
1
+
4
*%C.
&
*E .
'
+
>
'
;
* ) .
* ) .
!
!
/'
*C .
6
3
*%#.
* ) .
'
'
'
.
%
'
* E .
+
'
* E.
* C.
4
'
;
8
* E .
* E .
%* % !
'
* 4
* . * ).
* 4
* E .
* E..
* &. * .
H
* C..
* E .
>
;
*
*
* ).
. *
* E .
*C .
'
*C .
'
/
* E.
* E .
* E . A
'
* E.
* .
'
* &. !
*
H
* %. -
*C . /
* 4
'
* C..
>
'
* ) .
'
+
4
4
'H
H
'
'
'
+
3 !'
4
!
%
* C .
4
.
;
!
&
&
=*
<
+
*C .
3
*
4
* C .
'
'
/
'
*%
* %. +
*% . +
4
' '
'
4
-
*%
. *%E .
'
/
4
'
4
'
/'
*% . +
'
; 4
*%E .
* &.
* ) .
4
%&
* E .. +
4
/'
/
*
*
* ).
'
. -
/
4
* )'.
'
'
+
'
* ) .
+
/
/
/
* 4
' +
/
* ) .
.. +
/'
'
- '
4
* E .
'
''
'
+
+
"
'
'
'
>
/
''
4
'
* E . +
' /
+
>
'
/
'
'
* E . +
/
4
* E .
0
'
'
/
4
/'
!
' 4
'
2
/
* ) . +
4
/'
* E .
4
+
'
+
/'
N
1
-
'
-
+
+
*
4
.
"
* ) .
K 1 L M / *%BC%.
5
$
'
H
* ) . !
4
*%BBE.
* ).
'!
/
A
2
5
0
'
'
'
5
2
+
%)
'
'
'
'
+
$
0
$
+
'
0
$
'
7
'
4
$
!
'
'
'
'
/
1 '
'
'
1 '
*
'
$
$
'
'.
'
'
'
>
/
+
4
'
'
'
/
'
7
+
N K O! ' A
H
'
>
"
'
P
(((
%(#$%%)
/
*
> 1'
>
%BBE
'
4
7"
"
(% %B#%
&B
OI
>
K 1 L M / G OH
"
5
P I
% H: $H
H
: 1
%BC%
4
4
4
'
G
'
*%
7"
. +
>
'
80
&) %BC%
:
>
"
/
PH
'
Q /
:
*I5>. G
H
'
4
H JG O
P
' $I
"
>
7
84
'+
O!
'
!
4
:
!
'
"
/
>
G
'7
%BB
7
, 8 O,
' :
+
P 5
:
&&$ )
!
8'
'
!
G
%E $ ((
%BB)
H
>
D
I
'
'
G
,
PG
G
%BBE
7 /
$E&)
O
$
'7
%BB&
G O
/
$
>
Q / %BC&
84
P 7 /R
G
%( $%(#
PN
%E
DISCUSSION
Emile Baddour
National Research Council-Canada, Institute for
Ocean Technology, NL, Canada
The present reviewer would like to
congratulate the author for his paper and his new
perspective of a rational formulation to a large class
of fluid flow problems.
In this paper the author has researched and proposed
a general approach to fluid flow analysis and
solution. A rational framework is presented that will
allow the conceptual design of a solution by a
decomposition method using component flows
defined by the author. Two structures with their
algebras are introduced and used simultaneously for
that purpose.
The author in his paper defines the following
basic flows:
1) Generic Structure and flow types:
Entire flow
Irrotational Flow
Diffusive Flow
Turbulent flow.
The above types form a hierarchy of flows that must
satisfy boundary and initial conditions as well as
compatibility conditions hence suggesting a
procedure for flow analysis over the whole fluid
domain. The author proves that an entire flow would
be in general decomposed into irrotational, diffusive
and turbulent flows each defined over the whole fluid
domain. The author presents relations and operations
(structure) on these flows using in parallel a process
of operations defined with the use of:
2) Heuristic Structure and its corresponding flow
types, namely:
Ambient flow
Disturbance flow
Disturbed flow
In the latter structure the Ambient flow is known
while the Disturbed and Disturbance flows are
unknown. The heuristic analysis defines the
disturbance flow as the final sought-for flow.
Together with appropriate boundary, initial and
compatibility conditions, the author uses relevant
Generic and Heuristic information to develop a
procedure and a sequence of operations between
component flows (of generic and heuristic types) for
the complete fluid flow solution.
As expressed in the paper, one important
feature of the proposed framework is that induced
forces on boundaries are additive for the component
flows making up the disturbance flow. Solving the
AUTHORS' RESPONSE
5
8 9
! "#
$ % &'()*+(,-./0.
12
3
4
5
6
6
6
6
!
7
1
59
6
6
63
6
5
5
%
59
8
8
%
6
:
59
5 8
6
6
6
9
9
%
59
9
'& +
5 8
6
8
:
6 8
5
5
'
'5
6
6
$
6
<
6
$
9
5
'
5
9
5
'9
%
6
'9
+
'9
+
5 :
5
8
'
9
5
5
'
+
#
5
$
5
9
6
6
5
:
$
8
5
8
5
'
%
6
9
9
"
8
6
:
6
9
5
9
5
#
6
5#
INTRODUCTION
The flow generated by the impact of a planar water jet
onto a still water surface is investigated. The study, carried out both experimentally and numerically, is aimed
at exploring the mechanisms leading to air entrainment
during the jet entry.
Air entrainment has important practical implications
in ocean processes and naval hydrodynamics. In the
open ocean, wind generated breaking waves induce entrainment of air bubbles into the water and water droplets
are ejected into the atmosphere as a result of the plunging jet. These bubbles and droplets greatly enhance the
gas and heat transfer between air and water, with important biological consequences.
Large plunging breaking waves are also generated at
the bow of fast ships with a pronounced flare. The impact of the plunging jet onto the water surface entrains
air bubbles that travel along the hull and eventually flow
into the ship wake. These bubbles have a twofold undesirable effect on military ships. First, the entrainment
process, the subsequent fragmentation of the bubbles
into smaller volumes and the resonant pulsing of these
bubbles generate intense hydrodynamic noise that affects the signal received by the sonar located in the fore
part of the hull. Second, the finest bubbles remain in the
ship wake for long periods of time and scavenge surfactants during their slow rise to the surface. Once the bubble do surface, they deposit the surfactants on the surface
with profound effects on the propagation and damping
of capillary waves in that region, leaving a clearly detectible signal observable by high-altitude radar.
Experiments on a stationary plunging axisymmetric
jet have been carried out aimed at measuring both the
minimum impact velocity required to cause air entrainment, see Sheridan (1966) and Lara (1979), as well as
the void fraction, bubble size distribution and radiated
noise, see Kolaini & Crum (1994). For the same problem, the role played by a horizontal translation velocity
in a vertically oriented axisymmetric jet has been studied more recently by Chirichella et al. (2002), who measured the critical translation velocity for air entrainment
for a wide range of jet impact conditions.
In order to get flow conditions closer to those generated by breaking bow waves, the transient impact of
a translating planar jet is studied in the current work.
Experimentally, this is achieved by ejecting a water jet
from an high-aspect ratio rectangular nozzle placed parallel to the recieving pool. The resulting flow is observed through a high-speed digital camera taking 1000
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
The experiments were conducted in a 0.76 1.22
7.31 m (width height length) steel-reinforced glasswalled tank, with a planar jet nozzle mounted on a computer-controlled carriage. A skimming filtration system
was used in conjuction with a diatamacous earth filter
and 3 ppm chlorine to maintain nominally clean and
repeatable free surface conditions. The nozzle was supplied with a continuous stream of water from the tank by
a 3-hp centrifugal pump, whose flowrate was controlled
by a variable speed AC inverter. The maximum exit velocity for the 0.6 m wide nozzle depends on the nozzle
opening width, but was limited to less than 4 m/s for the
smaller nozzles widths to prevent excessive backpressure from damaging the flexible supply lines running to
the carriage. The flow was then passed through a turbulence management section composed of a 4 cm thick
layer of 2 mm open-cell foam, followed by a fine screen
Nozzle
Nozzle Inlets
Jet
Open cell
foam
Jet cutting
device
Screen
Tank wall
Troughs
Receiving Pool
Jet confinement
side walls
Camera
Experiment
3.320.2
72
0
0.0030.0005
Simulation
3.16
7
0
0.003
Incoming Jet
Cutting/Deflecting
Plate
Impact site
Deflected Jet
Cut and
Undeflected Jet
NUMERICAL MODEL
Two-fluids Navier-Stokes solver
(1)
1
1
1 m
(J ui ) +
(Um ui ) =
J
p
t
m
% m
xi
i2
1 m
J
H
(d)
J 1 2
T
Fr
% W e2 m
xi
1
mlji uj
ml ui
+
+ B
G
,
(2)
% Re m
l
l
respectively. In the above equations ui is the ith Cartesian velocity component, ij is the Kronecker delta,
Um = J 1
m
uj
xj
(3)
gLr
for Froude, Reynolds and Weber numbers, respectively.
Here, Ur and Lr are reference values for velocity and
length, is the surface tension coefficient while %w , w
are the values of the density and dynamic viscosity of
water, which are used as reference values. By following
the suggestion proposed in Brackbill et al. (1992), the
contribution of surface tension effects to the momentum
equation are modeled as a continuum force distributed
in a thin region close to the air/water interface, and expressed functionally as the gradient of the smoothed Heaviside function
d
1 1
+ sin
for |d|
2
2
2
H (d) =
0
for d < (4)
1
for d > +
m l
xj xj
B mlji = J 1
Step 3
u
3i u
2i
=
J 3 tDI
t
i
h
u2i ) + Ti (d2 ) +
3 C(
u2i ) + DE (
h
i
2 C(
u1i ) + DE (
u1i ) + Ti (d1 ) +
i2
23 J 1 2 + DI (
u2i ) ,
Fr
1
m l
xj xi
un+1
u
3i = 3
i
Step 1
J 1 1 tDI
u
1i uni
=
t
u
1i u
1i = 1
Ri (1 )
%1 J 1
Step 2
u
2i u
1i
J 2 tDI
=
t
h
i
2 C(
u1i ) + DE (
u1i ) + Ti (d1 ) +
1
u
2i
u
2i
Ri (2 )
Ri (1 )
= 2 2 1 + 1 1 1
% J
% J
Ri (2 )
Ri (n+1 )
+
.
2
%n+1 J 1
%2 J 1
Ti (d)
while
(Um ui ) ,
m
1
ui
=
Gml
m=l ,
% Re m
l
1
uj
ui
=
Gml
+ B mkji
% Re l
l
k
m 6= l ,
1 m
=
H
(d)
,
J
T
%W e2 m
xi
Ri (f ) =
m
1 m
xi
(5)
l
l
m U
m = l t
U
%l j
l1 t
Gmj l1
%l1 j
(6)
l
m
so that, by applying the continuity (1) to U
, the following Poisson equation for the pressure corrector is obtained:
!
l
m
Gmj l
1 U
=
m
%l j
t m
l1
l m
Gmj l1
%l1 j
(7)
When the velocity field is assigned throughout the boundary of the computational domain, (6) provides Neumann
boundary conditions for the solution of the Poisson equation (7). The pressure field can be derived from the corrector term through the equation:
!
Ri (l )
l
l 1
Ri (
p ) = % J l tDI
.
(8)
%l J 1
As the solution of this equation is not straightforward,
usually an approximate pressure field is obtained as (Rosenfeld et al. 1991):
Ri (
pl ) ' Ri (l ) pl = l + O(t) .
(9)
d > 0 in water, d < 0 in air and d = 0 at the interface (Sussman et al. 1994). Physical fluid properties are
assumed to be related to d by the equation:
f (d) = fa + (fw fa )HP (d)
(10)
where HP is a smoothed Heaviside function as it follows from (4). The parameter = P is set so that the
density and viscosity jumps are spread across five grid
cells, at least (Iafrati et al., 2001).
During the time advancement, the distance function
is advected with the flow as a non-diffusive scalar using
d
+ u d = 0
t
(11)
Equation 11 is integrated in time, with the new interface configuration recovered as the d = 0 contour. The
integration of (11) is carried out with the same threestep Runge-Kutta and discretization scheme employed
for the convective terms, that is
dl = dl1 + l tC(dl1 ) + l1 tC(dl2 )
(12)
l l
Um d
.
m
0.04
0.03
x2
0.02
0.01
-0.01
0
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.04
x1
0.04
0.03
x2
0.02
0.01
-0.01
0
x1
Figure 3: Shape of the jet tip before (a) and after (b)
the cut. For the present calculation the cut is made at
t = 0.021 s from the beginning of the calculation. The
velocity field, shown at every other cell center, remains
unchanged.
with initial thickness 0.003 is initialized about the top of
the domain with its mid-line intersecting the top boundary at x1 = 0.015. In the calculation presented below,
P = 0.0003 is adopted, giving the thickness of the transition region to be about one fifth of the jet thickness.
In order to account for the gravitational acceleration,
the two velocity components at the top boundary are set
as u1 = 0.405 and u2 = 3.051, thus resulting in an inclination angle of about 7.56 degrees. To assure a zero
velocity field in air, the two velocity components are
multiplied by HP (d), which implies that the velocity
jump is smoothly spread across the same transition region adopted for physical variables. On the left and right
boundaries of the computational domain, u1 = u2 = 0
are assumed. In order to satisfy the continuity condition, a uniform vertical outgoing flow is assigned along
the bottom boundary to balance the total flux incoming
from the top.
The computational domain is discretized with 768
1024 grid cells that are suitably clustered in the vertical
RESULTS
As the simulation starts, the jet is forced to move through
the quiescent air, and due to the initial shape and velocity
field, an odd tip shape develops prior to jet impact (see
Fig. 3a). Numerical tests have shown that some details
of the impact may be influenced by this shape. Hence,
in a way very similar to what is done experimentally, the
tip of the jet is cut before the impact to keep it as sharp
as possible, and the simulation is re-started from the new
configuration, as shown in Fig. 3b. After the restart, the
water jet falls down until it touches the free surface at
the impact time tI ' 0.0325. The jet speed at impact
is about Vj = 3.16, which is slightly smaller than the
value Vje = 3.30 estimated by energy considerations.
It is not immediately verifiable what the exact cause of
this deceleration is, though the use of elevated viscosity
values may be a significant factor.
In the early stage after the impact, the jet penetrates
into the water and produces a crater that grows in time,
as shown in Fig. 4a for the numerical simulation, and
Fig. 5 for the experimental results. The water originally lying beneath the still water level is pushed upwards, giving rise to two vertical sprays. This behavior
has strong similarities with what occurs during the early
entry stage of a flat plate impacting a quiescent pool, as
discussed in Iafrati and Korobkin (2004). Therein, it is
shown that in the early stage of the impact, gravity effects are significantly smaller than inertial ones which
allows for an approximately self-similar scaling factor
of (ttI )2/3 used to collapse the cavity shape. Specifically, the scaling is performed by applying the dimensional transformation
and x02 = x2 (ttI )2/3 (13)
0.05
0
x2
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0.05
x1
a
0.4
0.2
x2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.4
-0.2
0
x1
0.2
0.4
x2
-0.05
0.05
0
x2
-0.1
-0.05
0
x1
-0.05
0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
x1
0.05
x2
cavity. From both the numerical and experimental results presented in Fig. 6, the occurrence of two inflection points located about x2 ' 0.025 is evident that
divides the cavity into two regions: an upper one where
the crater is still enlarging and a lower one where the
cavity is collapsing due to the gravity, eventually leading to the entrapment of an air pocket.
Another peculiarity of this second stage concerns the
existence of a portion of the cavity which rigidly translate with the jet tip. The sequence of the free surface
profiles shown in Fig. 6, reveals that as the jet penetrates the bulk of the fluid, the lowest portion of the cavity appears to translate while keeping its shape roughly
constant. In order to show this fact with greater clarity,
the free surface profiles for both the numerical and experimental tests are plotted on a shifted coordinate system that is fixed to the tip of the penetrating cavity, and
shown in Fig. 7. From this figure it can be easily seen
that the cavity portion below x2 = 0.03 (the overscript
denotes the shifted coordinates) is substantially frozen,
while the upper part of the cavity collapses under the
effect of the gravity.
The occurrence of a second stage during which the
lowest part of the cavity simply translates keeping its
shape can be also recognized by looking at the contours
of the velocity components taken at three different times,
as shown in Fig. 8. Both for u1 and u2 , the contours
nearby the jet tip are essentially frozen, whereas in the
upper part, the effect of the gravity and subsequent cavity collapse is evident.
With the aim of evaluating the propagation velocity
-0.05
-0.1
-0.05
0
x1
0.05
-0.05
-0.05
x2
0.05
x2
x*2
0.1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.15
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0.05
0.1
-0.1
-0.05
x1
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.1
x1
0
0
x 1*
-0.05
-0.05
x2
0.05
x2
-0.05
0.1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.15
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0.05
0.1
-0.1
-0.05
0.05
-0.05
-0.05
x2
-0.1
-0.1
-0.15
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0.05
0.1
x1
-0.05
x1
x2
x2
x1
0
x1
-0.1
-0.05
x1
0.05
0.01
-0.025
0.005
p1
yp1
-0.05
-0.075
-0.1
-0.005
-0.125
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
-0.01
0
0.02
0.04
t-ti
0.06
0.08
0.1
t-ti
time of t tI = 0.117 0.004, the values are remarkably close given that a few additional time-steps are required in the simulation to complete the pinch-off process. The dimension of the cavity and of the air pocket
that would be entrapped, which are of primary interest
for the present work, are correctly predicted as well.
-0.125
-0.13
-0.135
x2
-0.14
CONCLUDING REMARKS
-0.145
-0.15
-0.155
-0.16
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0.01
x1
With the aim of understanding the process of air entrainment in breaking waves, the plunging of a planar
water jet onto a still water surface has been studied, carrying out experiments and simulations. The development of the cavity induced by the jet impact has been
observed by high-speed digital camera and the corresponding velocity field measured by particle image velocimetry techniques. The flow has been also numerically studied via a Navier-Stokes solver coupled with a
two-fluids level-set approach for the interface capturing.
Two distinct phases are clearly recognizable.
The penetration of the jet into the quiescent water
during the early stage after the impact is responsible for
the formation of a crater that grows in time and for the
generation of two vertical sprays, in a way much similar
to the water entry of a flat plate. For that problem, the
solution is found approximately self-similar with a scale
factor of t2/3 and the scaling of the free surface profiles
agrees with this finding.
During the second phase, the cavity deepens in the
bulk of water, translating under the continuous action
of the impinging jet. However, the shape of the cavity
remains roughly constant (frozen), as observed by properly shifting the free surface profiles with the position
of the jet tip. Furthermore, by superimposing these profiles in the fixed frame of reference, two inflexion points
are easily identified, and clearly separate an upper region, close to the free surface, where the crater is continuously widening, and a lower region where the cavity
is closing, collapsing under the action of the gravity. In
this later stage an air pocket is entrapped, which successively breaks into a cloud of tiny bubbles.
At the present stage, the numerical model is not able
to reach the pinch-off. Although comparisons with the
experiments looks rather encouraging, a additional effort has to be pursued to overcome the pinch-off stage
and, also, include the translation velocity. This would
allow a larger amount of data, which is necessary to establish a parametric study.
Figure 12: Time sequence of the jet impact without translation velocity, for a angle of inclination of 7 degree from the
vertical, jet speed 3.32 and jet thickness at impact of 0.0029. The time step between successive plots is 0.01 but for
the last one which is 0.006. The red line represents the mean density contour % = (%a + %w )/2.
REFERENCES
Birkhoff, G., and Zarantonello, E.H., Jets, Wakes, and
Cavities, Academic Press, Inc., New York, 1957.
Brackbill, J.U., Kothe, D.B., and Zemach, C., A continuum method for modeling surface tension, Journal
Computational Physics, Vol. 100, 1992, p. 335.
Brandt, A., Guide to multigrid development, Multigrid
Methods, Hackbush W., Trottenberg U. Eds., SpringerVerlag, Berlin, Germany, 1992.
Chorin, A.J., A numerical method for solving incompressible viscous flow problems, Journal Computational
Physics, Vol. 2, 1967, p. 12.
Chirichella D., Gomez Ledesma R., Kiger K.T., Duncan
J.H., Incipient air entrainment in a translating axisymmetric plunging laminar jet, Physics of Fluids, Vol. 14,
2002, p. 781.
Gomez Ledesma, R., An experimental investigation on
the air entrainment of translating plunging jets, Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Maryland, 2004.
Iafrati, A., Di Mascio, A., and Campana, E.F., A levelset technique applied to unsteady free surface flows,
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids,
Vol. 35, 2001, p. 281.
Iafrati, A., and Campana, E.F., A domain decomposition approach to compute wave breaking, International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, Vol. 41, 2003,
p. 419.
Iafrati, A., Korobkin, A.A., Initial stage of flat plate
impact onto liquid free surface, Physics of Fluids, in
press, 2004.
Kim, J., and Moin, P., Application of a fractional-step
method to incompressible Navier-Stokes equations, Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 59, 1985, p. 308.
Kolaini, A.R., Crum A.A., Observation of underwater
sound from laboratory breaking waves and the implications concerning ambient noise in the ocean, Journal
Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 96, 1994, p. 1755.
Lara, P., Onset of air entrainment for a water jet impinging vertically on a water surface, Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 34, 1979, p. 1164.
Oguz, H.N., Lezzi, A.M., and Prosperetti, A., Examples of air entraining flows, Phys. Fluids, Vol. 4, 1992,
p. 649.
Rai, M.M., and Moin, P., Direct simulations of turbulent flow using finite-difference schemes, Journal of
Computational Physics, Vol. 96, 1991, p. 15.
Rosenfeld, M., Kwak, D., and Vinokur, M., A fractional step solution method for the unsteady Incompressible Navier-Stokes equations in generalized coordinate
system, Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 94, 1991,
p. 102.
Sheridan, A.T., Surface entrainment of air by a water
jet, Nature, Vol. 209, 1966, p. 799.
Vc
Cavity volume
BPF
Fluid density
NOMENCLATURE
t
Sampling frequency
Angular position
Propeller diameter, 2R
E0
Ec
Cavity extension
f0
Advance coefficient, U nD
KT
lc
p0
pv
Vapor pressure
Propeller radius
Thrust
03
pv
1
2
2 U
INTRODUCTION
Cavitation occurrence on marine propellers is the source of
undesirable effects: radiated noise, structural vibrations and,
though of a lesser relevance in the field of marine propulsion,
erosion and loss of efficiency. In order to minimize these effects, the actual effort is put into the development of analysis
tools capable of predicting, in particular at the design stage,
the cavitation pattern on a propeller geometry. However, the
definition of these tools is dependent upon the experimental validation of current theoretical models for the analysis
of cavitating flows. The present research paper is a direct
follow-up of the work presented at the previous ONR symposium (Pereira et al., 2002), where the cavitation pattern on
a propeller in uniform inflow was analysed experimentally
using a novel approach based on the crosscorrelation of highresolution cavitation images. These measurements were purposely performed to validate a cavitating flow model based
on an inviscid flow boundary element method for the analysis
of blade partial sheet cavitation and supercavitation.
Following the successful outcome of this initial work, the
aim of the work described here is to present the results of
an experimental investigation of a cavitating marine propeller
under non-uniform inflow conditions. The primary objective
is to provide a more comprehensive insight into the correlations between the cavitation pattern and the radiated pressure
fluctuations, as experienced in a typical hull-propeller configuration. Another important intent is to complete the current
experimental database and provide guidelines to validate new
modeling features. In a first place, we seek to validate the
current theoretical and numerical approach in non uniform inflow conditions, accounting for effects such as viscosity and
tip vorticity. Also, efforts are ongoing to address the hydroacoustics of this type of flows, and our experimental work is
designed to help understand and develop this important aspect.
Marine screw propellers operate in a flow perturbed by
the presence of the hull, which generally causes the upstream
flow to decelerate in a limited region of the hull wake where
the levels of turbulence are also significantly increased. The
non-uniformity of the incoming flow into the propeller disc
causes a periodic variation of the blade loading and of the hydrostatic pressure. Apart from the varying thrust developed
by the propeller, this situation creates the necessary set of
conditions for the occurrence of unsteady cavitation on the
propeller blades. Unsteady cavitation generates strong pressure fluctuations radiating in the far field or to the submerged
part of the hull structure through the water medium. The
broadband frequency content of the noise generated by cavitation makes it the major source of noise and vibrations on
a ship, hence contributing to crew discomfort on a passenger vessel, interfering with scientific instrumentation on a research ship or promoting the detectability of a naval warship.
Our purpose is to investigate the spatial and temporal correlations between the cavitation pattern and the radiated noise
of a cavitating propeller in a non-uniform flowfield. A rich
litterature is available on the subject. Ito (1966) investigated
the effect of the variation of the angle of attack of the flow
on the unsteady cavitation, using an oscillating blade and extrapolating the results to the propeller behind a hull. Increase
in pressure fluctuations due to propeller cavitation was probably first reported by Takahashi and Ueda (1969). Bark and
Berlekom (1978) have looked into the relations between cavity dynamics, type of cavitation and cavitation noise. The
study was performed in a cavitation tunnel with an oscillating hydrofoil. In this work, the periodic growth of the cavity at the leading edge was found to increase the noise levels in the low frequency range, in particular at multiples of
the oscillating blade frequency, whereas tip vortex cavitation
and bubble cavitation generate high frequency noise. Matusiak (1992) proposed a method to evaluate the noise contributions of the individual types of cavitation, respectively
low-frequency pressure fluctuations from fixed blade cavitation and high-frequency broadband noise due to collapse of
vapor bubbles. Several works present attempts to correlate
the noise and cavitation results obtained in a cavitation tunnel to those at full scale (Johnsson et al., 1976; Chiba et al.,
1980). Breslin et al. (1982) presented an important theoretical and experimental research work directed at the prediction of vibratory pressures, forces and moments induced by
intermittently cavitating propellers. Scale effects have been
addressed for instance by Friesch et al. (1992), who also considered pressure fluctuations at orders higher than twice or
thrice the blade frequency (Friesch, 1998). More recently and
with the help of high-speed video imaging, Johannsen (1998)
tried to derive distinct scaling laws based on fluid mechanical connections between cavity dynamics, hull pressure time
Synchronization
P2
pulse
H1
Flow
H2
H3
Pressure &
H4
+
P1
P3
noise signals
P2
P1
P3
P4
H1
H2
Images
H3
H4
P4
Light
Wake generator
Rotation
Trigger
Signal conditioning
& A/D conversion
180
Highspeed
(Trigger)
camera
270
Water
prism
H : hydrophone
P : pressure transducer
Wake Generator
The non-uniformity of the wake downstream of a hull is
here simulated using an array of plates, following closely
the design described in the recommendations notes of the
International Towing Tank Conference on measurements of
hull pressure fluctuations (Huse, 1996). The wake simulator,
shown in Fig. 2, is composed of five plates spaced 20 mm
apart from each other and assembled together to form an array 90 mm thick and 300 mm long. The rake is fixed to the
ceiling of the test section, upstream of the propeller, as shown
in the photograph.
High-speed Visualizations
A high-speed camera is used to record the cavitation pattern
at a frame rate of 2000 frames per second with a resolution
of 1024 1024 pixels. Hence and with the rotation speed
used in our experiments ( 30 rps), the angular resolution is
about 5 5. The camera is oriented at an angle with respect
to the test section window, as depicted in Fig. 1. Looking at
an angle through the thick window introduces strong aberrations, which are almost fully cancelled using a water filled
glass tank in the form of a wedge, and placed so that the camera optical axis is normal to the wedge face. The illumination
consists in a set of high power flood lights to accomodate the
short exposure time used to record the cavitation on the rotating blades. A typical shutter time of 1 10000th to 1 20000th
of a frame is used to avoid image blurring due to motion. The
method described by Pereira et al. (2002), based on the cross-
To highspeed camera
90
correlation operation between a non-cavitating and a cavitating image and on the non-linear dewarping of those, is used
to provide an accurate estimate of the mean and fluctuating
attached cavity extension.
The pressure measurements are performed with four Endevco 8510C-15 type piezo-resistive pressure transducers, flush
mounted to the test section walls and on the propeller plane,
as indicated on Fig. 1. These pressure transducers are designed by P1, P2, P3 and P4, and are respectively placed at
0, 90, 180 and 270. Hence, P1 is 90 behind the wake
simulator and P2 is above the propeller.
Four Brel&Kjaer 8103 type hydrophones fixed to a
streamlined strut are used for the noise measurements in the
fluid, and are referred to as H1 , H2 , H3 and H4 , see Fig. 1.
The sensors are located in a radial plane at a distance of
about one radius downstream of the propeller plane, and are
at 80 mm 0 7R (H1 ), 100 mm R (H2 ), 120 mm (H3 ) and
200 mm (H4 ) from the propeller axis, as illustrated in Fig. 3.
Hence H1 and H3 are respectively inside and outside the slipstream, while H2 is roughly located at the tip vortex position,
and H4 is far from the flow perturbation created by the propeller. H4 is thus essentially used for background noise considerations.
Flow conditions
Generator
Flow
H1
H2
H3
H4
P4
Pn
1 M
Pm n
M m1
(1)
gt
An cos 2n f0t
n
(2)
n 0
where An and n are the amplitude and phase of the corresponding harmonic function. Equation (2) can be written as
gt
Cn cos 2n f0t
n 0
Sn sin 2n f0t
n 0
(3)
10
19
11
20
12
21
13
22
14
23
15
24
16
25
17
26
18
27
Cm
2 f0
g t cos 2m f0t dt
m
f0 2
0
f0 2
C0
f0
(4)
g t dt
f0 2
f0 2
Sm
2 f0
g t sin 2m f0t dt
f0 2
400
800
400
1600 0
800
1600 0
0 = 1.5
800
An [Pa]
800
6
8
4
10
Blade harmonic
12
400
400
1600 0
800
0 = 4.0
90
1200
An [Pa]
90
1600 0
400
400
0 = 2.0
An [Pa]
800
0 = 4.5
90
1200
An [Pa]
90
1600 0
400
400
1200
0 = 2.5
An [Pa]
800
0 = 5.5
90
1200
An [Pa]
90
1600 0
400
1200
1600 0
0 = 3.0
1200
800
0 = 6.5
90
An [Pa]
1600 0
400
1200
An [Pa]
90
1200
800
An [Pa]
0 = 3.5
1200
1600
800
0 = 7.5
90
1200
1600
An [Pa]
90
6
8
4
10
Blade harmonic
12
Figure 5: Time history of the noise signal from hydrophone H2 and corresponding harmonic decomposition,
for different values of the cavitation coefficient 0 . The polar graphs are non-dimensionalized.
2000 0
1000
2000 0
o
2000 0
0 = 2.0
An [Pa]
0 = 1.5
1000
6
8
4
10
Blade harmonic
12
2000 0
1000
0
100
200
500
400
0 = 4.0
90
300
An [Pa]
90
500 0
100
500
200
An [Pa]
0 = 4.5
90
400
500 0
100
500
200
300
An [Pa]
90
1500
0 = 2.5
1000
An [Pa]
0 = 5.5
90
400
500 0
100
500
200
300
An [Pa]
90
1500
0 = 3.0
1500
An [Pa]
0 = 6.5
90
400
500 0
100
500
200
300
An [Pa]
90
1500
1000
An [Pa]
0 = 3.5
1500
300
0 = 7.5
90
400
500
An [Pa]
90
6
8
4
10
Blade harmonic
12
Figure 6: Time history of the pressure signal from pressure transducer P2 and corresponding harmonic decomposition, for different values of the cavitation coefficient 0 . The polar graphs are non-dimensionalized.
50
50
Kn [-]
1 x BPF
2 x BPF
3 x BPF
4 x BPF
5 x BPF
6 x BPF
H1
40
30
40
20
10
10
0
100
0
200
1 x BPF
2 x BPF
3 x BPF
4 x BPF
5 x BPF
6 x BPF
H3
Kn [-]
60
160
80
20
40
0
100
0
200
Kn [-]
60
160
80
20
40
0
50
0
100
1 x BPF
2 x BPF
3 x BPF
4 x BPF
5 x BPF
6 x BPF
P3
30
80
40
10
20
0 []
P2
1 x BPF
2 x BPF
3 x BPF
4 x BPF
5 x BPF
6 x BPF
P4
1 x BPF
2 x BPF
3 x BPF
4 x BPF
5 x BPF
6 x BPF
60
20
1 x BPF
2 x BPF
3 x BPF
4 x BPF
5 x BPF
6 x BPF
120
40
40
Kn [-]
1 x BPF
2 x BPF
3 x BPF
4 x BPF
5 x BPF
6 x BPF
P1
H4
120
40
80
1 x BPF
2 x BPF
3 x BPF
4 x BPF
5 x BPF
6 x BPF
30
20
80
H2
0 []
Figure 7: Ratio Kn for the first 6 harmonics. H1 , H2 , H3 and H4 are the hydrophones; P1 , P2 , P3 and P4 are the
pressure transducers. The plain symbols indicate the most relevant cases.
CAVITATION EXTENSION
Figure 8 represents the evolution of the cavity extension Ec as
a function of the blade angular position . The cavity area is
reresented in terms of a non-dimensional value, where the actual area has been non-dimensionalized by the blade face area
E0 for r R 0 3. It is seen that the cavitation inception takes
place before 60. The cavity extension grows almost linearly
till a maximum that is located slightly after the wake region.
This maximum seems to deviate further in the propeller rotation direction as the cavitation coefficient is decreased. This
is consistent with our previous analysis regarding the shifting observed on the pressure pulses in Figs. 5 and 6: with
decreasing 0 , the pressure gradient is smoother across the
simulator wake, the cavity tends to further extend its growth
in time and space and the collapse occurs with larger delay.
6%
0 = 7.5
4%
2%
0%
6%
Cavity area fluctuations, rms(Ec)/E0
the 3rd and 5th harmonics. Yet the 3rd harmonic seems to be
connected to the tip vortex collapse, as its contribution is not
noticeable for H2 where the major contribution is given by the
tip vortex/blade wake sweeping.
Outside the slipstream, the fourth harmonic is omnipresent and is linked to the attached cavity growth and collapse. The strong presence of the 3rd harmonic on P2 and to
a lesser extent on P1 indicates that this fluctuation mode is related to the tip vortex collapse as we pointed out before. P3 ,
which is located opposite to P1 , witnesses the attached cavity
influence through the fourth harmonic but senses also a strong
first harmonic. The pressure fluctuation at the blade passage
frequency is thought to be due to the fluid recompression induced by the blade exit from the wake toward the region of
fluid where the sensor P2 is located.
0 = 6.5
4%
2%
0%
6%
0 = 5.5
4%
2%
0%
6%
0 = 4.5
4%
2%
0%
6%
0 = 3.5
4%
2%
60%
0 = 7.5
0 = 6.5
0 = 5.5
0 = 4.5
0 = 3.5
0 = 2.5
50%
Ec/E0
40%
30%
0 = 2.5
4%
2%
0%
40
20%
60
80
100
120
140
10%
0%
40
0%
6%
50
60
70
80
90 100 110
Angular position [degrees]
120
130
140
Figure 8: Cavity extension and corresponding fluctuations as a function of the propeller angle .
CORRELATIONS
Figure 9 shows the evolution of the cavity extension fluctuations, which display a maximum after the vertical position
at 105. This maximum moves to 110 when supercavitation takes place. A second maximum is visible at
80. The first maximum is clearly assignable to the col
90
60
Mean
120
120
90
60
90
Mean
120
90
60
60
120
90
0 = 2.5
60
RMS
90
60
120
90
0 = 5.5
60
120
90
60
0 = 4.5
120
0 = 6.5
o
60
60
0 = 7.5
90
90
0 = 3.5
120
RMS
120
120
0 = 4.5
o
90
60
0 = 5.5
0 = 6.5
60
90
0 = 7.5
o
120
120
0 = 3.5
0 = 2.5
Figure 10: Pressure and cavity extension correlations: mean (top two rows); fluctuations (bottom two rows).
Area is represented by the dashed curve.
with lc
Ec
6 lc
dlc
dt
-10
10
0 = 6.5
0
-10
15
0 = 5.5
2
3 lc2
p [Pa]
-15
40
0 = 4.5
0
-40
60
0 = 3.5
0
(6)
-60
200
0 = 7.5
(5)
10
d 2 lc
dt 2
0 = 2.5
(7)
Using our experimental data, we derive the volume acceleration and compare it with the measured pressure. We
choose the pressure sensor P2 , for it is located the closest
to the place where cavitation occurs. In order to cancel out
effects not directly related to the attached cavitation, we regenerate the pressure time signal using a limited numbers of
orders. Specifically, we use the first twelve harmonics to reconstruct the pressure signal, see Fig. 6. The cavity extension
data is fitted by a polynomial which is then used to calculate the volume acceleration with Eq. (7). The estimated and
the experimental pressure incremental due to the cavity volume growth are finally directly overlaid to produce the graphs
shown in Fig. 11.
A remarkable agreement is found between both in the time
window covered by the cavity extension measurements. The
estimated pressure variation derived from the cavity volume
-200
0.006
0.009
0.012
0.015
0.018
t [s]
Figure 11: Comparison between p measured ( )
and p estimated from volume acceleration ( ),
Eq. (7).
Ito, T., 1966, An Experimental Investigation into the Unsteady Cavitation of Marine Propellers, Papers of the Ship
Research Institute, 11, pp. 118.
Takahashi, H., and Ueda, T., 1969, An Experimental Investigation into the Effect of Cavitation on Fluctuating Pressure
around a Marine Propeller, Proc. of the 12th International
Towing Tank Conference, Rome (Italy).
Bark, G., and Berlekom, W. B., 1978, Experimental Investigations of Cavitation Dynamics and Cavitation Noise,
12th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, ONR, Washington, DC (USA), pp. 470493.
Matusiak, J., 1992, Broadband Noise of the Cavitating Marine Propellers: Generation and Collapse of the Free Bubbles Downstream of the Fixed Cavitation, Proc. of the
19th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, ONR, Seoul
(Korea), pp. 701712.
Johnsson, C.-A., Rutgersson, O., Olsson, S., and Bjrheden,
O., 1976, Vibration Excitation Forces From a Cavitating
Propeller. Model and Full Scale Tests on a High Speed
Container Ship, Proc. of the 11th Symposium on Naval
Hydrodynamics, vol. VIII, Office of Naval Research, London (UK), pp. 4374.
Chiba, N., Sasajima, T., and Hoshino, T., 1980, Prediction
of Propeller-Induced Fluctuating Pressures and Correlation
with Full Scale Data, Proc. of the 13th Symposium on
Naval Hydrodynamics, ONR, Tokyo, pp. 89103.
Breslin, J. P., Van Houten, R. J., Kerwin, J. E., and Johnsson, C.-A., 1982, Theoretical and Experimental PropellerInduced Hull Pressures Arising from Intermittent Blade
Cavitation, Loading, and Thickness, SNAME Transactions, 90, pp. 111151.
Friesch, J., Johannsen, C., and Payer, H. G., 1992, Correlation Studies on Propeller Cavitation Making Use of a Large
Cavitation Tunnel, SNAME Transactions, 100, pp. 6592.
Friesch, J., 1998, Correlation Investigations for Higher Order Pressure Fluctuations and Noise for Ship Propellers,
Proc. of the 3rd International Symposium on Cavitation,
Grenoble (France), pp. 259265.
Johannsen, C., 1998, Investigation of Propeller-Induced
Pressure Pulses by Means of High-Speed Video Recording in the Three-Dimensional Wake of a Complete Ship
Model, Proc. of the 22nd Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Office of Naval Research, Washington, D.C.
(USA), pp. 314329.
Huse, E., ed., 1996, Proc. of the 21st International Towing
Tank Conference, vol. I, chap. Measurements of Hull Pressure Fluctuations, Trondheim (Norway), pp. 6572, cavitation Committee.
Pereira, F., Avellan, F., and Dupont, P., 1998, Prediction of
Cavitation Erosion: An Energy Approach, J. Fluids Eng.,
120(4), pp. 719727.
DISCUSSION
Jrgen Friesch /Christian Johannsen
Hamburg Ship Model Basin, Germany
The paper is very interesting to us since we
tried similar investigations at HSVA some years ago
(ONR 1998). The basic idea to correlate particular
cavitation occurrences such as the growth and collapse of sheet cavitation or the bursting of vortex
cavitation with the peaks of the pressure time function is very tempting indeed. Nevertheless, our investigations showed that this is difficult because different occurrences may happen simultaneously at different blades. It might be difficult to distinguish for
example whether a peak in the pressure is related to
the growth of sheet cavitation on one blade or to the
bursting of tip vortex cavitation on another blade. To
minimize this problem it is recommended to do those
investigations with a two-bladed propeller instead of
a four-bladed. This reduces the coincidence of different happenings.
The author claims that the collapse of tip
vortex cavitation mainly contributes to the third harmonic of blade frequency. What is the physical explanation for this assumption?
What is the authors opinion about the common assumption that amplitudes of higher order are
often a result of instable sheet cavitation. Is that true,
and if so, what is the physical mechanism?
AUTHORS REPLY
The authors thank Dr Friesch and Dr Johannsen for their interest in the work.
Regarding the first question, the authors believe that the 3rd harmonic is here related to the vortex rebound and implosion that follow the main collapse, which occurs simultaneously to the attached
cavity implosion. This is visible in the high speed
sequence shown in figure 4 for 0=3.5. Frames 14 to
20 show the implosion of the main cavity/tip vortex
structure. Frames 21 to 25 show the rebound and
second collapse of the tip vortex. This second implosion is visible on the pressure transducer P2, and to a
lesser degree on P1. It is also detected by the hydrophone H1, which is located inside the slipstream. The
remaining transducers (P3, P4, H2, H3 and H4) do
not witness this second collapse, but are essentially
sensitive to the major flow structures (blade trailing
wake for H2, attached cavity growth and collapse for
H3, H4, P3 and P4).
Unstable cavitation, or cloud cavitation, is
characterized by the periodic shedding of large vapor
DISCUSSION
Roger Kinns
RK Acoustics, United Kingdom
The authors are to be congratulated on an
interesting and useful set of experiments, as well as
on their interpretation of results.
The comparison between measured pressure
fluctuation and the prediction from volume
acceleration is particularly interesting, because it
shows good agreement, even when the volume source
extends over a significant proportion of the blade
surface and when the pressure transducer is close to
the propeller itself.
Ideally, the volume source would be small in
relation to its distance from the transducer, so that the
physical situation corresponds closely to the sample
case of a stationary acoustic monopole. Please would
the author clarify the scale of the volume source in
relation to its distance from the transducers in their
experiments? Also, does the agreement improve
further if the transducer is further away from the
propeller, thereby reducing the influence of near-field
effects on the measured pressure?
AUTHORS REPLY
The authors thank Dr Kinns for his interest
in the work and for his comments.
The pressure data is provided by the
pressure transducer P2 (see figure 1), which is placed
in the plane of the propeller and at a distance of
about 140 mm from the blade tip when the blade is in
its vertical position (90 degrees). The cavity extends
up to 66% of the chordlength at 0.7R for the case at
the lowest cavitation coefficient (0=2.5), which
represents 47% of the distance between the tip and
the pressure transducer. The source is therefore of
the same order of magnitude as its distance to the
measurement point. The good agreement found
between the volume acceleration and the pressure
fluctuation indicates that the volume source behaves,
at least for the attached portion of it, as a monopole.
The agreement is expected to improve with distance,
but this has not yet been addressed in our study.
However, the ability to select the adequate orders,
hence limiting the number of exciting sources to
those of interest, is seen as the key feature for a
correct study of the correlations between volume and
pressure fluctuations.
DISCUSSION
Ki-Han Kim
Office of Naval Research, USA
I would like to congratulate the authors for
their efforts in careful measurements and analyses of
the complex propeller blade surface and tip vortex
cavitation. I have a couple of questions that need
some clarifications.
In the text, no explanation was given about
how the cavity area and its fluctuations were
measured. How did the authors obtain the rms values
of the cavity area fluctuations as presented in Figure
9?
In the text (6th page of the paper), the
authors indicated that 0 = 7.5 is a non-cavitating
condition. In Figure 9, however, they showed cavity
area fluctuations in rms values for this cavitation
number, 0 = 7.5. Please clarify this.
In the Cavitation Extension section, the
authors explained that for supercavitating condition
in Figure 9, i.e. for 0 = 2.5, the maximum rms
values moves to = 100 deg. Should this be = 110
deg?
How would the authors correct the noise
data measured in the tunnel for the ship propeller in
free field?
What was the dissolved air content for the
experiments?
REFERENCES
Pereira F., Salvatore F., Di Felice F., Elefante M.,
Experimental and Numerical Investigation of the
Cavitation Pattern on a Marine Propeller,
Proceedings of the 24th Symposium on Naval
Hydrodynamics, Fukuoka (Japan), 8-13 July 2002.
AUTHORS REPLY
The authors thank Dr Kim for his comments
and questions.
The first question regards the measurement
of the cavity area and its fluctuations. The technique
was introduced in a previous work presented at the
24th SNH in Fukuoka (July 2002), which reference is
given below. The cavitation area is measured by an
image cross-correlation technique applied between a
cavitating image and a reference cavitation-free
image. This operation is then followed by a nonlinear dewarping transformation to obtain a correct
estimate of the area.
The
Authors
corrected
the
two
typographical errors quoted by the Discusser.
Experiments have covered a range of values for the
advance coefficient J, but the present work considers
only one case (J=0.175), for which cavitation does
occur at 0 = 7.5.
The Reviewer then addresses the important
issue of noise data correction between tunnel and free
field measurements. This has not been addressed in
the current state of the work. However, the results
DISCUSSION
Tom van Terwisga
MARIN, Netherlands
Did the authors consider using another
analysis technique for analyzing the measured
pressures than the Fourier analysis? The background
for this question is that at MARIN we have observed
small phase variations in sheet cavitation for various
blade/passages. These phase variations result in
higher harmonics in the Fourier analysis result and
cannot be linked to the physical phenomena
occurring with the sheet cavitation.
AUTHORS REPLY
The authors thank Dr van Terwisga for his
interest in the work and for his comments.
The authors are aware that the Fourier
analysis can be misleading and create biased
interpretations. Our experience has also shown that
there are indeed small phase variations between
blades, due to the non-perfectly repetitive
phenomenology. We have noticed that those small
phase shifts would cause maxima of the energy
spectrum to shift slightly off the blade harmonics. To
overcome this difficulty, we have considered every
component of the Fourier decomposition and tracked
the maxima in the vicinity of the harmonics of the
blade passage frequency.
ABSTRACT
A
complementary
experimental
and
computational research program has been developed to
study cavitation inception in co-flow nozzles, and initial
results are presented. Cavitation inception indices using
visual and acoustic criteria are presented over a range of
tunnel speeds for two nozzle trailing-edge geometries,
contoured and blunt, and for velocity ratios of 0.5, 0.75,
and 1.0. In all cases, inception was characterized by
vortex cavitation found 1-2 jet diameters downstream of
the nozzle exit and in the cores of Kelvin-Helmholtz
vortex rings. The contoured and blunt nozzles had
mean cavitation inception indices of 0.33 and 0.80,
respectively. Detached-eddy simulation is used to
predict the turbulent vortices in the shear-layer
downstream of the nozzle exit. CFD results show
small-scale eddies very close to the nozzle exit, but with
subsequent growth of coherent vortex rings in the
streamwise direction. It is shown, as expected, that low
pressure regions correspond with the vortex cores.
