Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 18

CFD modeling of 2D Asymmetric entry

impact along with horizontal velocity


Roberto Algarn and Antonio Bula
Mechanical Engineering Department
Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla, Colombia

Oscar Tascn
Research, Development and Innovation Department
COTECMAR, Cartagena, Colombia
Background
The 2D impact phenomenon has been studied through the application added
mass theory, boundary valued problems and CFD applications. Wagner (1932),
applied added mass theory to obtain the lift force in a wedge section. He also
evaluated the pressure distribution assuming potential flow and applying energy
conservation.

Tveitnes (2001) also studied the impact applying added mass theory. He also
calculated the lift force, and concluded that the hydrodynamic force experienced
by a wedge section under symmetric entry and constant velocity entry

Vorus (1996), studied the 2D impact with symmetric entry for a section with
variable dead rise angle, solving the problem as a boundary value problem,
assuming potential flow. Based on Vorus (1996), Xu et al. (1998) analyzed the 2D
impact with asymmetric entry, calculating the pressure, force and roll moment in
the section. Seif et al. (2005) simulated the impact using CFD tools for circular
and wedge sections, considering symmetric and asymmetric entry over calm
water with vertical velocity.

Cartagena de Indias, 16th to 18th March 2011


Numerical Computation
To study the impact, the conservation of mass and momentum equations
were numerically solved. The commercial CFD software STAR-CCM+ was used
as a tool to solve the differential equations that govern the phenomenon. The
models used to simulate the phenomenon are:

multiphase mixture: water-air


Water: incompressible liquid
Air: ideal gas
inviscid flow
segregated flow
Unsteady: implicit method

Cartagena de Indias, 16th to 18th March 2011


Computational Domain
The size of the computational domain was developed changing the width and the
height in order to model the impact in calm water over an infinite canal. The mesh
was developed using polyhedral elements, and it was divided in three regions as
shown. The boundary condition are:
Pressure outlet Region 3

Region 2

wall
Region 1

Velocity inlet

Figure 1. Domain mesh

Cartagena de Indias, 16th to 18th March 2011


Region Base size of the element
width 9B-10B 1 0.045B -0.100B
height 5B-12.5B 2 0.0075B- 0.020B.
Time step 0.008d/w-0.016d/w 3 0.045B -0.100B
Tabla 1. Domain Size Tabla 2. Mesh Size

The magnitude of the global residual of each differential equation was limited to 10-8 and the
maximum numbers of inner iterations in each time step were limited to 30 as stop criteria.

5,16 2,0 20 2,5


N Cfz Error
Malla
celdas max (%)
5,12 1 8661 5.115
1,6 16 Cfz 2,3
2 14463 5.035 1.589
3 25881 4.995 0.801 Error
5,08 4 47799 4.974 0.422

Error (%)
1,2 12 2,1
5 97750 4.965 0.177

Error (%)
Cfz max

Cfz
5,04
8 1,9
0,8
5,00
4 1,7
0,4
4,96 Cfz max
% Error
0 1,5
4,92 0,0 2,5E-03 2,0E-03 1,5E-03 1,0E-03 5,0E-04 0,0E+00
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
paso de tiempo (s)
N de celdas
Figure 2. Peak Cfz vs time step Figure 3. Cfz Peak vs time step

Cartagena de Indias, 16th to 18th March 2011


RESULTS
In order to present the results, some variables were defined according to the
following equations:

fz
C fz = (1)
Vertical force Coefficient 1
w 2 B
2
mx
Roll moment Coefficient C mx = (2)
1
w 2 B 2
2
p
Cp =
Pressure coefficient 1 (3)
w 2
2

wt
=
Time coefficient 1 (4)
B
2

Cartagena de Indias, 16th to 18th March 2011


Asymmetric Entry

Cartagena de Indias, 16th to 18th March 2011


600 CRT-1 (Concave)
CRT-2 (Convex)
500
CRT-3 (Wedge)
400

300

200

100

0
-1200 -700 -200 300 800

Figure 4. Sections evaluated by Xu et al. (1998)

Cartagena de Indias, 16th to 18th March 2011


12 7
Actual CFD
10 6
Xu
Actual CFD
5
8 Xu CRT-2
4

Cfz
Cfz

6
CRT-1 3
4
2

2 1

0 0
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7
8
7
Actual CFD
Xu
6

5 CRT-3
Cfz

0
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8

Figure 5. Cfz vs

Cartagena de Indias, 16th to 18th March 2011


2.5 1.0

2.0 0.8 A ctual CFD


A ctual CFD
1.5 Xu 0.6 Xu

1.0 0.4

0.2

Cmx
0.5
Cmx

0.0 0.0

-0.5 -0.2

-1.0 -0.4

-1.5 CRT-1 -0.6 CRT-2


-0.8
-2.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

2.0

A ctual CFD
1.5
Xu
1.0
Cmx

0.5

0.0

-0.5
CRT-3
-1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Figure 6. Cmx vs

