Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Virtual Mass Calculation 2
Virtual Mass Calculation 2
by
Mohamed Elgabaili
August 2012
Date
Date
Date
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
It is He Who brought you forth from the wombs of your mothers when ye knew nothing;
and He gave you hearing and sight and intelligence and affections: that ye may give
thanks (to Allah) [Quran, 16:78]. I thank Allah the most merciful and the most gracious
for his graces, blessings and everything. Then I would like to extend my greatest
gratitude and appreciation toward Professor Hamid Johari for his support, attention and
guidance to make this work pleasant for me. I would also like to thank my graduate thesis
committee member Dr. Larry Caretto and Dr. Abhijit Mukherjee for their constructive
input, my family for their support and encouragement.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Signature Page .................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................. iii
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................x
Nomenclature ...............................................................................................................................xii
Abstract ............................................................................................................................ xiv
1.Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1
2.Theory ...............................................................................................................................4
2.1. Potential Flow ....................................................................................................................... 4
2.2. Concept of Hydrodynamic Mass ....................................................................................... 5
2.3. Relative kinetic Energy....................................................................................................... 6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Title
Page
3.1
13
3.2
12
3.3
12
3.4
A template of PDEs
13
3.5
15
3.6
17
3.7
18
3.8
18
3.9
21
3.10
23
3.11
22
3.12
23
3.13
24
4.1
26
4.2
27
4.3
Cylinder model
28
4.4
25
4.5
31
4.6
33
4.7
32
4.8
33
vi
4.9
The effect of
4.10
36
4.11
36
4.12
37
4.13
38
35
35
4.16
41
5.1
Solid cylinder aligned with the flow. Radius and length are indicated
by and .
43
5.2
Curve fitting
45
5.3
46
5.4
47
5.5
48
5.6
45
5.7
51
5.8
51
5.9
52
5.10
54
5.11
54
5.12
55
5.13
57
4.14
4.15
to
vii
35
5.14
Prediction in error of the correlation in Eq. 5.5 with for various thicknesses
ratio and fixed
and
57
5.15
59
5.16
60
5.17
61
5.18
52
5.19
63
5.20
64
5.21
64
5.22
65
5.23
65
5.24
66
5.25
66
5.26
67
67
5.28
69
5.29
72
73
5.27
5.30
1. C
85
2. C
86
3. C
87
4. C
88
viii
5. C
89
6. C
90
7. C
91
8. C
92
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Title
Page
2.1
4.1
27
4.2
43
4.3
42
5.1
5.2
69
5.3
70
5.4
71
5.5
72
1. A
78
2. A
78
3. A
79
4. A
75
1. B
80
2. B
82
1. C
85
2. C
86
3. C
87
4. C
88
x
in Eq. 5.6.
5. C
89
6. C
90
7. C
91
8. C
92
1. D
83
2. D
83
3. D
84
4. D
84
5. D
84
6. D
94
7. D
95
8. D
95
xi
NOMENCLATURE
Velocity vector
Velocity potential
Radius
Height of cylinder, cup, and parachute canopies
Thickness
Depth
xiii
ABSTRACT
by
Mohamed, Elgabaili
xiv
Chapter 1
Introduction
The concept of added mass or virtual mass has been the subject of interest for many
years for its significance in hydrodynamic analysis and fluid-structure interactions.
Having sufficient information regarding the added mass for a certain object leads to
knowledge of the inviscid hydrodynamic forces acting on that object. This kind of
information is necessary for enhancing existing designs or developing a new one.. Prior
work in fluid-structure interaction (FSI) investigated the added mass of symmetric
objects. The added masss term was first introduced in 1828 by Friedrich Bessel. During
his experimental work on the motion of a pendulum in a fluid, Bessel discovered that
when the pendulum moved in fluid medium the motion had a longer time period than
when it moved in vacuum. The investigation of this phenomenon revealed that the
effective mass of the pendulum is greater than the real mass by a virtual mass due to
pressure resistances in the fluid medium. Since then many studies have been carried out
to find the added mass for a variety of symmetric geometries. For instant in 1843 a study
was carried out by George Stokes on an infinite cylinder moving with uniform
acceleration in infinite domain of fluid, and it revealed that the added mass or virtual
mass for the infinite cylinder is equal to the mass of the fluid it displaced. The common
means to find the added mass in the earliest studies focused on using applied
mathematical theories. In 1879 Sir Horace Lamb published his book Hydrodynamics;
this text includes theoretical solutions of added mass for ellipsoids. More recently, studies
in the 1960s further developed solutions for added mass of more complicated shapes. For
example Ibrahim [1] performed mathematical analysis using the method of images to find
the added mass of spherical shells that represent idealized forms of round parachute
1
canopies. Ibrahim obtained the potential flow about these asymmetrical shells by
intersecting two symmetrical spheres to form an asymmetrical lens, and then applied the
theory of superposition in ideal flow [1]. Such efforts continued to search for solution to
more complicated shapes using the superposition of symmetrical shapes, but the fact that
not all shapes can be presented with superposition prevented general solutions. Real
parachutes canopies have curved bulges on their sides, do not have a complete spherical
shape and their concavities are arbitrary.
Typically in fluid dynamic applications, the hydrodynamic force due to translation
motion of an object is decomposed into a viscous drag and potential flow force. The
hydrodynamic force decomposition presented by Morrison [13] as follows:
(
where
approximation,
and
(1.1)
is the surface area of the object. Afterward, Lighthill [11] developed the concept
which validates a decomposition of hydrodynamic forces into potential flow and vortexflow forces. The theory began from DAlembert theorem introducing that steady
incompressible potential flow with uniform stream has no force exerted on a body
exposed to it. In incompressible potential flow there is no single fluid element having
non-zero vorticity or dilation. It is thus deemed that in more realistic flow, any element
with non-zero vorticity or dilation may be considered as a source of the hydrodynamic
force and the potential flow force is only introduced when there is acceleration in the
flow. Based on this theory of hydrodynamic force decomposition, experimental works
were conducted to develop better understanding of fluid elements surrounding bluff
2
bodies. For instance, an expression for estimating the instantaneous hydrodynamic force
on mobile body in fluid medium was developed by Noca et al. [12], this expression
requires the knowledge of the hydrodynamic mass, based on the potential flow. Desabrais
[9] conducted experimental work on flexible parachute canopy during inflation; one of
the experiments aims was to examine whether the primary source of the drag force is the
result of an unsteady potential flow (added mass force) or that associated with the
production of vorticity in the wake behind the canopy. The study showed that the
unsteady potential force contributed to no more than 10% of the total peak opening force.
This conclusion was based on assuming constant hydrodynamic mass coefficient for the
canopy during the inflation, since there was no information available regarding the
hydrodynamic mass of the canopy during different stages of the inflation. The primary
motivation for this research is to compute the hydrodynamic mass of bluff bodies with
arbitrary concavities such as parachute canopies. An extension of this objective is to
correlate the computed added mass with the geometric parameters so that such
correlations may be used for design purposes. To achieve these objectives, the velocity
potential was obtained numerically using COMSOL Multiphysics Solver (FEMLAB),
and then the added mass was calculated by integrating the relative kinetic energy of the
flow over the entire computational domain. To test the validity of numerical scheme, the
numerical approach was applied to the symmetrical classical geometries first, and the
computed mass was compared with the available theoretical values. This research
provides better estimates for the potential flow force as a result of the computed
hydrodynamic mass. The current CFD models are limited for the fully inflated parachute
models since the canopy geometry changes dynamically during inflation.
The body of this report is comprised of six chapters. Chapter 2 discusses potential flow
theory and presents the governing equation; some background information regarding the
physical concept of hydrodynamic mass is also provided in this chapter. Chapter 3
describes the numerical approach and the steps that were taken to set up the solver such
as defining the physical interface and boundary conditions. Chapter 4 explores the results
for classical geometries and compares the analytical solutions with the obtained
numerical ones. Various computational domains and mesh definitions were experimented
with in this chapter. Mesh refinement was carried out by adjusting the elements size.
Chapter 5 presents the results of the added mass analysis for solid cylinders aligned with
the flow, cups facing the flow, and several parachute models. Specific correlations of
added mass were also developed. Chapter 6 provides a summary of the findings and
possible topics for future work in this field.
Chapter 2
Theory
In this research potential flow theory was utilized to arrive at numerical solutions for
hydrodynamic mass of an arbitrary object. All other effects associated with boundary
layers and viscous wakes may be separately addressed.
2.1. Potential Flow
The potential flow is an ideal flow with irrotational motion and zero viscosity. In reality
such an ideal situation doesnt exist, but if there is no significant viscous stresses that
could cause any considerable rotational motion or separations in the flow pattern, the
flow can be deemed ideal [2]. Potential flow is dictated by geometry; the flow pattern
mainly depends on the shape of the body and any nearby interacting walls [2].
In potential flow, the term velocity potential
(2.1)
(2.2)
)
5
(2.3)
(2.4)
is the mass of the body and
is
is the
Here,
(2.6)
accelerated body,
is the mass element. The integral is taken over the entire fluid
Eq. (2.3).
For simple geometries the solution of Eq. (2.3) is available analytically in the literature.
For bodies with arbitrary shapes, Eq. (2.3) needs to be solved numerically. Then, the
velocity field is obtained by taking the gradient of velocity potential, as introduced earlier
in Eq. (2.1). Then relative velocity field is calculated by subtracting the body velocity
from the computed velocity field from Eq. (2.1) as following:
7
(2.7)
To illustrate this method in more detail, the hydrodynamic mass of a sphere moving with
velocity
1- The Solution of the Laplace equation of a sphere with radius R with boundary
conditions
as
(
Here
and
)
( )
) is [3]:
(2.8)
(2.9)
(2.10)
To find the relative velocity of the fluid to the body, we subtract the velocity component
of the body from both equations above. Hence, the result will be:
( )
(2.11)
( )
(2.12)
Summing the square of Eq. (2.11) and (2.12) we get the square of the relative velocity as
follow:
( )
(2.13)
The mass increment for the flow in spherical coordinate is given by:
(2.14)
8
Substituting Eqns. (2.13) and (2.14) in Eq. (2.6), and then integrating the left side from
to
(2.15)
accelerated body and the fluid density. The hydrodynamic mass coefficients for simple
symmetric shapes calculated theoretically are presented in Table 2.1.
Direction of
motion
Sphere
Horizontal
/Vertical
Normal to the
cylinder axis
Cylinder with
length and R
radius
Infinitely thin
Disk with radius
R
Hydrodynamic
mass (m)
Hydrodynamic
mass coefficient
( )
0.5
1.0
Source
[3]
[7]
[4]
[7]
In the sphere case, the direction of movement doesnt have any effect on the value of
hydrodynamic mass due to symmetry. On the other hand, the direction of motion of a
cylinder has a significant influence on the hydrodynamic mass coefficient. For instance,
the hydrodynamic mass coefficient for cylinder moving in a direction normal to its axis is
9
equal to the mass of a cylinder of fluid density, and this value is different when the
cylinder moves along its axis. Numerical solutions for hydrodynamic mass coefficient of
finite length cylinders moving along their axis are developed in Chapter 5.
In one of the early studies by Lamb (1932), the technique of solving the velocity
potential to obtain the kinetic energy of the relative velocity field was used to find the
hydrodynamic mass coefficient for ellipsoids in harmonic motion. The circular disk
moving along its axis is quite interesting since the disk radius is the dominant dimension
in the hydrodynamic mass expression, see Table 2.1.
10
Chapter 3
Numerical Method
3.1. Overview
In this project COMSOL Multiphysics Solver (FEMLAB) is used to solve the
hydrodynamic mass for a variety of geometries including the classical geometries such as
cylinder, sphere and disk, and eight geometries of a round parachute canopy during
inflation. COMSOL is a finite element solver that provides solutions for many partial
differential equations in two and three space dimensions and for stationary or time
dependent problems. The Laplace equation solver in COMSOL along with appropriate
boundary conditions was used to solve the velocity potential equation. After defining the
velocity potential numerically, the velocity field was calculated by taking the gradient of
the velocity potential. The final step was to define the hydrodynamic mass using the
relative kinetic energy for the accelerated flow surrounding the moving body as
expressed in Eq. (2.6). The hydrodynamic mass was calculated by the software. In order
to run the program many steps must be taken first, including choosing the physics mode,
creating the geometry, specifying boundary conditions and meshing.
3.2. Defining the problem in COMSOL
This section discusses the set up and the definitions of the problem such as defining
physical interfaces, geometric parameters and boundary conditions. Moreover, various
COMSOL features and their implementation are also discussed.
3.2.1 The Physics Interface Setup
The COMSOL Multiphysics provides number of predefined physics interfaces which
facilitate a quick model set-up for a variety of applications such as heat transfer, fluid
11
flow, structural mechanics, and electromagnetic applications [8]. The COMSOL Desktop
is organized conveniently as shown in Figure 3.1.
12
In this project the focus will be on the mathematics module. This mathematics module is
comprised of various formulations for PDEs and ODEs that in general represent equation
based modeling for several physics interfaces; the PDE Module is the subject of interest
in this research and COMSOL is prepared with flexibility and options to implement any
PDE system.
14
become a matter of matching coefficients. For example, the Coefficient Form given in
COMSOL is:
(
(3.1)
meaning of these coefficients, interested reader is referred to the COMSOL manual [8].
By clicking on the Laplace Equation node in the model wizard, the PDE system is
chosen and it will appear with default boundaries on the model builder toolbar.
3- Select study type: After the Classical PDE is selected, the study type template will
show up with various types of study such as stationary, time dependent, and eigenvalue.
In the present study the system is steady state. Therefore, stationary study was chosen.
3.2.2. Global Definition
In this part, parameters and variables relevant to geometric dimensions and flow
conditions are defined, and certain values are set. Some of these values may be reset later
to examine the effect of a particular parameter on the results. In the present study,
geometric parameters are defined for each case, and they vary from one case to another.
On the other hand, there are common parameters between all shapes in this study
particularly in the definitions of the boundary conditions like the value of uniform
freestream velocity , and flow properties such as density which are involved in our
general equation for calculating the hydrodynamic mass. For simplicity, the freestream
velocity and fluid density are set equal to 1 m/s and 1 kg/m,3 respectively.
15
conditions need to be implemented. The first type is quite common and known as
uniform-stream conditions, and the second is zero velocity normal to the boundary at the
body surface. In the current study, every case will be subjected to uniform flow with
velocity U far from the body. Thus, the boundary conditions (uniform freestream
conditions) are applied at the inlet and the outlet of the computational domain.
For instant if the uniform flow (U) is in x-direction normal to the inlet boundary plane,
the boundary condition at the inlet plane will be:
U
the same condition is applied to the outlet boundary plane, away from the body, the
velocity will be uniform and equal to U.
18
(3.2)
Figure 3.8. Computational domain boundaries with zero normal velocity condition.
19
The PDE interface in COMSOL Multiphysics has various types of boundary conditions
that can be modified to match different problems. By default once the PDE is chosen and
the type of study (stationary or time dependent) added, two conditions appear in the
Model Builder template under the PDE root node. The two boundary conditions are
Initial Values and Zero Flux boundary condition. The Initial values are defined for
domain entity and it is available in two forms, dependent variable initial value and the
initial time derivative of the dependent variable. The initial dependent variable serves as
an initial value or function for nonlinear and transient study but in our study it is set to
zero as the initial guess is for the stationary case. The initial time derivative is also set to
zero since the present study is stationary.
Second condition added by default is Zero Flux boundary condition; the flux here in the
current study is represented by the normal velocity to the boundaries. Hence this
boundary condition satisfies the zero normal velocity condition of potential flow.
The Zero Flux condition is given by:
(
Here,
(3.3)
is the unit normal vector on the chosen boundary. Eq. 3.3 is applied by default to
all boundaries on the body and domain unless other boundary conditions are assigned to
certain boundary surface. In that case, that boundary will be governed by the new
condition and listed as overridden boundary in zero flux boundaries list as shown in
Figure 3.9.
20
Absorption/Impedance Term was set equal to zero. The same thing is achieved at the
outlet boundary with positive sign for
) , where
21
22
3.2.5. Meshing
In this part the generation of computational grid or mesh is discussed. Moreover, some
grid setting and types is explored. COMSOL has distinct types of mesh elements for 1D,
2D and 3D. In this project, the Triangular and Tetrahedral mesh elements were used most
frequently to discretize the computational domain. Finer elements are generated by
default in narrow and curved areas. Furthermore, these elements can be adjusted through
the mesh setting window. The first step is to choose the type of elements, more than one
types can be applied for different parts of the geometry. For example, sometime the
geometry has complex items that cannot be meshed with only one type of elements.
elements type depends on the geometry and type of problem. After choosing certain
elements, the mesh setting window will appear under the main setting window in
COMSOL Desktop.
Two choices are available for the sequence type, User-controlled mesh and physicscontrolled mesh. The physics controlled mesh is tied with the type of physics that was
chosen to define the problem in the Add physics section. In this project, the sequence
type was set to the User-controlled mesh since many meshing parameters were tested. In
addition, the size of elements can be adjusted manually by clicking on the size node in
the Model Builder section. The size setting window is shown in Figure 3.13.
24
gives finer boundary elements. The last parameter is the Resolution of narrow regions;
this parameter governs the number of layers of elements that are generated in narrow
regions. Values close to one are preferred for accuracy when setting this parameter.
26
Chapter 4
Classical Models and Verification
In this Chapter, several classical geometries will be examined. The added mass
coefficients for these models were calculated numerically and compared with the
available theoretical values for verifications purposes. The classical geometries are very
simple and symmetric such as cylinder, sphere, and disk.
4.1. Classical Models
This section exhibits some geometric aspects for each model and shows brief presentation for
each model preparation into the Solver.
In order to build the model, some parameters need to be specified in the Parameters
section in the Model Builder. These parameters are shown in Table 4.1.
27
guess to start the run. Larger values were tried till consistent results were obtained. Figure
4.2 illustrates the 2D Cylinder inside the square computational domain with side length .
This model was created by using COMSOL CAD tools; square and circle were
implemented into COMSOL graphic window then the Difference parameter in Boolean
28
Operation was applied to subtract the chosen circle from the enclosed domain which in
this case is the square. Furthermore, assigned boundary conditions are enforced, and then
the model was discretized using triangular free elements.
29
30
conditions were assigned and flow parameters similar to the previous case were set. After
defining the boundary conditions on every surface, the computational domain was
meshed with free tetrahedral elements. The size of the elements was adjusted and
refined various times to arrive at precise results. Figure 4.6 shows the computational
domain in COMSOL graphic window, the sphere centered at the center of the cubic block
and the flow direction is parallel to x-axis.
32
and
COMSOL Boolean operations was used to subtract the solid part from the block and then
the Laplace equation interface in COMSOL was applied to the resultant computational
domain. The disk was positioned in the center of the domain facing the flow. Furthermore
this model was modified to represent the model of Cylinder moving along its axis in
potential flow by setting
33
Uniform freestream velocity boundary conditions were set on the inlet and outlet surfaces
of the computational domain as indicated with green color in Figure 4.8, the rest of
surfaces are enforced to be zero flux boundary conditions. The computational domain
was discretized using tetrahedral elements and resolution factors at curvature and narrow
were set to reasonable values of 0.3 and 0.8, respectively.
34
4.2. Refinements
In this section refinements of domain and mesh size were preformed on each of
previous classical models to examine the effects of these parameters on the
hydrodynamic mass coefficient.
4.2.1. Computation Domain Refinements
A suitable computation domain size is very important in order to accomplish reliable
results for the added mass, i.e. independent from the domain size. Hence, the
computational domain size was modified many times until consistent values of added
mass coefficients were found. Integration of the relative kinetic energy of the flow is
preformed all over the computational domain, in order to compute the hydrodynamic
mass, it is crucial to have a computational domain size that reaches to the point where the
pattern of the flow is not affected by the examined object. Here the change of
computational domain is expressed as ratio of the side length, , to the radius, . For
each case of the classical geometries the investigations were done by detecting the
change in hydrodynamic mass coefficient with the increase in the ratio L/R.
The verifications were performed with predefined finer meshes where COMSOL
automatically assigns finer mesh sizes according to the computational domain size.
Investigation of mesh parameter effects are discussed in the next section.
For the circle the results of added mass coefficient start to approach a value of 1.001
approximately at
domain size effect on the added mass of the circle model, 15 runs were preformed for
35
domain lengths ranging between 3 to 17 meters. For more details, reader is referred to
Table (1.A) in Appendix A.
1.035
1.03
1.025
Cn
1.02
1.015
1.01
1.005
1
0.995
0
20
40
60
80
100
L/R
.
Figure 4.9. The effect of L/R ratio on the hydrodynamic mass coefficient of circle.
The 3D cylinder model is similar to the circle model and the only difference is the third
dimension which is the length of the cylinder, H. Since the classical model is an infinite
cylinder moving in infinite fluid in transverse direction, the representation of this model
in COMSOL is done by setting the length of the cylinder, H, equal to the side length of
the computational domain, L. The results for 3D cylinder also give constant values of
hydrodynamic mass coefficient equal to 1.001 when
Figure 4.10. The investigations were accomplished by running the solver for 13 different
domain side lengths which vary from 1 to 18 meters. The results are shown in Appendix
A, Table (2.A).
36
Cn
1.05
1.045
1.04
1.035
1.03
1.025
1.02
1.015
1.01
1.005
1
0.995
0
20
40
60
80
100
L/R
In the sphere model the convergence of the results happened at smaller values of
as
depicted in Figure 4.11. Constant values of the hydrodynamic mass coefficient equal to
0.5013 were detected first at
0.57
0.56
0.55
Cn
0.54
0.53
0.52
0.51
0.5
0.49
0
10
15
20
25
30
L/R
37
which is considerably
1.04
1.02
1
0.98
Cn
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.9
0.88
0.86
0.84
0
10
15
20
25
L/R
Figure 4.12. The effect of domain size on hydrodynamic mass coefficient of a disk.
After exploring all the results for the added mass coefficients of classical models, it can
be concluded that the domain sizes that provide consistent results, crucially depends on
geometrical aspects of the objects.
38
1.05
1
0.95
Cn ( Cylinder)
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
0
Mesh type
Figure 4.13. The effect of mesh type on the hydrodynamic mass coefficient of the
cylinder.
39
0.505
0.5
Cn ( Sphere)
0.495
0.49
0.485
0.48
0.475
0.47
0.465
0.46
0
Mesh type
Figure 4.14 Mesh refinements effect on the hydrodynamic mass coefficient of the
sphere.
0.87
0.86
0.85
Cn ( Disk)
0.84
0.83
0.82
0.81
0.8
0.79
0.78
0.77
0
Mesh type
Figure 4.15. Mesh refinement effects on the hydrodynamic mass coefficient of the
disk.
40
meshes which correspond to 1, 2, and 3 on the horizontal axis of the above plots.
Subsequently the results start to deviate from the exact solutions as the grid sizes get
coarser.
To save time, another approach can be pursued using a coarser mesh, such as normal
mesh, with customized element size parameters. The predefined normal grid parameters
are shown in Figure 4.16. In this approach the maximum size and the minimum element
size were kept fixed and equal to the same values that are given by default in the normal
mesh, since these two factors have a major effect on the solution time. Furthermore,
different selections were chosen for the rest of the parameters to enhance the solution and
make it closer to the one that had been obtained with the extra fine mesh.
41
Table 4.2 displays various changes on the maximum growth rate, the resolution of
curvatures and narrow regions on the cylinder model to obtain accurate results for the
hydrodynamic mass coefficient using the normal mesh. These parameters were modified
in a way that would create finer element close to the cylinder surface and then a gradual
growth in size in neighboring elements as the distance gets farther from the cylinder
surface.
Table 4.2 Normal mesh refinement parameters for cylinder
predefined
mesh
resolution
of
curvature
resolution
of narrow
region
m(kg)
0.6
0.5
1.595
0.977
65
normal
the
maximum
growth
rate
1.5
65
normal
1.3
0.5
0.6
1.605
0.983
65
normal
1.3
0.4
0.7
1.605
0.983
65
normal
1.2
0.4
0.7
1.607
0.984
65
normal
1.1
0.4
0.7
1.61
0.985
65
normal
1.1
0.3
0.8
1.62
0.992
65
normal
1.2
0.2
0.9
1.62
0.992
It is obvious through observing the results in Table 4.2 that the cylinder hydrodynamic
mass coefficient is falling closer to the value of
approaches 1.1 for predefined normal mesh with curvature resolution factor falling closer
to the value of 0.2 and resolution of narrow regions gets closer to 1. Despite the short
computing time of the modified normal mesh, it is still not as accurate results as the
finer mesh setting. Finer meshes were specifically used in this project, since they were
42
proven to give the same results that are provided by the extra fine mesh as indicated in
Figures 4.13, 4.14 and 4.15.
4.3. Verifications
In this section the hydrodynamic mass coefficients that had been previously developed
theoretically for classical geometries is compared to the ones that were obtained
numerically using COMSOL. Table 4.3 shows a comparison between numerical and
analytical values of hydrodynamic mass coefficients;
and
Flow Direction
Hydrodynamic mass
formula
Error %
1.0
1.0
1.001
1.001
0.1
0.1
Sphere
0.5
0.26
Disk
0.85
0.501
3
0.859
1.058824
The values based on the numerical solution have errors between 0.1 and 1.06% which
are quite acceptable. Therefore, the same conditions in term of mesh size and parameters
setting were applied to solve the arbitrary shapes as illustrated in Chapter 5. The
validation using the classical shapes provides the reliability of the numerical method for
its ability to produce accurate results for an arbitrary shape.
43
Chapter 5
Bluff Bodies
The main focus of this project was on developing correlations for hydrodynamic mass
of non-classical models from the numerical data that were computed through COMSOL.
The first non-classical geometry examined was a solid cylinder facing the flow, followed
by cup geometries, and eventually eight round parachute canopy models.
5.1. Solid Cylinder
Unlike the classical model of cylinder, in this model the direction of the flow is aligned
with the cylinder axis as shown in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1. Solid cylinder aligned with the flow. Radius and length are indicated by
and .
44
and ,
the hydrodynamic mass was obtained numerically for various dimensions of the solid
cylinder using COMSOL. Table (1.B) in appendix B shows the hydrodynamic mass
values obtained numerically for different values of ratio
length
) were
the same flow conditions. In addition, tetrahedral finer meshes were used to grid the
computational domain.
5.1.2. Solid Cylinder Correlation
In this section the hydrodynamic mass data in Table (1.B) were utilized to find a
correlation for the hydrodynamic mass of solid cylinder. The correlation was obtained
using the regression solver in Excel. At First the hydrodynamic mass of solid cylinder
was set equal to factor
of the cylinder as presented in Eq. 5.1. This approach is the same as that for the classical
cylinder. In the classical model
dimensions.
(5.1)
In contrast to the classical model,
changed. However, through investigations of the results which are exhibited in Table
(1.B), the following relationship between
and
45
and
bounds
with
and
and
using
100
(H/D)-0.927
C = 0.566
R = 0.9999
10
1
0.01
0.1
H/D
10
0.1
to
.
for the
Hence, substituting
(5.2)
To validate the correlation for the solid cylinder which is given in Eq. 5.3, a comparison
between the added mass values obtained through the correlation and the numerical values
is performed in Figure 5.3. The comparison was applied for
ranging between
46
both curves are almost identical, despite the presence of small errors which dont exceed
3% in the worst case.
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
Numerical
0.015
Eq. 5.3
0.01
0.005
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
H/D
Figure 5.3. Comparison of added mass values computed numerically with the
correlation in Eq. 5.3.
Furthermore, this developed correlation for aligned cylinder may be extended to the
disk case when
is replaced with the disks thickness. The disk has an added mass of
and thickness
whereas the correlation
disk using the aligned cylinder correlation is less than 2% from the analytical value.
Hence, the correlation can be reliable for both aligned cylinder and realistic disk, except
when H goes to the zero limits.
47
5.2. Cup
Other interesting geometries that are used widely in hydrodynamic application are bluff
bodies with concavity such as cups facing flow. Unlike all previous solid geometries, the
movement of cup in fluid medium in the direction of the open face of the cup has
different aspects of hydrodynamic mass. Even though cup shapes are part of many
hydrodynamic applications, it is still unclear how its added mass can be related to its
geometric dimensions. Thus, in this section a cup model was designed to find the added
mass using the numerical method previously discussed. The hydrodynamic mass was
obtained numerically for a variety of cup length H, outer radius
and thicknesses
and
the results were correlated with these three geometric parameters. A schematic drawing
of the cup is presented in Figure 5.4.
Establishing the cup shape was done using COMSOL CAD Tools. In the model tree
under the geometry root node, two cylinders with different size were chosen first, and
then the small one was subtracted from the larger cylinder to create the void inside the
large cylinder which created the cup. After creating the cup, a cubic block of length
was built to surround the cup and establish the computational domain. The final step in
building the model geometry was to apply Difference operation to subtract the cup from
the cubic block. Some parameters had to be defined in the parameters section before the
geometry creation step took place, such as the dimensions of the two cylinders. Other
parameters such as, uniform velocity and flow density were specified as well. All the
results were calculated using the finer tetrahedral mesh. Figure 5.5 shows the settings
parameter for one of the cases that was computed.
Figure 5.5. Various dimension settings that were applied to a cup model.
49
50
Figure 5.9 shows the distribution of velocity magnitude on the cup surfaces for
and the uniform freestream flow boundary condition of
computational domain. The inlet was chosen to be facing the open side of the cup and
perpendicular to the x axis.
52
this case is zero; the cup is fixed and the flow approaches it. Therefore, the hydrodynamic
mass of the cup is expected to be larger than the one for the aligned cylinder.
is
correlation is needed to include solutions of hydrodynamic mass for different sizes of the
cup. In order to correlate the hydrodynamic mass of cup with the geometric parameters, it
is very important to examine the effect of
and
results in Figure 5.10 are plotted on logarithmic scale to show the hydrodynamic mass of
cup for different values of cup radius
at
and
respectively.
Table 5.1. Different value of hydrodynamic mass coefficient for different size of cup.
( )
0.1
0.56
0.52
0.1
0.5
0.5
( )
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.25
1.4
1.3
0.1
0.5
2.5
53
2.825
1.3
1.33
5.53
2
1.03
10
0.1
0.01
0.1
1
Ro (meter)
respectively.
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.1
1
H (m)
54
10
By observing Figure 5.10 it is very obvious that hydrodynamic mass of cup increases
with increasing cup radius with for a fixed thickness so that the inner radius increases as
well as the outer. The same thing can be concluded for the effect of cups length on the
added mass, as seen in Figure 5.11. The resultant curve in Figure 5.11 indicates that
added mass is a nonlinear function of the cup length . Unlike the aligned cylinder case
another parameter that plays a major effect on the added mass of cup is the thickness .
Therefore, added mass was calculated for different cup thicknesses in the range of
with
and
fixed at
and
compared to the added mass of aligned cylinder has the same radius and length. The
results are depicted in Figure 5.12. On the horizontal axis the ratio of
is chosen to
detect the influence of the thickness as fraction of the radius on the cup added mass as
fraction of the aligned cylinder added mass.
3.5
3
m'cup/m'aligned
2.5
2
1.5
1
1, 1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
t/Ro
55
and the added mass approaches the value for the aligned cylinder, as the thickness
reaches values approximately 80% to 100% of outer radius. Therefore, the best way to
correlate the added mass of cup is to combine the added mass of aligned cylinder to the
added mass created due to the cavity inside the cylinder. The correlation for the added
mass of solid cylinder was found in the previous section but the challenge here is how to
predict the added mass generated by the cavity. To solve this dilemma the added mass of
the cavity was assumed to be proportional to the mass of the fluid inside the cavity as
follows:
(
In order to find the values of ,
) (
(5.4)
and
, and
) (
(5.5)
Comparison of the above equation to the data in Table (2.B) reveals that the accuracy of
the correlation varies with different cup sizes. In general, the accuracy of Eq. 5.5 in
predicting the added mass of cup mainly depends on the
shows the error and how it varies with different
between
values. For
values ranging
for
. Equation 5.5 was further investigated in term of how the error is affected by
the thickness ratio
values.
The error ranges between a minimum value equal of 0.57% and a maximum value equal
of 1.03 %. The effect of
errors in Eq. 5.5. Thus, the only restriction for using the correlation presented in Eq. 5.5
is the
ratio
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.8
1.6
2.4
3.2
H/D
Figure 5.13. Prediction error of the correlation in Eq. 5.5 for various H/D.
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t/Ro
Figure 5.14. Prediction error of the correlation in Eq. 5.5 for various thickness ratio
values, fixed
and
.
57
58
Shape 2
Shape 1
Shape 3
Shape 4
Shape 5
Shape 6
Shape 7
Shape 8
was chosen to envelop each model to form the surrounding domain. Afterwards,
the same boundary conditions as the ones discussed in Chapter 3 were assigned to each
model to find the added mass. The hydrodynamic mass for each model was calculated for
a range of domain sizes from side length of 10 m until the length at which consistent
results appeared. More details on the hydrodynamic mass results with different sizes of
domain are presented in Appendix D. In Figure 5.16, Model 8 was chosen to illustrate
the freestream direction that was applied to the parachute models, and the position of the
parachute inside the computational domain.
Figure 5.16. Freestream flow direction in the computational domain and model 8.
60
and density
was assigned to the inlet and outlet boundaries which are normal to y-axis as shown in
Figure 5.16 above. Tetrahedral elements were used to mesh the computational domain. In
addition, a finer element size was applied with parameters setting as follows: maximum
element growth rate equal to 1.3, resolution of curvatures equal to 0.3 and resolution of
narrow region equal to 0.8. Figure 5.17 below shows the tetrahedral grid pattern for
Model 8.
61
62
Figs. 5.20 and 5.21 shows the streamlines on y-z cut plane. The velocity component in
the freestream direction (y-direction) of Model 1 and 8 are exhibited in Figs. 5.22 and
5.23. The results are shown on y-z cut plane through the center of the canopy as shown
below. The velocity magnitude gets larger at canopies edges that are facing the flow.
Furthermore, Figs 5.24 and 5.25 display the distribution of the velocity component in xdirection on a x-z cut plane for Model 1 and Model 8.
63
Figure 5.22. Distribution of the velocity component in the y-direction for Model 1.
65
.
Figure 5.24. Distribution of the velocity component in x-direction for Model 1.
66
Figure 5.26. Distribution of the relative Velocity on a cut plane at the opening of
Model 1.
Figure 5.27. Distribution of the relative velocity on a cut plane at the opening of
Model 8.
67
Figs 5.26 and 5.27 show the relative kinetic energy of the flow at the parachute canopy
skirt. The results in both figures show the higher relative kinetic energy in regions close
to the parachute body.
5.3.4. Correlation of Hydrodynamic Mass Parachutes Canopies
This section is devoted to finding a suitable correlation that relates the hydrodynamic
mass of the eight different models of parachute canopy during inflation with their
respective geometric parameters. Since these parachute models have distinct shapes
especially when comparing the first two models with the other six models, it was
necessary to find common ground in term of defining the dimensions for which the
hydrodynamic mass can be correlated. The presence of circular bulges in the last six
shapes requires a distinct definition for the diameter that applies equally to the six models
as well as the first two models. Therefore, an equivalent diameter was defined for the last
six models using the maximum projected area for each model. Figure 5.28 shows the
maximum projected area for model 5 which is red colored. This maximum projected area
was calculated for each Model using the COMSOL measurement tools, and then set equal
to an area of circle to find the equivalent diameter. Table 5.2 shows values of the
maximum projected area of each model and the equivalent diameter.
68
addition to the other related geometric dimensions such as the height , and the
equivalent radius
Table 5.2. Maximum projected area, equivalent diameters and the calculated
hydrodynamic mass for each model.
Model No.
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
Model 6
Model 7
Model 8
(
1.26
15.76
22.9
37.05
53.47
56.24
62.6
49.9
( )
1.2668
4.48
5.4
6.868
8.24
8.4
8.928
8.2
( )
0.6334
2.24
2.7
3.434
4.12
4.2
4.464
4.1
69
( )
4.995
4.565
4.159
3.248
3.19
2.434
1.76227
3.276
( )
3.3526
48.7
124.96
189
277.2
267.9
296.34
280.14
First, the relationship between the calculated added mass and the mass of the enclosed
volume for each model was examined. The approach stemmed from the fact that the
hydrodynamic mass for classical geometries is equal to a constant coefficient of order
one multiplied by the fluid mass of the accelerated object as described in Eq. 2.5.
Therefore, the enclosed volume of each model was calculated using COMSOL
measurement tools, and then the factor
hydrodynamic mass by the enclosed mass. The results are shown in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3. Hydrodynamic mass coefficient C for parachute models.
Model
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
( )
0.6334
2.24
2.7
3.434
4.126
4.2
4.464
4.1
( )
4.995
4.565
4.159
3.248
3.194
2.434
1.76227
3.276
3.72
29.98
76.8
93.82
118
92.61
82.67
124.9
3.3526
48.7
124.96
189
277.2
267.9
296.34
280.14
(
3.72
29.98
76.8
93.82
118
92.61
82.67
124.9
)
0.901237
1.624416
1.627083
2.014496
2.349153
2.892776
3.584614
2.242914
).
70
, and
Similar to the cup hydrodynamic mass, the hydrodynamic mass of a parachute canopy
during various stages of inflation may be written as the hydrodynamic mass of the solid
model of the parachute canopy without cavity plus the mass of fluid enclosed by the
canopy.
(5.6)
The first term on the right-side of Eq. 5.6 is the hydrodynamic mass of the enclosed
models (solid model) of the parachute canopies. Therefore, the cavity inside each model
was filled with solid to create the solid models of the canopies without cavity, and then
the hydrodynamic mass for each solid model was computed. Furthermore, the results of
the computed added mass (
values of ,
Table 5.4. Performing of nonlinear regression on the first term on the right-side of
Eq.5.6.
Solid Models #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
( )
0.633
2.24
2.7
3.434
4.12
4.2
4.464
4.1
( )
4.995
4.565
4.159
3.248
3.19
2.434
1.76
3.276
, and
( )
0.56
22.8
55.28
107.6
177
193.75
234.3
172.4
0.65
29.06
50.90
104.72
180.85
191.59
230.04
178.23
= 138.35
0.01
39.25
19.18
8.29
14.83
4.65
18.15
34
0.82
3
0
hydrodynamic mass for the solid model of the parachute canopies (enclosed models) as
follows:
(5.7)
71
The resultant correlation in Eq. 5.7 for the solid parachute canopies without cavity is very
similar to the analytical solution of the disk (
between the hydrodynamic mass of disk, numerical results of the solid models of the
parachute canopies (without cavity), and the correlation in Eq. 5.7.
250
200
150
Eq. 5.7
100
Numercal
Disk
50
0
0
Req (m)
Figure 5.29. Comparison between hydrodynamic mass for disk, the solid canopies
and the correlation in Eq.5.7.
Finally, Eq. 5.7 is added to the mass of the fluid enclosed by the canopy to find the
correlation of the hydrodynamic mass of the parachute canopies (with cavity). Regression
was performed in Table 5.5 to find the value of the parameter
in Eq. 5.6.
( )
0.63
2.24
2.7
3.434
4.12
4.2
4.464
4.1
( )
4.995
4.565
4.159
3.248
3.19
2.434
1.76
3.276
( )
3.3526
48.7
124.96
189
277.2
267.9
296.34
280.14
)
2.8
27.14
71.66
86.26
110.3
85.08
72.17
117
)
Residual K
3.20
0.022
53.75
25.465
116.07
79.069
183.165
34.051
281.158
15.66
268.964
1.13
295.67
0.45
284.63
20.16
72
in Eq. 5.6.
0.91
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Figure 5.30. A comparison between the correlation in Eq. 5.7 and numerically
computed added mass of parachute canopies.
73
Chapter 6
Summary and Conclusion
The significance of hydrodynamic mass, and its effect on the dynamic behavior of
aerodynamic devices such as parachutes, has raised continuous demands for more
information on the hydrodynamic mass. Thus, the added mass of bluff bodies such as
aligned solid cylinder, cup, and parachute canopies, have been evaluated numerically by
means of a finite elements solver, COMSOL, and the solutions were validated by using
the solver to find the numerical solution of classical geometries. The comparison between
the added mass coefficient that had been obtain theoretically and the ones computed
numerically using the solver revealed very accurate results with very small errors which
did not exceed 1.06% in the worst case scenario. To enhance the accuracy of the
numerical solution, the classical models were tested with different element sizes and
types. Overall, the finer mesh size with customized parameters such as resolution of
curvatures and narrow regions was deemed the best choice to accomplish accurate
results.
The resultant correlation of added mass for aligned cylinder shows domination of the
cylinder radius with small effect to account for the length. The resultant correlation is
quite distinct from the hydrodynamic mass for the classical cylinder model due to the
difference in the flow direction. The accuracy of the correlation was estimated to give fit
with square residual
of the fluid mass inside the cup. Therefore, the results for added mass of cup were
correlated according to this combination and the correlation was found to be quite good
for cup dimensions within
The results for added mass of parachute models during inflations showed significant
changes in hydrodynamic mass values during the inflation. The added mass for the first
model was found equal to
to
in geometry during the inflation. In observing the change in parachute dimensions during
the inflation, it can be concluded that there is trade-off between the equivalent radius
(
) and the height ( ). The results showed that the radius has significant influence on
canopies to provide accurate results of the contribution of potential force in the total
opening force of the canopy.
76
References
[1] Ibrahim, S.K., Potential Flow field and Added Mass of the Idealized Hemispherical
Parachute, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 4, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., 1967, pp. 96-100.
[2] Panton. R, Incompressible Flow, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New Jersey, Third
edition, 2005.
[3] White, Frank M. Fluid Mechanics, McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA. Fifth edition, 2003.
[4] B. Mutlu Sumer, Jorgen Fredsoe, "Hydrodynamics Around Cylindrical Structures
(Advanced Series on Ocean Engineering)". World Scientific, Singapore; River Edge, N.J.
1997.
[5] J. E. Slater, A review of hydrodynamic added mass inertia of vibrating
Submerged structures, Defense Res. Establishment Atlantic, Canada,
Tech. Memorandum, 1984.
[6] H. Chung and S. S. Chen, Hydrodynamic mass, DOE Tech. Rep.
CONF-840647-9, 1984.
[7] H. Lamb, Hydrodynamics, Dover Publications, New York, sixth edition, 1932.
[8] http://www.comsol.com/ ( Retrieved April, 2011)
[9] Desabrais, K.J., Velocity Field Measurements in the Near Wake of a Parachute
Canopy, Ph.D. thesis, Mechanical Engineering Department, Worcester
Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, April 2002.
[10] Patton. Kirk. T, Tables of Hydrodynamic Mass Factors for Translational Motion,
Underwater Technology Division, Chicago, Ill, ASME, 1965.
[11] Lighthill, J., Fundamentals Concerning Wave Loading on Offshore Structures,
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 173, 1986, pp. 667-681,
[12] Noca, F., Shiels, D., and Jeon, D., A Comparison of Methods for Evaluating
TimeDependent Fluid Dynamic Forces on Bodies, Using Only Velocity Fields and
Their Derivatives, Journal of Fluids and Structures, Vol. 13, 1999, pp. 551-578.
[13] Morison J R, O'Brien M D, Johnson J W, and Schaaf S A, The force exerted by
surface waves on piles. Petrol Trans AIME. Vol. 189,1950.
77
Appendix A
of circle.
( )
0.1296
0.1278
0.1271
0.1266
0.1264
0.1262
0.1261
0.126
0.1259
0.1259
0.1258
0.1258
0.1258
0.1258
0.1258
1.031
1.017
1.011
1.007
1.005
1.004
1.003
1.002
1.002
1.002
1.001
1.001
1.001
1.001
1.001
78
( )
0.1657
0.2691
0.3884
0.5109
0.6347
0.759
0.8837
1.0091
1.2594
1.51
1.7611
2.013
2.26421
H
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
12
14
16
18
( ) L/R
0.1256
5
1.319
0.2512 10 1.071
0.3768 15 1.030
0.5024 20 1.016
0.628
25 1.0101
0.7536 30 1.007
0.8792 35 1.005
1.0048 40 1.004
1.256
50 1.0022
1.5072 60 1.0014
1.7584 70 1.001
2.0096 80 1.001
2.2608 90 1.001
( ) L/R
0.0188
5 0.561
0.017 10 0.507
0.0168 15 0.501
0.0168 20 0.501
0.0168 25 0.501
Table (4.A) Domain size effect on the hydrodynamic mass coefficient for disk
L (domain length) (m) R (radius ) (m) t (thickness) (m)
0.5
0.2
0.001
1
0.2
0.001
2
0.2
0.001
3
0.2
0.001
4
0.2
0.001
79
( ) L/R
0.0256 2.5 1.0186
0.0219
5 0.8714
0.0216 10 0.859
0.0216 15 0.859
0.0216 20 0.859
Appendix B
Table (1.B) Hydrodynamic mass results of solid cylinder aligned to the flow
L (domain length) (m) R (m) H(m)
7
0.2
0.01
7 0.25 0.0125
7
0.2 0.012
7
0.2
0.02
7
0.2 0.028
7
0.2 0.036
7
0.2 0.044
7
0.2 0.052
7
0.2
0.06
7
0.2 0.068
7
0.2 0.076
7
0.2 0.084
8
0.2 0.092
8
0.2
0.1
7
0.2
0.1
7
0.4
0.2
9
1
0.5
7
0.2
0.12
9
0.5
0.3
9
1
0.6
7
0.2
0.14
9
0.5
0.35
7
0.2
0.16
8 0.25
0.2
8
0.2
0.18
8
0.5
0.45
8
0.2
0.2
8
0.5
0.5
8
0.2
0.22
9
0.5
0.55
8
0.2
0.24
8 0.25
0.3
8
0.2
0.26
10
0.5
0.65
8
0.2
0.28
80
( ) H/D
C
0.0224 0.025 17.83
0.0438 0.025 17.85
0.0226 0.03 14.99
0.023 0.05 9.151
0.0233 0.07 6.622
0.0236 0.09
5.22
0.0238 0.11
4.30
0.0241 0.13
3.7
0.0243 0.15
3.22
0.0246 0.17
2.88
0.025 0.19
2.62
0.0252 0.21
2.38
0.0253 0.23
2.19
0.0257 0.25 2.045
0.0257 0.25 2.045
0.206 0.25 2.049
3.239 0.25 2.062
0.0261
0.3 1.731
0.4084
0.3 1.733
3.27
0.3 1.735
0.0265 0.35 1.506
0.4141 0.35 1.506
0.0266
0.4 1.323
0.0521
0.4 1.327
0.0271 0.45 1.198
0.4236 0.45 1.198
0.0272
0.5 1.0823
0.4254
0.5 1.0833
0.0274 0.55 0.991
0.4286 0.55 0.992
0.0278
0.6 0.922
0.0543
0.6 0.922
0.0279 0.65 0.854
0.4367 0.65 0.855
0.028
0.7 0.796
10
8
10
8
10
8
9
8
12
8
12
8
9
8
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
12
12
12
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.25
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.25
0.2
0.25
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.32
0.8
0.36
0.9
0.4
0.5
0.44
1.1
0.48
0.96
0.52
0.65
0.56
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.64
0.96
0.68
1.02
0.72
1.08
0.76
1.14
0.8
1.2
0.88
0.96
1.04
1.12
1.2
1.28
1.36
1.44
1.52
1.6
81
0.4377
0.0282
0.4427
0.0287
0.4492
0.0288
0.0562
0.029
0.4536
0.0291
0.2333
0.0293
0.0573
0.0295
0.0576
0.0296
0.1001
0.0297
0.1003
0.0298
0.1008
0.0299
0.101
0.03
0.1014
0.0301
0.1017
0.0302
0.0304
0.0305
0.0306
0.0307
0.0308
0.0309
0.031
0.031
0.0311
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
1
1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.9
2
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
0.796
0.702
0.704
0.635
0.635
0.573
0.573
0.524
0.525
0.482
0.483
0.448
0.449
0.419
0.419
0.393
0.393
0.369
0.369
0.349
0.349
0.330
0.331
0.314
0.315
0.299
0.299
0.273
0.252
0.233
0.217
0.204
0.191
0.181
0.171
0.162
0.155
) (
0.0238
0.02415
0.0245
0.02485
0.02518
0.0264
0.0276
0.0287
0.02985
0.03095
0.03215
0.03325
0.03435
0.0355
0.0381
0.0407
0.0433
0.0458
0.0484
0.05085
0.0533
0.05573
0.0582
0.0606
0.063
0.0654
0.0679
0.0702
0.0726
0.07735
0.0821
0.0867
0.09145
0.0961
82
0.023897368
0.024267117
0.024624766
0.0249722
0.025310898
0.026598901
0.027811523
0.028973916
0.030100502
0.03120032
0.03227941
0.033342007
0.034391192
0.035429278
0.037986686
0.040504
0.042992661
0.04546001
0.047911026
0.050349231
0.052777203
0.055196881
0.057609754
0.060016991
0.062419522
0.064818097
0.06721333
0.069605729
0.071995717
0.076769825
0.081537906
0.086301612
0.091062184
0.095820571
[ -m']^2
9.48053E-09
1.37165E-08
1.55665E-08
1.49328E-08
1.71343E-08
3.95616E-08
4.47419E-08
7.50299E-08
6.27511E-08
6.26601E-08
1.67471E-08
8.46534E-09
1.69681E-09
5.00163E-09
1.28401E-08
3.84159E-08
9.44571E-08
1.15593E-07
2.39096E-07
2.5077E-07
2.73316E-07
2.84216E-07
3.4839E-07
3.39899E-07
3.36955E-07
3.38611E-07
4.71515E-07
3.53158E-07
3.65158E-07
3.36603E-07
3.1595E-07
1.58713E-07
1.50401E-07
7.80807E-08
K
0.97
m
2
n
1.0
0.64
0.68
0.72
0.76
0.8
0.88
0.96
1.04
1.12
1.2
1.28
1.36
1.44
1.52
1.6
0.1
0.5
0.3
0.04
0.1
1
0.5
1.2
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.2
1.6
0.2
1.7
0.2
1.8
0.2
1.9
0.2
2
0.2
2.2
0.2
2.4
0.2
2.6
0.2
2.8
0.2
3
0.2
3.2
0.2
3.4
0.2
3.6
0.2
3.8
0.2
4
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.2
2.5
0.1
2.5
0.2
3
0.1
3
0.2
1.25
0.2
1.25
0.2
1.25
0.2
1.25
0.2
1.25
0.2
1.25
0.2
1.25
0.2
1.25
0.2
1.25
0.2
1.25
0.2
1.25
0.2
1.25
0.05
5
0.1
2.5
0.15 1.666667
0.2
1.25
0.25
1
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.1
0.15
0.17
0.19
0.16
0.18
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.1008
0.1054
0.11
0.1147
0.1193
0.1285
0.1377
0.14692
0.15613
0.1653
0.1744
0.1836
0.1927
0.2019
0.211
0.00563
0.7853
0.1666
0.027
0.4345
0.1423
0.0162
0.1653
0.0188
0.0844
0.0778
0.0717
0.066
0.0609
0.0563
0.0418
0.032
0.0302
0.0293
0.0309
0.0297
0.0029
0.0162
0.0426
0.0844
0.144
83
0.100577507
0.105333568
0.110089212
0.114844804
0.119600639
0.129113944
0.138630553
0.148151418
0.157677179
0.16720826
0.176744937
0.186287381
0.19583569
0.205389905
0.214950028
0.005598632
0.780459078
0.165468794
0.027212713
0.439064659
0.143390408
0.016361643
0.16720826
0.019041731
0.08392022
0.077315324
0.071225685
0.065633091
0.060519332
0.055866204
0.041496148
0.031717227
0.02988777
0.02903457
0.030671708
0.029347787
0.00302859
0.016361643
0.042535625
0.08392022
0.142850181
4.95033E-08
4.41321E-09
7.95879E-09
2.09682E-08
9.03836E-08
3.76927E-07
8.65928E-07
1.51639E-06
2.39376E-06
3.64145E-06
5.49873E-06
7.22202E-06
9.83255E-06
1.21794E-05
1.56027E-05
9.83929E-10
2.34345E-05
1.27963E-06
4.52468E-08
2.08361E-05
1.18899E-06
2.61284E-08
3.64145E-06
5.8434E-08
2.30189E-07
2.34911E-07
2.24975E-07
1.34622E-07
1.44908E-07
1.88179E-07
9.23259E-08
7.99608E-08
9.74875E-08
7.04531E-08
5.21174E-08
1.24054E-07
1.65355E-08
2.61284E-08
4.14409E-09
2.30189E-07
1.32208E-06
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
1
0.833333
0.714286
0.625
0.555556
0.5
0.454545
0.416667
0.25
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.2235
0.3253
0.4518
0.6048
0.7853
0.9989
1.244
4.6449
84
0.221629324 3.49943E-06
0.322535011 7.64517E-06
0.447821776 1.58263E-05
0.599724181 2.57639E-05
0.780459078 2.34345E-05
0.992227443
4.4523E-05
1.237215878 4.60243E-05
4.651538312 4.40672E-05
Residual
0.000329161
Appendix C
Front view
Bottom view
Top view
Figure (1.C). Drawing views of Model 1.
Table (1.C). A list of dimensions of Model 1.
Name
Value
85
symbol
Unit
Front view
Top view
Bottom view
Figure (2.C). Drawing of Model 2
Value
symbol
86
Unit
Front view
Top view
Bottom view
Figure (3.C) Drawing of Model 3.
Value
2.724
87
symbol
Unit
Front view
Top view
Bottom view
Figure (4.C). Drawing of Model 4.
Value
3.44
88
symbol
Unit
Front view
Top view
Bottom view
Figure (5.C). Drawing of Model 5.
:
Table (5.C). A list of dimensions of Model 5
Name
Value
4.248
89
Symbol
Unit
Front view
Top view
Bottom view
Figure (6.C). Drawing of Model 6.
Value
4.354
90
Symbol
Unit
Front view
Top view
Bottom view
Figure (7.C) Drawing of Model 7.
Value
4.587
91
Symbol
Unit
Front view
Top view
Bottom view
Figure (8.C). Drawing of Model 8.
Value
4.0898
92
Symbol
Unit
Appendix D
All the results below were found using finer meshes with element size parameters 1.4,
0.2 and 0.8 for maximum element growth rate, resolution of curvatures and resolution of
narrow region respectively.
Table (1.D). Hydrodynamic mass versus domain sizes for Model 1.
( )
4.995
( )
3.3662
3.3591
3.3558
3.3551
3.3539
3.3526
3.3526
3.3526
( )
49.4615
49.202
49.0436
48.9435
48.8811
48.8484
48.8169
48.7933
48.7721
48.7588
48.7506
48.7468
48.7406
48.7348
48.7299
48.7213
48.7
48.7
48.7
( )
2.7242
( )
3.43456
( )
4.248
( )
277.7
277.47
277.35
277.2
277.2
( )
4.354
94
( )
4.587
( )
296.89
296.58
296.398
296.34
296.34
( )
4.1
95
( )
280.672
280.41
280.277
280.19
280.14
280.14