Mean and RMS computational and experimental axialvelocity profiles are compared at several stations in the
jet and show good agreement in both shape and
magnitude, thus giving confidence that the DES model
is capable of accurately resolving low-pressure events
that trigger nuclei growth and cavitation inception.
P Pv , as a function
1
V2
2
1.6
Lienhard &
Stephenson
Lienhard & Goss
1.4
1.2
Jorgenson
Ball
0.8
Kobayashi
0.6
Baker
0.4
0.2
Gopalan et al.
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
INTRODUCTION
Computational
modeling
of
cavitation
inception requires fidelity resolution of the flow
physics, i.e., unsteadiness due to turbulence and
organized vortex shedding, and bubble dynamics
(nuclei-size and number distributions, bubble dynamics,
and bubble-flow interactions). Concerning the former,
there are a number of examples in the literature which
are based upon RANS or laminar-flow simulations (e.g.,
open-water propeller [Hsiao and Pauley, 1999], Schiebe
headform [Farrell, 2000], axisymmetric jet [Cerutti et
al., 2000a; Cerutti et al., 2000b], and a ducted marine
propulsor [Kim et al., 2003]); however, large-eddy
simulation methods have not yet been brought to this
problem.
d 2 R 3 dR
1
+
= ( pv + pg p ( x, t )
2
2 dt
dt
2 4 dR
R
R dt
(1)
Flow Conditions
V
VJ
, over a range
COMPUTATIONAL METHODS
Grid Generation, Computational Parameters, and
Boundary Conditions
Instrumentation
The computational domain models the astested flow conditions and includes the inside of the
nozzle and the water tunnel test section.
The grid
system extends from -20 < x/D < 100, where the origin
is at the nozzle exit and D is the nozzle diameter.
Overset grids, as shown in Figure 4, were generated
using Gridgen from Pointwise, Inc. Overall geometry
is simple and, except for the nozzle lip, nested box grids
were used to fill the computational domain. Given the
flexibility of the overset approach, all grids remain
unchanged for the blunt- and contoured-nozzle variants,
except for the lip grids. Near-wall spacing was set to
5.0x10-5, which is based upon a Reynolds of
Re = U j D = 5.1x105 and wall coordinate for the first
point to be y + = U y = 1. Overset-refinement grids
were used to resolve turbulent eddies in the shear layers.
These refinement grids were set to have nearly isotropic
cells with a grid size = 0.012. The overall grid system
was composed of 32 blocks and 1.1x106 points.
Algorithm-related parameters to control the
simulation include:
2nd-order upwind convective
scheme for the RANS regions; 2nd-order in time; PETSc
GMRES solver; 50 sub-iterations maximum for
momentum and turbulence equations; 3 PISO steps; 250
sub-iterations maximum for pressure-Poisson equation;
and convergence criteria of 10-4 for momentum (residual
based upon change between iterations) and 10-4 for
pressure (normalized residual based upon error of
discrete equation).
The simulation matrix is based upon the test
matrix. Simulations were conducted for VR = 0, 0.5,
0.75, and 1.0 for both nozzle geometries, which
represents 8 cases. In addition, both URANS and DES
was performed on several cases for comparison
purposes.
Uncertainty Assessment
(2)
l k =
k 1/ 2
(3)
= max ( x , y , z )
(4)
Flow Solver
k
= * k =
DRANS
k 3/ 2
l kw
k
DDES
=
k 3/ 2
l%
(5)
(6)
where is define as
m
n
U t
CDES
= max tanh
, tanh
l k
(7)
1 k
1
= U + U k k + U k U k +k
U
k 2
2
101
100
10 -1
uu
10 -2
10 -3
10 -4
DES
10 -5
(8)
10 -6
10
LES
DNS
-7
10-2
10-1
100
101
102
10 3
104
105
are
RANS
(9)
Cavitation
Blunt Nozzle
1.2
VR=0.5
3.9 ppm
VR=0.75
VR=1
3.6 ppm
Cavitation Index
3.6 ppm
3.6 ppm
3.6 ppm
0.8
3.6 ppm
3.6 ppm
3.6 ppm
3.6 ppm
3.6 ppm
0.6
3.9 ppm
0.4
0.2
0
5
10
15
0.9
VR=0.5
0.8
VR=0.75
VR=1
Cavitation Index
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
5
10
15
0.8
0.7
Cavitation Index
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
10
15
20
Low pressure
due to blunt lip
CP = -0.8
1.8D
CP = -0.21
1.5 D
Sharp nozzle, VR = 1
Iso-surfaces of swirl and pressure
10
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
r/D
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-0.5
0.5
U mean/U ref
1.5
Figure 16 shows contours of the mean axialvelocity field for a symmetric jet with all flow features
averaged out. This result indicates that the statistics
integration period is sufficient, at least for the
preliminary results reported herein. This figure also
shows the location for the comparisons between CFD
and experiment.
Figure 17 shows mean axial velocity profiles
downstream of the nozzle at x/D = 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and
1.25. Over this distance the mean velocity shows very
little change. Satisfactory agreement is shown between
experiment and DES.
11
A
complementary
experimental
and
computational research program has been developed to
study cavitation inception in co-flow nozzles and initial
results are presented. Cavitation inception indices using
visual and acoustic criteria are presented over a range of
tunnel speeds for two nozzle trailing-edge geometries,
contoured and blunt, and for velocity ratios of 0.0, 0.5,
0.75, and 1.0. In all cases, inception was characterized
by vortex cavitation found 1-2 jet diameters
downstream of the nozzle exit and in the cores of
Kelvin-Helmholtz vortex rings.
The contoured and
blunt nozzles had
1
1
1
ui ui = uir uir + uis uis = uir uir + k SGS (10)
2
2
2
Mean
and
RMS
experimental
and
computational axial-velocity profiles are compared at
12
6.
7.
8.
Farrell,
K.J.,
An
Eulerian/Lagrangian
Computational Analysis for the Prediction of
Cavitation Inception, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, The Pennsylvania State
University, August, 2000.
9.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
13
17. Menter,
F.,
Two-equation
eddy-viscosity
turbulence models for engineering applications,
AIAA Journal, Vol. 32, No. 8, 1994.
18. Meyer, R. S., Billet, M.L., and Holl, J.W., Journal
of Fluids Engineering, Vol. 114, pp. 672-779, 1992.
19. Paterson, E.G., Wilson, R.V., and Stern, F.,
General-Purpose Parallel Unsteady RANS Ship
Hydrodynamics Code: CFDSHIP-IOWA, IIHR
Report #432, IIHR Hydroscience and Engineering,
The University of Iowa, October 2003.
20. Paterson, E.G., and Peltier, L.J., Detached-Eddy
Simulation of High-Reynolds Number BeveledTrailing-Edge Flows and Wakes, Symposium on
LES Advancements and Applications, ASME FED
Summer Meeting, Charlotte, NC, July 2004.
21. Paterson, E.G., Poremba, J.E., Peltier, L.J., and
Hambric, S.A., A Physics-Based Simulation
Methodology for Predicting Hydrofoil Singing,
25th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, St.
Johns, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada,
August 2004.
22. Paterson, E.G., and Baker, W.J., RANS and
Detached-Eddy Simulation of the NCCR Airfoil,
2004 NASA-ONR Circulation Control Workshop,
Hampton, VA, March 16-17, 2004.
23. Ran, B., and Katz, J., Pressure Fluctuations and
Their Effect on Cavitation Inception Within Water
Jets, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 262, pp.
223-263, 1994.
24. Strelets, M., Detached Eddy Simulation of
Massively Separated Flows, AIAA 2001-0879,
39th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and
Exhibit, Reno, NV, Jan 2001.
25. Suhs, N.E., Dietz, W.E., Rogers, W.E., Nash, S.M.,
and Onufer, T., PEGASUS Users Guide, Version
5.1e, Technical Report, NASA, 2000.
14
ABSTRACT
Cavitation inception in a ducted propulsor
was numerically studied using Navier-Stokes
computations and bubble dynamics models. Previous
experimental observations and RANS computations
indicated the presence of two interacting vortices in
the region where cavitation inception occurred. A
direct numerical simulation with initial and boundary
conditions provided from the RANS solution of a full
ducted propulsor flow was conducted in a reduced
computational domain in the wake region in order to
improve the numerical solution of the liquid flow.
Bubbles were then released in this flow field, and
bubble dynamics models including spherical and nonspherical models were applied to study cavitation
inception. The numerical results were compared to
experimental measurements and observations. Good
agreement, far superior to that obtained by RANS
alone, was found in terms of cavitation inception
number and inception location as well as the
characteristics of acoustic signals and bubble shapes
during a cavitation event.
1. Introduction
Prediction of vortex cavitation inception on
marine propulsors is of great interest to the Navy and
has been the subject of many studies in recent years in
order to derive scaling laws for the prediction of
cavitation inception. However, these scaling laws, are
typically formulated based on data from open
propellers and may not be applicable to a ducted
propulsor. Unlike most open propellers, which
generally have an elliptical shape and form a single
trailing vortex, a ducted propulsor typically forms two
well-defined vortices in the tip region. In addition to a
trailing vortex formed near the tip trailing edge, a
much stronger tip-leakage vortex is generated in the
gap region between the shroud wall and the blade tip.
These two unequal co-rotating vortices introduce
small-scale unsteady motions during vortex merging
2. Numerical Approach
2.1 Flow Configuration
We consider the David Taylor Propeller
5206, a rotating ducted propulsor, which is a threebladed propeller with a constant chord of 0.3812m
from hub to tip and a tip diameter of 0.8503m and
operates in a duct of diameter 0.8636m. The detailed
propulsor geometry can be found in Chesnakas and
Jessup (2003). There have been three numerical
studies (Kim 2002, Brewer et al. 2003 and Yang 2003)
applying RANS codes to obtain a time-averaged flow
field for this ducted propulsor. They all give
reasonable agreement with the experimental
measurements.
We construct a reduced computational
domain behind the trailing edge of the propulsor blade
that encompasses the region of interaction of the two
vortices. This computational domain has a square
cross area of 0.094m 0.094m and extends from the
tip trailing edge to the downstream location 0.34m
from the tip trailing edge. Figure 1 illustrates the
location of the reduced computational domain relative
to the ducted propulsor. We consider a 4-block grid
system with 101 grid points in the streamwise
direction and three different numbers of grid points in
-6
Cp
-8
-10
0.1
0.2
0.3
s/C
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
3.5
-8
3.3
Vs
Cp
3.4
Cp
Axial velocity
-9
3.2
-10
3.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
s/C
0.5
0.6
0.7
Spherical Model
Non-Spherical Model
R0=20m
=10.75
Figure 16. Computed bubble sizes and shapes of nonspherical modes for R0= 20m at =10.85
s/C=0
Cp=-10.9
s/C=0
Cp=-5.6
Cp=10 9
Cp=-5.6
s/C=0.5
s/C=0.5
blow up
blow up
R0=5m
=10.3
s/C=0
Cp=-5.6
Cp=-10.9
s/C=0.5
Number
400
300
200
100
0
2.5E-06
5.0E-06
7.5E-06
1.0E-05
1.5E-05
2.0E-05
2.5E-05
600
400
200
80
0.1
0.2
Time (Sec)
0.3
0.4
600
400
70
Nuiclei Distribution 1
Nuclei Distribution 2
60
50
40
30
20
10
200
0
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
11
Cavitation Number
0
0.1
0.2
Time (Sec)
0.3
0.4
600
4. Conclusions
400
200
0.1
0.2
Time (Sec)
0.3
0.4
REFERENCES
[1] Brewer, W.H., Marcum, D.L., Jessup, S.D.,
Chesnakas, C., Hyams, D.G., Sreenivas, K., An
Unstructured RANS Study of Tip-Leakage
Vortex Cavitation Inception, Proceedings of the
ASME Symposium on Cavitation Inception,
FEDSM2003-45311, Honolulu, Hawaii, July 610, 2003.
[2] Chen, A.L., Jacob, J.D., Savas, O., Dynamics of
Co-rotating Vortex Pairs in the Wakes of
Flapped Airfoils, J. Fluid Mech., vol. 382, 1999,
pp. 155-193.
[3] Chesnakas, C.J., Jessup, S.D., Tip-Vortex
Induced Cavitation on a Ducted Propulsor,
Proceedings of the ASME Symposium on
Cavitation
Inception,
FEDSM2003-45320,
Honolulu, Hawaii, July 6-10, 2003.
DISCUSSION
Christopher Chesnakas
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
The work is an interesting & valuable
contribution to our understanding of the tip-vortex
cavitation inception problem. You state that your
calculations now well match the experiments. There
are, however, some observations in the measurements
that I dont see reproduced in your calculations.
First, the experiment shows the cavitation events to
increase in number very gradually as cavitation
number is lowered. Your calculations seem to show
the bubble events to increase rather abruptly.
Second, the experiments show that as is lowered,
the character of the bubble cavitation events
gradually changes. At high , only single bubble
cavitation is observed. These events, pops, are
very short in duration (<1ms) and produce a very
short acoustic signal (<0.5ms). At lower , elongated
cavitation bubbles, and small bubble trails are
observed, and the acoustic character of the noise
signal changes. The bubble trails may last for several
ms, and the acoustic signal is much longer (>1ms)
and has a totally different character. These chirps
are quite distinct from the pops, and begin to occur
when the event rate is still quite low. These
phenomena, I believe, are not yet fully described.
AUTHORS REPLY
The increase in the rate of cavitation events
when the cavitation number is reduced depends on
the nuclei size distribution. The calculations
presented in this paper did not always show the
bubble events to increase abruptly. As shown in
Figure 19, the number of cavitation events for the
nuclei distribution #2 case increases much more
gradually than that of the nuclei distribution #1 case
as the cavitation number is reduced. To make good
comparison between numerical result and
experimental measurement, a reliable nuclei size
distribution needs to be provided.
Our computations capture both what you
call pop events and chirp events. This paper was
not concerned with showing these or to address nonspherical bubble elongation, even though we have
extensively addressed this elsewhere [a-c]. Figure 11
in the paper shows the short duration sharp signals or
pops. Figure a in this response shows how the
simulations also show that bubbles could
significantly elongate at low cavitation numbers.
Figure b shows the corresponding longer duration
oscillations or chirp. This is obviously qualitative,
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
c =
2 1 2 mc
.
mc + 2 1
DRR = f ( , h, d ; l )
(1)
mc =
2 1 2 1 c
c + 2
(3)
(2)
h d
DRR = f ( , , ) .
l l
(4)
The
physical
parameters
affecting
impedance change include the void ratio and the
mixture location as well as the sensor geometry and
the water conductance. Since the geometry of the
sensor was fixed once chosen, and the water
conductance was that of Memphis city water during
the HIPLATE experiment, physical parameters
influencing the impedance change (IC) can be
reduced to the void ratio and the mixture location, or
IC = g ( , h)
(5)
(6)
l
.
h
(7)
RESULTS
The characteristics of the single-phase
boundary layer were measured in preliminary tests
without bubble injection. A mild favorable pressure
gradient was measured for all flow conditions. It was
shown also that the plate was hydraulically smooth.
The first results presented are those of the
surface shear stresses. Spatially averaged surface
shear stress measurements, without air injection, are
presented in figure 4 as CFo vs. Rex. A least-squares
fit of the measured data yields a power-law
relationship between CFo and Rex,
CF o = (0.025 0.006) Re x ( 0.149 0.017) .
(8)
To scale bubble migration, a simple oneway coupled bubble tracking model was developed.
The model and the results gleaned from it can be
found in Sanders et al.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The skin friction drag reduction resulting
from the introduction of air bubbles into a high
Reynolds number flat-plate turbulent boundary layer
has been investigated experimentally. The singlephase and multiphase surface shear stress was
measured, along with the near wall bubble
characteristics. A new technique, IVFM, was
discussed and implemented, and shown to estimate
void fraction well.
The data presented suggest that the amount
and persistence of microbubble drag reduction are
dependent on both inner and outer boundary layer
characteristics. The reduction of skin-friction drag
was scaled with an average boundary layer gas flux
employing the relative momentum thickness and was
found consistent with prior data from Deutsch et al.
(2003).
The amount of drag reduction strongly
depends on the near-wall void fraction. At low
speeds, the injected bubbles coalesced to form a
nearly continuous gas film beneath the model
surface. As the freestream speed is increased, the
injected bubbles remain distinct. When the bubbles
remained near the surface (i.e. within 300 wall units),
the friction drag was reduced substantially.
Examination of the near-wall bubble void fraction
implies that a combination of density reduction and
turbulence modification is responsible for the
reduction in friction drag.
The presence of high shear near the plate
surface leads to the depletion of bubbles in the near
wall region. Near wall impedance measurements by
IVFM correlate reasonably with the shear stress
reduction, demonstrating that the drag reduction is
lost when the bubbles migrate from the near-wall
region. This formation of a liquid layer between the
bubbly mixture and the surface leads to a loss of drag
reduction. Also, entrainment of liquid into the
boundary layer leads to a dilution of the bubbly
mixture with a resulting loss of drag reduction.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors of this paper wish to
acknowledge the significant contributions of Kent
Pruss, Paul Tortora, and Hans van Sumeren of the
University of Michigan; Ivo VanderHout of the Delft
University of Technology; Bruce Hornaday, Dr. J.
Michael Cutbirth, and the LCC technical staff from
REFERENCES
Bogdevich, V. G. & Evseev, A. R. (1976) The
distribution on skin friction in a turbulent
boundary layer of water beyond the location of
gas injection, Investigations of Boundary
Layer Control (in Russian), Thermophysics
Institute Publishing House, 62.
Bogdevich, V. G. & Malyaga, A. G. (1976) Effect
of gas saturation on wall turbulence,
Investigations of Boundary Layer Control (in
Russian), Thermophysics Institute Publishing
House, 49.
Bourgoyne, D. A., Hamel, J. M., Ceccio, S. L. &
Dowling, D. R. (2003) Time-averaged flow
over a hydrofoil at high Reynolds number,
Journal of Fluid Mechanics 496, 365-404.
Ceccio, S. L. & George, D. L. (1996) Review of
electrical impedance techniques for the
measurement of multiphase flows, Journal of
Fluids Engineering 118, 391-399.
Clark III, H. & Deutsch, S. (1991) Microbubble skin
friction reduction on an axisymmetric body
under the influence of applied axial pressure
gradients, Physics of Fluids A 3 (12), 29482954.
Deutsch, S. & Castano, J. (1986) Microbubble skin
friction reduction on an axisymmetric body,
Physics of Fluids 29 (11), 3590-3597.
Deustch, S., Moeny, M., Fontaine, A. & Petrie, H.
(2003) Microbubble drag reduction in rough
walled turbulent boundary layers, Proceedings
of ASME Fluids Engineering Division Summer
Meeting 2003, 1-9.
Druzhinin, O. A. & Elghobashi, S. (1998) Direct
numerical simulations of bubble-laden turbulent
flows using two-fluid formulation, Physics of
Fluids 10 (3), 685-697.
Etter, R.J, and M.B. Wilson (1992) "The Large
Cavitation Channel," Proc. the 23rd American
Towing Tank Conf., New Orleans.
Fernndez, A., Lu, J. & Tryggvason, G. (2003)
Bubble effects on wall shear in vertical flows,
x = 11.50 m
Bubble Camera
x = 7.43 m
x = 10.68 m
Downstream Injector,
x = 9.79 m
x = 3.41 m
x = 1.07 m
x = 5.94 m
y
x
x = 1.96 m
Upstream Injector, x = 1.32 m
x = 0.00 m
Figure 1. HIPLATE schematic showing locations of the shear stress sensors (located 50.8 cm from the
spanwise centerline), single point electrodes (located 25.4 cm from the spanwise centerline), and the bubble
camera (located 77.5 cm from the spanwise centerline at x = 1.96 m and x = 10.68 m). The streamwise position
of each measurement location is indicated relative to the leading edge of the model. The model is presented here
with the test surface facing upward, although the model was oriented with the test-surface facing downward
during the experiment.
10
Flow
40 micron porous
stainless steel
Contracting slot
3 screens
0.4 mm thick
4.3 cm
3.0 cm
Gas In
1.3 cm
4.8 cm
Figure 2. Cross-sectional schematic of the gas injectors. The injector measures 2.65 m in the spanwise
direction. The gas inlet at the bottom of the injector consists of forty 1.3-cm ports spaced evenly across the span
of the injector. Three brass perforated plates with 0.5-mm diameter holes provide the pressure drop to evenly
distribute the gas across the injector. The contracting slot has a 10 taper leading to the 40-micron pore-size
sintered stainless steel.
11
1
10% air concentration ratio
30% air concentration ratio
50% air concentration ratio
Scaled Impedance
Power ( )
-1.578
0.5
0
0
12
0.0030
Sensor 1, x/L = 0.15
Sensor 2, x/L = 0.26
Sensor 3, x/L = 0.46
Sensor 4, x/L = 0.58
Sensor 5, x/L = 0.72
Sensor 6, x/L = 0.83
Power law fit
Schultz-Grunow
0.0025
CFo 0.0020
0.0015
CFo = 0.025Re0.149
x
0.0010
0.0E+00
5.0E+07
1.0E+08
1.5E+08
Rex
2.0E+08
2.5E+08
Figure 4. Skin friction coefficient, CFo, in the absence of bubbles as a function of downstream-based Reynolds
number. A power-law least-squares fit was applied to the data, and the resulting equation is represented by the solid
line. The dashed line is the resistance law of Schultz-Grunow (1941).
13
-1
1.2
#
1.0
+
#
#+
+
##
#+
#
#
#
##
+
##
++
##
#
#
+#
+
#
0.8
#
+####
++
++
#++##
###
CF
C Fo 0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
HIPLATE, U = 6 ms , UI
HIPLATE, U = 6 ms-1, DI
-1
HIPLATE, U = 12 ms , UI
HIPLATE, U = 12 ms-1, DI
HIPLATE, U = 18 ms-1, UI
HIPLATE, U = 18 ms-1, DI
Bogdevich et al., U = 2 ms-1
Bogdevich et al., U = 4 ms-1
Bogdevich et al., U = 6 ms-1
MDM, U = 5 ms-1, plate below TBL
MDM, U = 5 ms-1, plate above TBL
MDM, U = 11 ms-1, plate below TBL
MDM, U = 11 ms-1, plate above TBL
-1
MDM, U = 17 ms , plate below TBL
MDM, U = 17 ms-1, plate above TBL
-1
Deutsch et al., U = 7 ms
-1
Deutsch et al., U = 10 ms
-1
Kodama et al., U = 5 ms
-1
Kodama et al., U = 7 ms
-1
Kodama et al., U = 10 ms
0.4
0.6
0.8
Qa
Qa + Ub( o o )
Figure 5. The skin friction ratio presented as a function of the volumetric fraction of gas flow rate for the
present work, compared to the results of previous researchers. The data from Bogdevich et al. represent those
acquired by Soviet researchers (1974-1976) in plate-up and plate-down experiments. MDM denotes the data
reported by Madavan, Deutsch & Merkle (1984, 1985a).
14
HIPLATE, U = 6 ms-1, UI
-1
HIPLATE, U = 6 ms , DI
-1
HIPLATE, U = 12 ms , UI
-1
HIPLATE, U = 12 ms , DI
HIPLATE, U = 18 ms-1, UI
-1
HIPLATE, U = 18 ms , DI
1.2
1.0
0.8
CF
C Fo
-1
Deutsch et al., U = 7 ms
Deutsch et al., U = 10 ms-1
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Qa
Q a + Ub o
Figure 6. The skin friction ratio presented as a function of the volumetric fraction of the gas flow rate using the
momentum thickness of the unmodified boundary layer, o. The smooth-wall data presented by Deutsch et al.
(2003) are also plotted.
15
1.0
0.9
0.8
CF
C Fo
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Ab
Atotal
Figure 7. The measured skin friction ratio as a function of the imaged area ratios, given by Ab /Atotal, where Ab
is the area of the image covered by focused bubbles and Atotal is the total image area for 12 and 18 ms-1. UI =
upstream air injection at x = 1.32 m; DI = downstream air injection at x = 9.79 m.
16
Injection
Injection
200
200
U=6
U=6
U=6
U=6
3 -1
ms
3 -1
ms
3 -1
ms
3 -1
ms
U=12
U=12
U=12
U=12
175
175
-1
ms , UI, Q a=0.05
-1
ms , UI, Q a=0.09
-1
ms , UI, Q a=0.19
-1
ms , UI, Q a=0.38
150
125
100
75
50
25
3 -1
ms
3 -1
ms
3 -1
ms
3 -1
ms
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
(a)
0.8
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
(b)
L
Injection
0.6
0.8
1.0
Injection
1.0
200
U=18
U=18
U=18
U=18
175
m3s-1
3 -1
ms
3 -1
ms
3 -1
ms
-1
0.8
125
100
75
3 -1
12 ms , 0.05 m s
-1
3 -1
12 ms , 0.09 m s
-1
3 -1
12 ms , 0.19 m s
-1
3 -1
12 ms , 0.38 m s
-1
3 -1
18 ms , 0.05 m s
-1
3 -1
18 ms , 0.09 m s
-1
3 -1
18 ms , 0.19 m s
-1
3 -1
18 ms , 0.38 m s
150
1-(CF/CFo)
-1
ms , UI, Q a=0.05
-1
ms , UI, Q a=0.09
-1
ms , UI, Q a=0.19
-1
ms , UI, Q a=0.38
0.6
0.4
50
0.2
25
0.0
0
0.0
(c)
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0
0.2
(d)
0.4
0.6
0.8
x
L
Figure 8. (a-c) Mean near-wall impedance as a function of the normalized downstream distance. These graphs
represent measurements recorded during upstream injection at (a) 6 ms-1; (b) 12 ms-1; and (c) 18 ms-1. The
vertical bars represent the maximum and minimum values of the impedance range during the sampling interval
(15 seconds). The sensor located at x/L = 0.08 is located just upstream of injection (x/L = 0.11), and is used to
represent the baseline impedance for the flow. (d) Measured drag reduction during upstream injection at 12 and
18 ms-1, presented as a function of the normalized downstream distance.
17
1.0
Injection
100
Injection
-1
3 -1
-1
3 -1
75
50
Injection
25
0
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.6
0.8
1.0
x
L
Figure 9. Measured mean impedance of the near-wall flow during downstream injection, as a function of the
normalized downstream distance. The three impedance sensors are located at x/L = 0.72, 0.83 and 0.91, and the
injector is located at x/L = 0.76.
18
0.7
Upstream Injection
Downstream Injection
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
0.6
0.5
DRR = 0.3165 MIC - 0.0325
2
R = 0.7684
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
19
0.7
Upstream Injection
Downstream
0.6
0.5
0.4
DRR = 0.8774MIC - 0.0088
R2 = 0.9041
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
20
ABSTRACT
Non-spherical simulations of bubble nuclei in a tip
vortex flow indicate bubble elongation followed by
splitting and reentrant jet formation. The associated
noise is much higher than the pressure signal from the
collapse of a spherical bubble. A major difficulty in
applying such a non-spherical method to a field of
nuclei is the prohibitively expensive cost of
corresponding computations. In this paper, we attempt
to overcome this difficulty by performing simulations
with an improved Surface Averaged Pressure (SAP)
spherical model that accounts for bubble splitting.
Non-spherical numerical studies are used to develop
splitting criteria and characterize the resulting noise
and offspring sub-bubbles. These criteria are
implemented in the SAP spherical model, and
numerical results with single bubble and with a
realistic field are then presented. The effect of the
inclusion of bubble splitting on the cavitation inception
prediction is then investigated.
INTRODUCTION
Conducting numerical cavitation inception experiments
using a distribution of nuclei as in a real liquid has
been very successful in providing a numerical tool to
study tip vortex cavitation inception and its scaling.
We have developed a Surface Averaged Pressure
(SAP) spherical bubble dynamics model (Hsiao,
Chahine, and Liu, 2003, Hsiao and Chahine, 2003a,
2003b) that has provided bubble dynamics results very
similar to those obtained using a 3-D two-way
interaction model (Figure 1). The SAP model is
especially appropriate for simulations with a large
number (~103 used so far) of bubble nuclei because of
its reasonable memory and computational time
requirements. The success of this model in the study of
cavitation inception is partly due to the fact that the
spherical approximation is valid at cavitation numbers
0.006
0.005
Max. R EQ [m]
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
Cavitation Number
10
-1
P acoustic / P amb
10-2
10-3
10-4
10
-5
10-6
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1.05
/ -Cpmin
constant and are -1.0 Rsplit and 4.4 Rsplit, respectively for
the upstream and the downstream sub-bubbles.
CG sub 1 / R EQ
0.02
Maximum
CG / R EQ
0.015
10 m
20 m
50 m
100 m
R EQ [m]
at splitting
10 m
20 m
50 m
100 m
0.01
sub-bubble 1
0.005
1.6
1.8
CG sub 2 / R EQ
no splitting
for 100 m
sub-bubble 2
0
1.4
no splitting
for 50 m
2.2
2.4
2.6
-2
1.4
2.8
1.6
1.8
2.2
Cavitation Number
2.4
2.6
2.8
Cavitation Number
R max / R split
1
R sub 1 / R split
Radii Ratio
0.8
10 m
20 m
50 m
100 m
0.6
R sub 2 / R split
0.4
0.2
0
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.2
Cavitation Number
2.4
2.6
2.8
Pressure [Pa]
Field Point Pressure at Re=2.88x10 6, with Ro=10, 20, 50, and 100 m
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10 m
20 m
50 m
100 m
-1
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
Cavitation Number
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
Pressure [Pa]
10
10
10
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
10-6
2.5
Cavitation Number
(2)
t t1 ( )
p ( )
sin
, t1 t2 t t1 + t2 (3)
2
t
(
)
2
8
6
0.01
Pressure [Pa]
4
2
0
-2
-4
no split
with split (sub-bubbles)
with split (sum)
-6
-8
0.05
0.075
0.1
0.125
Time [s]
0.15
0.175
0.008
no split
with split
Radius [m]
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
0.05
0.075
0.1
0.125
Time [s]
0.15
0.175
Pressure [Pa]
104
10
10
10
10
10
-1
10
-2
1.6
no split
with split (jet noise)
with split (sub-bubbles)
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Cavitation Number
MULTIPLE
SPLITTING
NUCLEI
WITH
SINGLE
Figure 17: Amplitude spectrum of the acoustic pressure
signal from 100 nuclei of size 20 m with splitting compared
to that without splitting. Also shown is the influence of the
inclusion of the reentrant jet noise on the results.
P ( f , T ) = p ( t ) e i 2 ft dt
(4)
MULTIPLE SPLITTING
The bubble splitting model used above is based on
the non-spherical axisymmetric bubble simulations
starting from the first cycle of the bubble growth. In
such simulations, the numerical computations usually
cannot be continued through the collapse and rebound
of the sub-bubbles because of the touchdown of the
developed reentrant jets and the instabilities of the
collapsing bubbles. Therefore, the non-spherical
simulations cannot tell if the newly born sub-bubbles
would split again or not. The first cycle usually has the
strongest growth because it occurs just after the
nucleus passes the minimum pressure region of the tip
vortex. The bubble growth in the second and later
cycles is weaker than the first because the pressure
becomes higher and higher as the bubble moves
downstream. Would the sub-bubble placed a little
downstream of the minimum pressure region of the tip
vortex split again? This question can be answered by
performing a non-spherical simulation from the second
cycle of the SAP spherical simulation because the local
pressure encountered by the bubble nucleus a bubble
cycle downstream would be very similar to that of the
sub-bubble after the splitting.
In Figure 18, two 2DYNAFS simulations are
shown, one starting from the beginning of the first
cycle and the other from the beginning of the second
cycle of the SAP prediction. Even though the local
pressure encountered by the bubble in the second cycle
is higher than that of the first, the bubble elongates and
splits in the same way. The only major difference
between the two cases is the amount of the growth, i.e.
about 400 times in the first cycle vs. about twice in the
second cycle. The characteristics of the splitting in the
second cycle are very similar to those in the first cycle
as summarized in Table 1.
Because the sub-bubbles also split under very
similar criteria as the first splitting, we can apply the
same bubble splitting model to successive splitting of
the sub-bubbles. Results from such a simulation are
shown in Figure 19 for a 20 m nucleus. The bubble
0.01
Re = 2.88e6, R o = 20 m, = 2.10
2DynaFS
SAP
2DynaFS (2nd Cycle)
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
Time [sec]
0.09
0.1
Req,split / Req,max
Req,1 / Req,split
Req2 / Req,split
1st cycle
0.95
0.95
0.55
2nd cycle
0.94
0.97
0.43
50
Number of nuclei
40
Cavitating bubbles
Number of bubbles
30
20
10
0
5
10
15
20
30
40
50
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
DISCUSSION
Neil Bose
Memorial University, NL, Canada
Have the authors done work on the impact
and collapse of these free and split bubbles on a
surface such as a strut in the flow? Is your model
able to predict the pressures incident on the surface?
AUTHORS REPLY
Boundary Element Simulation of the ONR SnayGoertner Bubble Benchmark Problems, SAVIAC
Proceedings of the 67th Shock and Vibration
Symposium, Monterey, CA, 1996.
Chahine, G. L., Duraiswami, R., and Kalumuck, K.
M., Boundary Element Method For Calculating 2-D
and 3-D Underwater Explosion Bubble Loading On
Nearby
Structures
Including
Fluid-Structure
Interaction Effects, NSWC Dahlgren Division
Report NSWCDD/TR-93/46, 1997.
DISCUSSION
Christopher Chesnakas
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
First, a comment: The acoustic spectra of the
splitting bubbles and the jet model looks most like
the experimental data, and I would recommend
concentrating future efforts on that model.
Second, a question: What happens to the
bubbles after the jet forms?
Is the bubble
annihilated? Or, are more bubbles formed, and does
the process continue?
AUTHORS REPLY
The authors would like to thank Dr.
Chesnakas for his valuable comment and questions.
We are glad to hear that the predicted cavitation noise
spectrum with the bubble nuclei splitting/jet model
looks like the experimental observation. We will
continue similar studies in the near future.
We have put efforts to continue the
simulation after the touchdown of the reentrant jet.
In axisymmetric simulations, the bubble turns into a
toroidal bubble and continues to oscillate responding
to the surrounding pressure changes. However, the
authors believe that the bubble could break into
smaller
bubbles
following
non-symmetrical
instabilities which we do not describe in the
axisymmetric code, but could study with our 3-D
code, 3DYNAFS. The break-up process may be
continued until the bubbles become very small and
the surface tension starts to overcome excessive
deformation.
ABSTRACT
A three-dimensional potential-based boundary
element method (BEM) is used for the hydrodynamic
analysis of unsteady ventilated flows around surfacepiercing propellers. For cases without blade vibration, the developed BEM is able to predict forces and
ventilation patterns that compared well with experimental measurements. However, as demonstrated
in past experimental and numerical studies, hydroelastic effects become important for surface-piercing
propellers operating at high advance coefficients. In
this work, two hydroelastic models are presented for
the approximation of the hydroelastic forces due to
blade vibration. Overviews of the formulation and
validation studies with experimental measurements
are presented.
INTRODUCTION
For high-speed vessels, surface-piercing (or
partially-submerged) propellers are more efficient
than fully submerged propellers due to the reduction
of appendage drag by elevating most of the propeller
assembly (e.g. shafts, struts, hub, etc.) above the
water surface. However, surface-piercing propellers
are not as commonly employed compared to waterjets because: 1) reduced efficiency when operating in
low-speed conditions, 2) high levels of blade stress,
especially at the blade entry phase where the impact
forces are mostly absorbed by the thin blade leading
edge, and 3) fatigue and vibration issues due to the
cyclic loading and unloading of the blades. These
problems are often a result of improper design of
the propulsion system due to the lack of a reliable
performance prediction method and the scarcity of
systematic performance data. On the other hand,
a properly designed propulsion system with surfacepiercing propeller(s) can be significantly more fuelefficient than other types of propulsors for high-speed
vessels. Thus, additional systematic experimental
studies and the development of a reliable performance prediction method are crucial to the design
and wide application of surface-piercing propellers.
able pressure free-surface tunnel that permits highspeed operations to explore the various flow regimes.
The free surface must be clearly defined. A multicomponent dynamometer is needed to measure primary and secondary forces. Special equipments are
also needed to simultaneously provide realistic conditions for cavitation inception while maintaining constant water density. A high-performance blade dynamometer is needed to capture the effect of blade
vibration and time-dependent hydrodynamic loads.
Moreover, special considerations are needed to address scale issues concerning flow and blade vibration characteristics. Thus, there is also a strong
need for the development of reliable, versatile, and
robust computational tools to predict the hydrodynamic and hydroelastic performance of surfacepiercing propellers.
Previous
Analysis
Theoretical
Hydroelastic
In the past, the modified cantilever beam theory (Taylor 1933) was the most commonly method
used to determine static blade stresses. The theory
assumed the blade to be a cantilever beam loaded by
thrust and torque distributed linearly over the radius
(Schoenherr 1963). Later, modifications were made
to include the effects of rake, skew, and centrifugal force (Morgan 1954, Schoenherr 1963, Atkinson
1968). However, the beam theory cannot accurately
predict the stress distributions for complex blade geometries due to its simplified assumptions. Later,
more sophisticated theoretical models based on the
measured or calculated mode shapes and resonance
frequencies of propeller blades in air were developed
by (Tsushima 1972, Brooks 1980). In 1981, (Murai & Shimizu 1981a, Murai & Shimizu 1981b) developed a linearized theory for the analysis of flow
around a chordwise flexible supercavitating hydrofoil when clamped at the trailing edge and when
supported elastically, but the method was limited to
2-D. Recently, finite element methods coupled with
hydrodynamic models have also been employed for
the analysis of dynamic blade stresses. These include the works of (Genalis 1970) using thin shell elements, (Atkinson 1973) using thick shell elements,
and (Kuo & Vorus 1985) using 3-D isoparametric
brick elements. Nonetheless, all of the above mentioned methods were developed for analysis of fully
submerged, non-cavitating propellers.
Hydroelastic analysis of cavitating propellers is
more complicated due to the presence of the unknown and time-dependent cavity surfaces, and the
interaction with elastic blade motion. The problem
is even more difficult for surface-piercing propellers
because both the added mass and damping effects
of the surrounding fluid vary with space (i.e. nodedependent) and blade angle (i.e. time-dependent)
since the blade enters and exists the fluid domain
in each revolution. However, most FEMs are not
designed to accommodate time-varying point masses
for each node. Thus, the space- and time-dependent
added forces due to fluid-structure interaction need
to be iteratively postulated as known values on the
right-hand-side of the equation of motion in the
FEM.
Recently, (Dyson 2000, Dyson et al 2000) pre-
sented a numerical model for the hydroelastic analysis of surface-piercing propellers. In their work, a 3-D
FEM (PAFEC) was used to model the structure. A
combination of 2-D semi-loof shell elements and 3-D
brick elements were used. The added mass effect of
the surrounding water was included by distributing
point masses across the surface of the blade according to a profile based potential flow theory around
a flat plate. The total damping ratio was taken to
be 0.05. However, to simplify the analysis, (Dyson
2000, Dyson et al 2000) used an assumed instead
of evaluated hydrodynamic load model. Thus, the
method cannot provide an accurate description of
the dynamic stresses.
OBJECTIVE
The ultimate objective of this work is to fully
couple a 3-D BEM with a 3-D FEM to determine
the time-dependent hydroelastic response of surfacepiercing propellers. The formulation and preliminary results for the 3-D BEM/FEM coupling are presented. To validate the coupling methodology, and
to access the sensitivity of the solution to the accuracy of added mass and hydrodynamic damping, a
simplified hydroelastic model using a single-degreeof-freedom (SDOF) system is introduced. The results shown that the single-degree-of-freedom system
provides a fast and practical mean of estimating the
hydroelastic response of surface-piercing propellers.
Hydrodynamic Analysis
In the present method, the hydrodynamic part
of the analysis is performed using a 3-D BEM. The
low-order potential based BEM was first developed
for the analysis of marine propellers in steady flow
by (Lee 1987, Kerwin et al 1987) and unsteady flow
by (Hsin 1990, Kinnas & Hsin 1992). The method
was then extended for the analysis of flow around
2-D partially cavitating and supercavitating hydrofoils (Kinnas & Fine 1991) and 3-D partially cavitating hydrofoils (Fine & Kinnas 1993). In (Kinnas
& Fine 1992), the method was named PROPCAV
(PROPeller CAVitation) for its added ability to analyze 3-D unsteady flow around cavitating propellers.
Later, (Mueller & Kinnas 1999) modified the method
to search for midchord cavitation on either the back
or the face of propeller blades. Most recently, the
method has been further extended to predict simultaneous face and back cavitation on conventional
fully submerged propellers (Young & Kinnas 2001a),
(2)
Boundary Conditions
The kinematic boundary condition requires the
flow to be tangent to the wetted portion of
:
Neumann-type boundary condition for n
= ~
qin ~n
n
(4)
|~qc | = n2 D2 a + |~
qw | + 2 r2 2gY 2
(5)
t
= (6)
= 0
Implementation
Since air loading of the propeller is small compared to the hydrodynamic load, Greens formula
(Eqn. 3) is only solved for the total number of submerged blade and wake panels. The values of and
Hydroelastic Analysis
In this work, two approaches are presented for
the hydroelastic analysis. The first approach couples
the 3-D BEM with a consistent 3-D FEM to model
the fluid structure interaction. The blade is discretized into 3-D solid elements using the commercial
software ABAQUS. The fluid-structure coupling algorithm follows the linear field decomposition shown
in (Vorus 1981, Kuo & Vorus 1985). The problem is
solved in the time domain using an implicit Newmark
algorithm. In the second approach, the blade is simplified as a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system
with a lumped mass, and the resulting ordinary differential equation representing the equilibrium equation of motion is solved using an explicit DormandPrince Runge-Kutta (4,5) formula in MATLAB. An
overview of the formulation for both approaches are
shown in this section.
BEM/FEM coupling
For hydroelastic analysis, the vibratory blade
motion is defined as displacements (~) superposed
on the rigid blade motion:
~ = ~x + ~(~
, t)
(7)
where
~ and ~x denote the position vectors to the deformed and undeformed blade surface, respectively.
Similar to the hydrodynamic formulation for
rigid blades, the perturbation flow field is assumed to
be incompressible, inviscid, and irrotational. Thus,
the perturbation velocity can be represented as the
gradient of the perturbation potential , where
2 = 0. Assuming linearity, can be decomposed
into two parts:
(~
, t) = (~x, t) + (~
, t)
(8)
(9)
=
=
Pt Po
(11)
1
1 2 2
1 2
2
|~qw | + r gY
|~v |
2
2
t
2
where
t
|~v |2
=
=
+
t
t
|~q|2 + 2~q + ||2
(12)
(13)
(14)
1
1
1 2
2
|~qw | + 2 r2 gY
|~q| (15)
2
2
t
2
Pv =
~q (16)
t
q (t)
G(p; q)
dS
nq(t)
nq(t)
S(t)
The subscripts q and q correspond to integration
points on the real and image integration surfaces,
respectively. Note that the negative sign in front of
the second integral is due to the equal and opposite
strengths of the real and image singularities. Rewriting Eqn. 17 in matrix form yields:
[A] {} = [B]
(18)
n
where [A] and [B] are the dipole and source influence coefficient matrices, respectively. It should be
noted that the influence coefficient matrices are timedependent for surface-piercing propellers due to the
variation of the blade submergence with blade angle.
The advantage of this approach is that the influence
coefficients, [A] and [B], are the same as those for
the hydrodynamic analysis, thus result in substantial savings in CPU time and memory.
Multiplying both sides of Eqn. 18 by [A]1 yields
the solution for {}(Young & Kinnas 2003c):
(19)
{} = [C]
n
where [C] = [A]1 [B].
The values of
n on the right-hand-side (RHS)
of Eq. 19 is obtained by relating the perturbation
velocity normal to the vibrating blade surface,
n ,
to the normal component of the solid body velocity
at the element centroids (Young & Kinnas 2003c):
( ~ )
=
~n
(20)
n
t
Defining [T ] as the transformation matrix which
relates the normal velocities at the element centroids
to the element nodal velocities:
~
{
~n} = [T ]{u}
(21)
(22)
(23)
= [C][T ]{
u}
(26)
t
Thus, the pressure vector due to blade vibration
(Eqn. 16) can be rewritten as follows:
{Pv } = [C][T ]{
u} [QD][C][T ]{u}
(27)
BEM/SDOF coupling
The BEM/FEM coupling is not an easy task
due to the time- and space-dependent added mass
and hydrodynamic damping terms. Thus, in order
to validate the underlying coupling scheme, a much
simplified structural model using a SDOF system is
introduced. In this approach, the blade is simplified as a massless beam with a lumped mass SDOF
system, as shown in Fig. 4.
First, consider the SDOF system in air subject
to a transient load F . The displacement u is governed by the dynamic equilibrium equation of motion:
m
u + du + ku = F
(32)
where m, d, and k are the structural mass, damping,
and stiffness of the approximated blade in air. u,
u,
and u are the acceleration, velocity, and displacement, respectively, of the SDOF system. The natural frequency (dry ) and damping coefficient (dry )
of the SDOF system in air are defined as follows:
r
k
(33)
dry =
m
d
dry =
(34)
2mdry
Next, consider the same blade completely surrounded by water, the resulting equilibrium equation of motion is the same as Eq. 32 but with m
replaced by m + mh and d replaced by d + dh . mh
and dh represent the added mass and hydrodynamic
damping, respectively, when the blade is fully submerged. Thus, the natural frequency and damping
coefficient of the SDOF system in water are defined
as follows:
s
k
wet =
(35)
(m + mh )
wet
d + dh
2(m + mh )wet
(36)
d + dh
2[m + mh (t)](t)
(39)
(40)
Results
To validate the treatment of surface-piercing
propellers, numerical predictions for propeller model
841-B are compared with experimental measurements collected by (Olofsson 1996). A photograph
of the surface-piercing propeller and the velocity distribution at the propeller plane is shown in Figs. 5
and 6, respectively. The axial velocity is zero at the
free surface because a flat plate was placed in front
of the propeller to provide a well-defined free surface. Details of the experiments are given in (Olofsson 1996), and are summarized here for the sake of
completeness.
Patm Pv 1 1
2
0.5gD
Fr
(41)
step. The measured natural frequencies of the bladeflexure versus angular position is shown in Fig. 8.
The measured fundamental frequencies of the bladeBF
flexure in air and in water are dry
= 1013 Hz and
BF
wet = 425 Hz, respectively. Olofsson also calculated the fundamental frequencies of the bare flexure
F
BF
(dry
) and the blade-flexure (dry
) in air using FEM,
F
BF
and found dry = 2457 Hz and dry
= 1043 Hz, respectively. He also found that the ratio of the fundamental frequency of the bare flexure and the rigidlyF
B
attached blade in air, dry
/dry
, to be approximately
2.1. In the current hydroelastic model, the blades are
assumed to be rigidly-attached at the root. Assuming the ratio of the fundamental frequencies of the
rigidly-attached blade and the blade-flexure in air is
B
BF
B
BF
the same as in water (i.e. dry
/dry
= wet
/wet
),
the measured fundamental frequencies of the rigidlyattached blade in air and in water can be inferred as
B
B
dry
= 1138 Hz and wet
= 477Hz, respectively.
BEM results
The predicted and measured time-averaged
thrust (KT ), torque (KQ ), and efficiency () of propeller model 841-B in the ship-fixed coordinates is
shown in Fig. 9. The lines and symbols in Fig. 9
represent the numerical predictions and experimental
measurements, respectively. For each advance coefficient, multiple experimental data points are shown
to depict the effect of Froude number and scale ratio.
The time-averaged results compared well with experimental values because the discrepancies caused by
resonant blade vibration act as fluctuations superimposed on the basic load in the experimental values,
which will not appear in the time-averaged results
due to the time-averaging process.
Comparisons of the predicted and measured
time-history of the individual dynamic blade loads
for J = 1.0 and J = 1.2 are shown in Figs. 10 and
11, respectively. Also shown in Figs. 10 and 11 are
the effect of Froude number, Fr , onthe measured dynamic blade loads. Since Fr = V / gD, the advance
speed V increases with increasing Fr , and thus the
system is more susceptible to resonant blade vibration. This is evident via the increase in the magnitude of the humps (amplified fluctuations superimposed on the basic load) with increasing Froude
number for J = 1.0, as shown in Fig. 10. However,
the use of the BEM alone will not be able to capture the humps due to the rigid blade assumption.
Thus, more discrepancies can be observed at higher
Froude numbers for the same advance coefficient. On
the other hand, for a fixed value of V (or Fr ), the pro-
peller rotational frequency n decreases with increasing advance coefficient J = V /nD. Hence, for the
same Fr , the susceptibility of the blade to resonant
vibration decreases with increasing J. To demonstrate that the humps observed on the time-history
of the blade loads are due to resonant blade vibration, the harmonic axial coefficients normalized by
the mean value are plotted against harmonics of the
propeller angular velocity n = n /2 in Fig. 12. As
expected, the harmonic coefficients are amplified at
the frequency corresponding to the fundamental frequency of the blade in water.
The comparison of predicted and observed ventilation patterns at J = 1.2 and Fr = 6 are shown
in Fig. 13. The ventilation patterns compared very
well because the blade is behaving like a rigid body
at higher advance coefficients.
BEM/SDOF results
Since the SDOF model assumed the blade to
be rigidly attached to the hub, dry and wet are
taken as 1138 Hz and 477 Hz, respectively. The assumed variation of the fundamental frequency of the
blade with blade angle is depicted in Fig. 14 along
the measured frequencies. The damping coefficients
in air and in water, dry and wet , were assumed to be
0.03 and 0.05, respectively. (t) is assumed to vary
in a similar trend as (t). It should be noted that
wet = 0.05 is a reasonable value based on the study
of propeller excitation in water by (Hylarides 1978).
An example of the predicted motion of the SDOF
system for J = 0.8 is shown in Fig. 15. The predicted
hydrodynamic load due to the rigid blade (F (t)),
transient load due to the vibrating blade (f (t)), and
total hydrodynamic load (F (t) + f (t)) are compared
with experimental measurements for different values
of advance coefficient (J) and Froude number (Fr ) in
Figs. 16 to 22. In general, the results agreed well with
experimental measurements, and that the inclusion
of the added forces due to hydroelastic effects did improved the numerical prediction. Most importantly,
the maximum axial force coefficient predicted using
the present method compared well with experimental
measurements.
It should be noted that discrepancies at the
blade entry phase and the blade exit phase for J =
0.8 shown in Figs. 16 and 17 are due to increase in
intensity and height of jet sprays, and rise in the
overall free surface elevation due to cavity displacement effects. The later is evident in the experimental measurement shown in Figs. 16 and 17, where
the blade appears to carry load from approximately
(42)
3N
XN
j=1
where
n
o
j,1 = 1 0
n
o
j,2 = 0 1
n
o
j,3 = 0 0
j,k ;
Mh |i,j
(43)
1 0
0 1
0 0
0 1
0 0
1 0
0 0
1 0
0 1
BEM/FEM results
To accommodate the classic sharp leading edge
and thick trailing edge of surface-piercing propellers,
a combination of 15-node quadratic triangular prisms
and 20-node quadratic bricks are used to represent
the blade in the FEM analysis. Quadratic elements
were selected to avoid FEM problems due to shear
locking (occurs in first-order, fully integrated elements subject to bending due to numerically induced
shear strains) and hourglassing (occurs in first-order,
reduced-integration elements in stress and displacement analysis due to zero strain at the integration
point). To reduce the computational time, reduced
integration is employed for the 20-node quadratic
bricks. To avoid errors due to interpolation, the corner nodes of the FEM elements correspond to the
corner nodes of the BEM elements. The dependence
of the predicted blade frequency in air for propeller
M841B is shown in Fig. 27. The first number indicates the number of BEM elements in the chordwise
direction (which correspond to two times the number
of FEM elements), and the second number indicates
the number of BEM (and number of FEM) elements
in the spanwise direction. Also shown in Fig. 27 are
the measured natural frequencies in air obtained by
Olofsson (Olofsson 1996). As shown in the figure,
the numerical predictions converged and compared
well with experimental measurements. Measured frequencies beyond the third mode are not shown in the
figure because those are influenced by the flexibility
k = 1, 2, 3
T
T
T
(44)
MhL |N N,2
MhL |N N,3
It should be noted that the hydrodynamic damping matrix, [Dh ], is currently neglected in the modal
analysis. Comparison of the predicted versus the
measured natural frequencies for the first two modes
as a function of the blade angle is shown in Fig. 28.
The natural frequencies are normalized by the fundamental frequency in air. As shown in the figure,
the predicted natural frequencies compared well with
experimental measurements.
CONCLUSIONS
A 3-D BEM has been extended for the analysis
of surface-piercing propellers. Numerical and experimental validation studies of the BEM for surfacepiercing propellers were presented in (Young & Kinnas 2003a, Young & Kinnas 2003e, Young & Kinnas
2003c, Kinnas & Young 2003). Due to the rigid blade
assumption, the BEM alone cannot capture the effect of blade vibration. To account for the fluidstructure interaction, two hydroelastic models are
Choi, J. 2000 Vortical inflow propeller interaction using unsteady three-dimensional euler solver.
Doctoral dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin. August.
Dobay, G. 1970 Unsteady blade force measurements on a skewed partially-submerged propeller.
Technical report. 392-H-01. Naval Ship Resesarch
and Development Center. June.
Dyson, P. K. 2000 The modelling, testing and
design, of a surface piercing propeller drive. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Mechanical and
Marine Engineering, Plymouth University. October.
Dyson, P. K., Chudley, J. and Grieve, D.
2000 An experimental programme to determine
the mean and time varying loads imposed by surface piercing propellers. Sea Australia 2000, Sydney.
Ferrando, M. and Scamardella, A. 1996 Surface piercing propellers: Testing methodologies,
results analysis and comments on the open water
characteristics. Proceedings: Small Craft Symposium.
Fine, N. and Kinnas, S. 1993 A boundary element method for the analysis of the flow around 3d cavitating hydrofoils. Journal of Ship Research,
37, September, 213224.
Furuya, O. 1984 A performance prediction theory for partially submerged ventilated propellers.
Proceedings: Fifteenth Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics.
Furuya, O. 1985 A performance prediction theory for partially submerged ventilated propellers.
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 151, pp. 311335.
Genalis, P. 1970 Elastic strength of propellers an analysis by matrix methods. Technical report.
Report 3397. David Taylor Research Center.
Hadler, J. and Hecker, R. 1968 Performance of
partially submerged propellers. Proceedings: The
7th ONR Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics.
August.
Hecker, R. 1973 Experimental performance of
a partially submerged propeller in inclined flow.
SNAME Spring Meeting, Lake Buena Vista, FL,
April.
Hecker, R. and Crown, D.
1970
Performance characteristics of partially-submerged propeller 4281 with varying number of blades at low
advance coefficients. Technical report. 249-H-12.
Naval Ship Resesarch and Development Center.
November.
Hsin, C.-Y.
1990
Development and analysis
propeller characteristics near water surface. Proceedings: The 2nd Symposium on Propeller and
Cavitation. September 1-4, pp. 161168.
Wang, S. Y. 1995 Systemtische analyse von modellversuchen mit teilgetauchten propellrn. Doctoral dissertation, Technischen Unversitaet Berlin
(D83).
Yegorov, I. and Sadovnikov, Y. 1961 Effect of instability on hydrodynamic characteristics of a propeller cutting the water surface. Sudostroyenige, pp. 1517.
Young, Y. 2002 Numerical modeling of supercavitating and surface-piercing propellers. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin. May.
Young, Y. and Kinnas, S. 2001a A BEM for
the prediction of unsteady midchord face and/or
back propeller cavitation. Journal of Fluids Engineering, 123, June, pp. 311319.
Young, Y. and Kinnas, S. 2001b Numerical
modeling of supercavitating and surface-piercing
propeller flows. Proceedings: CAV 2001: Fourth
International Symposium on Cavitation. California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, June
20-23.
Young, Y. and Kinnas, S.
2002
A BEM
technique for the modeling of supercavitating and
surface-piercing propeller flows. 24th Symposium
on Naval Hydrodynamics, July 8-13.
Young, Y. and Kinnas, S. 2003a Analysis of supercavitating and surface-piercing propeller flows
via bem. Journal of Computational Mechanics, 32,
5-6.
Young, Y. and Kinnas, S. 2003b Fluid and structural modeling of cavitating propeller flows. Proceedings: Fifth International Symposium on Cavitation (CAV2003). November 1-4.
Young, Y. and Kinnas, S. 2003c Numerical
analysis of surface-piercing propellers. Proceedings: 2003 Propeller and Shaft Symposium. Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers,
Virginia Beach, VA, September 17-18.
Young, Y. and Kinnas, S. 2003d Numerical
modeling of supercavitating propeller flows. Journal of Ship Research, 47, 1, March, pp. 4862.
Young, Y. and Kinnas, S. 2003e Performance
prediction of surface-piercing propellers. To be appeared in Journal of Ship Research.
ventilated cavity
fully
ventilated
transition
partially
ventilated
partially
cavitating
ventilated cavity
vapor/gas cavity
m+m h
vapor cavity
ventilated cavity
k, d+d h
k, d
Advance coefficient, J=V/nD
in air
in water
Figure 2: Observed ringing pattern of the ventilated cavity for surface-piercing propeller M841B
at J = 0.8 and Fr = 6.0. Taken from (Olofsson
1996).
blades
flat plate
0.2
free surface
X, x
0.4
y/R
(x,y,z)
Z
z
0.6
free
surface
non-axisymmetric
effective inflow
wake
0.8
ventilated cavities
1
vx:
0.25
0.5
0.75
Vx
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
Figure 6: Axial velocity distribution at the propeller plane. Based on data from (Olofsson 1996).
0.2
0.8
0.6
KT, 10KQ
0.15
0.1
0.4
10KQ
0.05
0.2
KT
Figure 7: Flexure-unit used to measure the reaction load. Taken from (Olofsson 1996).
0.6
0.8
0
1.4
1.2
JA
Figure 9: Averaged performance characteristics
of propeller model 841-B in ship-fixed coordinates. Shown in (Young & Kinnas 2003c).
Axial force coef. for J=1, =1
0.045
BEM
FnD=2
FnD=4
FnD=6
FnD=7.7
0.04
0.035
0.03
KFx
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0.005
0
45
90
135
180
225
blade angle, = t
270
315
360
0.04
0.03
KFx
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0
45
90
135
180
225
blade angle, = t
270
315
360
0.2
FnD=6, =1
wet/n=10.153
0.1
0
0
0.2
10
15
20
kn
25
40
wet/n=10.153
10
15
20
kn
25
30
35
40
FnD=6, =9
wet/n=10.153
0.1
0
0
35
FnD=6, =3
0.1
0
0
0.2
30
10
15
20
kn
25
30
35
Figure 12: Measured harmonic coefficients of propeller M841B in blade-fixed coordinate system at
J = 0.8, Fr = 6. wet /n is the ratio of the fundamental frequency of the blade in water to the
angular frequency = 2n of the propeller.
40
Figure 14: Assumed and measured natural frequencies of the blade versus angular position.
predicted motion for J=0.8
5
dis, u/D
Cfx(kn)/Cfx(0)
Cfx(kn)/Cfx(0)
Cfx(kn)/Cfx(0)
x 10
5
10
15
0
0.02
vel, v/nD
FnD=2
FnD=4
FnD=6
FnD=7.7
45
90
135
180
225
270
315
360
45
90
135
180
225
270
315
360
45
90
135
180
225
blade angle
270
315
360
0
0.02
acc, a/n2D
0.04
0
2
0
2
0
Figure 15: Predicted blade tip motion for propeller M841B at J = 0.8.
Axial force coef. for J=0.8 FnD=4
F(t)
f(t)
F(t)+f(t)
Exp =1
Exp =3
Exp =9
0.04
KFx
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0
45
90
135
180
225
blade angle, = t
270
315
Figure 16: Comparison of predicted and measured total hydrodynamic load for propeller
M841B at J = 0.8, Fr = 4.
Figure 13: Comparison of the observed(left) and
predicted(right) ventilation patterns. Propeller
M841B. JA = 1.2. = 9. Fr = 6. Shown in
(Young & Kinnas 2003c).
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
360
0.06
F(t)
f(t)
F(t)+f(t)
Exp =1
Exp =3
Exp =9
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.03
KFx
KFx
0.04
F(t)
f(t)
F(t)+f(t)
Exp =1
Exp =9
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0
0
0.01
0
45
90
135
180
225
blade angle, = t
270
315
0.01
0
360
Figure 17: Comparison of predicted and measured total hydrodynamic load for propeller
M841B at J = 0.8, Fr = 6.
45
315
360
nD
0.03
F(t)
f(t)
F(t)+f(t)
Exp =1
Exp =3
Exp =9
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0.01
0.005
0.005
0.01
45
90
135
180
225
blade angle, = t
270
315
F(t)
f(t)
F(t)+f(t)
Exp =1
Exp =3
Exp =9
0.025
KFx
KFx
270
nD
0.015
0
360
Figure 18: Comparison of predicted and measured total hydrodynamic load for propeller
M841B at J = 1.0, Fr = 4.
45
90
135
180
225
blade angle, = t
270
315
360
Figure 21: Comparison of predicted and measured total hydrodynamic load for propeller
M841B at J = 1.2, Fr = 6.
Axial force coef. for J=1.2 F =7.7
nD
nD
0.045
0.03
F(t)
f(t)
F(t)+f(t)
Exp =1
Exp =3
Exp =9
0.04
0.035
0.03
F(t)
f(t)
F(t)+f(t)
Exp =1
Exp =9
0.025
0.02
0.015
KFx
0.025
KFx
135
180
225
blade angle, = t
Figure 20: Comparison of predicted and measured total hydrodynamic load for propeller
M841B at J = 1.0, Fr = 7.7.
0.04
0.005
0
90
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0.01
0
0.005
0.005
0
0.005
0
45
90
135
180
225
blade angle, = t
270
315
Figure 19: Comparison of predicted and measured total hydrodynamic load for propeller
M841B at J = 1.0, Fr = 6.
360
0.01
0
45
90
135
180
225
blade angle, = t
270
315
Figure 22: Comparison of predicted and measured total hydrodynamic load for propeller
M841B at J = 1.2, Fr = 7.7.
360
J=0.8, F =6
nD
0.05
IDEAL
BEM
F =2
nD
F =4
nD
F =6
0.04
f =1138, f =400
dry
wet
f =1138, f =477
dry
wet
f =1138, f =550
0.04
dry
Exp =1
wet
nD
KFx
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0
45
90
135
180
225
blade angle, = t
270
315
360
Fx
0.04
J=0.8 F
0.02
=4
nD
0
0
45
90
135
180
225
blade angle, = t
270
Fx
J=0.8 FnD=6
0.02
315
360
F(t)
f(t)
F(t)+f(t)
Exp =1
0.04
0.02
0.01
0
45
90
135
180
225
blade angle, = t
270
315
ABAQUS, C3D20R
20x10
20x20
20x40
30x40
40x10
Experiment
2000
1000
2.5
dry
Exp =1
360
Figure 27: Comparison of the predicted and measured natural frequencies of propeller M841B in
air.
=0.03, =0.05
dry
wet
=0.03, =0.1
dry
wet
=0.06, =0.1
0.04
315
mode number
J=0.8, FnD=6
0.05
270
3000
360
Figure 24: Comparison of predicted and measured total hydrodynamic load for propeller
M841B at J = 0.8 using the IDEAL rigid-blade
hydrodynamic load.
135
180
225
blade angle, = t
4000
90
5000
measured
predicted
2nd mode
wet
f/f_1(dry)
0.03
KFx
45
KFx
0.03
0.02
1.5
1st mode
1
0.01
0.5
0
0
0.01
0
45
90
135
180
225
blade angle, = t
270
315
360
90
180
270
360
Figure 28: Comparison of the predicted and measured natural frequencies of propeller M841B in
water.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
Figure 1 HM Tydeman
This is a survey vessel of the Royal
Netherlands Navy, with which cavitation inception
tests have been conducted in both sheltered waters and
open sea.
Calm water inception tests were conducted in
the Sognefjord (Norway) and inception tests in waves
were conducted in open sea with significant wave
heights of approximately 3.5 m and an observed
period of 6 s. Wave height and direction were
estimated by the crew and later confirmed by
hindcasting. The tests in calm water were conducted in
ideal conditions: No waves, straight course, minimal
rudder motions, no wind and no traffic.
7
6
Following seas
Calm water
Stern Qrtrng
seas
5
4
Beam seas
3
2
Bow qrtrng
seas
Head seas
0
8
10 dg PS
6
Cav. Inception Speed CIS [kts]
0 dg
20 dg SB
20 dg PS
3
Having described the philosophy behind the timedomain simulation package PEASE, this section will
focus on the structure and the elements used in the
package. A data flow chart of the PEASE simulator is
presented in Figure 4.
(1)
(2)
Vsmt = Vsm
due
to
the
inflow
, due
t
1 1
( Vs2 )
g t 2 g
(5)
(3)
= g
t
(6)
Ambient Pressure
The calculation of the pressures in the propeller plane
has a direct effect on the calculation of the cavitation
inception number. Since the cavitation number
incorporates the ambient pressure, it is necessary to
determine the pressures in the propeller plane
accurately. The pressure in an unsteady potential field
defined by the total velocity potential , such as in
the case of a propeller operating in a seaway, can be
determined from the Bernoulli equation:
1
( Vs2 ) gz + pa
t 2
12 ( Vs2 ) ,
p =
(4)
(M + Ma )
dVS
= Ttot (1 t ) R
dt
(7)
where:
M = displacement mass of the ship system
Ma = added mass of the ship in longitudinal
direction, that is typically frequency
dependent. This mass is given a constant
value
for
the
frequencies
under
consideration
Ttot = total thrust from all propellers
VS = ship speed
R
= total instantaneous hull resistance. This
resistance is given a time averaged value,
built up from a calm water contribution and a
time averaged drag in waves. A more realistic
model predicting a time varying drag in
waves is currently being implemented.
t
= thrust deduction value (time averaged)
It is realized that the resistance fluctuations in
waves might have an important effect on instantaneous
propeller loading and therefore on cavitation
inception. Work is currently defined to include an
algorithm that includes this time dependency of the
added resistance in waves in a future version of
PEASE.
The equation for the rotating motion of the
propeller-engine system is given by:
IP
d j
dt
where:
IP
=
= M DEj Q j
M DEj =
Qj
1
4
2j D5
(9)
j
and
2
w jn is the
(8)
Q j = K Qj
Command
Engine
control
system
Propulsion
control
system
Engine/
controler
Pitch
control
system
Propeller
Control
Algorithm
Mprop
Mshaft
Propeller
Torque
Propeller
Thrust
n
n
1
2 Ip
Mdt
Fship
Ship
resistance
n
Vs
Vs
eCT ji = CT SP CT j ( i 1)
Vs
1
m
eVS i = VS SP VS ( i 1)
Fdt
Vs
n
J =
Va
1 w
Va
nD
K i CT eCT ji dt + K d CT
Sea keeping
disturbances
PCA1
PCA2
PCA3
PCA4
=
=
=
=
dt
(10)
The validation of a simulation tool that is itself
composed of several complex components can be
cumbersome. However, the validation is still an
essential process that is required to define the
limitations and applicability of the tool. A proper
validation requires reliable data sets that preferably
allow for an end-to-end uncertainty analysis. Such an
analysis would assist in directly quantifying the
uncertainty of the final results. Most often, however,
such data sets are not available and an overall estimate
of the uncertainty must be obtained from only partial
validation studies. Validation obviously is partly
driven by opportunity, with data sets typically only
being available for portions of the simulation code.
One of the effects expected to play an
important role in cavitation inception in a seaway is
the unsteady ship wake field induced by the waves.
The wake field velocity variations affect the propeller
operating condition in two ways: on the one hand, they
affect the propeller pressure distribution and resulting
blade loading variations directly, while on the other
hand, through variations in thrust and thus ship speed,
they again affect the loading variations indirectly.
Partial validation of these unsteady velocities
can be conducted with the availability of a unique data
where:
ej = error between some user defined set point SP
and some measured process variable for shaft
system j
Kp = controller proportional coefficient
Ki = controller integration coefficient
Kd = controller differentation coefficient
Subscript j refers to the shaft system and,
except for Ki , subscript i to the time step. The error
function for the constant rotation rate is defined by:
e ji = SP j ( i 1) where:
e ji
dt
de j
(11)
M DE ji = K p e ji + K i e ji dt + K d
ji
deCT
0.3
PRECAL
PRECAL
uxa / (wmax A)
uxa / (wmax A)
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0.05
0
0
0.5
1.5
1 .5
180
180
PRECAL
PRECAL
Experiments
Experiments
90
90
0
0
0.5
-90
1.5
PHASE [deg]
PHASE [deg]
0.5
-180
Experiments
0.25
Experiments
0.25
0
0
0.5
-90
-180
1 .5
Sea state
4
PCA 1,2,3,4
PCA 1,2
PCA 1,2
PCA 1,2
ship speed VS
propeller rotation rate n
thrust coefficients KT and CT
quasi propeller advance coefficient J, based on
average ship speed
cavitation number n
120
PCA1-rpmcontr
PCA2-Pcontrol
100
PCA3-Torque-control
PCA4-Ct/V control
80
60
40
20
0
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
Vs [-]
10
sigma_n
cav. free
cav. s.s.
cav p.s.
calm water
Kt [-]
sigma_n
cav. free
cav. s.s.
cav p.s.
calm water
Kt [-]
sigma_n
cav. free
cav. s.s.
cav p.s.
calm water
Kt [-]
11
M engine [Nm]
500
1000
1500
n [rps]
M engine [Nm]
500
1000
1500
n [rps]
M engine [Nm]
500
1000
1500
n [rps]
12
Effect of Heading
The effect of heading in a seaway has been studied by
simulating the ship in a sea state 4 in both following
waves (heading 0 deg) and in bow quartering waves
(heading 135 deg). The effect of these simulations on
the cavitation behaviour is plotted in Figure 11.
sigma_n
cav. free
cav. s.s.
cav p.s.
120
calm water
H0, PCA1-rpmcontrol
H0, PCA2-Pcontrol
H0,PCA4'- Ct control
100
H135, PCA1-rpmcontrol
H135, PCA2-Pcontrol
80
Kt [-]
60
40
20
0
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
Vs [-]
cav. free
cav. s.s.
cav p.s.
calm water
sigma_n
Kt [-]
13
120
100
80
60
SS4, PCA1-rpmcontrol
SS4, PCA2-Pcontrol
40
SS2, PCA1-rpmcontrol
SS2, PCA2-Pcontrol
SS6, PCA1-rpmcontrol
20
0
0.40
SS6, PCA2-Pcontrol
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
Vs [-]
Recommendations
It is recommended that an improved formulation for
the time dependent added resistance in waves be
implemented in the PEASE simulator, which currently
uses a constant time averaged value.
Little attention has been given to the proper
selection and optimization of the control coefficients
in the Propeller Control Algorithm. Most of the
attention was given to the following seas condition in
sea state 4. This has likely resulted in the PCA not
showing a significant effect on Cavitation Inception
Speed in bow quartering waves. More attention needs
to be given to the optimization of the control system
14
REFERENCES
15
ABSTRACT
Finite amplitude ship motions are predicted using a
fully nonlinear pseudo-spectral ship motion model.
At each time step, the forces on the submerged
surfaces of the ship and ship body restoring
buoyancy forces are transfer to the ship coordinates
reference frame, the fully nonlinear ship motions
are calculated in the ship reference frame without
computing linear forcing coefficients and
parameters, such as added mass and damping (Lin,
et al., 2004a, 2004b; Lin & Kuang, 2004b). This
approach gives model results that are more
accurate, especially for a complicated hull. The
model is also computationally more efficient than
linear ship motion models because we only
calculate one velocity potential instead of seven.
As is well known, the beam of the ship is much
smaller than the length of the ship; therefore, to
simulate the roll motion accurately is much more
challenging than the simulation of pitch and heave
motions. A comparison of our new model results
with experimental data for pitch and heave motions
was presented in (Lin, et al., 2003). For pitch and
heave motions, our model results agree well with
the experimental data not only when the Froude
number is small, but also when the Froude number
is large (Lin and Kunag, 2004b). In this study, we
will compare the roll motions between our pseudospectral model results and the experimental data for
two ONR hull forms: Flared Hull and Tumblehome
Hull, in regular wave beam seas. The new model
results agree well with the experimental data. The
differences in roll motions between the new model
results and experimental data are within the
measurement errors.
In this paper, we will also present the theory
for the nonlinear pseudo-spectral model, including
the unique methods for solving the body boundary
condition for arbitrary ship shapes, the free surface
2
z
= 0,
for - H
z .
(1)
p u
1
+ ( u s ) + g + s x
t
2
t
(2)
h = 0
and
+ ( h ) ( h u s ) =
,
(3)
t
z
respectively, where is the kinematic viscosity of
the fluid, and us is total horizontal transfer velocity,
P is pressure due to the ship moving, is density
of the water, g is gravitational acceleration, x is
position vector, z is the vertical distance from the
origin.
The radiation boundary condition is:
* e
=
us,
x
x
* = e ;
* = e + u s; * = e + ;
X=b
(4)
G G
x=c
(5)
G
where b is a forward boundary, and c is a side and
aft boundary. The subscript e denotes the
incident wave. In calm water, both e and e are
equal to zero. Superscripts, *, denote values on
the boundaries at a distance from the ship.
(6)
is
n ( t ) = n ( t ) v s( t ) ,
v s ( t ) = u s ( t ) + u sz ( t ) + s ( t ) xr ,
(7)
du s k
dt
+ Dtrans k u sk = Fk
dt
= s ( t ) xn (t ) ,
I +D+ R
+ Fk
restore
(10)
Fk
I + D+ R
and Fk
restore
surface, and
dn ( t )
(9)
+ ( h H ) ( h u s ) = 0.
z
(8)
(1) m I jk
k =4
+ Dk
6
d 2 k
+
k x[(1) m I jk k ]
dt 2
k =4
d k
= j I + D + R + j Re store ,
dt
j = 4,5,6.
(11)
m = 2 if j = k
m = 1 if j k
Roll motion (k, j = 4), pitch motion (k, j = 5), and
yaw motion (k, j = 6):
I jk = 0
if j = 4 and k = 5, or j = 5 and k = 4,
d 2 6
+ 4 x[( I 44 4 ) ( I 46 4 )]
dt 2
dt 2
d 4
+ D4
= 4 I + D + R + 4 restore ,
dt
d 2 6
d 2 4
+ 6 x[( I 66 6 ) ( I 64 6 )]
I
I 66
64
dt 2
dt 2
d 6
+ D6
= 6 I + D + R + 6 restore ,
dt
(12)
I 44
I 46
d 4
) is roll angular velocity;
dt
d
6 is yaw angle , and 6 = ( 6 ) is yaw
dt
angular velocity; D4 and D6 are roll and yaw
angle , and 4 = (
I +D+ R
Re store
is
I +D+ R
and j
Re store
Body Plan
15000
N=0.5
N=1
N=1.5
N=2
N=2.5
N=3
N=3.5
N=4
N=4.5
N=4.67
N=4.71
N=5
N=5.5
N=6
N=6.5
N=7
N=7.5
N=8
N=8.5
N=9
N=9.5
N=10
N=10.5
N=11
N=11.5
N=12
N=12.5
N=13
N=13.5
N=14
N=14.5
N=15
N=15.5
N=16
N=16.5
N=17
N=17.5
N=18
N=18.5
N=19
N=19.5
-0.04
N=20
N=20.5
N=21
-0.06
13000
11000
9000
Z (mm ABL)
7000
N=0
5000
0.06
3000
-5000
-3000
-1000
-1000
1000
3000
5000
7000
9000
11000
13000
15000
-3000
0.04
E4//g/a/s/L
1000
-5000
Y Offset (mm)
Roll Exciting
Force
0.02
0
-0.02 0
N=0
N=0.5
N=1
N=1.5
N=2
N=2.5
N=3
N=3.5
N=4
N=4.5
N=4.67
N=4.71
N=5
N=5.5
N=6
9000
N=6.5
N=7
N=7.5
7000
N=8
N=8.5
N=9
N=9.5
N=10
N=10.5
N=11
N=11.5
N=12
N=12.5
N=13
N=13.5
N=14
N=14.5
N=15
N=15.5
N=16
N=16.5
N=17
N=17.5
N=18
N=18.5
N=19
N=19.5
15000
13000
Z (mm ABL)
11000
3000
-1000
-1000
1000
3000
5000
7000
9000
11000
13000
15000
-3000
-5000
Y Offset (mm)
N=20
0.06
0.04
E4/ /g/a/s/L
1000
-3000
Restore Force
5000
-5000
15
Time
Body Plan
10
Roll Exciting
Force
0.02
0
-0.02 0
10
15
Restore Force
-0.04
-0.06
Time
3
New Model
Results
2
0
-2 0
10
15
Experimental
Data
X4/Ka
X4/Ka
New Model
Results
Experimental
Data
-4
-6
4
New Model
Results
2
0
5
10
15
Experimental
Data
-4
X4/Ka
X4/Ka
-2 0
2
/L
Time
New Model
Results
1
0
0
Experimental
Data
/L
-6
Time
X4/Ka
0.5
0
-0.5
10
15
Experimental Data
(Fn=0.33)
-1
-1.5
Time
X4/Ka
0.5
0
-0.5 0
10
15
Experimental
Data
-1
-1.5
Time
s = e
e 2us
g
cos ,
(13)
is the
DISCUSSIONS
Unlike linear ship motion models., the new model
(Lin, et al., 2004a, b; Lin and Kuang, 2004a, b)
follows the first principle by calculating the exact
rolling torque and restore torque. The new fully
nonlinear ship motion model results agree well
with the experimental data for both Flared and
Tumblehome hulls, and the difference between
numerical model results and experimental data are
within
the
measurement
errors
(15%).
Furthermore, the new model results can identify
the different roll motion angles between the two
hulls, which a linear theory cannot. The roll of
Tumblehome hull are greater than those of Flared
hull.
The model results also shows that the Froude
number (ship forward speed) doesnt significantly
impact the roll motions in beam seas, at least when
Froude number is not large. The impact of Froude
number on roll when in oblique seas needs to be
examined.
Finally we should point out that, the new
model is much more efficient computationally than
previous ship motion models (Lin, et al., 2004a and
b, Lin and Kuang 2004a).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was partly supported by a grant from
Office of Naval Research managed by Dr. Pat
Purtell. R. Lin is supported by the grants from the
David Taylor Model Basin, Carderock Division,
Naval Surface Warfare Center Independent
Laboratory In-House Research (ILIR) program
administered by Dr. John Barkyoumb. We want to
thank Bruce Webster and Mike Davis of the David
Taylor Model Basin, Hydromechanics Department,
without their help, this work could not have been
done. We also want to thank Richard C. Bishop,
and Beverly S. Simon of the Seakeeping Division
of the DTMB Hydromechanics Department who
REFERENCES
Bai, K,. J. Kim & H. Lee (1992) A Localized
Finite-Element Method for Nonlinear FreeSurface Wave Problems. Proc. 19th Symp.
Naval Hydro., Seoul., South Korea, pp. 90
114.
Beck, R. F. & A. R. Magee (1990) Time-Domain
Analysis For Predicting Ship Motions, in
Dynamics of Marine vehicles and Structures in
Waves, W. G. Price, P. Temarel & A. J.
Keane, Eds. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.,
pp. 4964.
Dawson, C. W. (1977 A Practical Computer
Method For Solving Ship-Wave Problems.
Proc. 2nd Intl. Conf. Num. Ship Hydro.
Berkeley, CA, pp. 3038.
Engle, A., Lin, W. M, N. Salvesen, & Y. S. Shin
(1997) Application of 3-D Nonlinear Wave
Load and Structure Reponse Simulations in
Naval Ship Design. ASNE Naval Engineer J.
Froude, W. (1861) On the Rolling of Ships. Trans.
Inst. Naval, Arch., 2:180229.
Gentaz, L., P. E. Guillermo, B. Alessandrini & G.
Delhommeau (1999) Three-dimensional FreeSurface Viscous Flow Around A Ship in
Forced Motion. Proc. 7th Intl. Conf. Num.
Ship Hydro., Paris France, 12 p.
Hess, J. L. & A. M. O. Smith (1964) Calculation of
Nonlifting Potential Flow About Arbitrary
Three-Dimensional Bodies.. J. Ship Res.,
8(2):2244.
Kim, Y., S. Kim, D. Renick & P. D. Sclavounos
(1999) Linear and Nonlinear Flows and
Responses of Ships by a Rankine Panel
Method. Proc. 7th Intl. Conf. Num. Ship
Hydro., Paris, France.
Korvin-Kroukovsky, B. V. (1955) Investigation of
Ship Motions in Regular Waves. Trans.
SNAME., 63:386435.
Korvin-Kroukovsky, B. V. & W. R. Jacobs (1957)
Pitching and Heave Motions of a Ship in
Regular Waves. Trans. SNAME., 65:590632.
Lin, C. C. & L. A. Segel (1988) Mathematics
Applied to Deterministic Problems in the
Natural Sciences.
Classics in Applied
Mathematics, SIAM, Macmillan, New York.
DISCUSSION
John F. ODea
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
Although ship motions have often been
estimated with linear methods, it has long been
recognized that prediction of rolling motion must
take into account significant nonlinear effects. Since
ship roll motion is typically lightly damped, large
resonance response can occur in waves. As a result,
nonlinear effects on both the dynamics (viscous
damping) and statics (GZ curve) are recognized to be
important.
For these reasons, a fully nonlinear approach
to the roll problem, including viscous effects as well
as potential flow, would be welcomed. The authors
recognize in their introduction that others (Wilson,
Gentaz, Xing) are working with RANS codes to solve
the damping problem, although the authors imply
these others are only applying their work to calm
water flow predictions (the titles of the referenced
papers indicate otherwise). The mathematics in the
present paper appears to be strictly potential flow. In
the rigid body equations of motion (eq. 10-12), the
damping forces involving the coefficients Dk are
strictly linear since the coefficients are multiplied
only by linear velocity terms. The authors state that
D4 (for roll) and D6 (for yaw) are taken from model
tests. Thus we have the rather surprising result that a
fully nonlinear ship motion model resorts to using
empirically obtained damping coefficients, and these
coefficients are linearized!
The paper then goes on to make
comparisons with a set of hull forms in which the
geometry is varied above the static waterline (flared
and tumblehome hulls). This variation should reveal
a difference in at least the restoring moment (a
difference in GZ). The roll exciting moment and
restoring moment are compared in Figs. 3a (Flare)
and 3b (Tumblehome). However, the comparison is
clouded by the fact that so many other parameters are
varied between these two figures wave amplitude,
bilge keel size and wavelength (the caption under
Fig. 3a contradicts the label on the figure in this
case). The authors also state that the phase
relationship for exciting and restoring moment differ
for the two hulls, but that is not obvious from these
figures.
The authors then make comparisons to
model test results for the two hulls. Figs 4a, b
compare the predictions to test results, indicating
good agreement. However, the results are not for
large motions. Roll motion appears to be only twice
wave slope, and wave steepness appears to be
d 2 s
d
I + D+ R
Re store
m 2 + D ( t ) s s = Fs
+ Fs
dt
dt
(1r)
where m is total mass of the ship, s is
transfer displacement, Fs I + D + R is total force, and
Fs Re store is restoring force, D (t ) s is the transfer
dissipation term, where s=1 is the surge motion, s=2
is the sway motion, and s=3 is the heave motion.
As one can see the kinematics and
dynamic equations (2) and (3) in the paper are both
nonlinear equations. Therefore, the ship motion
induced waves and wave-wave interactions between
incident waves and ship bodies are all calculated
nonlinearly. They include the resonant phenomena
when the ship frequency and the frequencies of
incident waves or the frequencies of ship motion
induced waves are similar.
It is well known that a linear
model can be strictly potential flow, but a nonlinear
model can not be strictly potential flow. The
3
X3/ a
New Model
2.5
VERS
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
1.5
2.5
X5 /ka
/L
0.5
New Model
VERES
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
/L
Lin, R.-Q. and W. Kuang, 2004b. SolidBody Motion in Full Nonlinear Ship Motion Model,
submitted to J. of Ship Research.
Lin, R.-Q. and W. Kuang, 2004c. SolidBody Motion in Full Nonlinear Ship Motion Model,
submitted to J. of Ship Research.
REFERENCES
Lin, W. M. and D. K. P. Yue, 1990:
Numerical solution for large-amplitude ship motions
in time-domain, Proc. 18th Symp. Naval Hydrod., U.
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Lin, R.-Q. and W. Kuang, 2004a. Nonlinear
Waves by a Steadily Moving Ship in Environmental
Waves, J. of Marine Technology, Vol..8, 109-116.
DISCUSSION
Krish Thiagarajan
University of Western Australia, Australia
Interesting Paper! I am interested in a case
of a moored ship in bidirectional waves (waves
approaching from two different directions at the same
time). Here, nonlinear interaction between the
incident waves is important. Also, the restoring
forces on the vessel are nonlinear due to mooring.
Can the authors method be applied to this situation?
AUTHORS REPLY
Thank you for your comment! Yes, the new
model can predict such a case. The new model solves
the six degrees of freedom ship motion equations
exactly, except for viscosity which currently uses
parameterization. The new model uses one potential
velocity to model six degrees of freedom of ship
motion, incident wave, and ship generated waves.
The restoring forces on the vessel due to the mooring
are nonlinear, but you have to add the mooring forces
to simulate your particular scenario. Since we only
used one total potential velocity for all forcing,
motions, ship motion generated wave, the new model
can handle two incident waves coming from different
directions at the same time. In fact the new model
can handle numerous waves coming from numerous
directions at the same time. No matter how many
waves, they can be decomposed into two directions.
We have compared the new model results and
experimental data in bow seas, which included roll,
pitch, and heave motions at the same time (Lin et al.,
2004). From a mathematical point of view, this is
similar to the case you suggested. The fact that
wavelengths of incident waves are different is not a
problem.
REFERENCE
Lin, R-Q., Bruce Webster and Michael Davis and
Bradley L. Campbell, Richard C. Bishop, and Terry
Applebee, 2004. A Comparison Between A Fully
Nonlinear Pseudo-Spectral Ship Motion Model and
Model Tests in the NSWCCD Seakeeping Basin for
A Study of Roll and Pitch Motion NSWCCD Tech.
Report.
DISCUSSION
Solomon C. Yim
Oregon State University, USA
Thank you for a very nice presentation. The
title of your talk is Roll Motion Is your model
sufficiently general to analyze all 6 degrees of
freedom? If not, what extensions are needed?
AUTHORS REPLY
Thank you for your comment! The model is
sufficiently general to analyze all degrees of freedom.
Unlike the previous ship motion models which used
eight velocity potentials for each degree of freedom
of ship motion, plus the ship motion generated wave
and incident wave. Therefore, the six degrees of
freedom ship motions are linearized. The new model
solves the six degrees of freedom ship motion
equations exactly, except for the viscosity where it
currently uses parameterization. The new model only
uses one total velocity potential for six degrees of
freedom motion, incident waves, and ship motion
generated waves. Therefore, the new model not only
can predict the six degrees of ship motion, but also
can predict the interactions between the six degrees
of ship motions. In this paper, we compared the
model results with experimental data in roll motions,
in other papers, such as Lin and Kuang, (2004), we
compare the new model and experimental data for
pitch and heave motions. Of course, I am not saying
the new model can predict arbitrary motion in
arbitrary environment for arbitrary ship body at this
moment. The new model is still under development.
REFERENCE
Lin, R.-Q. and W. Kuang, 2004. Solid-Body Motion
in Full Nonlinear Ship Motion Model, submitted to J.
of Ship Research.
INTRODUCTION
Predictions of ship motions in waves are being used
by navies for a widening number of applications. In
the past, ship motion predictions have been used
primarily for engineering design applications. In
recent years, there has been increasing interest in
ship motion predictions by naval operators due to
the influence of ship motions on safety and operational effectiveness. Search and rescue missions
and ship-borne helicopter operations are examples
OVERVIEW OF SHIPMO3D
LIBRARY FOR PREDICTING
SHIP MOTIONS IN WAVES
DRDC Atlantic has been an active developer, user,
and sponsor of codes for predicting ship motions
and sea loads since the 1970s. Several different
codes are currently used, with each code having
its own particular strengths and weaknesses. The
in-house strip theory code SHIPMO7 (McTaggart
et al. 1997, McTaggart 2000) was originally developed by Schmitke (1978) and has a large user base.
Other codes for which DRDC Atlantic has been a
co-sponsor are used when time domain predictions
are required or when three-dimensional hydrodynamic effects are important.
The ShipMo3D library is an effort to consolidate ship motion prediction capabilities into a
unified entity that will satisfy a range of application
requirements. ShipMo3D uses a panel method to
provide enhanced accuracy relative to strip theory,
and to ensure applicability to the range of vessels
operated by the Canadian Navy. Hydrodynamic
coefficients are computed in the frequency domain
based on the Green function for zero forward speed,
similar to approaches presented by Beck and Loken (1989) and Papanikolaou and Schellin (1992).
The decision to use this method was based partly
on the relatively slow speeds of present and anticipated Canadian naval vessels, which operate at
Froude numbers less than 0.4. Other considerations included computational efficiency and robustness relative to methods using non-zero forward
speed Green functions in either the time or frequency domains. Comparisons with experiments
presented by McTaggart et al. (1997) and Schellin
et al. (2002) indicate that the zero forward speed
Green function can lead to very good motion and
sea load predictions at moderate ship speeds.
The ShipMo3D library provides motion predictions in both the frequency and time domains.
For time domain predictions, hydrodynamic coefficients, including retardation functions, are deter-
3
reBK
(x)
3
= rBK
(x) (y cos + z sin )
(2)
where rBK (x) is the radius from the local bilge keel
center to the ship center of gravity (CG), y is the
2
radiation and diffraction computations by assuming that appendages are thin and modelling them
using dipole panels (Chakrabarti, 1987). Due to
the significant variation of dipole strengths across
a flat plate (Meyerhoff, 1970), each appendage typically has several panels in each of the span-wise
and chord-wise directions.
DRDC Atlantics strip theory code SHIPMO7 models bilge keel viscous drag using the approach described by Schmitke (1978) based on the
work of Kato (1966). Katos formulation is quite
complicated, but can be simplified to the following
for a representative destroyer:
!0.6
rBK (x) b4 e
p
Cd (x) 5
g s(x)
11Rbilge (x)
1.0 + 3.5 exp
(3)
rBK (x)
4
Cd = Cdref (b
4ref )
(4)
b
4ref
...
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .....
.
...
..
..
..
...
..
..
..
...
..
..
..
...
..
..
..
...
..
..
... ..........
... ...............
.
.
... ... . .....
... .... ... ... ...........
.
.. . .. . . . .....
........................................
.. ... .. .. .. ... ..............
...... ... ... ... .. ..
.
.
.
.
. . . . .. ......
.. . .
...... ... ... .. .. ...
.. ... ... ... ... ..... ...............
......... ..... ..... .... .... ....
.
. ..
.
.. .. .. .. .. .. .... ........
......... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... .........
............... ..... ..... .... .... ....
..
............ ... ... .... .... ....
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .......
........... ... ... ... .. ..
........... ... .. ... .... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... .......
........... .. ... ..... ...... ......
.............. .... ..... .......... ............................................... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ........
.
............... .... ........ .............................
.
............... .... ...........
................ ... ... ... ... ..... ...... .... ..........
.............................. ................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
................................................ ......................... .. .. .. .... ...... ...... ...........................
...
..
..........................................................
.
................................................ ................ .. .. .... ...........................................................................
. ................................................ ........ .. .. ..............................................
.......................................... ........................................ ..
.. ....................................
3027 tonnes
108.4 m
12.8 m
4.3 m
0.5 m
5.1 m
57.5 m
0.503
0.625
1446 m2
1.2 m
5.6 m
27.1 m
10.6 s
high ship speed was between 14 and 18 knots depending on what speed the ship could maintain in
the given sea state. Speed was limited due to the
loss of one of the two ship boilers on the first day
of the trial.
Trial instrumentation included a ship motions package, a wave buoy, a TSK over-the-bow
wave height meter, an array of 24 pressure transducers outfitted in the hull below the waterline, 15
single strain gauges, and 4 rosette strain gauges.
Wave data were collected for 20 minutes out of
every hour from the wave buoy. An Endeco type
1156 directional wave buoy was used for the first
3 days of the trial, and a type 956 buoy was used
for the last 4 days. Figure 3 shows an Endeco wave
buoy being deployed from Nipigon. The main data
acquisition system was a PC-based LabVIEW system. All sixty instrumentation channels were digitally sampled at 20 Hz. Time histories, statistical
distributions and minimum and maximum values
were determined and recorded.
For the present study only the ship motion
and wave data have been used. A limited number
of runs from the first three days of the trial was
selected to satisfy the following 3 criteria:
the significant wave height Hs was greater
than 3 m,
there was a clear dominant wave direction and
minimal directional wave spreading,
the nominal relative wave direction was oblique
(bow quartering, beam, or stern quartering
seas).
Table 3 gives a summary of the runs selected for
the present study, with Tz denoting zero-crossing
wave period. Figure 4 shows an example measured
wave spectrum.
Rudder deflections were not measured during the sea trial, and are assumed to have had no
effect on ship roll motions. In reality, the rudder
motions could have significantly influenced the ship
roll motions, particularly if rudder motions were
at a frequency similar to the ship natural roll frequency.
NUMERICAL PREDICTIONS OF
SEA TRIAL MOTIONS
0
0.2 Hz
0.15
0.1
0.05
270
90
10
10
180
Bilge keel
...
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
. ...............................................................................................................................................................................
Skeg
......
...................... .
................................. .. .....................
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Inner ..bracket
......
...........
......................
.................
...............................
Outer ...bracket
.....
..........
.
.......................
.........................
.....................
Time domain simulations with the ShipMo3D library currently are limited to a ship with
nominally steady speed and heading. Due to the
absence of rudder motion data during the sea trial,
rudder motions were assumed to be small. This
assumption will have little influence on predicted
roll motions if the rudder motions were limited to
low frequency. To ensure course-keeping, additional
stiffness and damping terms given in Table 4 were
used for surge, sway, and yaw. The stiffness and
Rudder
....................
...... ... ... .. .. ....
...... ... ... ... ... ......
..................................
...... ... ... ... ... ......
.................................
............................
.................
50
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
....
....
....
.....
.....
......
.......
........
.........
...........
.............
...............
....................
.........................
..................................
................
Drag coefficient Cd
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
INFLUENCE OF APPENDAGE
FORCE PREDICTIONS ON ROLL
HYDRODYNAMICS
The frequency domain predictions presented in Tables 5 to 10 indicate that including the panelled
appendages in radiation and diffraction computations has very little influence on predicted hydrodynamic forces for Nipigon. Figures 15 and 16 show
roll added mass and damping versus ship speed for
motions at Nipigons natural roll period of 10.6 s.
Added mass is non-dimensionalized by ship roll inertia I44 , and damping is non-dimensionalized by
cr
critical roll damping at zero speed B44
. Results are
given for zero amplitude roll motions (i.e., viscous
roll forces are negligible). Figure 15 indicates that
treating the appendages separately from the hull
gives slightly higher added mass than when using
panelled appendages integrated with the hull radiation computations. As expected, the bare hull
has lower added mass than the appended hull. Figure 16 shows that including the panelled appendages
in the radiation computations has negligible effect
on predicted roll damping, with the relevant plotted lines being indistinguishable.
Table 4: Additional Stiffness and Damping for Ensuring Course-Keeping with ShipMo3D Computations
Surge
Sway
Yaw
Stiffness
1 104 N/m
2 104 N/m
2 108 Nm/rad
Damping
2 105 N/(m/s)
4 105 N/(m/s)
2 108 Nm/(rad/s)
0.94
0.16
1.19
0.20
1.5
....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
.....
....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
.....
.....
.....
.....
....
.
.
.
.
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
.....
....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
.....
.....
.....
.....
....
.
.
.
.
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
....
.....
.....
....
1.0
+
+
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
Relative heading
+ Bow quartering
Beam
Stern quartering
1.0
1.5
15
10
....
.....
.....
....
.
.
.
.
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
.....
....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
.....
.....
.....
.....
....
.
.
.
.
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
.....
.....
.....
.....
....
.
.
.
.
....
.....
.....
.....
....
++
++ +
+ +
Relative heading
+ Bow quartering
Beam
Stern quartering
10
15
Figure 10: Predicted Versus Observed Heave ZeroCrossing Period, Time Domain Predictions with
Nonlinear Buoyancy and Incident Wave Forces
10
....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
.....
....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
.....
.....
.....
.....
....
.
.
.
.
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
.....
....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
.....
.....
.....
.....
....
.
.
.
.
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
....
.....
.....
....
++
+
Relative heading
+ Bow quartering
Beam
Stern quartering
+
+
+ +
....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
+
+ ..........+
+ ...............
....
.....
.....
....
.
.
.
.
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
.....
....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
.....
.....
.....
.....
....
.
.
.
.
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
.....
.....
.....
.....
....
.
.
.
.
....
.....
.....
.....
....
15
++
+++
+
+
Relative heading
+ Bow quartering
Beam
Stern quartering
10
...
.....
.....
.....
....
.
.
.
.
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
.....
....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
.....
.....
.....
.....
....
.
.
.
.
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
.....
....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
.....
.....
.....
.....
....
.
.
.
.
....
.....
.....
.....
10
Relative heading
+ Bow quartering
Beam
Stern quartering
15
.
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
.....
....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
.....
.....
.....
.....
....
.
.
.
.
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.
.
.
.
....
.....
.....
.....
....
.....
10
+
+ +
+
+
++
15
Relative heading
+ Bow quartering
Beam
Stern quartering
10
15
Figure 12: Predicted Versus Observed Roll ZeroCrossing Period, Time Domain Predictions with
Nonlinear Buoyancy and Incident Wave Forces
Figure 14: Predicted Versus Observed Pitch ZeroCrossing Period, Time Domain Predictions with
Nonlinear Buoyancy and Incident Wave Forces
11
DISCUSSION
The Nipigon sea trial included simultaneous measurements of ship motions and directional wave spectra. Measurements of rudder motions would have
enhanced the value of the data for validation of
lateral plane motion predictions. In the absence of
measured rudder motions, coursekeeping has been
modelled using low frequency stiffness terms, and
associated damping terms, for surge, sway and yaw.
0.12
0.10
0.08
................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... ..... ...... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .
...................................
0.06
.....
0.04
Bare hull
Panelled appendages with hull
Appendages separate from hull
0.02
0.00
10
20
30
cr
Roll Damping B44 /B44
The negligible influence of panelled appendages on the roll radiation damping is likely due to
the small appendage sizes relative to the hull and
to the degree of submergence of the appendages.
Larger appendages located closer to the free surface would have a larger influence on roll radiation
damping. For Nipigon and other ships with small
appendages of large submergence, it appears unnecessary to include panelled appendages in radiation
and diffraction computations.
The scattergrams in Figures 9 to 14 provide further insight into trends. The overprediction
of RMS roll appears to be similar for bow quartering and stern quartering seas. The underprediction
of viscous appendage forces is a possible cause for
overprediction of RMS roll. For RMS pitch, there
is a trend toward overprediction in bow quartering
seas, which could be due to higher amplitude motions. Pitch zero-crossing periods exhibit a trend
toward overprediction in stern quartering seas, possibly due to the assumption of high encounter frequency when considering forward speed effects.
0.12
.....
0.10
Bare hull
Panelled appendages with hull
Appendages separate from hull
..
........
........
.
.
.
.
.
.
......
.........
........
0.06
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.......
........
........
.
.
.
.
.
.
.....
0.04
........
........
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.....
.........
0.02
.........
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
......
............
........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..... . . .
0.08
0.00
10
20
30
Accurate prediction of viscous roll damping forces is still considered to be a major challenge
for obtaining accurate ship motion predictions. The
current motion predictions using Katos method
(1966) for bilge keel roll damping give reasonable
roll results. However, the roll motions presented
12
from the Nipigon trial are limited to relatively narrow ranges of RMS values (2.63 to 6.16 degrees) and
zero-crossing periods (8.4 to 13.2 s). It is essential
that roll motions be validated over wide ranges of
motion amplitudes and frequencies.
CONCLUSIONS
Meyerhoff, W.K., Added Mass of Thin Rectangular Plates Calculated from Potential Theory,
Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 4, 1970, pp. 100
111.
Papanikolaou, A.D. and Schellin, T.E., A Three
Dimensional Panel Method for Motions and Loads
of Ships with Forward Speed, Schiffstechnik (Ship
Technology Research), Vol. 39, 1992, pp. 147156.
Schellin, T.E., Chen, X.-B., Beiersdorf, C. and Maron,
A., Comparative Frequency Domain Seakeeping
Analysis of a Fast Monohull in Regular Head Waves,
21st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Oslo, 2002.
Schmitke, R.T., Ship Sway, Roll, and Yaw Motions in Oblique Seas, Transactions, Society of
Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 86,
1978, pp. 2646.
REFERENCES
Ballard, E.J., Hudson, D.A., Price, W.G. and Temarel, P., Time Domain Simulation of Symmetric
Ship Motions in Waves, International Journal of
Maritime Engineering, Vol. 143, No. A3, 2003, pp.
120.
13
DISCUSSION
Larry J. Doctors
The University of New South Wales, Australia
I would like to express my gratitude for this
very interesting paper and the presentation.
Could you kindly clarify the justification for
considering the inclusion of the nonlinear buoyancy
forces, while still assuming that the hydrodynamic
forces are linear? One could argue that this approach
is inconsistent.
AUTHORS REPLY
We note that when including nonlinear
buoyancy forces we simultaneously consider
nonlinear incident wave forces. The buoyancy and
incident wave forces are typically the largest force
components acting on the ship, and are also relatively
easy to compute when including nonlinearities. In
contrast, the added mass, retardation, and diffraction
wave force components are smaller in magnitude and
much more difficult to compute when including
nonlinearities.
Our validation work to date has been limited
to moderate sea conditions, for which nonlinear
forces will have a small influence on predicted
motions. We plan to do future validation work using
model test data for severe conditions, which will
hopefully indicate whether our current treatment of
nonlinear forces is adequate.
DISCUSSION
Arthur M. Reed
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
How are forward speed corrections
incorporated with the zero speed Green function to
obtain the hydrodynamic coefficients at forward
speed?
AUTHORS REPLY
Our treatment of forward speed effects is
similar to that used by Beck and Loken (1989) and
Papanikolaou and Schellin (1992). The influence of
forward speed on the body boundary condition is
treated in an approximate manner. The influence of
forward speed on the free surface boundary condition
is assumed to be negligible. We are pleased with the
accuracy and robustness of the approach for moderate
ship speeds. For higher ship speeds, we recognize
the requirement for a more accurate treatment of the
influence of ship speed on boundary conditions.
DISCUSSION
Allen Engle
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
The authors should be congratulated for
their efforts. The rigorous collection of full scale
trials data and correlation with numerical simulations
is an arduous task that is not often undertaken.
However, as the authors point out, such data is
extremely valuable, particularly when conflicting
scaling laws (i.e., Reynolds and Froude).come into
play.
Im very glad to see that the authors were
able to use an Endeco wave buoy as part of the wave
measurement instrumentation package. It is crucial
that the effects of wave spreading be established as
part of any correlation effort.
The comparisons with simulations are quite
acceptable and its good to see that even simplified
methods such as strip theory can provide an analyst
with a fair degree of insight to a ships seakeeping.
That the best results are obtained for heave and pitch
are not surprising, as vertical plane motions are
governed by potential flow wave damping. However,
this is not the case with roll motion as viscous effects
will dominate. Given the high degree uncertainty
related to predicting roll motions, have the authors
considered strain gaging the ships bilge keels and
other control surfaces? Such a force decomposition
would greatly assist in developing better roll damping
algorithms.
AUTHORS RESPONSE
We thank Mr. Engle for his complimentary
remarks, and for his recognition of the value of fullscale trials.
Prior to Mr. Engles remarks we had not
considered strain-gauging bilge keels and other
control surfaces. We concur that measuring forces on
appendages could provide very useful insight,
justifying the effort required to install the required
instrumentation. When preparing for trials measuring
sea loads, such as that conducted on HMCS Nipigon,
we install strain gages and pressure transducers on
the hull while the ship is in dry dock. Under such
circumstances, instrumentation of appendages could
be performed with an acceptable degree of
incremental effort.
DISCUSSION
Jinzhu Xia
Australian Maritime College, Australia
I would like to comment on the authors
discussion on the effects of nonlinearity in
hydrostatic and slamming forces on vertical motions.
This would depend on hull shapes. For S175
Containerships, for example, nonlinearity in
hydrostatic force may have a significant influence on
heave and pitch motions. The influence of the
slamming force on motions could also be notable, but
would have a much more significant role in
determining the sagging and hogging bending
moment. (Wang, Xia and Jensen, 2000, ONR; Xia
and Wang, 1997, Journal of Ship Research)
AUTHORS REPLY
We concur that nonlinear hydrostatic and
slamming forces will depend on hull geometry, and
will increase as the geometry in the vicinity of the
instantaneous waterline deviates from being wallsided. We also agree that bending moments tend to
be more sensitive than motions to nonlinear forces.
In the next stages of development for the ShipMo3D
library, we plan to incorporate nonlinear sea loads
and validate predictions using available model test
data for S175 container ships
ABSTRACT
A steady and unsteady single-phase level set
method is developed for the RANS code CFDSHIPIOWA to simulate free surface flows around complex
geometry with large amplitude motions and
maneuvering. A structured overset grid approach is
used to allow flexibility in grid generation, local mesh
refinement, and to efficiently resolve incident waves.
The method is demonstrated by simulating the flow
around a surface combatant in calm water at three
Froude numbers using embedded overset grids for local
refinement of the overturning bow wave. Comparison
of numerical results with measurements shows that the
method is able to accurately simulate the overturning
bow wave, resulting free-surface vortices, and
boundary layer. In addition, the simulation is used to
fill-in the sparse experimental dataset and to help
explain the flow pattern induced by the overturning
bow wave. Application to a bluff geometry with
overturning waves is provided by simulating a landing
craft in calm water. The method is also applied to the
simulation of a surface combatant advancing in incident
waves. Comparisons of the unsteady wave field and
axial velocity at the nominal wake plane with
experimental measurements show the ability to
accurately and efficiently predict unsteady free surface
flows around practical geometries. The results show
the capability of the method for resolving complex free
surface topologies associated with high Froude number,
bluff geometry, and incident waves and the promise for
application to large amplitude motions and
maneuvering. Detailed verification, validation, and
application to other test cases are needed to fully
establish the capability of the method.
1 INTRODUCTION
Ship hydrodynamics presents many unique
challenges due to complex geometry, environment, and
operating conditions, which results in many complex
physics and modeling issues. Operating conditions
trimaran).
Unstructured grids offer increased
flexibility and reduced user input for discretizing
complex ship geometries. Unstructured flow solvers
have been used to compute free surface flows around
ship models. Hino et al. (2003) simulated the steady
flow around a cargo ship with several configurations
of podded propulsors, although the free surface was
not taken into account; Lohner and Yang (1998) used
a surface tracking approach for the Wigley hull; and
Burg et al., (2002) used a surface tracking approach
to simulate a fully appended surface combatant. The
above mentioned unstructured simulations were all at
medium Froude number so that the free surface was
smooth without steep or breaking waves.
+ uk , j
uk ,i
x j
1 pk
+
( 2 k Dk ,ij ) + gi (1)
k xi x j
uk , j
x j
=0
(2)
p ij + 2 Dij n j = 0
(3)
ui
u
1 p
+uj i =
+
( 2 Dij ) + gi
t
x j
xi x j
(4)
+ uj
=0
t
x j
(5)
xi
xi
(6)
=0
(7)
ui
u
1 p
+ uj i =
+
t
x j
xi x j
ui
ui u j + si (8)
x j
x j
(9)
+ uj i =
+
t
x j
xi x j
1 ui
+ si (10)
Reeff x j
u
ti n j + i ni t j = 0
x j
x j
(11)
=0
(12)
int
ui
ni n j = 0
pabs 2
x j
(13)
pint =
zint
Fr 2
(14)
nj
= sign (0 )
x j
(15)
(b u ) = 0
j
xj
ui 1 ) k
+
b j u j
ui =
k
J
)j k
1 k p 1 bl bl ui
+ si
bi
+
J
k J j J Reeff k
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
)
x j
U% d = b1j u j
i +1/ 2
(20)
d = 0 if
U% d > 0
U% d < 0
(21)
=
(22)
J j J Reeff k
Dd Du + De Dw + Dn Ds
J J Reeff k
i +1/ 2
+
nb
Anb uin,nb
1 p n
= Sui bik k
J
ui = ui
1 k p m 1
bi
J
k
1 k p
bi
JAijk
k
(26)
1
Aijk
*
Sui Anb ui ,nb
nb
(27)
= j bi j ui
j JA
k
ijk
which is a Poisson equation for the pressure. Eq. (28)
can be expressed as:
jk p
E
=d
j
k
(29)
d = U d U u + Ve Vw + Wn Ws
(24)
(25)
(30)
ul ,i + ul ,i +1
i +1/ 2
(31)
p = E jk p
j
k
(32)
with
jk
)
bi j bik
=
JAijk
(33)
pseudo-
p = E11 p
d
i +1, j , k pi , j , k +
E12
pi , j +1,k pi , j 1,k + pi +1, j +1,k pi +1, j 1,k + (34)
4
13
E
4
( rhull + a n ) = ( rhull + d n )
(a < d )
(36)
p
p +
p
p +
p p = d (35)
d
u
e
w
n
s
Then
=0
(37)
d=
r
( ) ( r )
(38)
that are in air, and since the pressure in air is not used
in the method it can have any value. We choose to
enforce Eq. (14) for the points in air, where z is now
the vertical coordinate at the grid point. The third set
of points is comprised of grid points in water in
which at least one of the neighbors is in air, and are
the points that we turn our attention to.
For any grid point p in water that has a
neighbor in air na, the interfacial pressure condition
of Eq. (14) is enforced locally. As shown in Figure 2,
interpolating along the gridline we find that the
relative distance between the grid point in water and
the interface is:
p
p na
(39)
pint =
(1 ) z p + zna
Fr 2
(40)
rh = r p + rnw
2 . Thus:
pna = ( pint ph )
p p + pnw
2
(42)
id =1
id
f Did
(43)
ndw
*idw pDidw =
idw=1
8 ndw
ida =1
*ida
zint ida
Fr 2
(44)
Recently, the steady and unsteady singlephase level set approach with overset grids was
implemented into CFDSHIP-IOWA and results were
obtained for the surface combatant for Fr=0.28, 0.35,
and 0.41. Comparisons between surface capturing
and previously obtained surface tracking results show
much improved free-surface modeling, particularly at
the two highest Froude numbers where the surface
tracking method cannot resolve the overturning bow
wave.
Unsteady simulations of the surface
combatant with incident waves were performed due
to the existence of a large experimental database
measured at IIHR. This test case will also be
included in the upcoming Tokyo 2005 Workshop on
Computational Ship Hydrodynamics. Results were
also compared with previously unpublished results
(Wilson and Stern, 2000) using the free surface
tracking approach. The landing craft with bluff bow
geometry is being studied at the Naval Surface
Warfare Center, Coastal Systems Station (CSS) using
the current single-phase method as part of a code
transition effort between IIHR and CSS.
4.1 Surface Combatant in Calm Water
Conditions and Data. Simulations of the surface
combatant in calm water are performed for three
Froude numbers, Fr=0.28, 0.35, and 0.41, which
correspond to Reynolds numbers of Re=1.26x107,
1.57x107, and 1.845x107. The focus of this paper
will be on the Fr=0.35 case since a relatively large
experimental dataset exists for this case, including a
photographic study, free-surface mean and rootmean-square
measurements,
and
velocity
measurements at four cross-sections, x/L=0.15, 0.20,
0.40, and 0.50 (Olivieri et al., 2002; Olivieri et al.,
2004). Although extensive, the experimental dataset
is considered sparse in comparison to information
available from the CFD simulations. Limited results
are presented for the Fr=0.28 simulation since this
case has been studied extensively and does not
contain an overturning bow wave.
Grids. Overlapping grids are used to allow for
flexibility in grid generation and local mesh
refinement for free surface waves. An overlapping
grid is used for Fr=0.28 with an O-O topology grid
from the hull surface to far-field boundary and
overset refinement blocks in the far-field and transom
stern for improved refinement of the Kelvin waves as
shown in Figure 5. Also shown are grids for Fr=0.35
and Fr=0.41, where one and two levels of overset
refinement blocks are used to resolve the overturning
bow waves, respectively. A summary of grid sizes is
bow level 1
bow level 2
215x53x91
138x91x121
3.84M total
Force
CFD
Data
% diff
0.35
CF
CP
CT
CF
CP
CT
4.79
1.93
2.86
6.53
3.50
3.03
4.84
CR=2.04
ITTC 2.80
6.67
CR=3.94
ITTC 2.73
1.1
0.41
2.1
Number
Base
Blocks
0.28
Block
Name
Grid
Dimension
background
far-field refine.
transom refine.
201x101x71
191x69x87
138x71x71
1.99M total
211x81x71
209x77x76
2.43M total
201x90x71
0.35
background
bow refine.
0.41
background
Number
Decomp.
Blocks
32
32
38
indicated in the photograph, two scars on the freesurface interface can be observed (i.e., small-scale
depressions in the free-surface, which originate
downstream of the breaking bow wave and are aligned
with the axial direction). The location of the scars
correlate with the location of the converging and
diverging perturbation streamline pattern in the CFD
simulation. The perturbation streamline pattern for the
entire wave field is shown in Figure 11 for the three
ship speeds, where it can be seen that convergence and
divergence of the streamlines is due to the interaction
of the shape of the hull and free-surface topology.
Very close to the hull, the forebody of the ship pushes
fluid laterally towards the far-field, while the afterbody
pulls fluid towards the ship. The figures also show a
direct correlation between the crests and troughs of the
Kelvin wave system and the perturbation streamlines.
Figure 12 shows that the effect of the trough in between
the bow and shoulder waves (0.2<x/L<0.5) is to
generate a favorable pressure gradient normal to the
trough line, which accelerates the axial flow and turns
the flow towards the hull giving the observed
streamline pattern (i.e., axial velocity greater than the
freestream value and negative transverse velocity). It is
this sharp transition region, between the outward flow
caused by the forebody and the inward accelerating
flow at the trough, which generates the diverging freesurface streamlines denoted as scar 1 in Figure 10.
Downstream of the trough line, the flow experiences an
adverse pressure gradient and decelerates, eventually
reversing sign as seen at the shoulder wave if Figure 12
(i.e., the axial and transverse perturbation velocity
become negative and positive, respectively). The
reversal of the perturbation flow in between the trough
and the shoulder wave results in a set of converging
free-surface streamlines (denoted as scar 2 in Figure
10). Similar comparisons at Fr=0.41 (not shown here)
also indicate a correlation between experimentally
observed scars and converging/diverging streamlines in
the CFD simulation. At Fr=0.28, there may be an
indication of scars in the photographs, but they are
more difficult to detect since they are presumably
weaker at this speed.
Even though there is a correlation between the
experimentally observed scars and the perturbation
streamlines, small scale depressions in the free-surface
elevation are not observed in the CFD simulations.
Two possible explanations are that (i) the CFD grid is
very coarse in comparison to the scale of the scars
and/or (ii) there is no surface tension in the CFD
calculations so we do not resolve the capillary waves
on the free-surface. The scars do not show in the mean
free-surface measurements (Figure 8), presumably
because the measurement grid was too coarse.
Additional research is required to determine the
scars
c
Figure 14 Axial velocity contours for Fr=0.35 at x/L =0.15, 0.20, 0.40, and 0.50:
data (first column) and CFD (second column). CFD for Fr=0.41 (third column).
Figure 15 Axial vorticity contours for Fr=0.35 at x/L =0.15, 0.20, 0.40, and 0.50:
data (first column) and CFD (second column). CFD for Fr=0.41 (third column).
Hino, T., Ohashi, K., and Ukon, Y., Flow Computations Around a
Ship with Appendages by an Unstructured Grid Based NS Solver,
8th Int. Conf. Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics, Busan, S. Korea, Sept.
2003.
Wilson, R., Paterson, E., and Stern, F., 2000, "Verification and
Validation for RANS Simulation of a Naval Combatant,
Proceedings of Gothenburg 2000: A Workshop on Numerical Ship
Hydrodynamics, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg
Sweden, Sept. 2000.
Wilson, R. and Stern. F., Unsteady Viscous Ship Hydrodynamics,
ONR 2000 Workshop on Free Surface Turbulence and Bubbly Flows,
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, March 2000.
Wilson, R. and Stern, F., Unsteady RANS Simulation of a Surface
Combatant with Roll Motion, Proceedings of the 24th Symposium
on Naval Hydrodynamics, Fukuoka, Japan, July 2002.
Xing, T., Kandasamy, M., Wilson, R. and Stern, F., DES and RANS
of Unsteady Free-surface Flows, 42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences
Meeting, Reno, Nevada, 5-8 Jan 2004, Division for Fluid Dynamics.
Miyata, H. and Inui, T., Nonlinear Ship Waves, Adv. Appl. Mech.,
Vol. 24, 1984, pp. 215-288.
Olivieri, A., Pistani, F., Di Mascio, A., and Penna, R., Breaking
Waves Generated by a Fast Displacement Ship Model, Proceedings
of the 24th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Fukuoka, Japan,
July 2002.
Olivieri, A., Pistani, F., Campana, E., Benedetti, R., LaGala, F.,
Wilson, R. and Stern, F., IIHR Hydroscience and Engineering
report in preparation, The University of Iowa, 2004.
Orihara, H. and Myata, H., A Numerical Method for Arbitrary Ship
Motions in Arbitrary Wave Conditions using Overlapping Grid
Systems, 8th Int. Conf. Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics, Busan, S.
Korea, Sept. 2003.
Osher, S. J. and Sethian, J. A., Front Propagating with Curvature
Dependent Speed: Algorithms Based on Hamilton-Jacobi
Formulations, Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 79, 1988, pp.
12-49.
SR
S fR
SR
D
SD
SR
SF
SB
SD
z = (x,y,t)
z=-h
MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
We consider the free-surface flow of an inviscid
and incompressible fluid, in water of uniform depth, h.
The coordinate system is chosen such that the z-axis
directs against the gravity and the Oxy-plane is the
still-water level unless otherwise stated. The location
of the free surface is denoted by z = (x, y, t ) and the
bottom as z = h . The fluid domain is denoted by D,
and the boundaries of the fluid domain, the free surface,
sea bottom and vertical cylinder, are denoted by SF, SB
and S0, respectively. The lateral boundary of the fluid
domain should be at infinity. However, for
computational purposes, the far-field domain must be
2 = 0
in D.
(1)
= 0 on z = -h,
z
(2)
= 0 on S0 ,
n
(3)
on Sf , (4)
=
t z x x y y
1
+ + g ( R0 ) = 0 on Sf . (5)
t 2
1
L = t
2
dz
1 2
p + q .
2
(10)
(11)
(7)
p (x, y ) w , q (x, y )( w ) ,
as r , (6)
= w , = w on S R ,
r
r
1
= g ( R0 ) (x, y ) w on SfR, (9)
t
2
z+h
, h z < h1 ,
h h1
z + h1
, h1 z < h2 ,
h1 h2
3 .
z + h2
, h2 z ,
+ h2
(13)
f
y
f
x
SF
SD
SB
z=-h
(a)
L3
L1
z=-h2
z=-h1
(b)
2
cos
x ( x ) = 0,
2
cos
(14)
m =1
m (x, y, t ) =
Ne
mi
(t )N i (x, y ),
where
{f
( ), f 2 ( ), f 3 ( ),...,
f M
( )}
is the set of
Ne
(t)N (x, y)
i
(19)
(20)
(x, y, t ) =
(x x1 )
, x1 < x x 2 ;
2( x 2 x1 )
x 2 < x x3 ;
(x x 4 )
, x3 < x x 4 .
2(x 3 x 4 )
2 ( y y1 )
cos 2( y y ) , y1 < y y 2 ;
2
1
y 2 < y y3 ;
y ( y ) = 0,
2 ( y y 4 )
, y3 < y y 4 .
cos
2( y3 y 4 )
(15)
i =1
where
f m ( )m (x, y, t ) ,
(17)
(x, y ) = 0 x (x ) + y ( y ) x ( x ) y ( y ) , (18)
= sin{(m 2 )}, m 3.
z=-h
( x, y , , t ) =
= ; f 2 = 1 ,
z = (x,y,t)
L2
(16)
i=1
0.3
kA
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.7
0.8
0.1
0.9
0.0
0
-10
-5
10
0.0
(a)
y
0.3
M=3
M=4
Coke let (1977)
12
10
e-kd = 0.2
F.E.M.
M=2
0.4
14
0.4
kC2/g
0.8
1.2
8
6
4
2
0
-10
-5
10
(b)
Figure 3 Triangulation of the fluid domain for (a) full
ship and (b) half domain for head sea case. Coordinates
are nondimensionalized by the ship length L.
d=
Q
,
C
(21)
2
0 u(x, z ) dx = (2, z ) (0, z ) = 0.
(22)
0 h u(x, z ) dzdx = 0.
(23)
1 2
u (x, z ) dzdx.
2d 0 d
(24)
As a result, the Stokes wave solution at the wavemaker reference frame can be obtained by adding
uniform backward flow with flow velocity, - u , to the
Stokes wave solution in the reference frame defined by
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
kA
C' = C u ,
u2
,
h = d + R0 +
2
(25)
0.7
0.8
0.1
0.9
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.8
1.2
(a)
0.5
0.3
(26)
T(g/d)0.5 = constant
T'(g/h)0.5 = constant
0.4
0.2
12
14
0.1
70
40
30
20
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
kC2/g
0.8
1.2
(b)
Figure 5 Celerity-amplitude curve of the Stokes waves
in the two different reference frames along the (a)
constant water depth, and (b) constant wave period.
The Stokes wave input has been used to study the
wave trapping between a three-leg GBS operating in
the North Sea by Kim et al (2004). The numerical
solution agrees very well with the wave tank test by
Swan et al. (1997). Very steep trapped wave crest,
which is more than three times higher than the crest
height of the incoming Stokes wave, has been observed
both in the numerical simulation and model test. Fig. 6
shows the snapshot of the surface profile at the
moment of maximum wave elevation. Clearly seen is
the short diffracted waves with short wavelength
interacting with the incoming Stokes wave, which
cannot be explained by the linear theory. The time
history of the surface elevation measured at the
location of maximum elevation is plotted in Fig. 7
compared with the measured data. Excellent agreement
can be seen.
0.6
2
kC /g
kA
2
2
2 = 1 q crest
q trough
/C4,
0.5
0.6
0.2
T=
0.1
-kd
e = constant
-kh
e = constant
(27)
0.08
0.04
0.00
-0.04
-0.08
10
11
12
13
14
t (sec)
15
16
17
18
1 2
(x, t ) exp[inx ]dx ,
2 0
t +T
1
1
d
Im
c n (t ) =
a n (t ')dt '.
t T na n (t ') dt '
2T
a n (t ) =
(28)
(29)
0.4
0.0
-0.4
0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
7.5
10.0
x/
(a) t = 0
k
0.4
0.0
-0.4
0.0
2.5
5.0
x/
(b) t = 319T
k
0.4
0.0
-0.4
0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
x/
(c) t = 320T
Figure 8 Self-focusing of modulated Stokes wave in
deep sea (Kim & Ertekin, 2001)
L ( x, t ) =
A H ( / k
n
P A
n
sin (k n x n t n ) (31)
n =1
where
Pn =
sinh 2k n
2
3k n n 2 + sinh 2 k n
(32)
DIFFRACTION OF FREQUENCY-FOCUSED
FREAK WAVE
Waves are generated by a pulsating pressure patch
in a half-infinite domain where a vertical wall is placed
at x = 0. The pulsating pressure is given by
p (x, t ) =
n =1
y/L
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.4
0.3
0.2
W / h
0.2
-0.2
x/L
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.03
0.02
-0.1
4
6
t / (h/g)1/2
Fx /gh 3
-0.2
10
0.01
0
-0.01
/h
0.2
-0.02
0.1
0
-0.1
-3
-2
-1
0
1
(x - xc) / h
0.3
Wave-exciting Moment
My / gVh
0.2
-0.2
4
t/(h/g) 1/2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
0
4
t / (h/g)1/2
(a) at t / h / g = 3.7
(b) at t / h / g = 3.9
(c) at t / h / g = 4.1
Fig. 14 Surface elevation around the vertical cylinder.
Heading = 120 deg.
t / h / g = 4.1.
CONCLUSIONS
A finite-element method has been proposed to
simulate nonlinear wave-body interaction between
steep nonlinear waves with extreme height and floating
10
11
!
"
#%$&$
'
)
+*+*
,
*+*
-/.10
2
.10
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Pitch angle [ ]
Amplitude of pitch motion [ ]
Wave elevation [m]
Amplitude of wave elevation [m]
Heave [m]
Amplitude of heave motion [m]
Phase shift of wave
Phase shift of heave
Circular frequency of encounter in waves [s ]
Wave number
Wave height [m]
Wave length [m]
Slamming pressure [kPa]
Reference pressure [kPa]
Vertical force [kN]
Reference force [kN]
Time [s]
Reference time [s]
Length between perpendicular [m]
Vertical accelaration [m / s ( ]
Vertical velocity [m / s]
Forward perpendiculars
Aft perpendicular
Central difference scheme
Upwind difference scheme
Abstract
The paper presents a procedure to obtain spatial mean
slamming pressures suitable for design purposes of ships
subject to slamming. The first step of this procedure consisted of using a linear seakeeping code to select equivalent
design waves by systematically computing motions and
relative velocities for different forward speeds and wave
conditions that subject the ship to slamming loads. The selection of equivalent design waves was based on the magnitude of relative normal velocity between ship and wave.
A nonlinear strip theory based seakeeping code yielded accurate predictions by simulating the motion behavior of the
ships advancing in the selected design waves. Computed
1 Reynolds
1 Introduction
Slamming loads can induce high stresses and cause deformations of local structural components. The accurate assessment of slamming loads is essential for the design of
the ships structure. Classification society rules contain
formulas for slamming loads (e.g., Germanischer Lloyd,
2002). Generally, these formulas are adequate for conventional ships, as they are based on operational experience.
However, for many modern ships it becomes necessary to
resort to direct computations of slamming loads.
A satisfactory theoretical treatment of slamming
has been prevented so far by the complexity of the problem. Most theories and their numerical procedures were
applied on two-dimensional bodies; however, slamming is
a strongly three-dimensional nonlinear phenomenon that is
sensitive to the relative motion between the ship and the
water surface (Tanizawa and Bertram, 1998). Slamming is
characterized by highly peaked local pressures of short duration. Hence, slamming peak pressures can not be applied
on larger areas to estimate structural response to slamming
impacts. Moreover, the influence of hydroelasticity, compressibility of water and air pockets may have to be accounted for as well. Mainly because of these phenomena,
potential flow methods are not well suited to accurately
predict slamming loads (ISSC, 2003). Recent progress has
been made to develop numerical methods that predict slamming pressures (ISSC, 2000). Kinoshita et al. (1999) predicted ship motions and loads with a Navier-Stokes solver.
Although no extreme load cases were presented, the applied method has the potential to compute slamming loads
in extreme wave conditions.
A number of research projects during the recent past were initiated to develop numerical techniques
that reliably predict slamming loads on ships. The federally sponsored project B7 (2000), for example, dealt with
impact loads on ship forebodies. The developed technique relied on methods of computational fluid dynamics
to numerically simulate the two-dimensional water entry of
bow sections (Sames et al., 1999). Although the resulting
slamming pressures compared favorably with experimental
data, they were strongly affected by entry velocities that
had to be determined separately. Within the framework
of the European research project DEXTREMEL (2001),
slamming loads on the bow door of a generic RoRo Ferry
design were investigated. To predict bow door loads on
this ferry, Sames et al. (2001) applied two methods that
both start with linear seakeeping predictions of ship motions. Their first procedure, using a finite volume code,
relies on computed impact pressure coefficients obtained
from two-dimensional water entry simulations of vertical
bow sections. Their second procedure, using a boundary
element code, comprises two-dimensional water entry simulations of tilted bow sections. Comparison with model
test measurements showed that neither method is capable
of accurate predictions although the two methods are able
to define upper and lower bounds.
Methods that directly solve the Reynoldsaveraged Navier-Stokes equations (RANSE), possibly including the two-phase flow of water and air, are better
able to describe the physics associated with slamming.
However, the computational effort for a three-dimensional
RANSE method to simulate motions and loads on a ship at
small, successive instances of time over a long time period
appears beyond current computational capabilities. This
paper presents a numerical procedure to predict slamming
loads by first making use of the potential flow seakeeping
codes GLPANEL (Papanikolaou and Schellin, 1991; stergaard and Schellin, 1995) to select design waves and
SIMBEL (Pereira, 1988) to determine the corresponding
ship motions. The resulting ship motions then serve as part
of the input for the RANSE code COMET (ICCM, 1999)
to yield slamming loads.
The procedure was applied to predict slamming
loads for three ships. For two ships, designated Hull 1
and Hull 2, slamming loads were examined at the ships
flared bow. For the third ship, a generic design of the RoRo
Ferry investigated under research project DEXTREMEL,
extreme wave loads on bow doors were of interest. For
Hull 1 and Hull 2, computed slamming loads were used to
specify design loads for the ships bow structure, whereas
for the RoRo Ferry, predictions served mainly to validate
the procedure used to compute slamming loads. Model test
measurements of two of the ships were available for comparison with computations.
2 Computational Procedure
The objective was to obtain spatial mean slamming pressures that can be applied as equivalent static design loads
to determine scantlings of hull structural elements for
ships. This was accomplished by integrating computed
local slamming pressures over selected critical areas of a
ships hull. For modern ships with heavily flared bows,
the area under the bow flare even when there is no keel
emergence is generally subject to slamming, and for RoRo
ships, the strength of bow doors subject to extreme wave
loads is of concern. Consequently, for the first two reference ships, Hull 1 and Hull 2, selected plate fields located
under the flared bow region above the bulb were defined
as critical areas, and for the third reference ship, the RoRo
Ferry, the area covered by the bow doors was considered
critical. The following steps comprised the computational
procedure:
1. Seakeeping code GLPANEL computed ship responses in unit amplitude regular waves. Wave frequency and wave heading were systematically varied to cover all possible combinations that are likely
to cause slamming. Results were then linearly extrapolated to obtain responses in wave heights that
represent severe conditions, here characterized by
steep waves close to breaking. Under such conditions, added wave resistance and large accelerations
force ships to reduce speed. Therefore, a conservative one-third speed reduction was assumed be realistic for Hull 1 and Hull 2. For the RoRo Ferry, the
ship speed used in the computations was governed
by the model test runs.
2. Regular design waves were selected on the basis of
maximum magnitudes of relative normal velocity
between ship critical areas and wave, averaged over
the critical areas, defined as follows:
8:9<;>? = @BAC>DFE ? = G D
35476
MN
8 9IH ; ? = @
H
H
A C D HH
H
(1)
3 Numerical Methods
3.1 Linear Panel Method
GLPANEL is a linear frequency-domain panel code that
uses zero-speed Green functions and a forward speed correction based on the so-called encounter frequency approach. A velocity potential is found by distributing singularities (sources and sinks) of constant strength over the
mean wetted surface of the hull. The velocity potential
is separated into a time-independent steady contribution
caused by the ships forward speed and a time-dependent
part associated with the incident wave system and the oscillating ship motions. For a ship advancing at constant
mean forward speed, the incident waves undergo scattering
(diffraction), leading to a diffraction wave potential that oscillates harmonically and induces a wave field of the same
frequency radiating away from the ship. The ship moving in the wave field creates body motion potentials corresponding to three translational and three angular ship motions. These body potentials and the diffraction potential
are superimposed on the incident wave potential.
The source strengths are found by satisfying the
body boundary conditions, leading to integral equations of
the second Fredholm type for each of the source strength
contributions. These equations are solved numerically by
replacing them with a system of linear equations. The
wetted hull is discretized into a finite number of small triangular or rectangular surface patches (panels) in a way
that represents the hull surface without creating leakage
gaps. The integral equations are replaced by sets of linear equations from which the desired source strengths are
determined. Dynamic pressure forces resulting from ship
motions follow from the pressure on the hull surface according to the linearized Bernoulli equation. Integration of
pressures over the hull surface yields hydrodynamic force
and moment amplitudes.
A shipbound coordinate system (0, x, y, z) moving in the x-direction with the ships forward speed was
employed, with the origin 0 located at the intersection of
the baseline and the rudder axis, the x-axis directed positive towards the bow, the y-axis positive to port, and the
z-axis positive upward.
4 Numerical Grids
4.1 Grid Generation
The numerical volume grids surrounding the ships comprised about one million hexahedral control volumes. Because only head wave conditions were examined, one half
of the ships were modeled by setting a symmetry plane
at the centerline. To avoid flow disturbances at outer grid
boundaries, these boundaries were located at a distance of
one ship length ahead of the bow, two ship lengths aft of the
stern, and one ship length beneath the keel. The top grid
boundary was located above the deck at a distance equal to
the length of the ship. The large domain of the mesh, especially above the deck, was chosen to allow for large pitch
motions in head waves. Near the ship hull and ahead of the
ship grid density was high to resolve the wave, whereas aft
of the ship the grid became course to dampen the waves.
The grids on the surface, ahead and aft of the RoRo Ferry
are shown in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively. The innermost
cell thickness was chosen such that, on average, the dimensionless distance from the wall equaled 100.
F
K
L
GHI
J
M
N
O
PQ
R
STU
V
EDC
XY
X
Y
B
K LM
NO
RS
TUV
XW
Y
H
G
E
D B
IF
C
EDCB
F
G
M
IH
JQ
N
K
O
PL
R
TS
VU
W
TU
L
S
Y FE
D
JK
P
Q
NO
M
BR
C
GIH
Simulation of the flow field continued until a periodic solution was reached. After a simulation time of two
to five encounter periods, depending on ship motions, ship
speed, wave height and position of the investigated plate
fields, periodically converging solutions were obtained as
seen by the typical time history sample of computed slamming pressure under the bow flare of Hull 1 (Fig. 4). For
each time step up to ten outer iterations were needed.
psl / po
Volume fractions (Albina, 2000) and velocities that initialized the flow field arose from superposition of ship speed
and orbital particle velocities of the linear Airy wave (Fig.
3). Because of natural dissipation originating from the
wave as well as numerical dissipation associated with the
applied VOF method, the profile of the generated wave
took on a more natural shape than the sinusoidal shape of
an Airy wave. The influence of numerical damping on the
wave height was taken into account. Numerical diffusion
caused by the course grid aft of the ships dampened the
incident wave to such an extent that no significant wave
reflection occurred at the outlet boundary.
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
0.5
1
1.5
Time / To
2.5
85% CDS
40% CDS
UDS
psl / po
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1.1
1.2
1.3
Time / To
1.4
1.5
UDS
0.85 CDS
1
0.9
F v / Fo
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.8
1.2
1.4
Time / To
1.6
1.8
5 Reference Ships
For all three ships, only head wave conditions were investigated because this condition was rated most critical from
the standpoint of slamming loads on the bow.
RoRo Ferry
173.0 m
26.0 m
6.5 m
28 kn
For Hull 1 and Hull 2, systematic GLPANEL seakeeping computations were first performed. Based on the
resulting transfer functions of relative velocities, the wave
frequency (and wave length) of highest relative normal velocities at critical areas of the bow were identified for waves
with heights that represent the severest weather conditions
these two ships are likely to encounter. For Hull 1, a wave
height of 11.0 m was chosen; for Hull 2, a wave height
of 7.0 m. The added resistance and involuntary speed loss
under such severe conditions were assumed to cause these
ships to advance at reduced speed.
For the RoRo Ferry, the design wave conditions were taken to be those where the highest impactrelated bow forces and slamming pressures were recorded.
These conditions occurred during MARIN model test case
112006, representing a run in regular waves of 7.30 m
Hull 1
11.0 m
1.0
12.0 kn
Hull 2
7.0 m
1.2
10.7 kn
RoRo Ferry
7.3 m
1.0
26.0 kn
Motions of the reference ships were determined under characteristic head wave design conditions. As head waves
were investigated, only pitch and heave motions were considered. For Hull 1 and Hull 2, SIMBEL computations
provided predictions of ship motions. For the RoRo Ferry,
GLPANEL computations yielded sufficiently accurate ship
motions by adding linearized damping terms in the damping matrix to account for viscous effects in heave and pitch.
The following time harmonic functions accurately
describe wave elevations and the resulting pitch and heave
motions at the ships center of gravity:
wave elevation [m]
heave [m]
\^]
\
\
]
6
`_baLced
J
`_^aLced
\
J
pitch [ n ]
o
For Hull 1 and Hull 2, all pressure and force histories are
presented as nondimensional values. Pressures were normalized by a maximum value of p W = 270 kPa; forces, by
the maximum value of FW = 57540 kN for Hull 1 and F W =
2300 kN for Hull 2; and time, by the wave encounter period
of TW = 6.0 s.
8.1 Hull 1
7 Seakeeping Analyses
_^ijlk
K/fhg
g
@ K/f _^ap
ced
(2)
_imjlk O
(3)
_ri O
(4)
fqg
is the ships
where \] stands for the wave amplitude,
fZg
circular frequency of encounter in waves, and t is time.
Pitch angle was defined to be zero at time t = 0, resulting
k
k
in positive phase shifts ] and of, respectively, wave
elevation and heave against pitch. The average value of
maximum and minimum heave and pitch motions specified their amplitudes. Table 3 summarizes the resulting
parameter values of these functions, listing heave and
@
pitch amplitudes ( \
and o ), their normalized values
DxA O
|~}
|hx
u
m
t
L
v
w
u
t
( Js\
/ yz] and {
/ {
),
\
k
k
K
and heave and wave phase shifts ( and ] ). Maximum
vertical velocities and accelerations at the forward perpendicular (3V and m ) are given as well.
Hull 1
Hull 2
RoRo Ferry
0.43
1.33
0.34
0.43
0.49
0.52
10.8
11.3
0.98
0.79
0.59
9.6
13.5
0.94
1.14
-0.19
7.66
8.37
1
2
2.5s
F
G H
IJ
KLM
N
OP
RQ
L M
ST
UVW
XY
Za
EDC
UW
V
X
YZY X
W X Y
aZ a
b b c
c
d
G
FE
D
IC
J HB
AC
A
B
D
E
FHJI G
K
L
M
N
PO
Q
VSR
T
WU
6.000e+00
4.800e+00
3.600e+00
2.400e+00
1.200e+00
7.749e07
1.200e+00
2.400e+00
3.600e+00
4.800e+00
6.000e+00
To demonstrate the dependence of wave length on slamming pressures, computations were performed for Hull 1
advancing in waves of differing lengths, with wave height
and ship speed kept constant. The resulting pressures at
plate field 1 are shown in Fig. 11. In longer waves at /L =
1.2 ( = wave length, L = ship length), although ship motion amplitudes as well as vertical velocities at the forward
perpendicular were larger than under design wave conditions ( /L = 1.0), pressures turned out to be less. This was
because slamming pressure at plate field 1 was influenced
by the normal relative velocity, and this velocity depended
also on the phase relationship between wave and ship motions and to a lesser degree on absolute ship motions. Pressures behaved similarly at plate fields 2 and 3.
4.5s
R
ST
UV
WX
Y Z
FEDC
LKJIHG
PONM
Q
BC
ED
F
G
aA
KIJ H
B
O
PLNM
A
R
TS Q
U
W
JZ M
FGHI J K
F IH K
LN
R
S
QT
CBAG
Y
VPOU
A BCDE
b ED
L
M
NO
P
Q
R
TS
U
V
WX
YZ
ab
cd
6.000e+00
4.800e+00
3.600e+00
2.400e+00
1.200e+00
7.749e07
1.200e+00
2.400e+00
3.600e+00
4.800e+00
6.000e+00
5.90s
P/Po
M
L KJI HGF E
C B A
A
B
L
J
F
HG
ED
1.000e+00
8.333e01
6.667e01
5.000e01
3.333e01
1.667e01
0.000e+00
K
M
L
K
1.2
Panel 1
Panel 3
psl / po
0.8
Slamming pressures under design wave conditions were obtained also for three different ship speeds,
namely, for Hull 1 traveling at one-third and two-third
design speed as well as at full design speed. The corresponding motion parameters for design wave conditions at
these ship speeds are listed in Table 4. The influence of
ship speed on slamming pressures depended strongly on
the location of the plate fields. For the sample shown here,
the maximum pressure increased at higher ship speeds.
Doubling ship speed from a relatively slow 6 kn to 12 kn
led to a 35 percent increase in peak slamming pressure at
plate field 1. Increasing the ship speed from 12 to 18 kn,
on the other hand, caused an increase of only about ten
percent of the peak slamming pressure. Depending on the
location of the investigated plate field, it is possible that
an increase in ship speed leads to a decrease in slamming
pressure.
Table 4: Motion parameters of Hull 1 for different ship speeds
at design wave conditions
0.6
0.4
Ship speed
|~}
|h
e |~}
|h
'Vr
0.2
0
-0.2
To quantify the influence of wave height on slamming pressures, computations were conducted by varying
the height of the design wave, with ship speed kept constant. The resulting pressure at plate field 1, shown in
Fig. 12, indicates that the computed pressure peak increased weakly nonlinear with wave height. The influence
of wave height depended also on other parameters, such as
the location of the investigated plate field. The influence
of wave height on peak pressures was similar at the other
plate fields.
0.8
1.2
1.4
Time / To
1.6
1.8
'5
$ $ 7r
) &
' $&$ 7r
(
6 kn
12 kn
18 kn
0.28
0.43
0.48
0.40
0.40
0.99
8.0
6.0
0.43
0.49
0.52
10.8
11.3
0.41
0.82
0.11
11.7
14.0
8.2 Hull 2
1.2
/L=1.0
1
0.8
psl / po
/L=1.2
0.6
0.4
/L=0.8
0.2
0
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
Time / To
1.6
1.8
1
HW = 11m
HW = 8m
HW = 5m
psl / po
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
Time / To
1.6
1.8
1.2
v=18 kn
v=12 kn
psl / po
0.8
Based on the design wave conditions and the corresponding ship motions, the RANSE code computed the
flow around Hull 2. Time histories of predicted pressure averaged over the investigated plate fields are plotted in Fig.
15. The pressure peak at plate field 1 was twice as high
as the pressure peak at plate field 2. This was mainly because at plate field 1, located ahead of plate field 2, a water
jet impinged on the flared bow, caused by the accelerated
flow around the bulb. Also, the relative normal velocities at
plate field 2 were smaller than those at plate field 1.
Seakeeping model tests of Hull 2 yielded experimental data of ship response, including ship motions and
accelerations, that generally compared favorably with nonlinear computations from SIMBEL. Under the HSVA test
conditions (Table 5), the RANSE solver performed computations of wave-induced impact-related slamming loads
and local pressures acting on the separated bow segment
of the ship, using the computed motions as part of the input. Simulations of the flow field were performed for two
consecutive encounter periods, while the measurements
lasted over several periods. Computed forces and pressures
hardly changed after the first period; however, the corresponding measurements varied. Over the first two periods,
the computed vertical force on the separated bow section
compared favorably with the experimental data; see Figs.
16 and 17 for HSVA test runs 1 and 2, respectively. For
the corresponding slamming pressures, shown in Figs. 18
and 19, the functional relationship of computed values correlated well with measurements, whereas computed peak
values sometimes deviated from experimental data. This
deviation was largely attributed to the relatively strong
variation of the measured peaks, most likely caused by the
inability of the model to attain steady state conditions during tests in regular waves.
v=6 kn
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
0.8
1.2
Time / To
1.4
1.6
0.8
RANS
Experiment
0.7
0.6
Fv / F o
0.5
1
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
0.5
1.5
2
Time / To
2.5
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
0.7
Panel 1
Panel 2
0.6
0.4
0.8
1.2
0.9
1
Time / To
1.1
1.2
0.2
0
0
0.5
1.5
Time / To
2.5
0.5
RANSE
Experiment
RANSE
Experiment
0.4
0.8
0.3
0.6
psl / po
Fv / F o
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
0
-0.2
0.5
RANSE
Experiment
0.5
psl / po
psl / po
0
1
1.5
2
Time / To
2.5
0.5
1.5
Time / To
2.5
300
200
100
RANSE
Experiment
100
50
Time [s]
20
Time [s]
200
150
100
Sensor 7
Time [s]
Experiment
RANSE
150
Pressure [kPa]
Pressure [kPa]
Sensor 8
200
Experiment
RANSE
100
50
0
100
50
0
Time [s]
Time [s]
4000
modell test
RANSE
20000
Horizontal force
15000
Force Fx [kN]
Force Fz [kN]
Experiment
RANSE
150
Figure 20: Relative vertical motions at forward perpendicular for RoRo Ferry
0
2
200
30
50
-8
10
Time [s]
Sensor 5
250
150
300
Experiment
RANSE
-4
200
0
0
Sensor 4
250
Time [s]
200
300
100
0
0
Experiment
RANSE
400
Pressure [kPa]
400
Sensor 2
500
Experiment
RANSE
Pressure [kPa]
12
Sensor 1
500
Pressure [kPa]
To validate the employed methods, comparative computations were performed for the RoRo Ferry under conditions
corresponding to MARIN model test no. 112006, representing a run in regular head waves of 7.30 m height and
10.5 s period with the ship advancing at a constant forward
speed of 26 kn (Table 2).
For this ship, GLPANEL was used to obtain ship
motions, albeit with additional terms introduced in the
damping matrix to account for viscous effects in heave
and pitch. The subsequent COMET computations, using
these motions as input, yielded wave elevations, relative
motions along the hull, and local pressures acting at the
hull surface. Plots of computed and measured relative vertical motion at the ships forward perpendicular, shown
in Fig. 20, demonstrated that the simulated bow motion,
which was the motion that directly affected wave-induced
impact-related loads, generally agreed favorably with measurements.
the corresponding height of the model by 1.80 m, a significant amount of more than 11 percent. To obtain comparable results, such flow should have been simulated because
it occurred during the investigated model test. As this test
was run in relatively high waves (7.30 m), an additional
simulation was carried out in waves of lower height (4.46
m), where water did not flow over the deck. The resulting
bow door forces, shown in Fig. 23, now agreed favorably
with model test measurements.
Pressure [kPa]
10000
5000
-4000
-8000
modell test
RANSE
0
0
Time [s]
-12000
0
Time [s]
Figure 22: Vertical (left) and horizontal (right) force history on bow door of RoRo Ferry in 7.30 m high waves
Horizontal force
Vertical force
12000
Experiment
RANSE
10000
Force [kN]
Force [kN]
8000
6000
4000
-2000
-4000
2000
0
-2000
Experiment
RANSE
-6000
12
14
Time [s]
16
12
14
Time [s]
16
Figure 23: Vertical (left) and horizontal (right) force history on bow door of RoRo Ferry in 4.46 m high waves
x [m]
3.0
4.9
6.9
0.4
1.6
2.6
-2.7
-2.7
-2.7
y [m]
0
0
0
2.30
3.60
4.90
3.75
5.65
7.50
z [m]
10.7
12.4
14.1
10.7
12.4
14.1
10.7
12.4
14.1
9 Discussion
Accurate prediction of slamming loads continues to be a
difficult undertaking, mainly because of the influence of a
large number of parameters involved. The procedure presented here attempted to combine the physics of a ship
in a seaway together with the use of advanced numerical
techniques. Most methods used nowadays rely on potential theory or on two-dimensional RANSE solvers without
accounting for the effects of waves. The proposed procedure was used to predict slamming loads for the three reference ships, yielding pressure traces that compared favorably with model test measurements. Furthermore, it was
10 Concluding remarks
Computed results of wave-induced slamming loads demonstrated that the procedure presented here was capable of
predicting slamming suitable for design of a ships structure. The generally favorable comparison of computations
with model test measurements validated the methods used.
The method, applied to two newbuilds Hull 1 and Hull 2,
obtained equivalent static slamming loads suitable for the
design of the ships bow structure.
The presented procedure relied on the combined
use of potential flow codes and a RANSE solver. It was
first necessary to obtain reliable predictions of ship motions. As slamming typically occurs in high waves, motions could not be obtained directly from the linear seakeeping code GLPANEL. However, the efficient application of GLPANEL served to identify the design wave conditions for Hull 1 and Hull 2. Subsequently, the nonlinear
code SIMBEL yielded sufficiently accurate motion predictions that were used as input for the RANSE code COMET.
This code is currently being modified to also solve the ship
motion equations, so that in future ship motions will no
longer have to be supplied as part of the input.
The RANSE solver yielded pressures at all surface
patches on a ships hull generated by the numerical volume
grids surrounding the ships. To determine slamming loads
useful for design, these pressures had to be integrated over
so-called critical areas. Selecting the location and size of
critical areas was based on structural design considerations
of the bow and on favorable correlation of computed slamming loads with model test measurements. The specified
plate fields located under the flare of Hull 1 and Hull 2
represented such critical areas. For Hull 1, the three selected critical areas represented total plate fields bounded
by frames and stiffeners of the ships bow structure. For
Hull 2, the smaller of the two critical areas represented a
single plate field; the other critical area, a total plate field.
Computations were performed in head seas only
because slamming loads were then expected to be large.
The computed pressure histories corresponded to the classical time history of impact related slamming pressure that
has been observed in numerous measurements. This not
only holds true for peak values, but also for the duration of
slamming pressures simulated.
The investigated dependence of wave length,
wave height and ship speed on slamming loads showed that
systematic computations were required to obtain equivalent
design wave parameters and the appropriate ship speed to
reflect extreme slamming conditions. Continued practical
experience in applying the presented procedure is essential
for its success.
Acknowledgement
Thanks are due to A. Khlmoos and R. Pereira for their
assistance with the numerical computations. The opinions
expressed herein are those of the authors.
References
Albina, F.-O., A Procedure to Set Volume Fraction for
Calculations with COMET, AB 3.13, 2000, Technical
University Hamburg-Harburg, Hamburg.
Azcueta, R., Computation of Turbulent Free-Surface
Flows Around Ships and Floating Bodies, Dissertation at
the Technical University Hamburg-Harburg, 2001, Hamburg (in German).
Blume, P., Experimentally Determined Coefficients for Effective Roll Damping and Application to Estimate Extreme
Roll Angles, Journal of Ship Technology Research , Vol.
26, 1979 (in German).
Bttcher, H., Ship Motion Simulation in a Seaway Using
Detailed Hydrodynamic Force Coefficients, Proceedings
Martin, M., Roll Damping Due to Bilge Keels, Contract 1611 (01), 1958, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research,
Iowa.
Muzaferija, S. and Peric, M., Computation of FreeSurface Flows Using Interface-Tracking and InterfaceCapturing Methods, Nonlinear Water Wave Interaction,
Computational Mechanics Publ., Southampton, 1998, pp.
59-100.
Sames, P.C., Kapsenberg, G.K., and Corrignan, P., Prediction of Bow Door Loads in Extreme Wave Conditions,
Proceedings of the International Conference Design and
Operation for Abnormal Conditions II, Royal Institution of
Naval Architects, London, 2001.
DISCUSSION
AUTHORS REPLY
Volker Bertram
ENSIETA, France
DISCUSSION
Hoyte C. Raven
MARIN, The Netherlands
As the peak pressures occurring locally
during slamming seem to be a very rapid event, one
would suspect that their prediction would depend
strongly on the cell size and time step used. Have
you checked that dependence?
AUTHORS REPLY
The mesh size in the sensor areas was about
0.025 m (full scale). Increasing the mesh size
substantially decreases the pressure peak. The time
step used in the computation was about 0.001s. We
think that dt=1ms is small enough to capture
slamming.
ABSTRACT
A 2D numerical slamming calculation method
(Zhao et al 1996) is validated for a 20-knot, 120meter car carrier. Nonlinear strip theory is used to
calculate ship-wave relative motions, which are
input to the slamming analysis. Model tests of the
car carrier have been carried out in regular head,
bow and bow quartering waves of various heights.
Slamming on two panels in the upper part of the
bow flare is studied. It is found that the water pileup around the bow due to the forward speed of the
vessel increases the slamming pressures
significantly. A simplified way of including this
effect is presented. When the calculated slamming
pressures are corrected for 3D effects they compare
well with the measured data. Since the effect of the
wave elevation due to forward speed and the effect
of three-dimensional flow act in opposite
directions, excluding both of them produce results
that agree quite well with the experiments,
especially for the most severe slamming events.
INTRODUCTION
A proper estimate of the extreme slamming loads is
important in the design of hull plating and
scantlings in the bow flare of Ro-Ro vessels. This
is usually accomplished by using formulae given
by the classification societies. However, these
formulae are empirical and therefore not
necessarily valid for novel designs. Hence, there is
a growing need for direct calculation methods
Many methods have been developed for the
calculation of slamming pressure on a body that
penetrates the water surface with a prescribed
velocity. Among the earliest was the method of von
Karman (1929). Wagner (1932) presented an
asymptotic solution for water entry of twodimensional sections with small local deadrise
angles. Two fluid domains were used. The inner
domain contains a jet flow at the intersection
between the body and the free surface. In the outer
domain, the body boundary condition and the
dynamic free-surface condition (=0) were
transformed to a horizontal line. The kinematic
free-surface condition was used to determine the
intersection point between the free surface and the
body in the outer domain. Zhao et al (1996)
presented a simplified approach, which is a
generalized version of Wagners method, where the
body boundary condition is imposed on the real
body surface and not on a horizontal line. This is a
robust numerical method that is valid for quite
general section shapes. Small horizontal and
rotational velocity components are allowed in
addition to the vertical velocity. The method has
later been extended to include flow separation from
knuckles (Zhao et al 1997). It was found by Zhao et
al (1996) that for a bow flare section the simplified
method gave a peak pressure in the flare that was
about 4% higher than predicted with the more
refined numerical method of Zhao and Faltinsen
(1993).
General 3D methods for slamming analysis
have also been presented (Muzaferija and Peric
1998, Schumann 1998, Sames et al. 1998). These
methods solve the 3D Navier-Stokes equations.
Good agreement with drop tests has been
documented (Muzaferija et al 1998), but the
methods
require
significant
computational
resources.
In order to assess the slamming pressure on a
ship hull moving in waves, the slamming
calculations must be combined with calculations of
THEORY
General Approach
The present method follows the three steps
common to most direct slamming calculation
methods:
1.
2.
3.
U=16.5 knots
U=17.7 knots
U=20.0 knots
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
6
Draft [m]
10
d tot (t ) = d (t ) + s ( d (t ))
where d(t) is the distance from the keel to the
incident wave and s is the steady wave elevation
near the hull. The relative vertical velocity can be
taken as the time-derivative of the total draft. By
noting that d& (t ) equals the relative velocity, V(t),
we arrive at the following correction to V(t),
Vtot (t ) = V (t )(1 +
s
)
d
MODEL TESTS
The calculated results are compared with data from
model tests of a 120-meter car carrier. The service
speed of the vessel is 20 knots in calm water. The
main particulars and the body plan are given in
Table 1 and Figure 2, respectively. The mass-data
are given in Table 2, while hydrostatic properties
are presented in Table 3.
Value
Fullscale
125.5 m
118.2 m
Value
Modelscale
5.80 m
5.47 m
18.8 m
6902 tons
0.87 m
0.683 tons
Value
6902 tons
52.3 m
9.06 m
0m
Parameter
r44
r55
r66
r64
Value
6.55 m
31.1 m
31 m
6m
Value
5.5 m
5.5 m
0 deg
AP
Parameter
GMt
GMl
Roll period
Value
0.96 m
227 m
15.1 s
MRU
16.1
Acc AP
x=0, z=18.7m
10
Acc FP
x=116.7, z=14.3m
Pitch [deg]
4
Experiments
Calculations - nonlinear
Calculations - linear
2
0
-2
-4
400
410
420
430
time [s]
440
450
-5
-10
400
410
420
430
time [s]
440
450
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
400
410
420
430
time [s]
440
450
60
Experiment
Calculations
50
Inertia forces in
transducer caused by WF
motion (pitch/heave)
40
30
20
10
0
430
432
434
436
438
440
time [s]
60
Calculations
50
40
30
20
10
0
430
432
434
436
438
440
time [s]
Experiments
Calculations - nonlinear
Calculations - linear
2
Heave amplitude [m]
2
1
Experiments
Calculations - nonlinear
Calculations - linear
0
-1
-2
-1
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Waveheight [m]
4.5
5.0
2.0
5.5
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Waveheight [m]
4.5
5.0
5.5
2
0
4
2
0
-2
-2
-4
-4
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Waveheight [m]
4.5
5.0
5.5
2.0
-5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Waveheight [m]
4.5
5.0
5.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Waveheight [m]
4.5
5.0
5.5
-5
-10
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Waveheight [m]
4.5
5.0
5.5
2.5
0.0
30
20
-2.5
10
-5.0
Pressure [kPa]
-7.5
300
310
320
330
time [s]
340
350
Description of method
Nonlinear ship motions
Linear ship motions
Sinkage incl. in calculating ship-wave relative motions
U5-term included in calculating relative velocity
Steady wave elevation incl. in calculating relative velocity
Slamming pressures corrected for 3D effects
Lower panel
100
Upper panel
Experiments
Nonlinear
Linear
Nonlin sinkage
Nonlin sink ueta5
Nonlin sink ueta5 Zs
Nonlin sink ueta5 Zs 3D
80
60
80
60
0 deg
40
40
20
20
0
3
Waveheight [m]
80
60
60
45 deg
40
40
20
20
0
1
3
Waveheight [m]
Figure 12: Measured and calculated slamming pressures [kPa] for lower (left column) and upper (right column) bow flare panels
plotted to a base of waveheight [m]. Regular waves with period 9 s (/L = 1.06). Upper row: 0 (head seas), and lower row: 45
(bow quartering seas). See Table 4 for explanation.
Lower panel
80
Upper panel
Experiments
Nonlin sink ueta5 Zs 3D
Nonlin sink ueta5 Zs 3D r=-2deg
Nonlin sink ueta5 Zs 3D r=+2deg
Nonl sink ueta5 Zs 3D 95% speed
60
70
60
0 deg
50
40
40
30
0 deg
20
20
10
0
0
1
60
Experiments
Nonlin sink ueta5 Zs
Nonlin sink ueta5 Zs
Nonlin sink ueta5 Zs
Nonlin sink ueta5 Zs
50
40
3D
3D r=-2deg
3D 43deg
3D 47deg
50
40
45 deg
30
30
20
20
45 deg
10
0
10
0
3
Waveheight [m]
3
Waveheight [m]
Figure 13: Measured and calculated slamming pressures [kPa] for lower (left column) and upper (right column) bow flare panels
plotted to a base of waveheight [m]. Regular waves with period 9 s (/L = 1.06). Upper row: 0 (head seas), and lower row: 45
(bow quartering seas). Sensitivity to changes in ship speed, heading and relative roll angle at impact.
CONCLUSIONS
Slamming pressures in the bow flare of a 120-meter
Ro-Ro vessel is studied numerically and
experimentally. A nonlinear strip theory method is
used to calculate ship-wave relative motions. The
relative vertical and roll velocities for a slamming
event are given as input to the slamming
calculation program, which is based on a
generalized Wagner formulation and solved by a
2D BEM (Zhao et al 1996). Simulation of a
slamming event for one ship section takes only a
few seconds on a conventional PC.
Various refinements in the calculations are
tested and comparisons are made with experimental
results in regular head and oblique waves. The
following observations are made:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work has been funded by the Research
Council of Norway and MARINTEK. The model
tests were also supported by UECC.
REFERENCES
Hermundstad, O.A., Aarsnes, J.V. and Moan, T.,
Linear Hydroelastic Analysis of High-Speed
Catamarans and Monohulls, J. Ship Research.,
Vol. 43, No.1, 1999, pp 48-63.
Hermundstad, O.A., Moan, T. and Mrch, H.J.,
Motions and Slamming Loads on a Ro-Ro
Ship, Proc. 9th Int. Symp. Practical Design of
Ships and Other Floating Structures
DISCUSSION
Jinzhu Xia
Australian Maritime College, Australia
It would be interesting to see a comparison
of predicted and measured global slamming force in
addition to the validation on slamming pressure.
Congratulations for an excellent contribution!
AUTHORS REPLY
During the experiments, the vertical shear
force at the bow (just behind station 9) was
measured. We plan to compare these measurements
with calculations and present the results in another
paper.
ABSTRACT
Comprehensive tank tests to determine ship motions,
hydrodynamic pressures and wave-induced loads in
regular waves of different waveheights, wave angles
and wavelengths were conducted using a recent postPanamax container ship model. The nonlinear
characteristics of the container ship observed in the
ship motions and the wave loads were discussed.
Computations regarding ship motions, hydrodynamic
pressures and wave-induced torsional moments were
performed by a three-dimensional Rankine source
method program and a modified strip method program
in order to mainly verify the validity of the numerical
methods for estimating wave-induced torsional loads in
the design of container ship structures. The validity of
the Rankine source method and the strip method was
investigated in detail and discussed by comparing the
numerical results with the obtained experimental ones.
It was confirmed that the Rankine source method
estimates torsional moment, which is much smaller
than vertical and horizontal bending moments, with
good accuracy.
INTRODUCTION
The size of container ships continues to rise in recent
years. The increased size causes greater challenges in
technology aspects for ship designers. Warping
stresses and deformations of deck structure due to
wave-induced torsional loads, parametric roll, green
sea loadings, bow flare impacts and so on are
important issues that need to be assessed to have a safe
and well functioned ship. As warping stresses and
deformations of deck structure are very large in lager
waves, and they may be the most important items for
total structural strength from design viewpoints, it is
required to improve the accuracy of evaluation of
wave-induced torsional moments. Meanwhile, there are
few instances of experimental study (Nagamoto et al,
Force transducer
NUMERICAL COMPUTATION
STRIP METHOD
The strip method program used in the computations is
developed based on STFM. Additionally, the twodimensional hydrodynamic forces are computed by the
Close-fit method. Hydrodynamic pressures are
computed by Watanabe's method (1994) using
diffraction potential. Furthermore, modifications (Ito
and Mizoguchi, 1994) are made to the hydrodynamic
pressures based on the reflection of waves in the
shorter wavelength range.
S.S.2.5
S.S.1.75
TANK TEST
Tank tests were conducted at the Nagasaki
Experimental Tank (Length: 160m, width: 30m, depth:
3.5m) of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. A scale model
was towed with a free motion guide having 6 degrees
of freedom fixed on an XY carriage. The towing point
was the center of gravity of the model. Some springs
were set to add the restoring forces regarding surging,
swaying and yawing motions in the free motion guide
system.
The model used in the tank tests is a typical postPanamax container ship designed by the National
Maritime Research Institute of Japan. Table 1 shows
the principal particulars of the model. The ship model
is separated into four segments being divided at the
cross sections located respectively at the square
stations (S.S.) 2.5, 5.0 and 7.5. Adjacent segments are
connected using a force transducer so that the sectional
forces and moments can be measured at these cross
sections, as shown in Fig. 1. The adjacent segments
have a clearance of about 5mm in order to permit
Pressure gauge
S.S.7.5
S.S.5.5
S.S.8.5
S.S.5.0
283.8
5.000
Breadth (B)
(m)
42.8
0.754
Draft (d)
(m)
14.0
0.274
GMT
(m)
1.08
0.019
109480 (ton)
584.1 (kgf)
Displacement
S.S.A
0.0
2.5
116.27 -1.862
0.360
0.375
0.062
2.5
5.0
186.58 -0.634
0.318
0.364
0.057
5.0
7.5
192.69
0.633
0.304
0.351
0.057
7.5
10.0
88.56
1.722
0.303
0.315
0.061
584.10 -0.104
0.320
0.356
0.243
Overall
18.4, 24.5
Fig. 3: The panel arrangements on a still water surface around the model (/L=1.0)
Table 3: The computational domain on the still water surface
around the model
Longitudinal domain (x)
-1.5-0.5L <= x <= 2.0+0.5L
Transversal domain (y)
1.50
1.50
Sway, =30deg.
Vs=18.4knot
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(9.0m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
0.75
RANKINE
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.00
1
/L
1.5
STRIP
0.75
0.50
0.5
Exp.(15.0m)
0.75
0.50
Exp.(9.0m)
1.00
0.50
0.00
Exp.(3.5m)
Sway, =120deg.
Vs=18.4knot
1.25
1.00
Sway/
1.00
Sway/
1.25
Sway/
1.25
1.50
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(9.0m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
Sway, =60deg.
Vs=18.4knot
0.00
0
0.5
1
/L
1.5
0.5
1
/L
1.5
1.50
Heave, =30deg.
Vs=18.4knot
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(9.0m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
0.75
Heave, =120deg.
Vs=18.4knot
1.25
1.00
1.00
Heave/
1.00
Heave/
1.25
Heave/
1.25
1.50
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(9.0m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
Heave, =60deg.
Vs=18.4knot
0.75
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(9.0m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
0.5
1
/L
1.5
0.5
1
/L
1.5
0.5
1
/L
1.5
3.00
Roll, =30deg.
Vs=18.4knot
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(9.0m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
1.50
RANKINE
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.00
1
/L
1.5
STRIP
1.50
1.00
0.5
Exp.(15.0m)
1.50
1.00
Exp.(9.0m)
2.00
1.00
0.00
Exp.(3.5m)
Roll, =120deg.
Vs=18.4knot
2.50
2.00
Roll/k
2.00
Roll/k
2.50
Roll/k
2.50
3.00
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(9.0m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
Roll, =60deg.
Vs=18.4knot
0.00
0.5
1
/L
1.5
0.5
1
/L
1.5
1.50
Pitch, =30deg.
Vs=18.4knot
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(9.0m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
0.75
RANKINE
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.00
1
/L
1.5
STRIP
0.75
0.50
0.5
Exp.(15.0m)
0.75
0.50
Exp.(9.0m)
1.00
0.50
0.00
Exp.(3.5m)
Pitch, =120deg.
Vs=18.4knot
1.25
1.00
Pitch/k
1.00
Pitch/k
1.25
Pitch/k
1.25
1.50
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(9.0m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
Pitch, =60deg.
Vs=18.4knot
0.00
0.5
1
/L
1.5
0.5
1
/L
1.5
3.5
3.5
3.0
2.5
Exp.(3.5m)
2.5
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
1.5
Exp.(9.0m)
2.0
P A/ g
2.0
P A/ g
Exp.(9.0m)
1.5
Exp.(9.0m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
2.5
3.5
3.0
2.0
P A/ g
3.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0
0.5
1
/L
1.5
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
0.0
0
0.5
1
/L
1.5
0.5
1
/L
1.5
3.5
2.5
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
1.5
2.5
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(9.0m)
2.0
P A/ g
2.0
P A/ g
Exp.(9.0m)
3.0
1.5
Exp.(9.0m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
2.5
3.0
2.0
P A/ g
3.0
3.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0
0.5
1
/L
1.5
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
0.0
0
0.5
1
/L
1.5
0.5
1
/L
1.5
3.5
2.5
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
1.5
2.5
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(9.0m)
2.0
P A/ g
P A/ g
Exp.(9.0m)
2.0
3.0
1.5
Exp.(9.0m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
2.5
3.0
2.0
P A/ g
3.0
3.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0
0.5
1
/L
1.5
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
0.0
0
0.5
1
/L
1.5
0.5
1
/L
1.5
3.5
3.5
2.5
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
1.5
2.5
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(9.0m)
2.0
P A/ g
2.0
P A/ g
Exp.(9.0m)
3.0
1.5
Exp.(9.0m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
2.5
3.5
3.0
2.0
P A/ g
3.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0
0.5
1
/L
1.5
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
0.0
0
0.5
1
/L
1.5
0.5
1
/L
1.5
3.5
2.5
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
1.5
2.5
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(9.0m)
2.0
P A/ g
2.0
P A/ g
Exp.(9.0m)
3.0
1.5
Exp.(9.0m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
2.5
3.0
2.0
P A/ g
3.0
3.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0
0.5
1
/L
1.5
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
0.0
0
0.5
1
/L
1.5
0.5
1
/L
1.5
3.5
2.5
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
1.5
2.5
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(9.0m)
2.0
P A/ g
P A/ g
Exp.(9.0m)
2.0
3.0
1.5
Exp.(9.0m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
2.5
3.0
2.0
P A/ g
3.0
3.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0
0.5
1
/L
1.5
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
0.0
0
0.5
1
/L
1.5
0.5
1
/L
1.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.0
2.5
Exp.(3.5m)
2.5
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
1.5
2.0
1.5
STRIP
RANKINE
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
1
/L
1.5
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
0.0
0.0
0.5
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(9.0m)
Exp.(15.0m)
1.0
Exp.(9.0m)
P A/ g
2.0
P A/ g
Exp.(9.0m)
2.5
3.0
P A/ g
3.0
0.5
1
/L
1.5
0.5
1
/L
1.5
2.5
3.0
2.5
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(3.5m)
STRIP
RANKINE
Exp.(15.0m)
2.0
P A/ g
P A/ g
1.5
2.5
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(9.0m)
Exp.(9.0m)
2.0
3.0
1.5
Exp.(9.0m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
3.0
3.5
2.0
P A/ g
3.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0
0.5
1
/L
1.5
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
0.0
0
0.5
1
/L
1.5
0.5
1
/L
1.5
3.5
2.5
3.0
3.0
Exp.(3.5m)
2.5
Exp.(3.5m)
2.5
Exp.(3.5m)
A
2.0
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
1.5
Exp.(9.0m)
Exp.(9.0m)
P A/ g
P A/ g
Exp.(9.0m)
RANKINE
2.0
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
1.5
RANKINE
3.0
2.0
P A/ g
3.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.5
1
/L
1.5
STRIP
RANKINE
0.0
0.0
Exp.(15.0m)
0.5
1
/L
1.5
0.5
1
/L
1.5
0.005
0.004
0.002
0.001
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(9.0m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.5
1
/L
1.5
0.002
0.000
0
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(9.0m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
0.003
0.001
0.000
0
=30deg., S.S.7.5
Vs=18.4knot
0.004
Tx/ gL B
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(9.0m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
0.003
Tx/ gL B
0.004
0.005
=30deg., S.S.5.0
Vs=18.4knot
=30deg., S.S.2.5
Vs=18.4knot
Tx/ gL B
0.005
0.5
1
/L
1.5
0.5
1
/L
1.5
(a) S.S.2.5
(b) S.S.5.0
(c) S.S.7.5
Fig. 8: Comparison of experimental results and numerical results on the torsional moment amplitude in the quartering sea
(=30deg., Vs=18.4knots)
0.005
0.004
0.002
0.001
0.003
0.002
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(9.0m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
0.001
0.000
0.5
1
/L
1.5
0.003
0.002
0.000
0
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(9.0m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
0.001
0.000
0
=60deg., S.S.7.5
Vs=18.4knot
0.004
Tx/ gL B
0.003
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(9.0m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
Tx/ gL B
0.004
0.005
=60deg., S.S.5.0
Vs=18.4knot
=60deg., S.S.2.5
Vs=18.4knot
Tx/ gL B
0.005
0.5
1
/L
1.5
0.5
1
/L
1.5
(a) S.S.2.5
(b) S.S.5.0
(c) S.S.7.5
Fig. 9: Comparison of experimental results and numerical results on the torsional moment amplitude in the quartering sea
(=60deg., Vs=18.4knots)
0.005
0.004
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(9.0m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.5
1
/L
1.5
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(9.0m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.000
=120deg., S.S.7.5
Vs=18.4knot
0.004
Tx/ gL B
0.002
Exp.(3.5m)
Exp.(9.0m)
Exp.(15.0m)
STRIP
RANKINE
0.003
Tx/ gL B
0.004
0.005
=120deg., S.S.5.0
Vs=18.4knot
=120deg., S.S.2.5
Vs=18.4knot
Tx/ gL B
0.005
0.000
0
0.5
1
/L
1.5
0.5
1
/L
1.5
(a) S.S.2.5
(b) S.S.5.0
(c) S.S.7.5
Fig. 10: Comparison of experimental results and numerical results on the torsional moment amplitude in the bow sea
(=120deg., Vs=18.4knots)
ABSTRACT
This paper present a gradient-based hierarchical hydrodynamic optimization toolkit (H2O). The main components of this toolkit are: a) A simple CFD tool and
an advanced CFD tool; b) A finite-difference approximate cost-function formulation, a finite-difference costfunction formulation, and an adjoint formulation for the
gradient computations; c) A steepest descent technique
for the change of design variables. The present hierarchical hydrodynamic optimization toolkit consists of
three optimization tools that can be used at different
stages of the design. For purposes of illustration, these
three tools are used to determine optimized hull forms
that have the same displacement as the classical Wigley
hull.
INTRODUCTION
The relentless advance in numerical methods and computer power has made accurate flow simulations of realistic geometries a reality. Such simulations are increasingly reducing the amount of lengthy (and costly)
experiments in the aerospace, car, train and shipbuilding industries, substituting them for high fidelity CFD
runs. This way of utilizing CFD is nothing more than
an exchange of real for virtual experiment. However,
CFD and its underlying mathematics offers the possibility to step beyond the capabilities of any experiment.
While the experiment (or stand-alone CFD run) only
measures the performance of the product as is, numerical methods can also predict the effect of changes
in the shape of the product. This has led, over the last
decade, to a large body of literature on optimal shape
design (see, e.g. [Jameson, 1988 and 1995; Kuruvila
et al., 1995; Anderson and Venkatakrishnan, 1997; Elliott and Peraire, 1997; 1998; Korte et al., 1995; Mohammadi, 1997; 1999; Reuther, et al. 1997; Drela,
1998;, Medic et al., 1998; Nielsen and Anderson, 1998;
Dreyer and Matinelli, 2001; Gumbert et al.,2001; Li et
al., 2001; Mohammadi and Pironneau, 2001; Soto and
Lohner, 2001a,b; 2002; Soto, et al., 2002; Lohner, et
Although CFD-based hull-form optimization is not routinely used for ship design, applications of CFD tools
to hydrodynamic optimization mostly for reducing
calm-water drag and wave patterns have been reported in a significant number of studies. These studies
attest to a rapidly growing interest in hydrodynamic optimization (see, e.g. [Janson and Larsson, 1996; Tahara
and Himeno, 1998; Hino, 1999; Percival et al. 2001;
Peri et al., 2001; Peri and Campana, 2001; 2003; Yang
et al., 2000; 2002a;b]).
In order to compare the merit of different designs, a cost
function I is defined. This cost function depends on
design parameters , and the changes in flow variables
u(
) due to them. The aim is then to minimize (or
maximize) this cost function:
I(
, u(
)) min ,
(1.1)
(1.2)
- Geometric Constraints:
g(
) 0
(1.3)
- Physical Constraints:
h(u) 0
(1.4)
(1.5)
= I,
(1.6)
(1.7)
solver, and the boundary conditions for adjoint equations are not general.
Hydrodynamic design of ships (like any design) involves several stages, from preliminary and early-stage
design to late-stage and final design. Gradient-based
techniques represent a very powerful class of optimization techniques that are well suited for the late stage design. This paper present a hierarchical hydrodynamic
optimization toolkit. The main components of this
toolkit are: a) A simple CFD tool and an advanced CFD
tool; b) A finite-difference approximate cost-function
formulation and a finite-difference cost-function formulation for the gradient computations, c) A steepest
descent technique for the change of design variables.
The present hierarchical hydrodynamic optimization
toolkit consists of three optimization tools that can be
used at different stages of the design. The first optimization tool (computer code H2O 1) is based on a
simple CFD tool. This CFD tool is used for evaluating
cost functions and cost-function gradients via finite differences. The second optimization tool (computer code
H2O 2) is based on an advanced CFD tool. Both cost
functions and cost-function gradients are evaluated using an advanced CFD tool via finite differences. The
third CFD tool (computer code H2O 3) is based on
both a simple CFD tool and an advanced CFD tool.
Cost functions are evaluated using an advanced CFD
tool and cost-function gradients are evaluated using a
simple CFD tool via finite differences.
For evey design cycle, the following steps are required:
- A flow solver;
- The evaluation of cost functions;
- The evaluation of cost-function gradients;
- A mesh movement module
Each of these steps will be discussed in the following
sections. For purposes of illustration, the present study
considers a simple hydrodynamic-optimization problem: minimization of the wave drag of a monohull ship
while keeping the displacement unchanged. The above
three tools are used to determine optimized hull forms
that have the same displacement as the classical Wigley
hull.
FLOW SOLVERS
A Simple CFD Tool
A simple CFD tool (computer code FKS) based on potential flow theory and Fourier-Kochin representation
of ship waves and slendar-ship approximation is integrated into the optimization toolkit. The flow computed by FKS is defined explicitly in terms of the ship
speed and the ship hull form. Specifically, the wave
drag associated with the wave energy transported by the
waves trailing the ship is determined from the Havelock formula in terms of the wave spectrum function.
The Fourier-Kochin representation of waves defines the
wave spectrum in terms of the velocity distribution at
the ship hull surface. As a result, this code is very fast,
can be used for any ship speed, and is ideally suited
for preliminary design, where information content is incomplet. It takes about 1 second CPU time on a Pentium 4 processor PC to compute the wave drag using
about 10,000 triangular elements on the hull. The application of FKS to optimize trimarans and monohulls
are reported by authors (Yang et al. Yang et al., 2000;
2002a;b) and the others (Percival et al., 2001). Code
FKS is used for evaluating cost functions and costfunction gradients via finite differences for a gradientbased optimization tool (computer code H2O 1).
An Advaced CFD Tool
The advanced CFD tool (computer code FEFLO) based
on Euler/RANS equations and nonlinear free surface conditions is also integrated into the optimization toolkit. The overall scheme of this free surface
solver combines a finite-element, projection-type threedimensional incompressible flow solver with a finite element, two-dimensional advection equation solver for
the free surface equation.
The numerical schemes chosen to solve the incompressible Euler equations are based on the following
criteria:
- Spatial discretization using unstructured grids (in
order to allow for arbitrary geometries and adaptive refinement);
- Spatial approximation of unknowns with simple
finite elements (in order to have a simple input/output and code structure);
- Temporal approximation using implicit integration of viscous terms and pressure (the interesting
scales are the ones associated with advection);
- Temporal approximation using explicit integration
of advective terms;
- Low-storage, iterative solvers for the resulting systems of equations (in order to solve large 3-D
problems); and
where the cost functions are evaluated using code FEFLO, and the cost-function gradients are evaluated using code FKS via finite differences. The optimization tool H2O 3 requires much less computing time in
comparison with the optimization tool H2O 2.
MESH MOVEMENT MODEL
For purposes of illustration, three optimization tools are
applied to the Wigley hull. The waterline is represented
by a six-point spline. Four of six spline points are allowed to change. The hull length is fixed during optimization. These four spline points are chosen as design
variables. A steepest descent technique is used for the
changes of design variables, thus update the hull surface definition.
The discretization of a general three-dimensional computational domain into an unstructured assembly of
tetrahedra is accomplished by means of an advancing
front grid generation procedure. This procedure requires that the geometry of the computational domain
be defined in terms of an assembly of surface patches,
and that the spatial variation of element size and shape
be prescribed. The first step in the process is the triangulation of the computational boundary surfaces. The
assembly of resulting triangles forms the initial front
for the three-dimensional grid generation process. The
advancing front method is then used to fill the computational domain with tetrahedra, which are generated so
as to meet a user-prescribed distribution of element size
and shape.
Both analytical surface patches (planes, Coons patches
etc.) and discrete surface patches (defined by a surface
triangulation) are used to describe the present computational domain boundaries, which consist of the hull surface, free surface, inflow plane, exit plane and bottom
plane. Specifically, the preprocessor FECAD first reads
in the hull offset data. A triangulation is then generated
from the offset data. This triangulation is subsequently
used to define the hull surface in a discrete manner. The
rest of the boundary surfaces are defined analytically.
The desired element size and shape are prescribed via
background grids and sources. The computational domain is covered by a coarse background grid of tetrahedral elements. The desired element size and shape
are then specified at the nodes of this background grid.
During grid generation, the local element size and
shape are obtained using linear interpolation. In addition, both line and surface sources are used on the
hull surface and the free surface to further define the element size. The sources on the hull surface ensure the
-0.01
-0.01
-0.02
-0.02
-0.03
-0.03
-0.04
-0.04
-0.05
-0.05
-0.06
-0.06
-0.07
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
-0.07
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.015
0
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
-0.05
-0.06
-0.07
-0.08
original
optimized-H2O_1
0.01
0.005
0
-0.005
-0.01
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
X-Coordinates
0.015
original
optimized-H2O_2
0.01
0.005
0
-0.005
-0.01
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1
X-Coordinates
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.015
original
optimized-H2O_3
0.01
0.005
0
-0.005
-0.01
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1
X-Coordinates
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
-0.01
-0.01
-0.02
-0.02
-0.03
-0.03
-0.04
-0.04
-0.05
-0.05
-0.06
-0.06
-0.07
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
-0.07
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.015
0
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
-0.05
-0.06
-0.07
-0.08
original
optimized-H2O_1
0.01
0.005
0
-0.005
-0.01
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
X-Coordinates
0.015
original
optimized-H2O_2
0.01
0.005
0
-0.005
-0.01
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1
X-Coordinates
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.015
original
optimized-H2O_3
0.01
0.005
0
-0.005
-0.01
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1
X-Coordinates
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
-0.01
-0.01
-0.02
-0.02
-0.03
-0.03
-0.04
-0.04
-0.05
-0.05
-0.06
-0.06
-0.07
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
-0.07
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.015
0
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
-0.05
-0.06
-0.07
-0.08
original
optimized-H2O_1
0.01
0.005
0
-0.005
-0.01
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
X-Coordinates
0.015
original
optimized-H2O_2
0.01
0.005
0
-0.005
-0.01
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1
X-Coordinates
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.015
original
optimized-H2O_3
0.01
0.005
0
-0.005
-0.01
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1
X-Coordinates
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Modified hull
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was partially funded by NRL LCP&FD. Dr.
William Sandberg was the technical monitor.
REFERENCES
Original hull
Fig. 13a. Surface mesh of original
and optimized KCS hull
0.5
10000xCw
Original hull
Modified hull
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.4
Time
0.6
0.8
Gumbert, C.R. Hou, G.J.W. and Newman, P.A., Simultaneous Aerodynamic and Structural Design Optimization (SASDO) of a 3-D Wing, AIAA-01-2527,
2001.
Hino, T., Shape Optimization of Practical Ship Hull
Forms
Using
Navier-Stokes
Analysis, Proc. of 7th Intl. Conf. on Numerical Ship
Hydrodynamics, Nantes, France, 1999.
Jameson, A., Aerodynamic Design via Control Theory, J. of Scientific Computing 3, 233-260, 1988.
Jameson, A., Optimum Aerodynamic Design Using
Control Theory, CFD Review 1995, J. Wiley & Sons,
1995.
Janson, C. and Larsson, L, A Method for the Optimization of Ship Hulls from a Resistance Point of
View,
Proc. of the 21st Symp. on Naval
Hydrodynamics Trondheim, Norway, 1996.
Korte, J.J., Salas, A.O., Dunn, H.J., Alexandrov, N.N.,
Follett, W.W., Orient, G.E. and Hadid, A.H., Multidisciplinary Approach to Aerospike Nozzle Design,
AIAA95-0478 (1995).
Kuruvila, G., Taasan, S. and Salas, M.D., Airfoil
Design and Optimization by the One-Shot Method,
AIAA-95-0478, 1995.
Li, W., Huyse, L. and Padula, S., Robust Airfoil Optimization to Achieve Consistent Drag Reduction Over a Mach Range, NASA/CR-2001-211042,
underlineICASE Report No. 2001-22, 2001.
Lohner, R., Yang, C. and Onate, E., Viscous
Free Surface Hydrodynamics Using Unstructured
Grids, Proceedings of the 22nd Symposium on Naval
Hydrodynamics, Washington, D.C., 1998.
Lohner, R., Yang, C., Onate, E. and Idelssohn, S.,
An Unstructured Grid-Based, Parallel Free Surface
Solver, Applied Numerical Mathematics, 31, 1999,
pp. 271-293.
Lohner, R., FEFLO Users Manual, GMU-CSI/CFD01-01, 2003.
Lohner, R., Soto, O. and Yang, C., An Adjoint-Based
Design Methodology for CFD Optimization Problems,
AIAA-03-0299, 2003.
Medic, G., Mohammadi, B., Moreau, S. and Stanciu,
M., Optimal Airfoil and Blade Design in Compressible and Incompressible Flows, AIAA-98-2898, 1998.
Mohammadi, B., A New Optimal Shape Design Procedure for Inviscid and Viscous Turbulent Flows,
Int. J. Num. Meth. Fluids, 25, 183-203, 1997.
Mohammadi, B., Flow Control and Shape Optimization in Aeroelastic Configurations, AIAA-99-0182,
1999.
Mohammadi, B. and Pironneau, O., Applied Shape
Optimization for Fluids; Oxford Univ. Press, 2001.
Nielsen, E. and Anderson, W., Aerodynamic Design Optimization on Unstructured Meshes Using the
Navier-Stokes Equations, AIAA-98-4809, 1998.
Percival, S., Hendrix, D. and Noblesse, F., Hydrodynamic Optimization of Ship Hull Forms,
underlineApplied Ocean Research, 23, 337-355, 2001.
Peri, D., Rossetti, M. and Campana, F., Design
Optimization of Ship Hulls Via CFD Techniques,
J. of Ship Research, Vol. 45, No. 2, 2001.
Peri, D. and Campana, F., Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of a Naval Surface Combatant,
J. of Ship Research, Vol. 47, No. 1, 2003.
Peri,
D.
and
Campana, F., High Fidelity Models in Simulation Based
Design, Proc. of 8th Intl. Conf. on Numerical Ship
Hydrodynamics, Busan, Korea, 2003.
Reuther, J., Jameson, A., Alonso, J.J., Rimlinger, M.J.
and Saunders, D., Constrained Multipoints Aerodynamic Shape Optimization Using and Adjoint Formulation and Parallel Computers, J. of Aircraft, 36(1), 5174, 1999.
Soto, O. and Lohner, R., CFD Shape Optimization
Using an Incomplete-Gradient Adjoint Formulation,
Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng. 51, 735-753, 2001.
Soto, O. and Lohner, R., General Methodologies
for Incompressible Flow Design Problems, AIAA-011061, 2001.
Soto, O. and Lohner, R. A Mixed Adjoint Formulation
for Incompressible RANS Problems, AIAA-02-0451,
2002.
DISCUSSION
Solomon C. Yim
Oregon State University, USA
Thank you very much for an interesting
presentation. Pressure was one of the parameters for
optimization. However, in hull design, extreme
stress may not be directly associated with extreme
pressure location. Hull elasticity will need to be
included to determine extreme stress. How much
more computational effort will be needed to include
hydroelasticity into the optimization process to
determine extreme stress?
AUTHORS REPLY
Thank you very much for your interest in
our paper and for the good comment. A single
variable, wave drag coefficient, is chosen as the
objective function in present study. The purpose of
such an optimization is to minimize the wave drag,
which is part of the hydrodynamic design of hull
forms. We agree that the prediction and minimization
of the extreme stress is very important in the
structural design of hull forms, in which hull
elasticity will need to be included. Multiple objective
functions will be required. One shape optimization
example will be the minimization of wave drag and
extreme stress, as indicated by the discussor. In this
case both wave drag (pressure integration) and
extreme stress (load distribution) will be chosen as
objective functions. The rigid hull boundary
condition can still be used if the hull deformation is
relatively small. The additional computational effort
is mainly from the structural analysis under a given
hydrodynamic load distribution. The authors have
developed a loose-coupling algorithm for the fluidstructure interaction problem (Lohner, et al., 1995).
This algorithm can be used if the hull deformation
has to be taken into account in the hydrodynamic
analysis. The computational effort will al least be
doubled.
REFERENCES
Lohner, R., Yang, C., Cebral, J., Baum, J. D., Luo,
H., Pelessone, D. and Charman, C. "Fluid-Structure
Interaction Using a Loose Coupling Algorithm and
Adaptive Unstructured Grids", Computational Fluid
Dynamics Review 1995, (M. M. Hafez Editor), John
Wiley and Sons, 1995.
DISCUSSION
Emilio F. Campana
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale, Italy
The
Authors
address
the
challenging problem of reducing the CPU time
required for numerical optimization when using
expensive high fidelity flow solvers. The approach
uses high- and low-fidelity solvers to compute the
objective function and its gradient, respectively.
Do the authors use any estimate or
control to check if the low-fidelity model is correctly
guiding the optimizer in the right descent direction?
Recently Alexandrov (Alexandrov and Lewis 1996,
Alexandrov et al. 2000, Alexandrov and Lewis 2003)
proposed a first-order approximation and model
management technique for monitoring the use of
low-fidelity solvers in variable-fidelity methods. Via
a trust-region method, their approach guaranties (to
the first order) global convergence of the overall
optimization process to a solution of the high-fidelity
problem.
REFERENCES
N.M. Alexandrov and R.M. Lewis. A trust region
framework for managing approximation models in
engineering approximations, Sept. 1996. AIAA
Papers 96-4101 and 96-4102
N.M. Alexandrov, R.M. Lewis, C.R. Gumbert, L.L.
Green, and P.A. Newman. Optimization with
variable-fidelity models applied to wing design, Jan.
2000. AIAA Paper 2000-0841. Accepted for
publication on the AIAA J. of Aircraft.
N.M. Alexandrov and R.M. Lewis. First-order
approximation and model management in
optimization,
in Large-Scale PDE-Constrained
Optimization, L.T. Biegler, O. Gattas, M.
Heinkenschloss, B. van Bloemen Waanders editors,
Springer, 2003.
AUTHORS REPLY
Thank you very much for your interest in
our paper and for providing information on
monitoring the use of low-fidelity solvers in variablefidelity methods. We would like to address your
comments as follows.
We used high- and low-fidelity solvers to
compute the objective function and its gradient. We
found that low-fidelity solver is correctly guiding the
optimizer in the right descent direction in the present
C=
2l
x10 6 F ,
b
ln
a
(1)
Calibration Procedures
In situ static calibrations are performed after the
completion of the test setup. To calibrate the probes,
the motorized uni-slide is traversed in 2.5 cm
increments for a total of +/- 7.6 cm. Data are
collected at each increment step for each of the
probes. A straight line fit is performed and a slope is
calculated and stored for each probe. An in situ
calibration allows us to calibrate the probes, the
signal conditioning amplifiers, and the A/D converter
as a system.
Experimental Setup
A truss section (wave boom), cantilevered from the
basin wall over the water, provides a structure on
which instrumentation is mounted. The wave boom
extends 6.83 m from the basin wall, which is
approximately 0.92 m short of the basin centerline.
Mounted vertically on the wave boom is a motorized
uni-slide with an attached horizontal bar. The
capacitance probes electronics are mounted on the
horizontal bar of the uni-slide. The uni-slide allows
precise placements of the probes vertical positions
(probe submergences) used during static calibration
(Figure 1). Four to six probes are generally used for
an experiment. Transverse probe positions are
referenced to centerline of the model, with probe #1
being the closest inboard and probe #4 the farthest
outboard.
Operating Procedures
Probe zeroes are collected in calm water before each
run. The model is then run through the test section,
past the probes, at a constant speed. As the model
approaches the test section, a strip of reflective tape
positioned on the carriage triggers a photo sensor at
the side of the basin, which starts data collection.
The position of the photosensor and the duration of
data collection are adjusted to insure that the
maximum amount of data is collected before tank
wall reflections occur. Data are filtered at 10 Hz.
with a 3 pole Bessel filter and collected at a sampling
rate of 100 Hz. for 20 to 30 seconds depending on
model speed and photo sensor position.
An example of these data is shown in Figure 2.
The results from the capacitance probe measurements
are used to obtain free wave spectra, from which
wave resistance coefficients are calculated. Previous
experiments using this technique are reported in
Ratcliffe, Mutnick & Rice, (2001). While the Wave
Cuts are useful for far field measurements, near field
measurements are more often obtained with Finger
Probe and QViz systems.
Capacitance Probe
Electronics
0.015
Ground probe
0.01
Capacitance Probe
WaveHeight (Ship Lengths)
0.005
Spot 39
NA
Spot 40
-0.005
-0.01
-0.015
-0.02
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Experimental Setup
To create a topology of the free-surface at the stern of
the model, four probes are mounted together with 5.1
cm spacing between probes. The set of probes is then
attached to an X-Y traverse that is mounted
horizontally to the carriage at the stern of the model.
The traversing area measures approximately 1.83 m x
2.74 m. Two string pots are attached to the traverse
and are used to track the longitudinal (X) and
transverse (Y) positions of the probes. A Pentium
class National Instruments PXI system personal
computer, using a 16-bit A/D converter and a motion
control interface are used to traverse the probes, and
to collect and store the data. The collection computer
is networked with a 350 MHz Pentium II class laptop
computer, which is used for data analysis and
plotting.
Theory of operation
The finger probe is a vertically oriented, mechanized
probe, which continuously searches for the free
surface. The sensing element of the probe is a .04 cm
diameter, 5.1 cm long stainless steel wire. The wire
is mounted into a copper tube, which makes up the
body of the probe. A geared rack, attached to the
probe body, allows the probe to be driven up and
down in the vertical plane by a servomotor. An
electrical conduction, through the probe, is sensed by
an electronic circuit, which drives the servomotor.
When the probe is not in contact with the water
surface, there is no electrical conduction through the
probe and the servomotor drives the probe down
towards the surface of the water. Once contact is
made between the probe and the surface of the water
(circuit ground), an electrical conduction is sensed
and the probe is driven up out of the water. This
process is continuously repeated, causing the probe to
oscillate at the free surface at approximately 12 Hz.
in calm water. The probe is also geared to a
potentiometer to track its position along the z-axis
(wave height). Probe position is only recorded by a
sample and hold circuit at the instant the probe makes
initial contact with the water surface. This manner of
sampling, probe position, alleviates position error
from meniscus effects, due to surface tension.
Operating Procedures
Probe #1 is aligned longitudinally (X) and
transversely (Y) with the aft perpendicular and
centerline of the model respectively. Longitudinal
and transverse string pots are zeroed at this location,
and all future measurements are referenced to this
position. In order to collect the data needed to
generate a complete topology of the stern area, the
area is divided into a number of transverse cuts. The
possible number of transverse cuts per run is
dependent on model speed. Once the number of
traverse cuts per run is determined, a command file is
generated which controls the positioning of the
probes during the run. Using four probes spaced 5.1
cm apart along the x-axis, one transverse cut collects
an area of 15.2 cm x 116.8 cm. Starting as close to
the stern of the model as possible (1.3 cm),
successive transverse cuts are made with an
advancement of 20.3 cm along the x-axis between
cuts. Refer to Figure 3. Prior to each data run, a
zero run is performed. A zero run consists of
performing an identical collection of transverse cuts,
as in the data run, with the model sitting still in calm
water. This allows the subtraction of bias errors due
to misalignment or sagging of the traverses X-Y
plane and the surface of the water, which should be
parallel. After the zero run is performed, the model
is brought up to a constant speed and a collection of
transverse cuts is started. This process is repeated at
successive transverse locations until the desired stern
area of the model has been completely mapped. Data
is filtered at 10 Hz. with a 3 pole Bessel filter and
collected at a sampling rate of 100 Hz.
Calibration Procedures
Static calibrations are performed on the finger probes
in the lab, prior to the experiment. Probes are
mounted together on a bracket, and attached to a unislide. The probes are positioned over a container of
water, and allowed to track the calm free surface as
the uni-slide is traversed in 2.5 cm increments for a
total of +/- 7.6 cm. Data are collected at each
increment step for each of the probes. A straight line
fit is performed and a slope is calculated and stored
for each probe.
Potentiometers are used on the X and Y traverses
to record longitudinal and transverse positions of
finger probe #1, with all other probes having relative
offsets from the first. These potentiometers are
calibrated in situ by incrementally stepping the
traverses a known distance through the range of
interest while collecting the voltage of the
potentiometers. A straight line fit is performed and a
slope is calculated and stored for each axis.
Stern of Model
Stern of Model
0.2
Filt. Z/L
0.15
0.1
0.05
-0.1
0.1
Y/L
0.2
0.3
Experimental Setup
The QViz system has multiple configurations that are
primarily driven by experimental requirements, i.e.
the area to be surveyed, and the location of the
experiment, and secondarily by physical limitations
on the ability to mount any particular configuration
securely. Therefore, the setup of the QViz system
must be slightly customized to the required
Umodel
Model
Rhodamine 6G
laser sheet 1
laser sheet 2
Camera 1
laser
probe 2
Camera 2
laser probe 1
63.25 in
48.25 in
(measurements are from laser sheet to pivot of pan and tilt unit holding camera)
142.75 in
NOT TO SCALE
QViz
Camera
Camera 1
Camera 3
50
.6
Camera 2
Laser Sheets
Flat Plate
Catwalks
Beach
73.2 m
Spatial
Reference
Camera 3
Beach
109.7 m
Spatial
Reference
Catwalk
QViz Set-Up
Laser Sheet
Camera 2
Laser Sheet
QViz Camera
21.34 m
41.94 m
Camera 1
Calibration Procedures
Zero reference images are collected during calm
water conditions. Similar to the Finger Probe system,
RESULTS
Results will be presented for each of the wave height
measurement systems, Wave Cut, Finger Probe, and
QViz. A discussion on, how the data is being used,
Wave Cuts
The results from the capacitance probe measurements
are used to obtain free wave spectra, from which
wave resistance coefficients are calculated and
compared to predictions (Figure 10). Previous
experiments using this technique are reported in
Ratcliffe, Mutnick & Rice, (2001)
Finger Probe
35.000
30.000
Rt (Pressure)
25.000
Rt (Wavecut)
20.000
Measured Bare
15.000
Measured Trip
10.000
Measured Stud
5.000
0.000
0.000
2.000
4.000
6.000
8.000
Knots (Model-Scale)
x 2.54 cm
x 2.54 cm
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge Mr. Steve
McGuigan, lead engineer for the development of the
Finger Probe. They would also like to acknowledge
the support and encouragement of Don Wyatt, SAIC
Dr. Arthur Reed, NSWC, and Dr. Pat Purtell. This
work has been developed over many years. Funding
and support has been provided by ONR under various
contracts and programs. Dr. L. Patrick Purtell is the
current program manager.
REFERENCES
Fu, T.C., Karion A., Rice J.R., Walker, D.C.,
Experimental Study of the Bow Wave of the R/V
Symposium
on
Naval
Athena
I,
25th
Hydrodynamics, St. Johns, Newfoundland and
Labrador, Canada, August 8-13, 2004.
Furey, D.A. and Fu, T.C., Quantitative Visualization
(QViz) Hydrodynamic Measurement Technique of
Multiphase Unsteady Surfaces, 24th Symposium on
Naval Hydrodynamics, Fukuoka, Japan, July 8-13,
2002.
Karion, A., Sur, T., Fu, T.C., Furey, D., Rice, J., and
Walker, D., "Experimental Study of the Bow Wave
of a Large Towed Wedge, 8th International
Conference on Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics,
Busan, Korea. September 22-25, 2003.
Ratcliffe, T. J., Mutnick I., Rice J., Stern Wave
Topography and Longitudinal Wave Cuts Obtained
on Model 5415, With and Without Propulsion,
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
Hydrodynamics
Directorate
R&D
Report,
NSWCCD-50-TR-2000/028, January 2001
10
DISCUSSION
Dane Hendrix
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
The free surface is what makes
hydrodynamics unique from the rest of fluid
dynamics. The authors have provided a summary of
the current state of the art in measuring free-surface
characteristics around large models. It is probably
beyond the reasonable scope of the current paper, but
it would be interesting to reflect on some free-surface
measurement instruments that have not been used
recently: stereo photography, shadowgraphs, and
perhaps others.
More directly related to the current paper, I
would be interested in what you see as the principal
advantages and disadvantages of the three systems
you described? You addressed their use in terms of
location relative to the model, but it is not obvious to
me that they are all restricted to these uses. You
have, for example, used the finger probe to measure
the water surface alongside a model or even to
measure a wave cut.
Why do you still use
capacitance probes for wave cuts? Perhaps you could
address the difficulty of setting each system up, the
reliability of the measurements, and the difficulty of
the required analysis.
Finally, do you have some opinion on the
future of free-surface measurements that you would
like to share?
AUTHORS REPLY
My experience with other free-surface
measurement techniques like shadowgraphs and
stereo photography are somewhat limited. In my use
of shadowgraphs in the towing basin we had a
stationary light source underwater and a screen
attached to the towing carriage at the stern of the
model just above the water surface. A video camera
was mounted above the screen to image the shadows
produced by surface features from the trailing wake
of the model, as we towed it passed the light source.
In these experiments we were more interested in the
qualitative measurement of surface features rather
then the quantitative measurements of wave heights.
The use of stereo photography in the
measurements of wave heights has been used at The
David Taylor Model Basin as recently as 1990. The
difficulties of these experiments in the past have been
the cost and time of analysis, finding an appropriate
material to image on the water surface, and the ability
to make measurements close to the model. The cost
and time spent on the analysis started with the
development of the film which was completed inhouse. The film was then sent to the National Ocean
Survey (NOS) for analysis. Upon return of the data
to DTMB the data was further analyzed and then
plotted. The materials used to image the water
surface were chads from computer punch cards,
which would be sprinkled on the surface of the water
prior to a data run. The problems with the chads
were they did not stay positively buoyant
indefinitely, making it hard to identify if they were
actually at the surface or just below when imaged. It
was also difficult to make measurements close to the
model at higher speeds due to the bow wave diverting
the chads away from the model. With todays
technology of digital camera and gigahertz personal
computers it is no question that stereo photography
can be accomplished cheaper and completely inhouse, in near real-time. If a suitable material can be
identified to image the surface, this technology
should probably be revisited.
The
three
instrumentation
systems,
capacitance probes, finger probes, and Qviz systems
where all developed over the years for specific needs,
which generally included overcoming the short
comings of its predecessor.
The capacitance probe was developed to
collect Kelvin wake wave height measurements at a
fixed transverse location in order to obtain free wave
spectra to calculate wave resistance coefficients.
Because the capacitance probes have weighted ends
that hang in the water to stabilize the probes, they are
better suited for stationary measurements as opposed
to being dragged through the water. An advantage of
the capacitance probes are the ability to get
continuous wave height readings because the probes
are always in contact with the water.
The
disadvantages of the capacitance probes are: 1) the
probes must remain stationary or errors in position
and wave height will be introduced into the
collection, 2) due to the fact that the probes are in
contact with the water, errors from probe/water
interaction, meniscus effects and contamination, can
exists. Unlike the capacitance probe the finger probe
was designed to be run with the model.
The finger probe was designed to make
localized standing wave measurements that the
capacitance probes could not make. The advantages
of the finger probe are: 1) the probe makes minimal
contact with the water which allows it to survive and
make high speed, standing wave measurements, and
2) the probe is resistant to contaminants and
meniscus effects. A disadvantage of the finger probe
is its frequency response. Due to the slow frequency
response of the finger probe, it is not an ideal
instrument for capturing wave heights of a traveling
wave. This is why the finger probe is not suitable to
The computation of the flow around a surface piercing ship hull in forced planar motion is presented.
The flow is simulated by the numerical solution of
the unsteady RANS equations. The algorithm used
for the simulation is a fully implicit finite volume
scheme, which is unconditionally stable for any time
step. Free surface effects are taken into account by
means of a surface fitting approach. The numerical calculation of the flow around a ship hull with
prescribed yaw and sway motion is reported; the
simulation mimics the towing tank test in which the
planar motion mechanism (PMM) is used to enforce
the ship motion. The unsteady wave pattern and velocity field are shown; the dependence of the global
coefficients on the simulation parameters is also discussed.
INTRODUCTION
The numerical simulation of the steady and unsteady viscous turbulent flow field around surface
ship hulls is one of the major field of research in the
framework of marine hydrodynamics. For example,
the correct prediction of the hydrodynamic forces
and moments acting on a manoeuvring ship hull is
of great interest for safety and comfort reasons, and
it can be of fundamental importance for the estimation of the loads on the structures. Analysis of such
kind of problems by means of numerical investigation requires ad hoc methodologies capable to deal
with unsteadiness of the flow field and with the presence of moving bodies. Moreover, in the case of large
horizontal plane motions and/or roll motions, effects
due to viscosity and turbulence, vorticity production in the boundary layer, as well as flow unsteadiness like, for example, the vortex shedding, are only
some of the hydrodynamics phenomena that must
be taken into account. In addition, the presence of
the free surface can have a strong influence on the
The paper is organized as follow: first the governing equations for the unsteady motion of an incompressible viscous fluid in an inertial frame of
reference written in the arbitrary Lagrangian and
Eulerian (ALE) form (Anderson, 1995) are briefly
recalled; a detailed presentation of the proposed numerical algorithm follows. Then, numerical results
of the flow around a surface piercing hull with combined sway and yaw motion are reported; conclusion
and perspectives wind up the paper.
1
MATHEMATICAL MODEL
U dV +
p = ij ni nj +
ij ni t2j = 0 (3)
D F (x, y, z, t)
=0
Dt
(4)
Initial conditions have to be specified for the velocity field and for the free surface configuration:
(1)
(Fc Fd ) n dS = 0
S(V)
ui (x, y, z, 0) = u
i (x, y, z)
F (x, y, z, 0) = F (x, y, z)
(5)
NUMERICAL MODEL
Fc = pI + (U V) U
ij ni t1j = 0;
Fd =
z
;
F n2
Spatial discretization
1
T
+ t gradU + (gradU)
Rn
(2)
6 Z
X
s=1
U n dS = 0
Ss
U dV +
Vijk
6 Z
X
s=1
(Fc Fd ) n dS = 0
Ss
(6)
where Ss is the s-th face of the finite volume Dijk ,
whose measure is Vijk .
In order to obtain second order accuracy in
space, convective and viscous fluxes in the momentum equations, as well as surface integral of the velocity in the continuity equation, have to be computed by means of trapezoidal rule:
Z
U ndS = ul nl |0 As + O(2 )
Ss
Ss
Ss
(7)
Fd ndS = Fds 0 As + O(2 )
1l nl
Fds = 2l nl
3l nl
(8)
where vl , l = 1, 2, 3 are the components of the velocity of the control volume. The stress tensor at the
cell interface is computed as:
um
ul
lm |i+ 1 ,j,k = i+ 12 ,j,k
+
(9)
2
xl
xm i+ 1 ,j,k
qr = qi+1,j,k
(12)
where i+1/2 = qi+1,j,k qi,j,k and minmod is a
function that is applied to each vector component:
0
if xy 0
minmod(x, y) =
sign(x) min(|x|, |y|) if xy > 0
(13)
It is easy to prove that:
ql
1
minmod(i+1/2 , i+3/2 )
2
1
= qi,j,k + minmod(i1/2 , i+1/2 )
2
1 q
= qi,j,k +
x + O(x2 )
2 x i,j,k
(14)
= qi+1/2,j,k + O(x2 )
and:
qr
1
= qi+1,j,k minmod(i+1/2 , i+3/2 )
2
1 q
x + O(x2 )
= qi+1,j,k
2 x i+1,j,k
= qi+1/2,j,k + O(x2 )
(15)
and therefore, the Riemann flux being a Lipschitz
continuous function of its arguments:
Fc (ql , qr ) = Fc (qi+1/2,j,k ) + O(x2 )
(16)
The evaluation of the convective flux vector requires the solution of a Riemann problem at each
cell interface. In order to simplify the algorithm, a
second order accurate solution was used in place of
the exact one, which must be computed iteratively,
given the nonlinearity of the problem; details of the
algorithm can be found in Di Mascio et al. (2001).
(11)
Temporal integration
+ Rijk = 0
(17)
t
ijk
Turbulence model
For the sake of completeness the model by Spalart
and Allmaras (1994) is recalled here. The model is
based on the eddy viscosity concept, i.e. on the assumption that the Reynolds stress tensor (u0i u0j )
is related to the mean strain rate through an apparent turbulent viscosity (eddy viscosity) t :
(18)
being the volume average of the unknowns. Moreover, in the previous equation Rijk represents flux
balance on the current cell; is the pseudo compressibility factor (for more details about artificial
compressibility method, see Chorin (1967)).
In order to have a fully implicit scheme and to
obtain a divergence free velocity field, a dual (or
pseudo) timederivative (see Merkle and Athavale
(1987) for more details) is introduced in the discrete
system of equations
Vq
Vq
+
+ Rijk = 0
(19)
ijk
t ijk
u0i u0j
t = fv1 ();
m+1
Dt
2t
(22)
fv1 () =
3
(23)
3
3 + Cv1
= cb1 [1 ft2 ] S
2
cb1 i
cw1 fw 2 ft2
(24)
k
d
+ ft1 U
1
+
(( + )
) + cb2 (
)2 ,
where S = S + [
/(k 2 d2 )]fv2 , S is the magnitude
of the vorticity vector, d the distance from the wall,
ft1 , ft2 , fw , fv2 are functions that depends only on
and the distance from the wall; finally, the c-s and k
are constants. The first two terms in the right hand
side represent production and destruction of , respectively; the third one is the so-called trip term,
that allows to specify the laminar-turbulent transition point location (in the results shown in the next
section, this term was always turned off); the last
part is a dissipation term, that contains also a non
conservative portion cb2 (
)2 which is responsible,
together with the non-linear part of the diffusion
term (
), for the advection of a turbulent
front into non-turbulent regions.
n1
Rm+1
ijk
u
j
u
i
+
xj
xi
and the solution is iterated to steady state with respect to the pseudo time , for each physical time
step.
The time derivative in the previous equation is
approximated by means of a second order accurate
threepoints backward finite difference approximation formula, whereas the integration with respect
to the pseudo time is carried out by means of an
implicit Euler scheme, i.e.
m
(Vq)m+1
ijk (Vq)ijk
= t
=0
(20)
where the superscripts n and m denote the real and
dual time levels, is the pseudo time step and t
is the physical time step. The previous equation is
then solved with respect to qm+1
as in the Beam
ijk
and Warmings scheme (1978), i.e. the equation is
rewritten in delta form
Rijk
3
(Vq)m
(Vq)m
I+
ijk +
ijk =
2t
(Vq)
"
#
m
n
n1
3 (Vq)ijk 4 (Vq)ijk + (Vq)ijk
m
+ Rijk
2t
(21)
I being the identity matrix and (Vq)m
=
ijk
m+1
m
(Vq)ijk (Vq)ijk . The operator in the left hand
side of the previous equation is solved by an approximate factorization technique. The resulting
scheme is unconditionally stable to the linear analysis. Local dual time step ijk and a multi-grid
technique (Brandt, 1984; Favini et al., 1996) have
been used in order to improve the convergence rate
of the subiteration algorithm.
F (x, y, z, t) = z h(x, y, t). The kinematic boundary condition (4) can be rewritten as
Cb = 0.6 is considered for this test case. The numerical simulations are performed for Rn = 4 106 and
F n = 0.316 with a 4-block grid (the surface mesh
is reported in figure (1), where every other point is
shown); in the mesh used in the computation, 80
points are distributed along each side of the hull, 80
point normal to the wall (with y + = O(1) in the
boundary layer), 80 points girth-wise and 40 points
in the wake. The total number of cells is 768000 for
the fine mesh.
h(x, y, t)
h(x, y, t)
h(x, y, t)
+u
+v
=w
t
x
y
(25)
Like the Eulerian part of the RANS equations, (25)
is discretized by a ENO scheme. Once the shape
of the free surface is known, the grid is moved and
deformed to fit the actual elevation and the current
position of the ship hull. To this purpose, two grids
are used during the computation, a background grid
and the actual grid, which are used in the following
two stages
t
yg (t) = y0 d(t) sin 2
4
(26)
where:
Z
(27)
is a damping function.
yg (t/T)
g (t/T)
0.1
8
4
yg
0.05
-0.05
0.15
-4
-0.1
-8
0
t/T
NUMERICAL RESULTS
The algorithm described above is applied to the simulation of the unsteady flow around a ship hull with
a prescribed yaw and sway motion, which simulates
an experiment in the towing tank with the Planar
Motion Mechanism (PMM). A Series 60 hull with
5
0.01
14
0.008
12
0.006
8
Cx
V-Cycles
10
0.004
Fine
Medium
Coarse
4
0.002
2
0
0.25
0.5
t/T
0.75
0.25
0.25
0.5
0.75
0.5
0.75
t/T
0.1
0.075
1.0E-03
0.05
Cy
u 2
0.025
0
-0.025
5.0E-04
-0.05
-0.075
0.25
0.5
t/T
0.75
-0.1
t/T
Max
Min
Average
Amplitude
Coarse
0.0078
0.0053
0.0065
0.0025
Medium
0.0083
0.0045
0.0064
0.0038
Fine
0.0087
0.0041
0.0064
0.0046
As expected, the lateral force has the same period of the enforced oscillation, whereas the frequency of the drag is two times larger. A phase
shift can be clearly observed from the plots for the
drag coefficient, whereas it is negligible for the lateral force coefficient.
6
Acknowledgments
References
Anderson, J. D. (1995). Computational Fluid Dynamics. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.
Beam, R. and Warming, R. (1978). An Implicit Factored Scheme for the Compressible Navier-Stokes
Equations. AIAA Journal, 16:393402.
Brandt, A. (1984). Multi-grid Techniques: 1984
Guide with Application to Fluid Dynamics. The
Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot (Israel).
CONCLUSION
TIVES
AND
PERSPEC-
z
2.0E-02
1.8E-02
1.6E-02
1.4E-02
1.2E-02
1.0E-02
8.0E-03
6.0E-03
4.0E-03
2.0E-03
0.0E+00
-2.0E-03
-4.0E-03
-6.0E-03
-8.0E-03
-1.0E-02
-1.2E-02
-0.5
0.5
-0.5
0.5
2.0E-02
1.8E-02
1.6E-02
1.4E-02
1.2E-02
1.0E-02
8.0E-03
6.0E-03
4.0E-03
2.0E-03
0.0E+00
-2.0E-03
-4.0E-03
-6.0E-03
-8.0E-03
-1.0E-02
-1.2E-02
2.0E-02
1.8E-02
1.6E-02
1.4E-02
1.2E-02
1.0E-02
8.0E-03
6.0E-03
4.0E-03
2.0E-03
0.0E+00
-2.0E-03
-4.0E-03
-6.0E-03
-8.0E-03
-1.0E-02
-1.2E-02
t / T = 2/5
0.5
t / T = 1/10
0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
0
0.5
t / T = 1/5
0.5
-0.5
0.5
2.0E-02
1.8E-02
1.6E-02
1.4E-02
1.2E-02
1.0E-02
8.0E-03
6.0E-03
4.0E-03
2.0E-03
0.0E+00
-2.0E-03
-4.0E-03
-6.0E-03
-8.0E-03
-1.0E-02
-1.2E-02
2.0E-02
1.8E-02
1.6E-02
1.4E-02
1.2E-02
1.0E-02
8.0E-03
6.0E-03
4.0E-03
2.0E-03
0.0E+00
-2.0E-03
-4.0E-03
-6.0E-03
-8.0E-03
-1.0E-02
-1.2E-02
t / T = 1/2
0.5
-0.5
/ = 3/10
0.5
t /T=0
0.5
z
2.0E-02
1.8E-02
1.6E-02
1.4E-02
1.2E-02
1.0E-02
8.0E-03
6.0E-03
4.0E-03
2.0E-03
0.0E+00
-2.0E-03
-4.0E-03
-6.0E-03
-8.0E-03
-1.0E-02
-1.2E-02
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
Fig. 5:
0.5
-0.5
0.5
t / T =0
t / T =0
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
0.1
-0.1
t / T =1/10
0.1
t / T =1/10
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
0.1
-0.1
t / T =1/5
0.1
t / T =1/5
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
0.1
-0.1
t / T =3/10
0.1
t / T =3/10
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
0.1
-0.1
t / T =2/5
0.1
t / T =2/5
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
0.1
-0.1
t / T =1/2
0.1
t / T =1/2
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
0.1
-0.1
0.1
Fig. 6: S60 - PMM: axial velocity during a half oscillation period. Left: x/Lpp = 0.5 (midship),
right: x/Lpp = 1.0 (stern)
t / T =0
t/T=0
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
0.1
-0.1
t / T =1/10
0.1
t / T = 1/10
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
0.1
-0.1
t / T =1/5
0.1
t / T = 1/5
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
0.1
-0.1
t / T =3/10
0.1
t / T = 3/10
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
0.1
-0.1
t / T =2/5
0.1
t / T =2/5
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
0.1
-0.1
t / T =1/2
0.1
t / T =1/2
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
0.1
-0.1
0.1
Fig. 7: S60 - PMM: axial velocity during a half oscillation period. Left: x/Lpp = 1.1, right: x/Lpp = 1.2
10
DISCUSSION
Takanori Hino
National Maritime Research Institute, Japan
Massive separation is expected to occur in
maneuvering conditions. Therefore, the standard
turbulence models may not have capabilities to
reproduce accurate flow fields. Do the authors plan
to employ advanced turbulence models in the future?
AUTHORS REPLY
We are aware of the problem of inaccurate
simulation of massive flow separation in ship
maneuvering by standard turbulence models.
Nevertheless, the simulation with simple models is
worth doing for verification purposes at least. When
addressing validation issues, the details of flow
separation must be considered with care to assess the
performances of the various turbulence models. This
will be the subject for the sequel of the present work.
Paper submitted to
Twenty-Fifth Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics
August 8-13, 2004
St Johns, Newfoundland and Labrador , Canada
INTRODUCTION
Despite rapid progress in recent years in computer
memory and speed and numerical algorithms, the application of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) to
submarine maneuvering problems falls far short of its
potential and expectations. CFD here is used to imply numerical techniques including the Euler solvers
and beyond. The two main reasons are first the long
computer run time required to obtain a viscous solution and second the lack of systematic validation efforts
to establish confidence in the accuracy of CFD results.
The purpose of this paper is to present the validation
results of a Series 58 bare hull both in straight flight
and in turning. The Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes
(RANS) equations will be solved. This investigation
is the first stage of a systematic validation effort with
the ultimate goal of achieving reliable predictions of a
fully appended maneuvering submarine. In the future,
validations will successively progress from a submarine
with a sail, a submarine with stern appendages and finally a fully appended submarine.
The current status, practices and future research efforts related to submarine maneuvering problems will
be briefly discussed in order to illuminate the direction the present paper is leading to. The situation in
the aircraft community is very similar. The vehicle maneuvering simulation program (6 degrees of freedom of
motion) that currently applies to a submarine or an aircraft serves at least two purposes. One is to provide
ABSTRACT
has a fundamental flaw because vortices and flow features caused by viscous effects such as separation can
not be handled. Some ad-hoc approximations must be
made. Clearly, the approach based on RANS must be
adapted. In doing so, one emphasis is to establish confidence in accuracy through a systematic validation of
RANS solutions and the other emphasis is to speed up
RANS run times such that RANS solutions will be fast
enough for design applications.
To speed up conventional RANS computations by
2 to 3 orders of magnitude is a formidable task. Not
only the modern computer parallelization architecture
must be efficiently utilized but also numerical techniques must be significantly improved. For example,
the leveling-off of parallelization efficiency after about
30 processors can be corrected by the use of the hybrid MPI/OpenMP approach (Kiris et. al, 2000). Numerical techniques such as local refinement (Bai &
Brandt, 1987), higher-order accurate schemes (Kreiss &
Oliger, 1972 and Lele, 1992), new wall function method
(Shih, 2003) and vorticity confinement method (Steinhoff, 1994) etc. can be combined so that a much smaller
size of computational grid (thus shorter run time) can be
used to obtain high solution resolution. Recent research
efforts to achieve Textbook Multigrid Efficiency (TME)
in CFD (Brandt et al., 2002, Thomas et al., 2003) must
also be considered. The goal is to complete solutions
for general CFD problems in about 10 multigrid cycles.
This is a dramatic speed-up compared to the current
practice of requiring several hundred to several thousand multigrid cycles. Caughey and Jameson (2003)
are also collaborating to achieve the same goal. Another
new development in the Newton-Krylov method (Knoll
& Keyes, 2004) is also worthy of attention. The Newton
method is well known to be a very efficient matrix inversion method but it requires a relatively large computer
memory and therefore has not been popular. With the
rapid increase in memory size of modern computers, it
seems that increase in memory can be swapped for decrease in run time. Thus the use of the Newton method
for fast computation should be re-evaluated. Successful
implementation of the numerical techniques mentioned
above may provide the possibility to predict a submarine trajectory based on RANS within a few hours.
The major role of RANS in trajectory prediction is
to compute the six components of force and moment
coefficients. These six force and moment coefficients
are then used to solve the six degrees of freedom equations of motion (Feldman, 1979). Accurate prediction
of forces and moments is required not only at large angles of attack but also at small angles of attack. The
accuracy requirement at large angles of attack is for the
2
. . ..
obvious reason that the large forces and moments generated at large angles of attack can significantly affect the
ship motion. The accuracy requirement at small angles
of attack is essential for accurate computation of stability derivatives because they are normally defined at
small angles of attack and small angular velocity components (Feldman, 1995).
One of the main obstacle to achieve accuracy in
the prediction of forces and moments is the turbulence
modeling. In general accuracy begins to degrade as the
angle of attack increases beyond 8 or so mainly due
to inadequacy in Boussinesq-based turbulence models.
The computed eddy viscosity becomes too large at a
high angle of attack and the fluid velocity near the wall
becomes too fast resulting in underprediction of the
normal force and overprediction of the moment. It is
relatively easy to fix the problem in the zero-equation
type of turbulence models such as the Baldwin-Lomax
model. At a high angle of attack, the length scale is
overestimated leading to a large eddy viscosity. This
can be corrected by seeking the so-called second peak
of the wake function to reduce the length scale. Once
this correction has been made, the prediction of forces
and moments is quite reasonable (Sung et al., 1993). It
is harder to diagnose the two-equation turbulence models. One approach is to control the excessive generation of the turbulence kinetic energy near the wall or,
for the same effect, to promote the turbulent energy
dissipation. This can be accomplished by constructing some appropriate damping functions near the wall.
This is called the low Reynolds number correction. The
low Reynolds number correction of the k- turbulence
model constructed by Wilcox (second edition, 1998)
has been adopted in this paper. It appears to give accurate predictions.
The test case selected for this paper is the measured
data of forces and moments on a Series 58 bare hull
(Randwijck et al., 2000). Both the straight flight and
rotating cases were investigated at David Taylor Model
Basin experimental facilities. The straight flight tests
were performed on Towing Carriage 2 and the rotating tests were performed on the Rotating Arm Facility.
There are two unique features in this experiment. One
is that a set of the rotating data is the only one of its
kind available in the public domain. The other is that
not only were the total forces and moments measured,
but their distribution along the body was also measured.
This provides a more rigorous test of prediction accuracy. Since the total force and moment are integrated
quantities, it sometimes happens that correct prediction
is accidently obtained because of fortuitous cancellations of errors. The quality of the measured data for the
straight flight case appears to be good. This can be verified by the observation that the measured data at positive pitching angle are in good agreement with those
at negative pitching angle. Similar confidence does not
apply to the rotating case where data are scattered. The
scattering of data is most likely due to the effect of the
struts supporting the model. There are some concerns
whether the comparison between data and computations
should be presented for the rotating case because of this
scattering. Several reasons favor the presentation. Although there is an abundance of classified data for both
bare hulls and fully appended submarine models in rotation, the set of the rotating data of the Series 58 is the
only one of its kind available in the public domain as
mentioned earlier. Another reason is that accurate prediction of forces and moments of a body in rotation is
not only a challenging problem for RANS, it is also a
fundamental problem in the maneuvering prediction. It
is thought worthy of a presentation to encourage other
researchers to take the challenge. To ensure that the
RANS prediction of the Series 58 body in rotation is reliable, validations with several classified bodies of revolution have been performed to establish confidence. Another reason favoring the presentation is the following:
It is known that the potential flow method gives reasonable prediction of forces and moments except near the
stern where the viscous effect becomes dominant. This
observation is clearly illustrated in the comparisons of
the longitudinal distribution of the measured rotary normal force and pitching moment derivatives with the predictions by RANS and potential flow. Both RANS and
potential flow predictions are in good agreement with
measured data up to about 80% of the body. After 80%
of the body only RANS predictions are in good agreement with measured data.
The outline of the paper is as follows: first, the
experiment is described. The numerical methods and
the k- turbulence model used to solve the steady incompressible RANS equations in a rotating coordinate
system are briefly described omitting most of the details. For those interested in more details, references
are given. Convergence, grid independence and CPU
run time are discussed. The definition of stability and
the evaluation of its derivatives are given. Comparisons
between measured data and predictions by RANS, and
in some cases by potential flow, are discussed. Finally,
a conclusion is given.
DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIMENT
The experiments were performed with Series 58
Model 4621 reported by Randwijck et al. (February,
3
. . ..
NUMERICAL METHODS
The governing equations to be solved are the incompressible RANS equations in a steadily rotating coordinate system
ui
xi
x uiu j p i j 12 2x2 y2 i j
u
+2( ri u j x x
i j
ui
t
i
j
0.1
z/L
0.0
0
0.2
0.4
x/L
0.6
10
0.8
where x j and u j are the Cartesian coordinate and velocity component, respectively, p is the pressure p divided
by a constant density , r is a position vector, is the
steady rotation rate in the z-direction, i j is the Kronecker delta, is the kinematic viscosity and i j is the
Reynolds stress tensor.
The RANS code used in solving the governing
equations is called IFLOW (Sung, 1987 and Liu et al.,
1998) which has been developed as a production code
at David Taylor Model Basin. The numerical approach
is based on the artificial compressibility. The space
is discretized by a second-order accurate finite-volume
central difference scheme and the time is discretized
by a one-step 5-stage, explicit Runge-Kutta method.
A fourth-order artificial dissipation model is used for
stability. Various convergence acceleration techniques
such as multigrid, preconditioning, local time stepping,
implicit residual smoothing and bulk viscosity damping
have been implemented. Further detailed discussions of
some of the numerical methods used were given in a
previous paper (Sung et al., 2002). For parallel computing, a hybrid MPI/OpenMP has been implemented
to maintain good parallel efficiency even at very high
number of processors as mentioned earlier (Kiris et al.,
2000). Since standard two-equation turbulence models
have the tendency to overpredict the eddy viscosity at
high pitching angles, a low Reynolds number correction of the standard k- model is used. For a detailed
description of this model, see Wilcox (1998). Obtaining good convergence with a two-equation turbulence
model is a non-trivial problem. Some successful techniques have been described in a previous paper (Sung et
al., 2002). Discussions of how initial and boundary conditions were implemented for the flow in a rotating coordinate system were also given in that paper. Overall,
the emphasis throughout the development of IFLOW is
both in accuracy and speed.
4
. . ..
-1
X
log10(RMS residual)
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
600
1200
1800
Multigrid cycles
. . ..
-1
186
48x 32x 48 grid
96x 64x 96 grid
192x128x192 grid
meas.: +10 o
meas.: -10 o
48x 32x 32 grid
96x 64x 64 grid
192x128x128 grid
4
6
0
2
4
-3
M
Z
1033
Z xx 10
-2
-4
-5
0
2
-1
-2
0
-2-2
-4
meas.: +10
o
meas.: -10
48x 32x 32 grid
96x 64x 64 grid
192x128x128 grid
-6
-4
-3
-6
-8
-6
-7
600
1200
-10
-8
-4
1800
Multigrid cycles
600
600
600
1200
1200
1200
1800
1800
1800
Multigrid cycles
Figure
Figure
3a.oConvergence
Convergence
history
history
of pitching
of normal
moment
force
Z
Figure 3b.
3b.
Convergence
history
Mcoefficient Z
o of
6
6 pitching moment
o
6
at
attack
at = 10 and
Re =of
and Re
Re == 12
12 xx 10
10
at angle
angle
of11.7
attackx4410and
506
meas.:
+10o o
meas.: +10
oo
meas.: -10
meas.:
-10
48x 32x
32x 32
48x
32grid
grid
96x 64x 64 grid
96x
64x 64 grid
192x128x128 grid
192x128x128 grid
40
2
30
MZ x 10
103 4
0
0
20-2
-4
10
-6
-8
-10
-10
600
600
1200
1200
1800
1800
Multigrid cycles
Multigrid
cycles
Figure3b.
3b. Convergence
of pitching
moment
Z
Figure
Convergencehistory
history
of pitching
moment
coefficient M
o
6
6
at angle
attack
4 and
Re = 12 x 10
at = 10o and
Re =of11.7
x 10
Performance Computing Modernization Office (DODHPCMC) at Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVO). Although this system has a total of 1328 CPUs, only one
node with 8 CPUs was used to avoid long waiting time.
Based on the computation with 8 CPUs in the medium
grid wtih 0.4 million grid cells in the straight flight case
and 0.7 million in the rotating case in 500 multigrid cycles, the run time is about 20 minutes for the straight
flight case and about 40 minutes in the rotating case.
This is not optimum. It is most likely that a grid independent solution can be achieved with a much smaller
grid size therefore in a much shorter run time. The run
time can be expected to decrease almost linearly as the
6
. . ..
1286
1286
o
meas.:
+10 48 grid
48x 32x
meas.:
-10 o 96 grid
96x 64x
48x 32x 32 grid
192x128x192
grid
96x 64x 64 grid
192x128x128 grid
4
6
8
2
4
2
4
0
2
33
Z xx 10
M
10 4
M
Z
10433
Z xx 10
0-20
o
meas.: +10
o
meas.: -10
48x 32x 32 grid
96x 64x 64 grid
192x128x128 grid
-4
-2
-4
-6
-4
-8
0
2
0-20
o
meas.: +10
o
meas.: -10
48x 32x 32 grid
96x 64x 64 grid
192x128x128 grid
-4
-2
-4
-6
-4
-8
-8
-6
-10
-8
-12
meas.:
+10 o48 grid
48x 32x
meas.:
-10 o 96 grid
96x 64x
48x 32x 32 grid
192x128x192
grid
96x 64x 64 grid
192x128x128 grid
4
6
-8
-6
0
0
400
600
600
800
1200
1200
1200
1600
2000
1800
1800
2400
-10
-8
-12
0
0
400
600
600
800
Multigrid cycles
Figure
Figure
4a.Convergence
Convergence
history
history
of pitching
of normal
moment
force
Z
Z
Figure 3b.
3b.
Convergence
history
Mcoefficient
6
o of pitching moment
6
o 0.2Re
6
at
of
== 12
at pitch angular
velocity
and
Rexx=10
at angle
angle
of attack
attackq44=and
and Re
12
1011.7 x 10
1200
1200
1600
1200
2000
1800
1800
2400
Multigrid cycles
Figure
Figure
4b.Convergence
Convergence
history
history
of pitching
of pitching
moment
moment
Z
coefficient M
Figure 3b.
3b.
Convergence
history
M
6
o of pitching moment
6
o 0.2Re
6
at
of
== 12
at pitch angular
velocity
and
Rexx=10
at angle
angle
of attack
attackq44=and
and Re
12
1011.7 x 10
Z
w
Zw
Z
w
U1
Mw
U1
Zw
Z 2o Z 0o
2o 180
o
Z2
2o
180o
and
STABILITY DERIVATIVES AND STABILITY INDICES
Stability derivatives are essentially gradients of
forces and moments defined at an equilibrium state.
If the equilibrium state is defined as the state at zero
pitching angle and zero angular velocity, then stability
derivatives are defined at zero pitching angle and zero
angular velocity. This is the definition adopted here.
Consider the vertical plane stability in the coordinate
system fixed at the body, the velocity component in the
z-direction w is related to the free stream velocity U by
U sin
Mw
M 2o
2o 180
o
Zq
Z q 0 2Z q 0
q 0 2
Z qq 0022
. . ..
and
-8
M q 0 2
q 0 2
Gv
Mw
meas.: +
meas.: -
coarse: 48x32x32
medium: 96x64x64
fine: 192x128x128
-7
Zq m
Zw Mq
-6
Z x 10 3
Mq
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
12
15
18
21
where the only variable which has not yet been defined
is the nondimensional mass m . Negative Gv indicates
instability and positive Gv implies stability. For a complete stability analysis, one needs to consider the horizontal plane stability index also. For detailed discussions, one is referred to Feldman (1995).
32
28
24
20
16
M x 10
-5
12
meas.: +
meas.: -
coarse: 48x32x32
medium: 96x64x64
fine: 192x128x128
8
4
0
12
15
18
. . ..
M x 10 4
1.0
TEST
0.5
Zx10 -3
-2.0
0.2
0.4
0.8
z/L
0.0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
10
0.8
10.5
10.8
12.7
-8
-10
-16.0
12.7
16.0
-18.7
19.2
-22.0
-23.6
10
12
19.0
-12
-14
21.6
14
24.2
21.6
23.6
16
26.3
26.2
18
28.8
28.2
30
43.0
39.4
1
3
-0.136
-0.278
-0.433
2
4
-0.65
-0.607
-0.95
-0.806
-1.10
-1.75
-1.04
-6
1.10
-8
-10
1.70
2.50
-2.45
-2.41
-12
-14
3.50
4.65
10
12
-3.40
14
-4.60
-3.44
-4.68
-16
5.90
16
-5.80
-5.88
-18
7.30
18
-7.30
-7.40
30
-18.9
-1.62
8.0
4.0
0.0
-3
IFLOW
-0.15
-0.30
-0.50
-4.0
0.70
TEST
Zwx10
-4
0.25
-8.0
meas.
Potential calc.
RANS calc.:96x64x64 grid
RANS calc.:192x128x128
-12.0
-16.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
-18.9
z/L
-2
TEST
16.2
Z x 10 3
8.78
-12.2
-18
8.40
-6
-16
x/L
-8.50
-3
0.6
2.25
4.48
6.66
IFLOW
-4
test data = +10 (Ztotal=-2.45x10 )
o
-3
test data = -10 (Ztotal= -2.50x10 )
-3
96x64x64 grid (Ztotal = -2.41x10 )
-3
192x128x128 grid (Ztotal = -2.37x10 )
-1.5
2.00
4.40
6.50
-4.30
-0.5
TEST
1
-2
0.0
-1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
10
x/L
. . ..
6.0
5.0
4.0
0.7
0.6
0.5
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Z x 10 3, M x 10 3
M wx10
0.4
3.0
0.0
test: Re = 11.7x106
6
test: Re = 10.5x10
test: Re = 9.4x106
Other tests
test: Sum of segments
6
calc.: Re = 12x10 , 96x64x96 grid
6
calc.: Re = 12x10 , 192x128x192 grid
0.8
meas.
Potential calc.
RANS calc.:96x64x64 grid
RANS calc.:192x128x128
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
z/L
-0.5
-0.6
1
0.0
3
0.2
0.4
7
0.6
8
0.8
10
-0.7
1
x/L
-0.8
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
. . ..
2.0
0.13
1.16
M x10
meas.
potential calc.
RANS calc.:96x64x96
RANS calc.:192x128x192
4
1.0
-3
Z x 10
-1.32
0.0
M qx10
0.20
1.81
-1.97
0.25
2.47
-2.55
0.32
3.33
-3.27
-1.0
-2.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
z/L
0.0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
10
x/L
6
barehull at q = 0.2 and Re = 11.7 x 10
4.0
3.0
sured data is very good from the nose to the stern except an anomaly of computed Mq at segment 7. As in
the straight case, potential flow results deteriorated near
the stern where viscous effects become dominant. Despite the scattering of the measured data, the computed
and measured stability derivatives appear to have a good
agreement with each other. This is because the slopes
of Z and M of RANS are similar to those of measured
data as observed above. The good agreement with the
potential results except in the stern also provides support that the prediction is reliable.