Cartagena de Indias, 16th to 18th March 2011


Asymmetric Impact with Horizontal Velocity
10 7
CRT-1 v/w=0.0 CRT-2 v/w=0.0
6
8 v/w=-1.0 v/w=-1.0
5 v/w=1.0
v/w=1.0
6 4
Cfz

Cfz
3
4
2
2 1
0
0
0,0 0, 1 0, 2 0,3 0, 4 0,5 0, 6 0,7
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

7
v/w=0.0
6 CRT-3
v/w=-1.0
5
v/w=1.0
4
Cfz

0
0,0 0, 1 0,2 0, 3 0,4 0, 5 0,6 0, 7

Figure 7. Cfz vs , asymmetric entry with horizontal velocity.

Cartagena de Indias, 16th to 18th March 2011


4
v/w=0.0 3
v/w=0.0
3 v/w=-1.0
v/w=-1.0
v/w=1.0 2 v/w=1.0
2
1
1

Cmx
Cmx

0
0
-1
-1

-2
-2
CRT-1 CRT-2
-3 -3
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

3.5
v/w=0.0
2.5 v/w=-1.0
v/w=1.0
1.5
Cmx

0.5

-0.5

-1.5
CRT-3
-2.5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Figure 8. Cmx vs , asymmetric entry with horizontal velocity.

Cartagena de Indias, 16th to 18th March 2011


Transition from Type A to Type B Flow.

Cartagena de Indias, 16th to 18th March 2011


7
6
Actual CFD
5
Judge
4
v/w

3
2
1
0
0 10 20 30 40
1 ()
Figure 9. v/w vs , critical for the flow separation of the keel for symmetric entry.

Cartagena de Indias, 16th to 18th March 2011


90

80

70

60

50
2()
40

30
actual CFD (v/w=0.00)
20 actual CFD (v/w=0.25)
actual CFD (v/w=0.50)
Xu (v/w=0.00)
10 Judge (v/w=0.00)
Judge (v/w=0.25)
Judge (v/w=0.50)
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35

1()
Figure 10. 2 vs 1, critical for the flow separation of the keel for asymmetric entry.

Cartagena de Indias, 16th to 18th March 2011


References (Some)
Algarin, R. Modelamiento del Impacto en Dos Dimensiones de Secciones Asimtricas con velocidad
Horizontal con Aplicaciones en el Diseo de Botes de Planeo. [M.Sc. thesis]. Barranquilla: Universidad
del Norte. Programa de ingeniera Mecnica, 2010. 120p.

Tveitnes, T. Application of Added Mass theory in planing [Ph.D. Thesis]. Glasgow: University of Glasgow.
Department of Naval Architecture and ocean engineering, 2001, 339p.

Seif, M., Mousaviraad, S., Saddathosseini, S. and Bertram, V. Numerical Modeling of 2-D Water Impact
in One degree of Freedom. Sntesis Tecnolgica. No. 2, Vol. 2, November 2005, p. 79-83.

Vorus, W. S. A flat cylinder theory for vessel impact and steady planing resistance. Journal of Ship
Research. No. 2, Vol. 40, June 1996, p. 89-106.

Xu, L., Troesch, A., and Vorus, W. Asymmetric Vessel Impact and Planing Hydrodynamics. Journal of Ship
Research, No. 3, Vol. 42, September 1998, p. 187-198.

Judge C. and Troesch A. Asymmetry and Horizontal velocity During water impact, [on- line]. Available at:
http://www.eng.tau.ac.il/~greg/ABST.pdf/judge.pdf/judgeWWWFB2.pdf, 2000.

Cartagena de Indias, 16th to 18th March 2011


Conclusions
The 2D impact was modeled for asymmetric entry of different
sections, using STAR CCM+ . The pressure distribution was
attained, as well as the force and roll moment variation with time.
The results present a great similarity with the Vorus (1996) y Xu L.
(1998).

The effect of the horizontal velocity was also analyzed for sections
with variable dead rise angle, determining the influence of this
parameter in the force and roll moment.

The critical condition for flow separation from the keel was
evaluated. The results attained are similar, but the values are higher
than the results reached by Xu L. (1998) and Judge (2000).

Cartagena de Indias, 16th to 18th March 2011


Questions?

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi