Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The first stage was a grid independence study of the mesh. However during this phase
instabilities and deviations from the experimental Coefficient of Pressure CP were
experienced despite close agreement to the Coefficient of Drag Cd.
Thus, a mesh
refinement study was performed in attempt to remove these instabilities and inaccuracies.
However the mesh refinement yielded no improvement in stabilisation or accuracy to
experimental data. This lead to an investigation into the y+ values and turbulence models,
which identified that the instabilities and inaccuracy where due a minute first prism height
associated with a y+ value of 1. It was found as the y+ value changed from two to ten, that
stabilisation of the solution was achieved without a reduction in timestep (see 4.1.2 Time
Stepping). In addition to the stabilisation of the solution, the use of the y+ value of ten, gave
CP data in very close agreement with experimental results for zero angle of incidence. Thus,
a y+ value of ten was used for the static angle of incidence and for the Unsteady Reynolds
Averaged Naiver Stokes Equations (URANS) simulations.
The results section of this thesis is presented in the order explained above, i.e.,
1. Grid independence
2. Mesh Refinement
3. Y+ and Turbulence Models
4. Angles of static pitch and yaw
5. URANS
63
Poor quality
cell
The quality of both the O-Y and Y-Y mesh types were almost identical, with both having a
minimum determinant of approximately 0.42, which exceeds the required value of 0.2.
In additional the minimum angle of both mesh types was 17.28, which is very close to the
preferred value of 18 and well above the required value of 9. As the YY topology was
refined, the angle on the leading edge of the appendages approached 180, resulting in a
poor quality mesh in this critical region. Thus, the YY topology is limited to relatively large
elements in this region, (Figure 5-3).
64
Poor quality
cells
Figure 5-3 Poor element on the leading edge of the Y-Y appendages
Requirement
>0
>0.2
Preferably > 18, definitely > 9
After mesh quality was checked, the O-Y topology was scaled globally (streamwise, normal
and azmuthal directions) to create the first mesh used in the grid independence study. This
mesh was then scaled globally in increments of 5x105 elements to create a series of 10
meshes ranging in size from 5x105 to 5x106 elements; this process was repeated for the Y-Y
topology. Plotted in Figure 5-4 is the percent error calculated against the experimental Cd
value for each mesh size. As seen from Figure 5-4 both the OY and YY mesh types are grid
independent at approximately 3x106 elements, which is a 50% reduction in mesh size when
compared to Ackermans results. It should also be noted that the OY topology becomes grid
independent with approximately 3.5% error to the experimental data, while the YY topology
becomes grid independent with approximately 1.5% error, however both are within 5% of
experimental results. Table 10-1 and Table 10-2 in Appendix 1; show the complete details
of this study. Due to the refinement restrictions of the YY topology discussed in the previous
section, the OY topology will be used for the remainder of the study.
65
Additional validation was performed by comparing CP along the centre line of the vessel.
Figure 5-5 shows a plot comparing both grid independent (3x106 element) mesh types. The
O-Y and Y-Y topology are in agreement with both experimental and Ackermans data until
X/L = 0.92, beyond this point both topologies deviate from the data, (see Figure 5-6). Initially
this was thought to be due to a lack of mesh density in this region, but as will be shown in
the preceding chapters, was a result of the y+ value rather than grid density.
66
Figure 5-5 CP profile along the topside centre line of the Suboff model
67
Wake contours where investigated and it was found that the vortices structures exhibited a
large degree of irregularity, (see Figure 5-7) rather than a pair of contra rotating vortices that
was anticipated. In addition, the vortices do not travel the full length of the vessel, thus the
wake is not fully resolved, as shown in Figure 5-8. This supported the initial hypothesis that
the mesh lacked density in these regions.
Figure 5-7 Irregular flow structures at X/L = 0.4 (leeward of the sail)
All grid independent simulations where performed at the recommended y+ value of less than
2, and hence a very small time step (7x10-5) was used in attempt to stabilise the solution and
ensure convergence, (see section 4.1.3). Despite a very small time step the solution still did
68
not completely converge (residuals were greater than 1x10-4), and the hydrodynamic forces
fluctuated throughout the simulation. However, this was not identified as an issue as these
fluctuations in the hydrodynamic forces had been experienced by Widjaja et al (2007) and
the y+ value used ( 2) was the recommended value. Due to the deviations in the CP when
compared to experimental data, and irregular flow structures, validation of the Coefficient of
Friction (CF) and wake contours were not performed.
Figure 5-9 O-Y initial grid independent mesh (2 900 000 elements)
69
Figure 5-11 and Figure 5-12 show the refined mesh following the poor results of initial OY
mesh very closely, this refutes the original hypothesis that the deviation from experimental
data of the CP in the stern region is due to a lack of grid density.
70
71
In addition, the Coefficient of Friction in the x direction (CFX) was also checked, which
showed that the CFX for both the refined and the initial study were fairly similar and again
both were in agreement with experimental data until X/L > 0.92, where they deviated from
the experimental results.
The refinement of the mesh failed to fully resolve CP and CF in the stern region; however
wake contours were compared to determine if there was any improvement in wake
resolution with the refined mesh. A wake survey was conducted at X/L = 0.978 (propeller
plan) at the following:
r/R = 0.25
Figure 5-14 Wake profiles taken at X/L of 0.978 and r/R of 0.25
72
Before wake contours can be shown, an explanation of the sign convention used in this
study is shown in Figure 5-15. However some experimental data for wake contours has
rotated the sigh convention by 90 to that shown below, this is noted below the figure for the
required wake contours.
270
90
180
Figure 5-15 Sign convention used
Shown in Figure 5-16 Figure 5-17 is a plot of the non-dimensionalised velocity in the x and y
directions respectively. In Figure 5-16 it is shown that the velocity in the x direction between
the appendages (45 and 135) is much higher than the experimental data, this shows that
the cross flow and horse shoe vortices systems generated from the appendage tips and
junctions are not being captured as the vortices would reduce the velocity of the flow in this
region.
73
Note: the sign convention changes for the above plot by 90, i.e. Top of sub of model is 90
In the y direction the flow between the appendages seems to be irregular when compared to
experimental results, this indicates instabilities in the solution, these instabilities are also
seen in Figure 5-18 as the flow structures are asymmetrical.
Note: the sign convention changes for the above plot by 90, i.e. Top of sub of model is 90
74
Increased mesh density in the wake region had no effect in improving the hydrodynamic
coefficients of the model.
representation of the flow structures in the propeller plane. As seen from Figure 5-19 the
wake contours are represented poorly leeward of the sail as the anticipated horse shoe
vortices dissipate rapidly. The results from this study confirmed that the poor quality solution
and instabilities were not due to a lack of grid density.
75
Mesh Size
(No.
Y+
Elements)
First prism
Time step
Drag
height (mm)
(s)
(n)
EXP
SST
2 776 420
0.009
K-
2 776 420
0.009
SST
2 776 420
10
0.09
K-
2 776 420
10
SST
2 610 260
K-
Cd
%
Error
115.5
1.22E-03
119.6
1.26E-03
3.52%
0.007
115.6
1.22E-03
0.08%
0.09
0.007
114.7
1.21E-03
0.66%
20
0.18
0.007
109.0
1.15E-03
5.66%
2 610 260
20
0.18
0.007
112.9
1.19E-03
2.21%
SST
2 070 240
50
0.45
0.007
103.8
1.10E-03
10.16%
K-
2 070 240
50
0.45
0.007
113.8
1.20E-03
1.48%
.00007
76
The parameter y+ is the dimensionless distance from the wall to the first node and is
checked using ANSYS CFX Post. However, as y+ is a function of the shear stress, the y+
will vary as the pressure gradients cause changes in velocity. Figure 5-20 and Figure 5-21
show the y+ variations along the Suboff model with maximum values of 1.7 and 14
respectively, although they have been referred to as y+ 2, and y+ 10 in this study.
It was discussed in section 4.1.2 Time Stepping, that as the solution ran for y+ values of 2,
the initial physical time step of 0.007 s had to be reduced to 7x10-5 s to stabiles the solution.
77
Shown in Figure 5-22, at iteration 50 the time step was reduced to 7x10-5, the residuals
stabilised and reduced in magnitude, however they still did not achieve the convergence
criteria of 1x10-4 reduction in residuals.
Reduction in timestep
Figure 5-23 shows that despite reducing the time step there is still a significant fluctuation in
the hydrodynamic forces. Plotted in Figure 5-23 is the force in the x direction showing there
is a fluctuation of the approximately 0.5 n. This indicates the solution is not stable and may
be erroneous, as shown earlier in this chapter.
78
It was found for y+ values of ten or greater the residuals were stable and decreased in
magnitude with the initial user defined time step of 0.007, (Figure 5-24). In addition, the
hydrodynamic forces completely stabilised as shown in Figure 5-25, with the maximum
hydrodynamic drag fluctuations in the x direction, not exceeding 0.1N.
This indicates that determining the most appropriate time step for various y+ values is
critical. This study has not investigated the effects of time stepping further; however as the
time step can have significant influence on the solution it is be recommended as an area of
future work. The most effective method found for determining the appropriate time step was
to start with a large initial time step, then to refine it as the simulation progresses to achieve
the desired level of stability.
79
80
81
Figure 5-27 CP comparison for the SST and k- turbulence models with varying y+
values
Analysis of the shear stresses on the surface of the Suboff can give an indication of how well
the viscous sub layer is resolved. Shown in Figure 5-28 is a plot of CFX, along the centreline
of the Suboff model. Windward of X/L = 0.85, all the models are in reasonable agreement
with experimental data, with the SST y+ 50 deviating slightly. Both the k- and SST models,
at y+ values of 10, are in the best agreement with the experimental data, however beyond
X/L = 0.85 all models deviate. Additionally, shown in Figure 5-29 the SST y+ 50 and all k-
models have a smooth curve, while the SST models with y+ values of 2 and 10 have
fluctuating curves, this is indicative of the reduced y+ values capturing the shear stress
fluctuations near the surface.
82
Figure 5-29 CFx plot over the stern region of the Suboff model
Upon analysis of the wake contours developed in the propeller plane, it is shown in Figure
5-30 that again the SST model with a y+ value of 10 is in excellent agreement with the
experimental data. However, the SST model using the recommended y+ value of 2 predicts
a much higher dimensionless velocity over the entire propeller plane, indicating this model is
failing to capture the horse shoe and junction vortices imposed on the free stream velocity.
83
As expected, the SST models with large y+ values and all k- models fail to resolve the wake
due the large node spacing at the wall and the use of wall functions respectively.
Note: the sign convention changes for the above plot by 90, i.e. Top of sub of model is 90
Shown in Figure 5-31 is the velocity in the y direction (Vy) made dimensionless to the free
stream velocity, V. At angles of approximately 45 and 135 (between appendages) the SST
model with a y+ value of 2 has a Vy value 100% larger than the experimental results. Again
this shows the poor resolution of the flow structures associated with this flow type. The SST
model with a y+ value of 10 is the most accurate, which is in close agreement with the
experimental data, additionally the accuracy of both the SST and k- models decreases with
increases in y+ values.
84
Figure 5-31 Vy/V at 0.25 r/R at x/l = 0.978 and turbulence model comparison
Note: the sign convention changes for the above plot by 90, i.e. Top of sub of model is 90
Shown in Figure 5-33, Figure 5-34 and Figure 5-35 is a comparison of the wake profiles at
various locations along the Suboff model as depicted in Figure 5-32
X/L = 0.2
X/L = 0.25
X/L = 0.9
sail, and then increases to the free stream velocity above the sail. Surprisingly all turbulence
models and y+ values are in close agreement with each other.
X/L = 0.25 is located the tip mid-span of the sail, (Figure 5-34), a low pressure systems
causes the velocity to slightly exceed that of the free stream, this is a result of the pressure
gradients mid-span of the sail (along the sail tip) generating tip vortices. As shown the
velocity only slightly exceeds that of the free stream and will continue to accelerate as it
travels along the appendage.
beginning to generate, thus the results from the different turbulence models are similar.
X/L= 0.9 is located on the tip of the stern appendages, which is in the wake of the sail.
Shown in Figure 5-35 is a large degree of turbulent flow generated from the tip and junctions
of the stern appendages. It is shown that at the junction where the wake of sail meets the
free stream velocity there is an increase in velocity beyond the free stream velocity; this is
due to the tip vortices generated from the sail accelerating the turbulent flow from the stern
appendages. Additionally Figure 5-35 shows that for both k- and SST models with high y+
values, the reduction in free stream velocity is only minimal.
models are not fully resolving the flow structures generated from the sail. The k- model with
a y+ value of 10 shows a larger reduction in the streamwise velocity than both the models
using a high y+ value. The SST model with a y+ value of ten resolves the largest reduction
in streamwise velocity, resolving the flow structures generated from the sail.
This chapter has shown that the SST turbulence model with a y+ value of 10 predicts the
hydrodynamic coefficients with close agreement to experimental data; additionally the wake
and velocity contours resolved are also in agreement with experimental data. The increased
y+ value also allows for stabilisation of the solution and an increased physical time step.
This may seem in contradiction to Veersteg et al and Tu et al recommendation that a y+
value of 1 is required for an SST model to resolve the complete turbulent region. However, it
is only the magnitude of the y+ value that is in dispute as this study found that beyond a y+
87
value of ten there is strong evidence to show the turbulent regions are not being fully
resolved, thus the first node from the wall has moved from the viscous to turbulent region at
y+ values greater than 10. It was also shown that for high Reynolds numbers such as used
in this study, that a y+ value of 1 requires a minute first prism height, which requires a very
small timestep to stabilise the flow and minimise discristaction errors.
As shown in Table 5-3, both pitch and yaw are in good agreement with
experimental results
CD
EXP
1.11E-03
Ackerman 1.15E-03
Current 1.16E-03
Error
5.17%
3.21%
Error
3.83%
4.36%
10 Yaw
Side Force Coefficient
6.04E-03
6.09E-03
5.80E-03
10 Pitch
CL Coefficient
3.65E-03
3.55E-03
3.38E-03
Error
0.82%
4.01%
Yaw Coefficient
2.03E-03
2.22E-03
2.22E-03
Error
9.28%
9.12%
Error
Pitch (diving)
CP is also compared along the centrelines circumferentially at 0 and 180 (top and bottom
respectively) of the model, it is shown from Figure 5-36 there is a large pressure difference
in the bow of Suboff for the 0 and 180 lines, however along the body the CP curves come
together until X/L = 0.7 where again they cross, however this time opposite to the bow. This
shows there are higher pressure regions on the fwd bottom and aft top sections of the
model, thus causing a pitching moment.
88
The high pressure system shown at X/L less than 2, in Figure 5-36 indicates the stagnation
point at the bow is being fully resolved, additionally Figure 5-37 and Figure 5-38 show that
excellent resolution of the contra rotating vortices, generated from the appendages and
cross flows is achieved. Of special interest is the amount of turbulent flow in propeller
domain
89
Shown in Figure 5-39, and Figure 5-40, the flow over the propeller will vary as the propeller
rotates from 0 to 360. From 0 to 180 (top) the variance in velocity is not significant,
however from 180 to 360 (bottom) along the top surface the difference in streamwise flow
from r/R = 0.2 to r/R = 0.5 is significant and would cause large variance in propeller loadings
as the propeller is rotated 360. This is supported by the velocity profile shown Figure 5-40.
90
180
Figure 5-40 Velocity profile at the propeller plane (X/L = 0.978) Pitch 10
Yaw
Figure 5-41 shows a CP plot circumferentially around the hull at increments of 90. It is
shown that there is a significant pressure difference at 90 and 270 for X/L values less than
0.3. The pressure gradient is minimal until X/L reaches 0.2, where the CP curves cross and
a pressure difference exists between X/L values 0.7 and 0.92, thus generating a yaw
moment.
Figure 5-42 shows the effect of the vortices generated from the sail, as the
adverse pressure gradient generated around the stern appendages reduces the pressure
much more significantly on the bottom surface than on the top surface exposed to the sail
vortices.
91
Figure 5-42 Cp curves over the stern region of the Suboff model
92
Shown in Figure 5-43 is the stagnation point that generates the pressure difference in the
bow region shown in Figure 5-41. It also shows that on the leeward side (270) of the Suboff
the pressure is higher than at the top and bottom. This is due to the cross flow vortices
generated from the hull, (Figure 5-44). The vortices are generated as the flow is accelerated
over the top and bottom of the Suboff, and then recirculates in the leeward side of the vessel
creating a high pressure system.
Figure 5-44 Hull cross flow vortices creating a high pressure system on the leeward
side of the model
As was shown for pitch, the flow into the propeller plane under a yaw angle of attack is
greatly disturbed and irregular. Figure 5-44, Figure 5-45 and Figure 5-46 shows that on the
windward side of the vessel, the flow at r/R = 0.25 is affected by the vortices generated by
the appendages, while at r/R = 0.5 the flow is not affected by the vortices and is relatively
close to the free stream velocity, while on the leeward side the flow for both r/R =0.2 and 0.5
93
is highly disturbed by the appendage vortices. As the propeller rotates from through 0 to
360, significantly differently flow types will be experienced, (Figure 5-47).
94
Note: the sign convention changes for the above plots by 90, i.e. Top of sub of model is
270
Figure 5-47 Irregular flow field in the propeller plane Yaw 10 (X/L =0.978)
equations and thus are a form of transient runs. The results of this study are summarised in
Table 5-4, Table 5-5 and Table 5-6.
95
10 Yaw
Side Force Coefficient
6.04E-03
5.80E-03
5.77E-03
Error %
-4.01%
-4.49%
Yaw Coefficient
2.03E-03
2.22E-03
2.21E-03
Error %
9.12%
8.95%
10 Pitch
Side Force Coefficient
3.65E-03
3.38E-03
3.38E-03
Error %
-7.36%
-7.35%
Yaw Coefficient
1.56E-03
1.62E-03
1.62E-03
Error %
3.94%
3.95%
As seen from the above tables there are negligible difference with the use of URANS.
Widjaja used URANS to simulate the non-appended Suboff model and also found the use of
URANS to yield no significant variance in the solution.
96