CONCLUSION
A validation of forces, moments and stability
derivatives of a Series 58 bare hull in straight flight
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work is partially funded by the ILIR program at David Taylor Model Basin monitored by Dr.
2.0
0.0
Zqx10
1.0
-1.0
-2.0
meas.
potential calc.
RANS calc.:96x64x96
RANS calc.:192x128x192
-3.0
-4.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
z/L
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
10
x/L
11
. . ..
REFERENCES
Bai, D. and A. Brandt,Local Mesh Refinement
Multilevel Techniques, SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput., 8,
pp. 109-135, 1987.
Brandt, A., B. Diskin and J. L. Thomas,Recent
Advances in Achieving Textbook Multigrid Efficiency for Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations, NASA/CR-2002-211656, ICASE Report No.
2002-16.
Caughey, D. A. and A. Jameson,Fast preconditioned multigrid solution of the Euler and Navier-Stokes
equations for steady compressible flows, International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 43, pp.537553, 2003.
Feldman, J.,DTNSRDC Revised Standard Submarine Equations of Motion, DTNSRDC/SPD-0393-09,
June 1979.
Feldman, J.,Method of Performing Captive-Model
Experiments to Predict the Stability and Control Characteristics of Submarines, CRDKNSWC-HD-039325, June, 1995.
Knoll, D. A. and D. E. Keyes,Jacobian-free
Newton-Krylov methods: a survey of approaches and
applications:, Journal of Computational Physics, 193,
357-397, 2004
Kiris, C., W. Chan and D. Kwak,Parallel Unsteady
Turbopump Simulations for Liquid Rocket Engines,
2000, IEEE.
Kreiss, H. O. and J. Oliger,Comparison of Accurate Methods for the Integration of Hyperbolic Equations, Tellus 24, 1972.
Lele, S. K.,Compact Finite Difference Schemes
with Spectral-like Resolution, Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 103, No. 1, pp. 16-42, 1992.
Liu, C., X. Zheng and C. H. Sung, Preconditioned Multigrid Methods for Unsteady Incompressible
Flows, Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 139, 3557, 1998.
Randwijck, Eric F. and Jerome P. Feldman,Results
of Experiments with a Segmented Model to Investigate the Distribution of the Hydrodynamic Forces and
Moments on a Streamlined Body of Revolution at an
Angle of Attack or with a Pitching Angular Velocity,
NSWCCD-50-TR-2000/008, February 2000.
Shih, T. H., L. A. Povineli and N. S.
Liu,Application of Generalized Wall Function for
Complex Turbulent Flows, 2003.
Slomski, J. F., private communication, 2004.
Steinhoff, J.,Vorticity Confinement: A New Technique for Computing Vortex Dominated Flows, in D.
A. Caughey and M. M. Hafez, editors, Frontiers of
Computational Fluid Dynamics, John Wiley & Sons,
1994.
Sung, C. H.,An Explicit Runge-Kutta Method for
3D Incompressible Turbulent Flows, DTNSRDC/SH
-1244-01, July 1987.
Sung, C. H., M. J. Griffin, J. F. Tsai and T. T.
Huang,Incompressible Flow Computation of Forces
and Moments on Bodies of Revolution at incidence,
AIAA 93-0787, 31st Aerospace Siences Meeting & Exhibit, January 11-14, 1993, Reno, NV.
Sung, C. H. M. Y. Jiang, B. Rhee, S. Percival,
P. Atsavapranee and I. Y. Koh,Validation of the Flow
Around a Turning Submarine, The Twenty-Fourth
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, July 8-13, 2002,
Fukuoka, Japan
Thomas, J. L., B. Diskin and A. Brandt,Textbook
Multigrid Efficiency for Fluid Simulations, Annual
Review of Fluid Mechanics 35, 317-340, 2003.
Wilcox, D. C., Turbulence Modeling for CFD,
DCW Industries, Inc. CA, second edition, 1998.
12
. . ..
DISCUSSION
George Watt
DRDC Atlantic, Canada
I agree with your response to one of the
referees that potential flow will not to the job:
- Normal force Z is zero in potential flow
- Pitching moment M is about 30% in error
in potential flow.
Your experiments breaking the forces up
into a distribution along the hull look very useful.
Are these data available in the open literature?
AUTHORS REPLY
All the test data such as normal force
coefficient and its longitudinal distribution presented
in this paper is readily available to those who wish to
repeat the computations.
DISCUSSION
Kevin L. Smith
Northrop Grumman Newport News, USA
First, I would like to thank the authors for
the opportunity to review and discuss their work.
The following comments are not solely my own, but
include those of Mr. Patrick Ryan and Dr. Wade
Miner, also of Northrop Grumman Newport News,
who are experienced users of Sungs IFLOW code.
As end users, rather than developers, we are
rarely afforded the opportunity or luxury of time to
thoroughly validate the capabilities of CFD tools, and
usually rely on the code developers for that function.
Unfortunately, since some of the codes that we use
were adapted from the aerospace industry, the
validation cases for those codes are frequently based
on geometry and conditions more appropriate for
aircraft.
Far fewer validation cases include
submarine-specific geometry or conditions (such as
very high Reynolds numbers, incompressibility, etc.)
much less the rigorous problems associated with
maneuvering. Therefore, it is greatly welcomed
when we see, in one place, a validation effort that
addresses both of these areas.
The authors correctly state the importance of
rapid convergence to industry, particularly in a
production environment that imposes tight schedules.
While real time solutions are unnecessary, typically
turn around times of several weeks or more cannot be
afforded. Our experience with the single-processor
version of their code has demonstrated that it does,
indeed, converge more quickly than many of our
other codes. Their efforts to validate IFLOW in a
multi-processor environment will further enhance our
ability to respond to time-urgent requests.
In addition, the subject of this paper (i.e. the
computational calculation of a submarines stability)
is also very timely. Future submarine capabilities
and mission requirements are driving us away from
conventional cylindrical hulls and toward nontraditional, non-circular hull shapes. One of the
primary concerns for these novel hull forms is their
vertical and horizontal plane stability. Unfortunately,
the further we deviate from circular hulls, the further
away we find ourselves from the vast compilation of
experimental force and moment data that has been
collected for submarine hulls over the past 50 or
more years. With no budget or time to support an
extensive test program, we are having to rely more on
computational methods to evaluate the stability of
new concepts. The results of this paper will increase
our confidence in those predictions.
We are also glad to see that the authors
plans include the analysis of a fully appended
AUTHORS REPLY
As code developers, we always appreciate
very much comments coming from code users. These
comments are always taken seriously for future
improvement. From the CFD point of view,
modeling the model is the right thing to do in
general. In the case of the straight-run tests of the
DISCUSSION
Thomas L. Moran
Computer Science Corporation, USA
It is with great pleasure that I comment on
the effort presented in this paper. I consider this work
to be a breakthrough in the application of RANS to
the maneuvering equations of motion development
process. But before I comment on that aspect, I
would first like to clear up a possible misconception
the authors may have given on the current simulation
code used at NSWCCD.
The Multi-Vortex simulation code is a semiempirical, geometry-based simulation utilizing twodimensional potential flow strip theory, discrete
vortex representation of hull separation, and lifting
line theory for the appendages. Vortices shed from
the hull and appendages are tracked and the resulting
forces and moments are also computed by strip
theory. Wakes from the hull and appendages also act
upon the stern appendages. The boundary layer is
modeled as a displaced body. The effect of the spanwise velocity distribution on an appendage is
modeled in the lifting line calculation for the
appendage.
The X-equation utilizes 4-quadrant
propulsor test data and coefficient-based terms to
represent propulsor forces and hull and appendage
drag. The simulation code computes the normal and
side forces and the rolling, pitching and yawing
moments. It contains parameters that allow the
forces and moments to be tuned to match captivemodel, RANS calculations, Radio Controlled Model
and full-scale data.
While it is true that the stability is computed
by potential flow, some viscous approximations have
been incorporated into the code, which have
accounted for, albeit semi-empirically, the
shortcomings of potential flow theory.
Secondly, this simulation code not only is
use for trainers and design support, but is primarily
used to develop recovery boundaries for a submarine
Submerged Operating Envelope (SOE) and flooding
recovery studies. These studies alone can require as
many as 10,000 simulations to develop the
boundaries. Clearly there is a need for an accurate
simulation that can run in real-time or faster.
Lastly, the simulation has the capability of
providing the shipyards with hull and appendage
loads needed for submarine structural design.
The US Navy is interested in developing a
simulation code for bodies with non-circular cross
section. Studies completed to date have shown that
the Multi-Vortex code can be successfully modified
for these hulls, provided test data or accurate RANS
calculations are available. This is the area where this
DISCUSSION
Don Davis
Electric Boat, USA
In this paper, the authors present results for
normal force and pitching moment for a body of
revolution in straight flight and in steady rotation at a
range of pitching angles. The results that are shown
for both the normal force coefficient and the pitching
moment coefficient match the experimental data very
well for all three grid levels (slight variations are
evident in the coarse grid results. The convergence
behavior, as illustrated by the pressure residual and
the normal force and pitching moment iteration
histories, is also quite good. Based on these results,
the authors conclude that grid independent solutions
can be obtained with a medium grid in 20 minutes in
the straight flight case and in 40 minutes in the
rotating case. Although this conclusion may be valid
for pressure-based forces (i.e., normal force, pitching
moment), it is most likely not valid for shear-based
forces (e.g., drag). While the computed pressure may
be converged and grid independent, there is no
evidence here that the viscous part of the solution is
either converged or grid independent. If the reported
forces are dominated by pressure (even at the higher
angles), similar accuracy may be attainable with
lower order methods (e.g., potential flow). Since one
reason for using RANS over such lower-order
methods is its ability to directly capture physics in the
boundary layer, a RANS validation effort really
needs to include results that reflect such physics.
Thus, although the results shown here are quite good,
they exclude critical aspects of the flow, which may
affect the overall conclusions on grid requirements,
grid independence, and run time.
AUTHORS REPLY
The computations performed in this paper
are based on solving the Reynolds-averaged NavierStokes (RANS) equations which were supplemented
by a low-Reynolds version of the k- turbulence
model. The computed force and moment coefficients
are the sum of the effects due to the pressure and the
skin friction. Although the significant digit of the
measured data is only one and never higher than two,
the significant digit of the computed coefficients is at
least three. For this reason, it is certain that the
viscous effects are completely included within the
assumptions of RANS. The prediction based on
potential flow method alone cannot achieve the
desired accuracy at least near the stern as shown in
Figures 7a, 7b, 9a, and 9b. This is because the
pressure computed by the potential flow method is
INTRODUCTION
loc ( x ) = ( x k ) + ( x k )T ( x x k )
This local approximation is then used to correct (to
the first-order) the value obtained with the low-fidelity
model flo:
f hi ( x) = ( x ) f lo ( x ) a ( x ) = loc ( x ) f lo ( x )
where a(x) is now the improved approximation which
satisfies the following consistency conditions:
a ( x k ) = f hi ( x k )
, a ( x k ) = f hi ( x k )
2 1 2 3
Q = S ( , , )
3
R = S ( 1 , 2 , 3 )
1 2
3
y = y 0 ( , , )
z = z ( 1 , 2 , 3 )
0
1
3
and
y = y 0 ( ,1, )
z = z ( 1 ,1, 3 )
0
x = xm ( 1 ,1, 3 )
1
3
y = y m ( ,1, )
1
3
z = z ( ,1, )
m
2
where is taken to be normal direction to the surface,
and values with subscript 0 and m correspond to the
original and modified hull surfaces. The grid points at
the outer boundary is fixed and given by
2
x = x0 ( 1 , max
, 3 )
1 2
3
y = y0 ( , max , )
z = z ( 1 , 2 , 3 )
0
max
x =
y =
z =
x 0 ( 1 , 2 , 3 ) + ( x m ( 1 ,1, 3 ) +
x 0 ( 1 ,1, 3 ))( 1 S 2 ( 1 , 2 , 3 ))
y 0 ( 1 , 2 , 3 ) + ( y m ( 1 ,1, 3 ) +
y 0 ( 1 ,1, 3 ))( 1 S 2 ( 1 , 2 , 3 ))
z 0 ( 1 , 2 , 3 ) + ( z m ( 1 ,1, 3 ) +
z 0 ( 1 ,1, 3 ))( 1 S 2 ( 1 , 2 , 3 ))
design variables, i.e., dbt; dst and dsl, which control the
present hull modification.
For SBD-B, the control points of the patches used in
the Additive Perturbation method are the design
variables of the optimization problem. For the hull
shape parameterization 11 design variables have been
used: 2 for the side modification of the region above the
dome, 4 for the side modification of the dome, 3 for the
longitudinal modification of the dome and 2 for the
modification of the keel line below the dome.
Initial Design
Objective
function
Definition
min RT (Fr, R e)
Note
Bare hull, fixed model,
Fr = 0.28,
Re = 1.67*107
x R Ndv
S C = 0.5 3 + 0.5 5 1 3
on
seakeeping
Functional constraints
Type
on sonar
dome
vortices
Bow entry
angle
Geometrical constraints
Sonar dome
dimension
Sonar dome
position
Main
dimensions
Displacement
3p
5p
3o
HC=
1.02
3p
o
P C = 5 1.02
5p
1
N
( ox)i2
1
N
i
N
1,
p
( x )i2
o, optimized; p, parent
All the quantities
computed for * 0.4
RC is a circular region
placed at x = -0.30,
centered at y=0.02,
z = -0.07, with radius
r = 0.018.
o, optimized; p, parent
i RC
maximum
amplitude
variation of 5
A sonar array of
radius Rs and
height Hs should
fit inside the dome
Maximum forward
position
Lpp and depth
fixed
Maximum
variation 2%
VALIDATION TEST
The experimental campaign used an existing model
of the DTMB 5415, the INSEAN 2340 model already
adopted in previous experiments (Stern et at., 2000).
Tank tests were carried out in the towing tank No. 2 at
INSEAN, and the new models will be tested in the same
basin. The tank No. 2 is 250 meters long, 9 meters wide
and 4.5 meters deep, equipped with a carriage capable
of a maximum speed of 10 m/s, recently renewed
allowing for a precision on the forward velocity of
about 0.1%.
To further reduce the uncertainty connected to the
model geometry, only the bow part of the new hulls has
been build while model 2340 was cut at station 15 and
prepared for the mounting of the two new bows (Fig.
15). The new bow shapes to be mounted on the 2340
body are indicated as 5415-A (SBD-A optimized bow)
and 5415-B (SBD-B optimized bow).
5415
1
1
1
5415-A
0.983
0.996
0.989
5415-B
0.981
0.970
0.975
Constraint
1.020
1.020
1.000
CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work has been partially supported by the U.S.
Office of Naval Research under the grants No.
000140210489, No. N000140210304 and No.
N00140210256, through Dr. Pat Purtell.
The authors would like to thank Angelo Olivieri for
the experimental data. EFC and DP thanks Andrea Di
Mascio for the use of MGShip.
REFERENCES
SBD B
SBD - A
Phase
5415
Surface Sinkage Trim 5415-A Surface Sinkage Trim
(mm) (deg) Rt(Kg_f) (m2)
(mm) (deg)
Rt(Kg_f) (m2)
Grid
size
Optimization
fixed model
Verification
3.9093
4.8692
8.29
0.05
3.7977
4.8652
8.29
0.05
CFDSHIP-Iowa
4.6277
4.9686
8.29
0.05
4.3817
4.9640
8.29
0.05 1,779,648
5.2164
4.9476
0.0
0.00
4.8730
4.8888
0.0
0.00
4.4016
4.8279
0.0
0.00
4.2298
4.7664
0.0
0.00 1,712,128
fixed model
Optimization
fixed model
Verification
MGShip
fixed model
Verification
238,760
253,952
MGShip
4.5133 4.9418
8.29
0.05 4.3988 4.8966
10.06
0.09 1,712,128
free model
Table 2 - Summary of results for the SBD A and B. All values are in model scale (Lpp=5.72m)
Optimizer
Optimizer
Design Var.
Objective
Function
CAD
CFD
Constraint
Function
IGES Control
Surface
Grid Generation
CFD
Manipulate
geometry and
volume grid
i = 1, , Ndv
Use Low-Fidelity
RANS to
compute F/xi
GA
Line search with L-F RANS.
Compute step s, new candidate
design xk + s
Convergence?
No
Reduce trust
region radius
too small?
Yes
Compute first
order corrections
and adjust trust
region radius
Constraint
Function
CAD
No
No
Objective
Function
Surface
Grid Generation
Stop
Optimizer
Design Var.
Yes
Acceptable?
Yes
New design
xk+1 = xk + s
Compute High-Fidelity
RANS at xk+1
CFD
Fig. 6 The constraint on the sonar dome is verified both the optimized models 5415-A (left) and 5415-B (right). The
two overlapping cylinders in blue represents the sonar array that fit inside the dome. The original shape of the dome is
also reported (solid lines) to put in evidence the common trend of the two solutions to have a smaller dome
Fig. 7 The behavior of the ship in waves was chosen as a functional inequality constraint. Heave (left) and pitch
(right) RAOs in head seas have been selected as performances to be monitored during the optimization process. Both
the optimized models satisfy the requirements
0.11
0.1
Original
0.1
Optimal
0.09
20
0.08
0.07
0.06
21
Optimal
20
0.08
19
18
17
0.07
0.06
0.05
19
18
17
21
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0
-0.01
-0.01
-0.02
Original
0.09
-0.05
0.05
-0.02
-0.05
0.05
Fig 8 Comparison of bodyplan between the original and optimal hull forms. Original 5415 vs. 5415-A (left) and
original 5415 vs. 5415-B (right).
Fig 9 Comparison of bow and sonar dome. Original 5415 (left), 5415-A (center) and 5415-B (right).
0.4
0.1
Optimal
0.05
0.2
-0.2
-0.4
0 .0
02
04
0.0 6
0
0.0
-0.05
Original
0.
0
0.0 06
04
0.
00
0
4
00
-0.
Optimal
Original
-0.
00
0 4
-0.1
0.5
0.75
1
0
0.1
0.2
x
x
Fig 10-SBD-A Comparison of wave contours between the original and optimal hull forms Original 5415 vs 5415-A
(computed with CFDSHIP-Iowa).
0
0.4
0.25
0.1
Optimal
0.05
0.2
-0.2
04
0.0 06
0
0.
0 .0
0.0 06
04
00
0.
2
-0.4
2
00
0.
-0.05
Original
0
00
-0.
Optimal
Original
-0 .
00
0 4
-0.1
0.5
0.75
1
0
0.1
0.2
x
x
Fig 11 -SBD-B Comparison of wave contours between the original and optimal hull forms. Original 5415 vs 5415-B
(computed with MGShip).
0
0.25
0.015
0.015
Original
Optimal
0.1
0.2
-0.005
-0.005
Z
0.005
Z
0.005
Original
Optimal
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
Fig- 12 - Comparison of wave profiles near bow between the original and optimal hull forms. Original 5415 vs 5415-A
computed with CFDSHIP-Iowa (left), original 5415 vs 5415-B computed with MGShip (right).
Cp contours
(Optimal)
0
Cp contours
(Original)
0.0
z
-0.025
z
-0.025
0.00
0.00
-0.
2
-0.40
-0.05
-0.20
-0.05
0.20
0.20
0.2
0.20
0.05
0.1
0.00
0
0.00
0.05
Cp contours
(Optimal)
0
Cp contours
(Original)
0.1
0.20
0.20
0
0.0
z
-0.025
z
-0.025
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.2
-0.05
-0.40
0.05
0.1
-0.40
-0.05
-0.20
0.05
0.1
Fig. 13 Comparison of surface pressure (Cp) contours near the bow between the original and optimal hull forms. Top,
original 5415 (computed by CFDSHIP Iowa) versus 5415-A. Bottom, original 5415 (computed with MGShip) versus
5415-B
-0.02
-0.02
Axial Vorticity |x| Contours
(X=0.2: Behind Sonar Dome)
Optimal
Original
Optimal
Original
-0.04
-0.04
2
10
-0.06
10
-0.06
5
-0.08
-0.08
Control area
-0.025
Control area
0.025
-0.025
0.025
Fig 14 Comparison of axial vorticity contours between the original and optimal hull forms (X=0.2: behind sonar
dome). The control region, placed in a plane orthogonal to the forward direction, is reported as a black circle. Original
5415 vs 5415-A computed by CFDSHIP-Iowa (left), original 5415 vs 5415-B computed with MGShip (right).
Fig. 15 Experimental models. Original 5415 cut (left), 5415-A bow (center), 5415-B bow (right).
2
1
5415-A
5415-B
Percentage difference
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-11
0.1
0.2
0.3
Froude number
0.4
0.5
Fig. 16 - Experimental validation of the numerical results. Drag reduction (%) as a function of the Froude number for
the two optimized models. Error bars are plotted for Fr=0.28 and Fr=0.41.
DISCUSSION
Luigi Martinelli
Princeton University, USA
This is a fine work; however I have a couple
of questions for the authors.
1) There exist well developed and documented
approaches for hydrodynamic optimization that
are more computationally efficient that the one
selected for this study, in that the cost of the
optimization does not depend on the number of
design variables, why were these approaches
discarded?
2) As a side note, the bibliography of some of the
competing approaches is scanty. In particular
that relative to the control theory based approach
of Jameson, which has been extended and
validated for marine applications as early as five
years ago. The authors should have been aware
of that and included in the bibliography.
3) The computational time reported in the paper, 110 CPU hours for a steady RANS calculation on
a 1.7 Million point grid,
revels a fairly
inefficient multigrid solver, at least in
comparison with the performance of other
multigrid solvers, with similar accuracy, that
were developed a decade ago, extensively
validated and used for analysis of ship flow.
What is the most computationally expensive
component of the solver used in the study?
AUTHORS REPLY
We thank Prof. Martinelli for his discussion.
1) As already stated in the paper, adjoint methods
to which the author is referring are not portable
from one flow solver to another. Other
difficulties might come from the addition of
constraints. They require the availability of the
source code, which is not always the case.
Furthermore,
the
basic
variable-fidelity
framework we have adopted can be used with
any derivative-based method and set of models,
including cases where gradients are computed
via adjoints or via automatic differentiation (this
has been reported by other authors). In our case,
we are focusing on zero-order methods, because
we like the solver "portability" this implies,
because the problems in question have a
sufficiently small number of variables, and
because zero-order methods may have additional
smoothing effects that assist in not being stuck in
DISCUSSION
Michel Visonneau
Ecole Centrale de Nantes, France
This interesting paper describes a
cooperative study between IIHR, INSEAN and OPU
aiming at comparing two different Simulation Based
Design environments based on RANS solvers for
ship hull optimization and at validating the respective
solutions by a dedicated experimental campaign.
Although the optimization algorithm used in SBD-A
has the possibility to carry out a global optimisation,
the domain of variation of the design variables is
restrained to maintain reasonable CPU times. It
would be interesting to evaluate the benefits from
neural algorithms or hybrid approaches as proposed
in [1] to improve the efficiency of a GA-based
algorithm, which would make possible a search of a
global optimum.
This study was performed at model scale.
Would it be possible, with the actual SBD
environments, to carry out the same computational
studies at full scale? Do you think that the bow
modifications proposed in this study would be
dramatically changed at full scale? Have you also
evaluated the role played by the turbulence modelling
errors?
REFERENCES
[1] R. Duvigneau & M. Visonneau, Hybrid genetic
algorithms and artificial neural networks for complex
design optimization in CFD, Int. J. for Numerical
Methods in Fluids, Vol. 44/11, pp. 1257-1278, 2004.
AUTHORS REPLY
We thank Dr. Visonneau for his discussion.
His first comment refers to the use of meta-models in
the optimization process, i.e. the use of surrogate
analytical models that, after an initial training, are
able to mimic the response of the expensive CFD
solver adopted for the analysis. The authors have
already some experience on that topic [1,2,3] using
many different approaches: Radial Basis Function
neural nets (RBF), kriging, and some others
techniques. In the present paper however, the authors
decided to focus on exploring the advantages of a
parallel cluster (SBD-A) and on those given by the
Variable Fidelity approach integrated with the trustregion method (SBD-B).
In principle there are no objections to extend
the numerical optimization to full scale problem, at
least from an algorithmic standpoint. The major
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
INPUT DATA
3D Panel Mesh:
Body with elliptic or circular sections
Interaction:
CFD
Input
file
VTR ?
ITERmax ?
NO:
STOP
MODULE
OPTIMIZATION
Historic
Data
MODULES
Historic
Data
Historic
Data
MODULE
GEOMETRY
y 2 (x ) = ak x k
(1)
k =1
y (m1 ) = 1 2
1
(
)
y
'
m
0
=
1
y 2 (x )dx = C 4
y ' (m ) = 0
P
2
& 0
y ' (m3 ) = 0
1 + y ' 2 (0) 3 2 y ' ' (0 ) = r
0
y (1) = 01
2
2
y ' ' (1) = r1
1 + y ' (1)
[
[
(2)
]
]
8
k 1
8
k
k ak m1 = 0
a k m1 = 1 2
k =1
k =1
8
k 1
8
k ak m2 = 0 & a (k + 1) = C 4
k
P
k =1
k =1
8
a = r
k a m k 1 = 0
1
k
1 0
k =1
8
8
k a k = r1
a =0
k =1
k
k =1
(3)
Y (x ) =
t
1 tS
2 S3 X 2
2 LS
LS
(4)
S58
validated in the case of high speed mono- and multihull vessels (Brizzolara et al., 1998) also with the
possibility of including dynamic attitude prediction and
flow behind dry transom sterns (Brizzolara &
Bruzzone, 2000).
A Cartesian right-handed reference frame {XYZ}
travelling with the ship at U constant speed is centred
at an arbitrary point on the intersection of the
longitudinal symmetry plane with the undisturbed free
surface; the x axis oriented aft-wards, and the z axis
oriented upwards.
The total velocity potential = U x + , and the
unknown perturbation potential , with respect to the
uniform incident flow, must both satisfy the Laplace
equation in the complete domain:
= 0 , = 0
(5)
r
n = 0
on the hulls
(6)
= 0
(7)
1
1
= U 2 on the free surface
2
2
U x , 0 for x
(8)
g +
O35
O41
O50
(9)
= D + o
D =
U
D D
2g
2g
2
(10)
on z=0
(11)
2a x + 2b y + xx 2Dx + yy 2Dy +
+ 2 Dx Dy xy + g z = 2a ( Dx U ) + 2b Dy
a = Dx Dxx + Dy Dxy
where:
(12)
(13)
b = Dx Dxy + Dy Dyy
quad j
1
)dS j ( X ij , Yij , Z ij )
rij
(14)
X
j =1
ij
n xi + Yij n yi + Z ij n zi = Ux
i = 1, N H
(15)
(17)
X ij
x
x
j =1
NH +NF
(16)
D 2 Yij
Yij
)i
+ 2( D )( D )
] j +
y
y
x
x x
D
D
+ 2g i = 2a i (
U ) + 2bi
i = 1, NF
x
y
+(
K=
2 U ,
u
l=
U
U L
K
=
U
(19)
(20)
4U d 2U
d 2
(21)
0.45
[1 + 2.22 g (K , )]U 5 ( )d + 2 (0) U (0) (22)
U 2 ( ) 0
U ( )
u
u u
1 cos
+ C +
ln
K
2
(23)
VALIDATION OF THE CFD METHOD
1 d
1 du
1 du
+ , 2
+ ,3
=
d
d
d
1 dU
= ,3
+
d
,1
(24)
dC 0.15
=
C C
d
1
where C =
d
2 U 2 0
(25)
1
C = 0.0251
H
Bmax [m]
3.625
0.463
1.72
0.12
T [m]
Hmax
[m]
Underwater Hull
0.350
0.475
Strut
0.125
-
S [m2]
[m3]
3.06
0.258
0.542
0.021
C FTOT = C F Rn LSTRUT
)S
STRUT
TOT
+ C F Rn LHULL
)S
HULL
S TOT
(26)
4.5
1.2
Numerical
4.3
1.1
ITTC'57 composed
4.1
1.0
Schoennher composed
3.9
0.9
Rn-Fn
0.8
3.5
0.7
3.3
0.6
3.1
0.5
2.9
0.4
2.7
0.3
12
CT*103
10
Numerical
Experimental
6
2
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Fn Los
CF*10
3.7
2.5
FnLos
0.2
2
10
RnLos *10
12
14
16
18
-6
2.4
Numerical
2.2
ITTC'57 composed
Schoennher composed
CF*10
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
0 < m1 , m2 , m3 < 1
1.2
0
200
400
600
800
RnLos *10
1000
1200
1400
-6
L. E .
T .E.
x : y HULL (x ) > y STRUT ( x ), x x STRUT
; x STRUT
x i , i = 1, ni & ni > 3 :
dy HULL ( x i )
= 0, xi
dx
a k , k = 1,8 : m(a k ) 0
(29)
(30)
(31)
NV
[r0 , r1 , m1 ,m 2 , m3 ] j = p i R% (Vi )
R% (Vi ) = 10 2
(28)
0 < r0 , r1 <
i =1
(27)
NV
p
i =1
=1
Condition
Penalty
Function
(29)
(30)
(31)
100
500
1000
102 (1 m j ), m j < 0
OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHM
Underwater Hull
LH [m]
80.0
DH/LH
0.075
CP
0.65
S/2/3
L/1/3
Strut
LS/LH
BS/LS
XLE/LH
Global
11.9
T/L
4.89
LCB% (+ aft)
0.70
0.07
0.15
0.131
-4.6%
Des
Fn
0.30
0.35
0.41
0.50
/
(2L)
0.28
0.38
0.53
0.78
R0
2.02
1.74
2.60
3.22
r1
0.30
1.19
1.95
2.18
m2 m1
0.60
0.68
0.73
0.77
m3 m1
0.44
0.40
0.23
0.28
m2 m3
0.16
0.28
0.50
0.49
LCB
%
-6.1
-1.6
-0.8
-0.6
S/
2/3
12.1
12.3
12.4
12.4
Des
Fn
0.30
0.35
0.41
0.50
/
(2L)
0.28
0.38
0.53
0.78
R0
0.05
2.87
1.79
1.62
r1
0.41
1.15
1.14
1.75
m2 m1
0.15
0.64
0.69
0.63
m3 m1
0.08
0.58
0.35
0.25
m2 m3
0.07
0.06
0.34
0.38
LCB
%
-4.4
-4.6
-2.0
-0.8
S/
2/3
11.8
12.3
12.3
12.3
REFERENCES
0.5
2.0
Fn
RT [MN]
Series-58
Optimum Hull for Fn=0.30
Optimum Hull for Fn=0.35
Optimum Hull for Fn=0.41
Optimum Hull for Fn=0.50
Fn
0.45
1.5
0.4
1.0
0.35
0.5
0.3
0.0
0.25
10
15
20
25
V [knt] 30
Figure 13: Correlation plots between geometry characteristics and calculated wave resistance for all the about 900
cases analysed during the automatic optimization procedure of SWATH hull, at Fn=0.41.
Fn=0.30
Fn=0.41
Fn=0.35
Fn=0.50
Figure 14: Best underwater hull generatrix curves found at the end of the optimization procedure for wave resistance alone, at four different design Froude numbers.
Fn=0.30
Fn=0.41
Fn=0.35
Fn=0.50
Figure 15: Comparison between hull generatrix curve optimized with the viscous-inviscid method (plain thick curve) and those optimized with the inviscid method
only (dash-dot curve), at four different design Froude numbers. The generatrix curve of the reference Series 58 hull (plain thin curve)is also plotted.
S-58,Fn=0.30
O-35,Fn=0.30
O-30,Fn=0.30
O-50,Fn=0.30
S-58,Fn=0.35
O-35,Fn=0.35
O-30,Fn=0.35
O-50,Fn=0.35
S-58,Fn=0.50
O-35,Fn=0.50
O-30,Fn=0.50
O-50,Fn=0.50
Figure 16: Contour plots (/LH*100) of the wave patterns generated by the original hull (S58) and by the three
optimized hulls (O-30, O-35, O-50), each optimized at a different optimization speed (Fn=0.30, 0.35, 0.50).
INTRODUCTION
Hull form design technology is one of the most
important core-technologies in shipyard operation.
The importance of hull form design may not be too
much emphasized. Hull form design is particularly
important in two aspects, that is, as the first or
beginning stage of new building project and as the
index of determining the economy of ship
operation. For the effective operation of ship yard,
therefore, it is extremely important to possess the
capability of designing superior hull forms in short
time. Recognizing the importance of hull form, the
authors have long carried out the research works on the
theoretical hull form design method (Min, K-S et al.,
1983, 1984, 1987, 1992, 1998, 2003).
THEORY
S = 2
Resistance calculation
For the theoretical calculation of ship resistance, the
traditional resistance theory has been utilized together
with the residual resistance expression derived from the
linearized thin-ship theory. In order to represent hull
form and flow characteristics, the coordinate system
shown in Figure 1 has been adopted.
z
b=B/2
y = f(x,z)
= L/2
-b
-T
(1)
(2)
RF =
1
CF v 2 S
2
(5)
RR = P nx dS
(6)
In equation (6), P and nx represent pressure and xcomponent of inward unit normal vector n . If the
hull source obtained by distributing Havelock Sources
on ship's central plane are substituted into equation (6)
with the application of thin-ship theory and if noncontributing terms are eliminated, then famous
Michell's Integral for residual resistance is obtained as
follows (Wehausen) :
RR =
4 g 2
v2
RT = RF + RR
1 + f x2 + f z2 dxdz
In Figure 1,
y = f ( x, z )
d sec e
3
2
0
g
v2
( z + )sec2
cos 2 ( x )sec
v
(7)
RT = C F v 2 1 + ( f x ) 2 + ( f z ) 2 dxdz
(8)
{ }
P (cosh u )
cos
( x )
= dxdzf x ( x, z ) e z
Q (cosh u )
sin
A=
(3)
dxdz d d f ( x, z) f ( , )
g
g
4 g
, = 2 cosh u , = 2 cosh 2 u
2
v
v
v
2
CF =
0.075
( Log10 RN 2) 2
(4)
y = f ( x, z ) =
B
X ( x) Z ( z )
2
(9)
y = f ( x, z ) =
B
X ( x ) Z ( x, z )
2
(10)
(12)
(13)
-T z 0
n(x)
, -T z 0 b
1
Z(x,z) = [1 + (z/T)]
0.0
Z(x,z) = 1 - |z/T|
0.6
1.67
+ a3 x /
+ a4 ( x /
+ a6 ( x /
(11)
0.4
2.5
X ( x) = 1 + a2 ( x /
0.3
3.3
, -T z 0
n(x) = 0.2
n(x) = 5.0
n(x)
0.0
0.8
1.0
1.25
1.0
0.67
1.5
2
0.5
0.33
3
5
0.2
10
0.1
25
0.04
50
-T
Figure 2:
0.02
No. 1 Section
-T
Figure 3:
No. 2 Section
1
1
RT = CF v 2 [1 + ( f x ) 2 + ( f z )2 ]dxdz
2
2
(14)
Total resistance
f1 = RT = RF + RR
(16)
- Boundary conditions
B
(1 +
2
)=0
(17)
i=2
Constant volume:
f3 =
T
= 0,
ai
f ( x, z )dxdz V = 0
(18)
T ( a i , , ) = f 1 + f 2 + f 3
(19)
T
= 0,
T
=0
(20)
AX = B
(21)
FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH
Theoretical resistance calculation
In order to investigate the accuracy and the practical
applicability of the theoretical resistance prediction, a
simple elementary hull form was selected for
verification.
For the sake of convenience, the selected hull form
shall be called the simple hull form and denoted by
SHF. The equation of the simple hull form is as
follows:
y = f ( x, z ) = b X ( x ) Z ( z )
= b[1 ( x / )2 ] [1 | z / T |2 ]
(22)
Closure condition:
f 2 = f ( ,0 ) =
Length P.P.(LPP) or
Waterline length(LWL)
Beam (B)
Draft (T)
Volume (V)
Block coeff. (CB)
Length / Beam ratio (L/B)
Beam / Draft ratio (B/T)
Length / Draft ratio (L/T)
8.000 m
0.800 m
0.320 m
0.910 m3
0.444
10.0
2.5
25.0
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Froude Number (F N)
0.6
0.7
Figure 4: Comparison of total resistance coefficient between computed and test results
700
Total Resistance (R T, N)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0.1
: (R R
100
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Froude Number (FN)
0.6
COMPUTED
75
50
25
0
-25
-50
-75
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Froude Number (F N)
0.6
0.7
Figure 6: Difference between computed and measured total resistance for the simple hull form
+ a5 x /
3.0
600
125
X ( x) = 1 + a2 ( x /
3.5
2.5
0.1
150
Difference (%)
+ a3 x /
+ a6 ( x /
)
6
10
) + + a10 ( x / )
3
+ a4 ( x /
(23)
0.7
Nondimensional HB
1.0
FN = 0.2
C W = 0.667
0.8
HF2-3-4
HF2-3-4-6
HF5-7-8-9-10
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Description
Number
n
Form
Exponent
(n)
No. 2 Section : 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Block
0.400, 0.450, 0.500, 0.525,
5
Coeff.(CB) 0.550
Froude 0.200, 0.225, 0.250, 0.275,
5
Number(FN) 0.300
4 - term : 9C3
84
Terms of
Polynomial
5 - term :
9C4
126
6 - term :
9C5
126
7 - term :
9C6
84 466
8 - term :
9C7
36
9 - term :
9C8
10 - term : 9C9
Total Number of Cases :
2 5 5 5 466
- No. 2 Section : Z ( z ) = 1 | z / T |n
- FN = 0.25
Form Exponent (n)
Characteristics
Theoretical
Calculation
RT (N)
11
52.12
51.66
51.79
52.11
52.53
Experiment RT (N)
(Measurement) % Diff.
53.42
54.15
54.07
100.00
101.37 101.22
1
116,500
Non-Dimensional HB
1.0
SHF
WHF-1
WHF-2
WHF-3
CW = 0.667
0.8
0.6
8.0
0.4
Computed
: SHF
: Optimized Hull Form 3 for all FN
: WHF-3
6.0
4.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure 10: Comparison of total resistance coefficient between the simple hull form and the optimized
hull forms
600
Computed
: SHF
: Optimized Hull Form 3 for all FN
: WHF-3
Total Resistance (R T, N)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
8.0
: Computed (WHF-3)
Measured (WHF-3)
: Free Trim
: Fixed
6.0
: Point of Optimization
4.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
: Computed (WHF-3)
500
Total Resistance (R T, N)
400
Measured (WHF-3)
: Free Trim
: Fixed
: Point of Optimization
300
200
100
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Figure 13:
forms
Overall optimization
0.6
SHF
OH F-1
OH F-2
OH F-3
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 .0
1 .0
7 .0
B (m)
0.8
0.8
T (m)
0.32
0.32
1.771
0.2
L/B
10.0
10.0
5.0
7.5
22.5
2.657
0.3
B/T
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.0
2.5
4.429
0.5
4/9
4/9
0.4
0.4
4/9
6.0
7.130
5 .0
8.0
S (m )
4 .0
8.0
3 .0
LPP (m)
CB
2 .0
WaterlineOptimized
Hull Form
FN Symbol
OverallOptimized
Hull Form
FN Symbol
Computed
: SHF
: WHF-3
: OHF-3
Measured
: SHF
: WHF-3
: OHF-3
: WHF-3
: OHF-3
5
4
3
2
VS (m/sec)
600
Total Resistance (R T, N)
Computed
500
: SHF
: WHF-3
: OHF-3
400
Measured : SHF
: WHF-3
: OHF-3
300
: WHF-3
: OHF-3
200
100
VS (m/sec)
Table 6: Improvements in resistance characteristics according to the optimization of main hull form characteristics
WHF OHF
SHF
Series Series
SHF
Theory
Comparison of Resistance*
(Resistance Reduction Ratio, %)
Total Resistance(RT, N)
Test
42.07 37.32
WHF
Series
Theory
Test
37.50 35.59
OHF
Series
Theory
Test
SHF
and
WHF Series
SHF
and
OHF Series
WHF Series
and
OHF Series
78.81 85.76
4.429 0.500 0.500 0.382 385.70 388.65 361.36 360.75 231.22 258.71
* - : Decrease, + : Increase
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Table 7:
Characteristics
CC5
CDX
(m)
271.0
138.0
Beam (B)
(m)
40.0
15.787
Draft (T)
(m)
12.5
4.924
81,860
5,461
Block Coeff.(CB)
0.5894
0.4967
0.9691
(m)
6.0
not applicable
Length
(m)
7.0
(m)
11.5
8.0
25.0
0.250
Displacement ()
(tonnes)
Existing
Re-designed
Existing
Re-designed
Figure 22: Self - propulsion test of the re-designed
hull form ship for 5,600 TEU container carrier (CC5)
Figure 20:
Figure 21:
CDX
FN
EHP
BHP
0.230
0.240
0.250
0.260
0.270
98.60
98.60
98.29
97.59
96.62
97.52
97.48
96.71
95.84
94.82
VS
(kts)
25.0
27.0
29.0
31.0
33.0
FN
EHP
0.350
0.378
0.406
0.434
0.461
99.1
99.0
98.7
98.2
97.6
REFERENCES
Lecture
Note,
DISCUSSION
Stefano Brizzolara
University of Genoa, Italy
The method you use to obtain the final body
plan from the actual body plan is not clear to me. In
particular, the method used to pass from several
optimized base waves (WL, tg at bottom, etc.) rely on
designers experience and decision and in this sense
could in principle invalidate the trends found by the
parametrical study.
AUTHORS REPLY
In the fundamental studies, we have
discussed that variation of the underwater section
shape, that is, the body plan within the practical range
has almost no effect on the resistance characteristics
as long as the design load waterline (DLWL) is
optimized with respect to that particular section
shape. This is the proved fact theoretically and
experimentally.
In practice, therefore, we first obtain the
optimum design load waterline (DLWL) with the
initial section shape through the discussed
procedure. The section shape may be slightly
modified for the final shape-particularly at the
maximum section area.
However, original
characteristics of the initial section such as section
area, and hence, the form exponent are maintained
the same in average sense.
As well known, the maximum section for
commercial ships is generated with the bilge radius
and about 2 neighboring sections are modified
accordingly. However, the original characteristics
are maintained for the most of parts.
DISCUSSION
Hoyte C. Raven
MARIN, Netherlands
As you use thin-ship theory to predict the
wave resistance, can you explain how you deal with
bulbous bows? At the bulb, the assumptions on
which this theory is based break down, and source
strength may go to infinity.
AUTHORS REPLY
I do not understand the meaning of the
question exactly, because such a problem could be
easily removed by a proper manipulation of the
equation.
We have mainly utilized the residual
resistance equation expressed as follows:
RR =
4 g 2
v2
dxdz d d f
s
du cosh 2 u e v
( z + ) cosh u
2
( x, z ) f ( , )
g
cos 2 ( x ) cosh u
v
4 g 4
v6
dxdz d d f ( x, z ) f ( , )
s
du cosh u e v
0
( z + ) cosh 2 u
cos 2 ( x ) cosh u
v
!"# $ %
()
*
/-
-) $
+) ,
,) - .
)
0
.
1
2
/(
1
3) 4 5 /6!(
1
2
&&'
/ 7$-$A 2
8
7
%
4$
) 7
%
(
8
% ) 7
9
9
)
5
:
)
8
:
%
8
8
) 7
%
)1
8
*
5
:
)
5
5
%
8
%
!
7
8
;B@ (C %
8
%=
5
)1
:
8
1,)
! "
7
%
*
<
% )(%
-
>
8
%
%
>
8 F) ;
%
)
%
) =
!
8
!
) $
- 8
%
%) 7
%
%
:
5
(
; $4(
(4;(
4$
) 4
8
8
9
%
)7
%
%
>
%
8
#,
/@4( $ 2
) <
% %
)7
8 %
%
%
%
8
%
%
)
@))2
>
%
%
/
%
%
%
*
%
%
%
:
8
%>
B
!
;
z
%>
#
>
$
A
z7
z
z
>
A :
z7
z
>
%
1%
"> A
8
! # '
9 %
% &&&
>
%
1%
)))
>
>> ,C
%
%
/
8
%
2)
>
zzG
z
)))
,H
?
)))
%
8
%% !
%%
' )
%
8
9
)
1%
,3
#>-
1%
' > B
/
>
2)
7
5
$,
%
/
9
%
?2 7
%
/- .
&)
!
/-$7$A 2
- 8
%
9
>
? 7
7
%
%
2 /1 %
5
)
B
!
>
2)
%
5
%
/7
; (B
2)
);
5
) 1%
1%
8
> ,C
,3
,H
)
8
1%
>
'
1%
> (5
1
; (B
)$
4
9
%
9
/[ " [
)@
% /
7 2
*
%
);
%
#
/ 2
/ 2
/ 7 #2
% %
8
%
[ #2
) 1
)1
$
%
%
/5" 5 5#2
(*
>
/
"
7
2 3
3
,
,
&
%:
%
%
) ;
/%
*
B
1%
I>G
>
&
*
<
;
%
4
9
>
1%
/Q
Y
/Q
J > G
:
;
'
'
2 /Q V MQ 2
/
2 /Q VQ 2
V MQ 2
VQ 2
@ E MY &
%
%
) /$
%
9!Z
$ ) "KK' "KK 2
9 %
Q J M
JY @ L EY &
) 1
/
N V &) N J
E
'&
K
(
B ,
! 9
)7
>
%*
; $4(
% 1
$
%
5 /"K 2
V MQ
VQ
2
2Y
*
'
*
%
1
9
%
)
D
/ = 7$- P ; D B
%) 7
%
5
%
>
);
2/
2^"
`
&
) 7
2
/ 2
""
""
&
&
%
) @
>
UQ
%
/D2
/@2
!
8
2
5
/
)
%
# #
&
""
""
&
""
""
""
&
Q
u
""
&
&
&
""
7
7
= 7$-
J
/
2
7 %
)
%
>
%
) 1
= 7$9 %
/
%
%
8
!
) ;
%
)
' )
B
2
) ,
2
-;! = 7$! "
%) 7
%
&
> ; $4( /
2 ; (B
@4( $ / 9
%2 7$-$A /
A
:
4
9
%
9
%
%
) @
)
:
) ,
)
%
"#
),
%
5
/,A(2) 7
) 7
%
J
5
"
"KKK2
O,
8
%
=
=
%
O,
) 7
,
9
% A (5
%
:
5
/$
>,
) =
) 7
=
%
:
;B@ (C
)
%
:
*
%
"KKK2 /$
%2
?
5
) (
%
O=
)7
;B@ (C %
%
)
/$
8 &&&2
5
=
- ! %
'
%%
()
; $4(
"&
5
8
9
/01
.
%
9
&
&)&&
&)"&
&) &
&)#&
&)'&
&) &
&)I&
) ;
!
) <
5
;
(5 )
!"&
!"
'
1%
) 1
"& > 7
9)
; $4(
(4;() 1 %
K
%
7
)
) 7
%
) (
)
"'
1%
>
/ % 2
"
(5 )
"&
/21
&
&I
&'
)
;
(5 )
&
&&
&"
!&
& &
&
& #&
'
1%
&#
& '&
&'
& &
"" >
)
&)&&
&)"&
&) &
&)#&
'
1%
K >
/
&)'&
/*
&)I&
"'
/4$
/
&) &
(5 )
"
"&
4$
/21
&
<
(
&'
% 1
5
) 1%
4$ (
9 %) 7
4$
&)
& &
&
& #&
'
1
5
% 1
&&
&"
!&
9) 7
&
"&
%
%
&I
1%
" >
)
&)#&)
&#
,
& '&
&'
& &
7
$
7
9 %
*
9
9) 1 %
"
%
)7
5
) 7
9)
8
J)
K)# 9
)
1%
"# >
1%
%
"/
/ % 2)
"
)7
"'
$
#&& &&&
5
"&
@
)
%
1%
/
"I > 1
2
5
%
)$
(5 )
%
5
9 %
9
8
" /
%
)
"&
""
# /3
1%
"
"#
"'
"
(!
"' >
4$
9
5
$
; $4(
)
%
; $4(
*
@D
1
/01
) <
; $4(
#&& &&&
"&
'
&
@D
"&
""
"
"#
"'
"
4$
(
%
!'
!I
!
F
8
)<
%
"&
%
!"&
# /3
1%
" > 7
$
; $4(
)7
8
%
4$
%
@D
(
) 7
9)
);
% ) <
%
&&
&
)7
%
@D
)A @
")
"I
)
%
"
'
& &
%
1%
"K2
)
=
)7
% /1 %
) <
%
*
%
%) 7
/1 %
"
&
1%
"
%
:
)<
%
%
) ;
8
%
/ &
<
5)
4
9 %
&)&'
&)&#
&)&#I
>
&)&#'
&)&#
" #
" #
&)&#
&)&
)&
) &
) &
&)& I
&)& '
# &
,
&
>
" #
<
%
%
" ,
,
%
2)
% *
%
% "&&
%
'&&
' &
&&
&
I&&
;7
!
1%
!
%
" >@
8
" 9
%
7
%
)
%
@
&)&
&)&'
&)&#
)&
) &
) &
&)&
# &
'&&
' &
&&
&
I&&
I &
;7
1%
1%
&
"J > G
)
"K > @
8
9
%
"2
1%
&
1%
"
)1
%
)<
%
"&&
%
%
&
&
% ) 1
*
%
%
&)"
&)"'
1%
>
) ;
)
&)"'
)&
) &
) &
&)"#
&)"#
# &
'&&
' &
''&
'I&
' &
&&
&
'&
I&
;7
1%
&>G
8
" 9
%
&)"
1%
&)"
#>
)A
%
&
&
&)"'
&)"'
&)"#
)&
) &
) &
&)"#
# &
'&&
' &
&&
&
I&&
;7
1%
">G
8
9
%
;
% %
%
/1 %
&
/1 %
#2
% /1 %
%
&
'2) 7
1%
'>
&
) 7
%
% )
)A
%)
%
8
8
9) $
9 %
%
8
%
J 9
)7
"
%
5
1%
>
1%
J>7
" 9
)
C 3
1%
C 3
8
>C
H
8
%
% )7
%
-$7$A >
)7
3
%
%
>
N
>
R&)&
#)J
5
" J
&)&&
%
R&)&"
&)&&
&)&
")
#)
)
&)&"
!#)J
R")#
J9
>7
)
H
;
@
A
&
/S2 J 9
C
3
I>@
3
>C
H
!'
!I
% )
1%
%
!"&
!"
!"&
)7
%
1%
%
J
1%
5
1%
,
@
K > @
>
)
)
)
*
&
/S2 " 9
8
) ,
>
>
)
>
@
"'&
/1 %
%
:
/S2 J 9
%
%
5
%
1%
1%
8
%
5
/BA=$2
/ ;B@ (C2
D
=
&
)
%
:
K2) $
!"&
)
!"&
&
! % -
;B@ (C
%
) ;
5 /%
2) $
5
%
5
1%
%
J9
)/
7
#" > A
;B@ (C
2
/*
%
%
2)
"KI 2
;B@ (C
@
%
/"&
2)7
)
)7
%
:
"
/1 %
"&
/S2 " 9
;B@ (C
%
/1 %
>
#&2
J 9
#"2)
/S2 " 9
"&
&
!"&
&
/S2 J 9
&
&
"&&
" &
;,
!"&
!"&
1%
#& > A
&
8
/
/S2 " 9
%
" 9
2)
1%
# >
" 9
,A( / *
"&
/*
;B@ (C
2
%
:
2
%
%
;B@ (C /
%
%
J9
1%
#'
BA=$ %
%
"
8
:
)<
J9
/S2 J 9
@
1%
&
#
%
/*
& %
) 7
&
"&&
" &
;,
%
:
2
%
%
;B@ (C /
J9
&
2
7
1%
## >
J9
,A( / *
&
/S2 J 9
!"&
!"&
A :
%
1
/BA=$2
:
) 7
%
5
%
"&
)7
) B
$%
@D
)$
%
!"&
B
9
1%
%
/*
"&
/S2 " 9
&
) ;
BA=$
%
%
/S2 J 9
/S2 J 9
&
> (
1%
)
#I
8
%
%
%
) ;
%
)
&
!
!
&
!"&
!"&
!"&
&
1%
A :
#' > 4
=
%
$%
/
"&
&
/S2 " 9
8
/BA=$2 / *
2)
&
"&&
" &
&&
&
#&&
;,
%
2
1%
J9
#I >
%
) ,A( / *
BA=$
%
/
@
%
5
.
1%
"&S
"
-I&&
G
4 ) 7
#J
1%
# )
J9
)7
9 -
(5 )
(5 )
)
8
&&
&"
&"
&
&
'
1%
&#
&#
&'
1%
/
#K > <
2 " 9
1%
/
&'
#J > 7
8
" S
/01
&S
"&S
(5 )
S
'
<
8
.
&S
&
&"
&
&#
'
&'
&
&I
) 7
:
1%
> 7
/
1%
#K
) $
/*
1%
/S2
2
'&
>
) (
; $4(
9
%
)
%
8
8
) 7
"
%
%
8
:
5
)
#&S
)
%
/01
%
) 7
)1%
'"
(5 )
&S
#
" S
"&S
S
&S
&
"&
"
&
# /3
1%
'# > 7
/S2
9/ *
1%
#&
'" > (5
)
8
%
" 9
IS
)
9/
%
%
8
" 9
2
) S
1%
5
9
&S
'
%
; $4( /
2) 7
9/*
5
9 %
/1 %
'#2)
1%
$ " 9
5
%
&S
9
S) $
%
%
) S
S
1,
8
)7
5
;
;
)7
(5 )
9 %
%
)
(5 )
8
%
4$
)B
8
%
) <
(
4$
9
% )
7
"&
"
&
# /3
1%
' >7
/*
2
#&
9
/
%
:
2)
%
*
&& 2)
*
E
%
F
,) ) <
' ''
5 EB
G
$) -
F
"K )
*
%
EB
% E ! (
) 'K R I"
%
) ""
V'
!A :
$
8
*445/
)
,) @
.
)%
( !
@ %
%
%
%
8
)7
,) @
$
"&
) #
VI
E
F '
) ##J R #
E, %
* F
) "'& R "'K
()
1,
)'
F
)"!"
B)G
8
$
%
5
'
=) ,
V"
5 1)
B) 4
) 'J
,)
# *44
4) ,
-) $
# *445
8
# *44
8
*
EB
)@
2
8
@($K ) &)&"
% ,
()
8
$
8
" #
"
)" JR" J
1, F
$
8 )< %
8
)#
V#
E, %
$ *446
) ''
V ""
778/
!
7)
F
! " #
"KK'
-) $
"K
=) ,
!
# "!#'
! "
K
"
-) $
=) ,
%
&
-) $
G
- $
)$)
# *446
)'
F @
(
FG
**
&" $ " ! (
" #$ <
%
T "KK
)=
1
=U
8 E$ 1
1
7
F +%,
&&&
()
*
,) -) $
E3
A
8
=
% 4$ (
./
"
, $
+
# $ 9
,
,) ("&' &
1
F
%
"KK )
=) ,
E1
F1
&" $ "
% # $ '#
) $$ G
4
-) $
4)
8
!"' "KKK
&
B) @
%
F$
EB
. " 1 $$
&&#)
B
8
2 $$ $
4) E $
F "KI
)
$%
# 0 #
&& )
-$7$A F
$# 3 $
V"
F
) I" ! JI
DISCUSSION
Emilio F. Campana
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale, Italy
DISCUSSION
Hoyte C. Raven
MARIN, Netherlands
This paper shows some examples of hull
design optimisation and ranking using a free-surface
RANS solver. Clearly, CFD-based optimisation is a
desirable new possibility, to be introduced in
practical ship design after further consolidation. Our
experiences (e.g. in the FANTASTIC project)
suggest that the main conditions for successful CFDbased optimisation currently are:
1. Effective parametrisation of the hull form;
2. Accurate prediction of the trends by the
CFD-code.
The paper mainly addresses the second issue. The
examples show a correct ranking of hull form
variants, although the magnitude of the differences
often is underestimated. In our own studies we found
that the predicted dependence of the viscous
resistance on hull form parameters differed
significantly for different grid densities; and quite
dense grids were needed to get accurate trends. Did
you check such grid dependence for your code?
The examples shown in the paper all refer to
fairly slender ships at higher Froude numbers, and are
probably dominated by wave resistance differences.
Do you have experience with similar optimisations or
rankings for fuller ships at lower Froude numbers,
when viscous drag dominates?
AUTHORS RESPONSE
The Authors thank Hoyte Raven for his
interesting remarks. We agree with the two main
conditions for successful optimization. Its true that
the paper mainly presents the ability of the solver to
rank hulls. These remarks encourage the authors to
publish description of the modeling software, perhaps
in a more CAD/ Naval design oriented conference.
We have some experience with hull form
optimization of Aircraft-carrier or Ferry boat, with
Froude numbers around 0.2. At this speed, even if
viscous drag dominate, the variation of the pressure
drag is always more important than the viscous drag
modification. For example, we found that pressure
drag could be modified from 30 % to +50%
(depending of the initial design), whereas
modifications of the viscous drag is always lower
than 5%. This is based on the results of few
optimizations, and must be confirmed on new
projects.
NOMENCLATURE
A physicsbased simulation methodology for predicting hydrofoil singing has been developed. Two
model problems, each of which focuses on specific
aspects of the methodology, namely fully-coupled
fluid dynamics and structural acoustics, and hybrid
RANS/LES simulation for a practical propulsor geometry, have been studied.
For the former, a singing symmetricallybeveled
cantilevered strut was studied to establish the feasibility of coupling unsteady CFD and structural
acoustics simulations. The uncoupled shedding frequency was shown to agree well with experiment,
and linear response of the strut was shown to be
large, but only at a very specific speed which corresponds exactly to coincidence of shedding and modal
natural frequencies. Fullycoupled simulations, on
the other hand, showed a much broader and larger
response indicating lockin of nearresonant conditions. Impact of resonance on the flow field was
shown to be significant with large increase in oscillatory pressure over the strut, reorganization of the
vortex street, and generation of travelingwaves in
the boundary layer due to unsteady changes in angle
of attack.
DES for a propulsor stator blade was undertaken to study the unsteady flow field generated by
trailingedge vortex shedding. Results were shown
to be similar to previous DES work, however, this
case illustrates the effect of angle of attack and camber which were not present in earlier work. Spectra of both the unsteady forces and trailingedge
pressure show 3 distinct peaks corresponding to the
vortexshedding frequency and two super harmonics, the latter of which is directly related to unsteady
drag. All 3 peaks are potentially close to the resonant response of the the circumferential harmonic
of the stator row 1stbending mode, and thus motivates future work in coupling the DES and structural
acoustics for this problem.
b
CD
CL
Cp
D
Di
f
k
L
m
p
p0
Rb
Re
S
St
t
e
t
Ui
U0
xi
Damping coefficient
(kg/s)
D
Drag coefficient = 1 U
2
2
0S
L
Lift coefficient = 1 U 2 S
2 0
0
Pressure coefficient = pp
1
2
2 U0
Drag force (N)
Surface displacement
frequency (Hz)
(1) Turbulent kinetic energy
(2) Stiffness coefficient (kg/s2 )
(1) Chord length (m)
(2) Lift force (N)
Mass (kg)
Pressure (N/m2 )
Reference pressure (N/m2 )
Body radius (m)
Reynolds number = U0 L
2
Wetted surface area
(m )
INTRODUCTION
Design of small propulsors for highspeed vehicles presents unique challenges, particularly when
new materials or fabrication techniques are em1
Therefore, the objective of our work is to develop a physicsbased simulation tool which can predict hydrofoil singing and which eventually can be
used within a typical design cycle. Our approach
is to extend recent work by Paterson and Peltier
[2004], on hybrid Reynoldsaveraged Navier-Stokes
(RANS)/LES detachededdy simulation, in particular for trailingedge flows, by coupling the
method with a structural dynamics algorithm and
with the existing dynamic gridding capability of
CFDSHIP-IOWA [Paterson et al., 2003]. In the following sections, we will present the model problems
and flow conditions, and briefly summarize the computational approach. Grid generation and computational parameters will be discussed, followed by an
analysis of the simulation results. Finally, a summary and list of future work will be provided.
w = 11.7 cm
2.54cm
h = 0.635cm
t = 0.18cm
The loss factors of the strut were measured at varying flow speeds. Below the shedding frequency, it
is about 0.002, which is typical of lightly damped
metals like brass. To use structural damping in a
forced transient vibration analysis (see later section
on structural-acoustic modeling), it must be converted to an equivalent viscous damping constant at
the analysis frequency, so that bn = kn / = 6.71
kg/s at 163 Hz.
COMPUTATIONAL APPROACH
CHAMP
ARL/Penn State uses a suite of hydrodynamic
and structural acoustic tools, integrated under the
acronym CHAMP (Combined Hydro-acoustic Modeling Programs) [Hambric et al., 2004], to assess
the vibrations and radiated sound characteristics
of operating marine propulsors and other fluid
dynamic machinery. CHAMP separately models
flow-induced sources due to turbulence ingestion
(TI) [Lysak, 2001, Lysak and Brungart, 2003], turbulent boundary-layer (TBL) forcing [Peltier and
Hambric, 2004], and trailing-edge vortex shedding.
Fluctuating pressure fields acting on the surfaces of
the propulsor are estimated using CFD powering
iteration solutions as inputs to the TI and TBL
tools. The structural-acoustic response characteristics of the components are computed using Finite Element (FE) and Boundary Element (BE)
software[Koopman and Fahnline, 1996, Hambric
et al., 2003]. Typically, the pressure fluctuation
and structural-acoustic computations are uncoupled,
such that the pressure fields are computed assuming a rigid underlying structure (blocked pressures).
While this is acceptable for broadband turbulent
boundarylayer forcing, it is clearly unacceptable for
stronglycoupled problems such as the singing phenomenon described earlier. As such, it represents
one of the weaknesses of the current design/analysis
procedure and provides motivation for costly water
tunnel testing of all designs.
Central to the entire procedure is the CFD
poweringiteration analysis, the purpose of which
is to predict the steady designpoint powering of
a propulsor using highfidelity RANS simulations.
The approach couples axisymmetric RANS simulations of the entire vehicle with body forces derived
from detailed three-dimensional RANS simulations
of each blade row. This approach eliminates many
of the ambiguities, such as definition of the effective
wake, which are often encountered when using an
inviscid propeller performance code to obtain body
forces. In addition, detailed resolution of boundary
layers, wakes, and tip vortices provides critical information for both estimation of structural acoustic
forcing functions and cavitation physics. The only
external inputs to a powering iteration are the vehicle speed and shaft rpm, so results from it may
be used in the same way as results from a water
tunnel test. Currently, highly customized versions
(UNCLE-TF [through-flow] and UNCLE-REL [relative frame]) of the UNCLE flow solver are used to
0.1
conv
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
RANS Region
Flow Solver
Y
0.05
While converged RANS solutions may be used to estimate TI and TBL fluctuating pressure fields with
reasonable accuracy, timeaccurate CFD solutions
are required to simulate the vortexshedding process.
CFDSHIPIOWA [Paterson et al., 2003] serves as
the core flow solver for the unsteady RANS and
DES computations reported here. CFDSHIPIOWA
is a general-purpose parallel unsteady incompressible RANS CFD code. The computational approach
is based upon structured overset-grid, higher-order
finite-difference, and pressure-implicit split-operator
(PISO) numerical methods. Production turbulence
model uses a linear closure and the blended k/k
SST 2-equation model[Menter, 1994]. Efficient
parallel computing is achieved using coarsegrain
parallelism via messagepassing interface (MPI) distributed computing. For timeaccurate unsteady
simulations, global solution of the pressurePoisson
equation is achieved using preconditioned GMRES
and the PETSc libraries. [Balay et al., 2001]
DES [Strelets, 2001] is a threedimensional unsteady numerical method using a single turbulence
model, which functions as a subgrid-scale model in
regions where the grid density is fine enough for a
LES, and as a RANS model in all other regions.
Implementation of DES in CFDSHIP-IOWA was
accomplished by modifying the turbulence model
and convective-term discretization. The turbulence
model is modified by introducing a DES length scale
`e = min (`k , CDES )
"LES" Region
-0.05
3.2
k 1/2
, = max (x , y , z ) .
k 3/2
`k
3.5
(5)
where is defined as
m
CDES
|U |t
= max tanh
, tanh
lk
(6)
The result is that smoothly transitions between
1.0 in the RANS regions, resulting in a local upwind
scheme, and near 0.0 in the LES regions, where a
centered scheme is desired. In addition, a Courantnumber constraint of 1.0 has been imposed which
requires that time step be sufficiently small to support turbulent eddies. The coefficients n, m permit
the interface between RANS and LES regions to be
arbitrarily sharpened, however, currently we use
n = m = 1 due to the fact that higher-order coefficients have resulted in unstable simulations. It
is also noted that Equation 6 was developed since
implementation of Strelets [2001] function for was
unsuccessful.
Figure 3 shows color contours of for the stator
blade simulation. The red region is interpreted
to be URANS. DES is active in the green/blue region. Note the abrupt transition from RANS to DES
upstream of the bevel on the pressure and suction
sides in response to an abrupt increase in spanwise
grid resolution. A thin-band of red is observed
near the foil surface, indicating that the near-wall
boundary-layer is modeled by URANS, as desired.
In CFDSHIP-IOWA the convective terms are discretized with the following higher-order upwind for-
(2)
(3)
k 3/2
.
`e
(4)
The effect of this modification is to increase dissipation in LES regions such that the turbulence budget
k
DRAN
S = k =
3.4
3.3
k
= DDES
=
mula
Ui
Uj
i
1
(Ui + |Ui |) i Uj
2
1
+ (Ui |Ui |) +i Uj .
2
(7)
The discrete upwinding operators i and +i are calculated using a 5point stencil
i Uj
+i Uj
MD(t)
+ BD(t)
+ KD(t) = F(t)
(11)
(12)
where D(t) is a vector of displacements at all locations x, M, B, and K are (typically large) matrices
of mass, damping, and stiffness terms, and F(t) is a
time-varying force vector. A common and computationally efficient approach to solving for structural
vibrations is to express the displacement in terms
of the systems structural-acoustic mode shapes, or
eigenfunctions:
Structural-Acoustic Modeling
The velocity response Ui (x, t) at a point on a structure excited by a fluctuating pressure field p is found
by integrating over the loaded region:
Z Z Z
Ui (x, t) =
p(, , t )hi (x, x0 , ) d d d
t )hi (x, x0 , ) d d d
D(t) = (t)
(10)
where Ui (x, t) is a velocity response in direction i at
time t, x is a vector in space defining the response
location, and is the time delay between t and t0 .
The loaded region is represented by a surface parameterized by curvilinear coordinates and . The
impulse response function hi (x, x0 , t, t0 ) = Ui (x, t)
when p(, , t) = (x x0 )(t t0 ), where denotes the Dirac delta function and x0 is a vectorin
space defining the location at the parametric coordinates (, ). In most cases, it is acceptable
to assume that Ui (x, t) has a negligible effect on
p(, , t ), such that p(, , t ) is estimated assuming blocked boundary conditions, e.g., the fluid
is flowing over a rigid surface. When this assumption is made, p(, , t ) may be computed using
CFD analysis of flow over a stationary grid of points,
and hi (x, x0 , t, t0 ) may be computed using numerical
techniques like finite elements (FE) and boundary
(13)
n M + K n = 0
(14)
assuming time-harmonic dependence eit .
The structural stiffness, damping, and mass are
converted into modal, or generalized coordinates by
pre-multiplying the system of equations by the mode
shapes:
h
i
+ B(t)
T M(t)
+ K(t) = T F(t) (15)
so that:
+ b(t)
m(t)
+ k(t) = f (t)
interpolation stencils is expensive, gridpoint redistribution is confined to the nearblade region so that
the donorreceiver relationships are not disturbed
during coupled simulation. This is accomplished using a tanh blending function to smoothly reduce the
redistribution to zero at some predefined distance
from the wall. It is further noted that the grid velocities x,
y,
z,
resulting from the unsteady redistribution, are also introduced into the no-slip boundary
conditions, i.e., U = x,
V = y,
W = z,
and the convective terms of the momentum equations, i.e.,
(16)
where m, b, and k are the generalized mass, damping and stiffness matrices, and are typically much
smaller than M, B, and K, leading to significant
computational time savings.
For reasonably sturdy structures vibrating in air,
m, b, and k are diagonal, such that the modes are
uncoupled, and each combination of diagonal terms
completely defines the response of each corresponding mode. Structures vibrating in water, however,
encounter significant fluid loading over their surface,
which leads to cross-coupling, and full m, b, and k
matrices.
When the modes are uncoupled and the applied
forces are deterministic, each modes displacement
contribution may be solved for analytically, where:
fn (t)
n (t) = p
(kn mn 2 )2 + (bn )2
Ui
Ui
DUi
=
+ (Uj xj )
.
Dt
t
xj
While simple in principle, there are several practical aspects of the approach to consider prior to its
implementation. Paterson and Peltier [2004] have
shown that to obtain accurate DES solutions, the
time step must be small enough to support turbulent eddies. Because these eddies are much smaller
than the organized vortex shedding, the latter is over
resolved with 100-200 time steps per period. The
finite element transient solution, however, requires
only about 10-20 time steps per shortest frequency
cycle of interest. In either case, the CFD is several ordersofmagnitude more expensive than the
structural acoustics portion of the simulation.
The direct integration approach used in the FE
transient analysis is unconditionally stable. However, the solution at a given time step depends on
the solution at the previous time step. At the beginning of an analysis, the solutions at earlier time
steps are not generally known, and if set to some arbitrary value (zero, perhaps), lead to a discontinuity
in the response. If structural damping is low, which
is often the case for conditions conducive to singing,
and the time periods of some of the modes in the
structural-acoustic system are long, as they are for
low-frequency resonances, then a significant number
of time steps are required for the solution to reach
a steady state condition. This behavior leads us to
make two observations:
(17)
bn
kn m n 2
(19)
(18)
With the above considerations in mind, our computational approach is summarized below.
1. Solve time-accurate CFD problem (using DES
or URANS) with *blocked* boundaries, ignoring dynamic coupling
2. Compute force spectrum from fast Fourier
transform (FFT) of converged, blocked boundary, CFD solution
3. Compute structural-acoustic modal response
due to fluiddynamic forces using Equations 17
18
+ bn (t)
mn (t)
+ kn (t) = L(t).
(20)
e
e
e
m
fn (t)
+ ben (t)
+ kf
n (t) = CL (t)
(21)
2bn
2kn
n
e
f
e
where m
fn = 2m
L3 , bn = U0 L2 , kn = U02 L , = L
and CL is the lift coefficient. This effectively reduces the number of free parameters to one the
Reynolds number.
Uncoupled Simulation
Uncoupled URANS simulations are conducted to determine the blocked flow field, frequency of vortex
shedding, amplitude of unsteady lift, and the linear
response of the strut.
Figure 7 shows instantaneous contours of the vorticity and eddy viscosity. A symmetric, vortex street
is clearly shown.
The corresponding unsteady lift and drag are
shown in Figure 8. The lift coefficient shows that the
wake instability develops from 0 e
t 3, a transient
phase occurs from 3 e
t 16, and that stationary
limitcycle behavior is achieved for e
t 16, the latter of which corresponds to 130 shedding periods.
The simulated nondimensional shedding frequency
is fes = fUs0L = 8.22 , which is very close to the experimental fes = 8.21 when computed using values
reported by Blake et al. [1977], i.e., fs = 235 Hz at
U0 = 3.35 m/s. If the chord length is replaced by
5.00E+ 00
1.50E+ 01
2.50E+ 01
3.50E+ 01
4.50E+ 01
0.02
ZUT: 1.00E-05 3.11E-05 5.22E-05 7.33E-05 9.44E-05 1.16E-04 1.37E-04 1.58E-04 1.79E-04 2.00E-04
fs = 160 Hz
0.01
CL
-0.01
-0.02
10
15
20
25
time (U 0t/L)
(a) Entire simulation
Coupled Simulation
When the flow and dynamic simulations are coupled,
the response at resonance should increase significantly. Fullycoupled simulations were performed at
3 speeds cooresponding to a priori estimated vortex
shedding frequencies of 0.9n , 1.0n , and 1.1n .
Each case was integrated for 20,000 time steps
with e
t = 0.002. Unsteady lift and drag coefficients are shown in Figure 10. The resonant and
nearresonant conditions show CL magnitude ranging from 2 to 10, which are 150 and 700 times larger,
respectively, than the uncoupled value shown in Figure 8. Note that these results are somewhat preliminary at the time of manuscript submission in that
the resonant and nearresonant cases had not yet
achieved fully stationary results after 20,000 time
steps.
In addition to the uncoupled response, Figure
9 also shows the displacement magnitude for the
coupled simulations. Once again, displacement is
normalized by the maximum displacement of the
blocked solution, so that amplification of response
due to the lock-in process is easily seen in the plot.
When the shedding and resonance frequencies exactly coincide, the structural response increases by
about 50 dB over that of the uncoupled case. At
speeds 10% lower and higher than the coincident
speed, the amplification is still very large (30-40 dB),
0.02
fs = 160 Hz
0.0075
0.01
CD
CL
0.007
0
0.0065
-0.01
CD
CL
-0.02
20.6
20.8
21
0.006
time (U 0t/L)
(b) Detailed view over several shedding periods
10
60
40
Coupled
From Blake (1977)
Blocked (uncoupled)
20
-20
-40
-60
1.0E+05
1.0E+06
Re=U oL/
CL
0.006
CD
0.008
0.004
-2
30
30.2
30.4
30.6
30.8
0.002
time (U 0t/L)
10
0.08
0.06
CD
CL
-5
0.04
-10
31.4
31.6
31.8
32
time (U 0t/L)
0.008
0.006
CD
CL
-2
0.004
-4
13.6
13.7
13.8
13.9
14
14.1
14.2
14.3
14.4
time (U 0t/L)
Figure 10: Time history of lift and drag coefficients: coupled simulations. Re from top to bottom:
2.38x105 , 2.67x105 , 2.90x105
11
U
1.20
1.10
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
-0.00
-0.10
-0.20
Statistical Analysis
Mean and root-mean-square (RMS) statistics
are computed for each dependent flow variable
(U, V, W, k, , p) at every point in the grid. For
the results presented here, statistics were calculated over 73000 time steps. This corresponds to
a non-dimensional integration period of 18.25 for
t = 0.00025. Since the statistics were nearly constant in the spanwise direction, it is assumed that
the uncertainty due to sample size is small.
Although not shown here, the mean axial-velocity
and pressure fields display characteristics typical of
steadyflow simulations of a hydrofoil; thin bound-
0.025
0.8
0.6
0.02
Cp mean
Cp rms
0.4
0.015
Cp rms
Cp mean
0.2
0
-0.2
0.01
-0.4
-0.6
0.005
-0.8
-1
3.2
3.25
3.3
3.35
3.4
Urms
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
The time histories of CL and CD , and the corresponding fast Fourier transforms (FFT), are shown
in Figure 16. Three peaks are observed in both
FFTs,
e =87, 175, and 332, however, CL is larger
for the lower two frequencies, and CD is larger for
the third. Note that in the timehistory curves, the
various colors represent individual simulations, each
of which were computed in a 48hour queue.
Figure 17 shows analysis of the trailingedge pressure at two points across the trailing edge, locations
of which are indicated by red symbols. The time histories of pressure show both the relative difference
across the trailing edge, and the relatively rich frequency content. As expected, the FFTs show the
same 3 peaks as were displayed in Figure 16.
In addition to the FFTs of the DES results,
the spectra produced by CHAMPs turbulent
boundarylayer forcingfunction (TBLFF) model
[Peltier and Hambric, 2004] are included. TBLFF
is a stochastic model for the spacetime TBL wall
pressure spectrum which uses statistical data from
RANS, or the the mean field from a DES, as input. The TBLFF formulation permits the surface
pressure power spectra to respond appropriately to
favorable, zero, and adverse pressure gradients. This
PRrms
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.2675
0.0400
0.040
0.2650
0.035
0.030
0.0390
0.2625
0.025
0.020
0.2600
0.015
0.2575
Suction
Pressure
0.010
Pressure
CL
CD
0.0380
0.0370
0.2550
0.005
0.000
-0.005
-0.010
0.0360
-0.015
-0.020
0.2525
-0.025
5
10
15
20
10
time (U 0t / R b)
15
-0.030
20
time (U 0t / R b)
-0.035
-0.040
10
15
20
time ( U 0t / R b)
60
70
175
332
10 log10 (pp() U o / R b U o)
90
10 log10(pp() Uo / Rb Uo)
-60
87
80
100
110
120
130 1
10
CD
CL
-80
-100
-120
10
Rb/Uo
-140 1
10
10
10
10
R b/U o
1
Coherence
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 1
10
10
R /U
200
100
0
100
200
1
10
10
Rb/Uo
14
cumferential harmonics clustered around a single frequency, each of which will couple to shed vortices in
a different manner. Since the relative phasing of the
modal vibrations of adjacent blades depends on circumferential modal harmonic, they will induce different relative phasing of the vortex shedding from
adjacent blades, leading to a very complex, threedimensional coupled flow and structural-vibration
field.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by ARL Penn State IR&D.
The DoD High Performance Computing Modernization Office and Army Research Laboratory-Major
Shared Resource Center are acknowledged for providing computing resources.
REFERENCES
Satish Balay, Kris Buschelman, William D.
Gropp,
Dinesh Kaushik,
Matt Knepley,
Lois Curfman McInnes, Barry F. Smith,
and Hong Zhang.
PETSc home page.
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc, 2001.
C.H. Berdahl and D.S. Thompson. Eduction of
swirling structure using the velocity gradient tensor. AIAA Journal, 31(1), 1993.
W.K. Blake. A statistical description of pressure and
velocity fields at the trailing-edges of a flat strut.
Report 4241, David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Bethesda, MD,
December 1975.
W.K. Blake. Excitation of plates and hydrofoils by
trailing edge flows. Journal of Vibration, Acoustics, Stress, and Reliability in Design, 106:351
363, July 1984.
W.K. Blake, L.J. Maga, and G. Finkelstein. Hydroelastic variables influencing propeller and hydrofoil
singing. In Robert Hinkling, editor, ASME Winter
Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, Nov 1977. ASME.
D.A. Boger, J.W. Lindau, A. Arabshahi, R.B. Medvitz, and J.E. Roremba. Computational modeling
and validation of the steadyahead performance
and cavitation breakdown behavior of the first
generation torpedo defense vehicle. ARL-PSU
Technical Memorandum File No. 02-077, ARL
Penn State, State College, PA, July 2003. Limited Distribution.
15
F.R. Menter. Two-equation eddy viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA
Journal, 32(8), 1994.
E.G. Paterson and L.J. Peltier. Detachededdy simulation of high reynolds number beveledtrailing
edge flows and wakes. In Symposium on LES Advancements and Applications, ASME FED Summer Meeting, Charlotte, NC, July 2004. to appear.
E.G. Paterson, R.V. Wilson, and F. Stern. Generalpurpose parallel unsteady RANS ship hydrodynamics code: CFDSHIP-IOWA. Technical Report 432, IIHR Hydroscience and Engineering,
The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, Nov 2003.
Uk
=0
k
Continuity:
(1a)
Momentum:
~ ~k
~
g u i U k u i g x j p ik 1 ~ ~ kl u i
+
=
+ k +
gg
t
Re k
k
k
(1b)
where the transformation operation redefines the real
SGS stress ( ) in terms of the resolved Cartesian
( u , v, w ) and contravariant ( U, V, W ) velocity
k
i
k
xj
(2)
defined by T = C2 | S | where S =
Lki = Tik ik
(3)
(4)
3 x j ll
~
E ik = ~
g xkj Lij
~k
3 x j L ll
~
2C2 ~
g xk j M ij
(6)
Lki M ik
(7)
2 M km M km
k
i
8D
d
x
2
1.75
mode 3
1.5
slots3
open1
1.25
open1
fb/U o
u(y)
staggered2
(honeycomb)
1
0.75
Re o d o
mode 1
0.5
920
1107
2860
4000
0.25
5
82
10
2.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
b/
Staggered2
d/0 = 82
1.5
fb/U
Slots
4.5 < d/0 < 12
3rd mode
1st mode
0.5
t/D = 0.86
t/D = 0.25
0
0
500
b/
b Re o / o
1000
1500
b(Re )1/2 /
Slots (slots)
55Holes
Slots (slots)
33Holes
UU
oo
dd
,,,,UU
oo
dd
Oscillations
No Oscillations
10
15
Open Cavity1
20
25
d /
> 400 in
2.5
eOpen
cOpen
eStaggered
eStaggered
eSlots
3 Slots
5 Slots(s)
5 Slots(d)
9 Slots
fb/U
1.5
0.5
Mode
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
1/2
b(Re ) /
5000
6000
Figure 4. Comparisons of the Dimensionless LargeScale Frequency (fb/U) to the Dimensionless Cavity
Length Scale ( b Re / o ); the open symbols indicate
o
50
fb/U = 1.49
fb/U = 0.609
Sp
40
30
Downstream
Inside Cavity
20
10
0
0.01
0.1
fb/U
10
1.25
2 Spoilers
1
Downstream
Inside Cavity
SApp
1.5
0.75
1.0
p/ U
1 Spoiler
2 Spoilers
0.5
0.25
Pulsed
Speed
Constant
Speed
0.5
0.0
0
0.1
1
fb/U
10
-0.5
50
100
150
200
tU/d
250
300
350
400
Sp
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.1
1
fb/U
10
s/D = 0.25
s/D2 = 1.5
s/D5 = 1.5
1.3
/ 0
1.2
1.1
0.9
0
20
40
60
80
x/ 0
1.2
9 Slots
Variable Slots
f1b/U = 0.68
0.8
0.6
Sp
0.4
2.8
0.2
2.4
0
0.01
0.1
/ 0
2.0
fb/U
10
1.6
100
1.2
0.8
0
50
x/ 0
100
150
10
200
E11 /U2d
-50
b Re / = 2580
1
b Re / = 3240
0.1
0.01
0.1
fb/U
10
100
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This author wishes to thank R. D. Joslin (program
officer, Office of Naval Research, Code 333) and R. B.
Philips (NUWC, Code 10) for their support of LES
research related to flow over covered cavities. The
computational work was supported in part by a grant of
HPCMP resources from the Arctic Region
Supercomputing Center.
NOMENCLATURE
C
=
Cr
=
D
=
E
=
=
Eij
H
=
Lij
=
Mij
=
N
=
Re
=
=
Sij
Sp
=
Tij
=
U,V,W =
=
Uo
Uc
=
b
=
d
=
f
=
~
g
=
ij
g
=
m, n =
p
=
s
=
t
=
u,v,w =
u
=
x,y,z =
=
t
=
g
=
=
=
=
T
=
, , =
~
=
model coefficient
cross-correlation coefficient
slot gap width
model error tensor
spectral energy
shape factor
modified Leonard term
model stress tensor
oscillation mode
Reynolds number
strain rate tensor
pressure spectra
modified Reynolds stress tensor
contravariant velocity components
freestream velocity
instability velocity
cavity streamwise length
cavity depth
frequency
filtered transformation Jacobian
metric coefficients
mixed mode integers
pressure
slot spacing
lid thickness
Cartesian velocity components
streamwise turbulent intensity
Cartesian coordinates
filter width ratio
test filter width
grid filter width
boundary layer thickness at separation
momentum thickness
turbulent eddy viscosity
wavelength
fluid density
Reynolds stress
curvilinear coordinates
filtered metric coefficient
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14. Ozalp, C., Pinarbasi, A., and Rockwell, D., (2003) Selfexcited Oscillations of Turbulent Inflow along a
Perforated Plate, Journal of Fluids and Structures, Vol.
17, pp. 995-970.
15. Ekmekci, A., and Rockwell, D., (2003) Self-sustained
Oscillations of Shear Flow Past a Slotted Plate Coupled
with Cavity Resonance, Journal of Fluids and
Structures, Vol. 17, pp. 1237-1245.
16. Jordan, S.A. and Ragab, S. (1998), A Large-eddy
Simulation of the Near Wake of a Circular Cylinder,
Journal of Fluids Engineering, Vol. 120, pp. 243-252.
17. Kravchenko, A.G.. and Moin, P., (2000), Numerical
Studies of Flow over a Circular Cylinder at ReD = 3900,
Physics of Fluids, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 403-417.
18. Breuer, M., (1998), Numerical and Modeling Influences
on Large-Eddy Simulations for the Flow Past a Circular
Cylinder, International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow,
Vol. 19, pp. 512-521.
19. Jordan, S. A. (1999), A Large-eddy Simulation
Methodology in Generalized Curvilinear Coordinates,
Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 148, pp. 322340.
20. Jordan, S. A, (2003), Resolving Turbulent Wakes,
Journal of Fluids Engineering, Vol. 125, pp. 823-834.
21. Smagorinsky, J., (1963), "General Circulation
Experiments with the Primitive Equations, I. The Basic
Experiment," Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 91, pp. 99164.
22. Germano, M., Piomelli, U., Moin, P., and Cabot W.H.,
(1991) A Dynamic Subgrid-Scale Eddy Viscosity
Model, Physics of Fluids, Vol. 3, pp. 1760-1765.
23. Jordan, S. A. (2001), Dynamic Subgrid-Scale Modeling
for Large-Eddy Simulations in Complex Topologies,
Journal of Fluids Engineering, Vol. 123, pp. 1-10.
24. Rockwell, D., (2003), Personal Communication.
25. Mansy, H., Yang, P., Williams, D.R., (1990),
Quantitative Measurements of Three-Dimensional
Structures in the Wake of a Circular Cylinder, Journal
of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 270, pp. 277-296.
26. Lund, T.S., Wu, X. and Squires, K.D., (1998),
generation of Turbulent Inflow Data for SpatiallyDeveloping Boundary Layer Simulations, Journal of
Computational Physics, Vol. 140, pp. 233-258.
Abstract
ing monopoles and dipoles representing thickness and refinement in hull and blade design.
loading noise respectively, and stationary sources representing contributions from unsteady volumes and
Introduction
levels.
We have compared the effects of four fundamentally
different types of acoustic source. These are: stationary monopoles, stationary dipoles, an array of rotat-
(Salvatore and Ianniello 2002). The numerical problems are challenging and it is difficult to check the
The effects of the free surface are examined for various types of acoustic source using image techniques.
propeller location of a modern cruise liner was explored. The Helmholtz equation was solved using
1 2p
2 p = Q(x) .
c2 t2
(1)
We have now extended earlier work to include the effects of rotating steady forces and steady volumes, so
eir
,
r
it
pi (r, t) = D0 e
i
1
kr
eikr
cos
,
r
ics:
(5)
m=
a stationary source.
The particular cases when the dipole axis is aligned
1 p
2 p = q(x xs ( )) .
c2 t2
at a moving point x = xs ( ) is :
(2)
p
1 2p
2 p =
(Q(x xs ( ))
2
2
c t
t
(t | x y | /c)
,
4 | x y |
(6)
pi (x, t) =
qz X imBtim 2 eim(BS/c)
is approximated by:
e
d ,
2
2
8 m=
S
0
(4)
Pm =
where
m2 B 3 2 0
iMx 2
(1 +
) Im ,
8 2
mBMt z
(7)
where
S=
|x
|2
2aR cos .
xtip
Im =
x0
hcL eimB(+tMt )
ddx
S0
(8)
p
1
S 0 = | x |2 2aR cos
lB
M X
N
X
Anmij bij
(11)
j=1 i=1
Mx (z z1 ) + S 1
(1 Mx2 )1/2 lB
c = Bb .
(12)
Pm
m2 B 3 2 0
=
8 2
xtip
x0
Z
0
hceimB(Mt S )
ddx.
S0
(9)
O(N 3 M 3 ).
G(r, r0 )
p(r0 )dr0
n
The rotating volume and force sources are a nec(10) essary feature of thrust generation by a propeller.
They arise even if the flow field at entry to the pro-
function of the coordinates z and , so that at each are caused by imperfections in the wake field, which
point zn , m the discretised form of 10 is given by
whether there is any potential conflict between design duced by an order of magnitude for a submarine or a
for minimum fluctuation and design for minimum ra-
In deriving pressure fields due to rotating forces and carried out for acoustic wavelengths in the range
0.5d < < 10d. In the case of a 100 metre long
tributed equally between B blades and that both can body, the frequency is then in the range from 7.5 Hz
to 150 Hz, assuming that the speed of underwater
sources at 0.7rp , where rp is the propeller radius. sound is 1,500 metres/sec. This includes representaTherefore, they have a circumferential velocity of tive values of propeller blade passing frequency and
0.7rp , where is the rotational frequency of the
its multiples.
defined by:
KT = 4 2 T /(2 d4p ) ,
0.1rp3 ,
dis-
imation to the curvature of a real hull in the region where the source-related pressure on the hull
peller hub. The rms fluctuating forces F in each of few wavelengths downstream of the propeller. Some
5
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
y /d
x/d
0.0
-1.0
-1.0
hull
propeller
sea surface
Figure 2
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
x/d
hull
propeller
axis
length dp = d/5. The propeller centre is d/6 below the hull, and d/4 forward of the stern waterline.
Figure 1
In the case of the submerged body, the sources are in ing forces and fluctuating volume source, representa plane d/4 downstream of the ellipsoid extremity, on ing unsteady cavitation, act at the propeller hub.
the ellipsoid principal axis. The propeller is assumed
to have a number of blades B between 5 and 20. The
propeller diameter is dp = d/2.
quency 1 , associated with a wavelength of underwa- ing noise, the axial cumulative force shown is the roter sound of 10d for a 5-bladed propeller. On a 100 m
peller, 1 then correspond to 30 Hz. Results with the stationary monopole and dipole sources, which
higher frequencies (Peake and Rath Spivack 2003)
cumulative force.
geometry of the propeller blades. We also fix the frequency of the underwater source, as above, and we
take the density of water to be constant, with value
103 Kg/m3 . This determines the source strength of
the rotating monopole, which represents rotating volumes. The total thrust T is then determined by taking the thrust coefficient KT = 0.2. The strength of
the third source considered, the static dipole, is determined, in turn, by taking the fluctuating forces to
be three orders of magnitude (exactly) smaller than
the rotating steady thrust. We present the hull forces
generated by these sources in units of the total thrust
Figure 3a
T.
Hull forces produced by unsteady volume sources,
represented by stationary monopoles, which arise
from propeller cavitation, are quite different in nature and not directly related to the total thrust. We
show these in units of M0 d, where M0 is the rate
of change of mass flux, and d is the reference length
scale.
Figures 3a, b, c and d show the scaled axial cumulative force on the hull due to a rotating monopole
source, a rotating (thrust) dipole, a stationary
monopole and a stationary dipole source respectively,
in the case where the propeller is 5-bladed. For the
Figure 3b
force on the hull decays quite fast with higher harmonics in the case of rotating sources, while in the
case of a stationary dipole the decay with higher multiples of bpf is much smaller.
This is of course directly related to the decay in amplitude of the harmonic components of the incident
acoustic pressure Pm , given by equation (4) and (9)
for rotating dipoles and monopoles respectively. The
components at integers multiples of bpf for a stationary dipole do not show similar decay.
For rotating sources, when we consider the first harFigure 3c
Figure 3d
regime.
There are considerable differences in the scaling of show this in Figures 4a and 4b, where arbitrary lonthe amplitude of harmonics between rotating and sta-
4a, and between the third harmonic and 3 bpf in have much greater amplitude than those resulting
Figure 4b. The modelled propeller is 5-bladed, with from rotating sources, because, as shown earlier, the
shaft frequency 1 . The pressure is shown in units of amplitude of the harmonic components decay very
T /d2 on a logarithmic scale.
Figure 4a
Figure 4b
Similar differences occur also for higher harmonics of
the rotating source, compared with higher multiples
Figure 5a
9
Figure 5b
Figure 6a
Figure 6c
Figure 7a
Figure 6d
The effect on the axial cumulative force of changing
the aspect ratio of the hull is shown for these two
sources in figures 7a and 7b, going from the extreme
case of a spherical hull (ratio = 1) to a very elongated
hull with ratio = 10. The qualitative behaviour of
the force along the hull does not vary as the ratio is
changed, with the exception of the spherical hull case.
The relative magnitude of the axial forces resulting
Figure 7b
11
We can see that the main effect is that the contribution from higher harmonic is quite significant in this
Figure 8b
Figure 8a
In order to make a comparison with the results shown
in the previous section for a submerged hull, we show
again graphs of the first to fourth harmonic components of the axial cumulative force. In fact, in the
case of a floating hull the rotating axial dipole source
will give rise to a net fluctuating force on the hull,
which is not shown here.
The axial cumulative force on the hull resulting from
loading noise due to a 5-bladed propeller, shown in
Figure 8a, is given as a typical example of the ef-
Figure 8c
12
Figure 9a
Figure 9b
components of the acoustic pressure are likely to provide the most significant contribution to the vibra-
Conclusions
types of sources.
sels.
Rotating monopole and dipole sources have been used 10 minutes on a fast Pentium 4 machine, and flexi13
Dowling
Kinns,
Hull
41-70.
A.P.
R.
Forces
and
and
due
Ffowcs
Bloor,
to
Williams
C.D.,
J.E.
Fluctuating
Propeller
Cavitation,
144, 2002, pp
Kinns, R. and Bloor, C.D., Hull Vibration Excitation due to Monopole and Dipole Propeller Sources,
Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 270, 2004, pp.
Acknowledgements
951-980.
Kinns,
R.,
Peake,
References
2002
Chertock, G. Forces on a Submarine Hull Induced
by the Propeller Journal of Ship Research, Vol.9,
Sept. 1965, pp 122-130.
Cox B.D., Vorus W.S., Breslin J.P. and Rood Excitation of Hull Surfaces by Propeller Sources,
E.P. Recent Theoretical and Experimental JMST, 2004, in print.
Developments
in
the
Prediction
Forces
on
of
Nearby
Propeller
Induced
Vibration
Bound-
aries,
Salvatore F. and Ianniello S. Preliminary Results on Acoustic Modelling of Cavitating Propellers, Proceedings of IABEM 2002, International
Uni-