Virtual Mass Calculation

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
HYRODYNAMIC MASS OF BLUFF BODIES

WITH AND WITHOUT CAVITY
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the Degree of Master of Science
In
Mechanical Engineering
by
Mohamed Elgabaili
August 2012
The thesis of Mohamed Elgabaili is approved:
Dr. Larry Caretto
Date
Dr. Abhijit Mukherjee
Date
Professor, Hamid Johari, Chair
Date
California State University, Northridge
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
3. Numerical Method .................................................................................................................. 11

3.1. Overview ............................................................................................................................. 11
3.2. Defining the problem in COMSOL................................................................................. 11
3.2.1. The Physics Interface Setup ....................................................................................... 11
3.2.2. Global Definition ......................................................................................................... 14
3.2.3. Creating the geometry ................................................................................................. 15
3.2.4. Boundary Conditions ................................................................................................... 16
3.2.5. Meshing ......................................................................................................................... 32
4. Classical Models and Verification ........................................................................................ 36
4.1. Classical Models ................................................................................................................ 36
4.1.1. Circle (2D Cylinder) ................................................................................................... 36
4.1.2. 3D Cylinder Model ...................................................................................................... 38
4.1.3. Sphere Model ................................................................................................................... 21
iv
4.1.4. Disk Model.................................................................................................................... 32

4.2. Refinements ........................................................................................................................ 34
4.2.1. Computation Domain Refinements ........................................................................... 24
4.2.2. Mesh Refinements ....................................................................................................... 28
4.3. Verifications ....................................................................................................................... 32
5. Bluff Bodies ............................................................................................................................. 33
5.1. Solid Cylinder ................................................................................................................... 33
5.1.1. Solid Cylinder Correlation .......................................................................................... 34
5.2. Cup ...................................................................................................................................... 37
5.2.1. Cup Results ................................................................................................................... 45
5.2.2. Hydrodynamic Mass Correlation for Cup ................................................................ 43
5.3. Parachute Canopies ........................................................................................................... 48
5.3.1. Canopy Models............................................................................................................. 48
5.3.2. Preparing Canopy Models in COMSOL ................................................................... 60
5.3.3. Potential Flow Results for Parachute Models .......................................................... 52
5.3.4. Correlation of Hydrodynamic Mass Parachutes Canopies ..................................... 58
6. Summary and Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 64

Reference ..................................................................................................................................... 67
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................. 68
Appendix B .................................................................................................................................. 80
Appendix C .................................................................................................................................. 75
Appendix D .................................................................................................................................. 83
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Title
Page
3.1
The organization of COMSOL Desktop
13
3.2
Screen capture showing COMSOL space dimensions
12
3.3
Screen capture showing the COMSOL Multiphysics modules
12
3.4
A template of PDEs
13
3.5
COMSOL CAD tools
15
3.6
Potential flow streamlines around a cylinder
17
3.7
Inlet and outlet uniform-stream boundary conditions
18
3.8
Computational domain boundaries with zero normal velocity condition
18
3.9
Zero Flux setting window
21
3.10
Source/Flux setting window
23
3.11
Mesh toolbar with varieties of elements and features
22
3.12
Mesh setting window
23
3.13
Screen capture showing element size parameters
24
4.1
Streamlines over the cylinder
26
4.2
COMSOL flow model for 2D cylinder
27
4.3
Cylinder model
28
4.4
Parameters setting for the cylinder model
25
4.5
The cylinder Model in COMSOL
31
4.6
COMSOL model for sphere in potential flow
33
4.7
Schematic of the disk
32
4.8
COMSOL model of the disk
33
vi
4.9
The effect of
4.10
Hydrodynamic mass coefficients for a 3D cylinder with different

values
36
4.11
The effect of domain size on hydrodynamic mass coefficient of a sphere
36
4.12
The effect of domain size on hydrodynamic mass coefficient of a disk
37
4.13
The effect of mesh type on the hydrodynamic mass coefficient of the

cylinder
38
Mesh refinements effect on the hydrodynamic mass coefficient of the

sphere
35
Mesh refinement effects on the hydrodynamic mass coefficient of the

disk
35
4.16
Predefined normal element size parameters
41
5.1
Solid cylinder aligned with the flow. Radius and length are indicated
by and .
43
5.2
Curve fitting
45
5.3
Comparison of added mass values computed numerically with the

correlation in Eq. 5.3
46
5.4
Schematic views of cup
47
5.5
Various dimension settings that were applied to a cup model
48
5.6
Streamlines for a cup with
45
5.7
51
5.8
51
5.9
Velocity distributions on cup surfaces
52
5.10
Hydrodynamic mass of cup as a function of outer radius
54
5.11
Added mass of cup versus its length
54
5.12
The influence of cups thickness on the added mass of cup
55
5.13
Prediction error of the correlation in Eq. 5.5 for various H/D.
57
4.14
4.15
ratio on the hydrodynamic mass coefficient of circle
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
Canopy Shapes from [9]
59
5.16
Free stream flow direction on computational domain of Model 8
60
5.17
The tetrahedral mesh elements for Model 8
61
5.18
Slices of velocity potential for Model 1
52
5.19
Slices of velocity potential for Model 8
63
5.20
Streamlines on a y-z plane for Model 1.
64
5.21
Streamlines on a y-z plane for Model 8.
64
5.22
Distribution of velocity component in the y-direction for Model 1
65
5.23
Distribution of the velocity component in y-direction for Model 8
65
5.24
Distribution of the velocity component in x-direction for Model 1
66
5.25
Distribution of the velocity component in x-direction for Model 8
66
5.26
Distribution of the relative kinetic energy on a cut plane at the opening

of Model 1
67
Distribution of the relative kinetic energy on a cut plane at the opening

of Model 8
67
5.28
The Maximum projected area of Model 5
69
5.29
Comparison between hydrodynamic mass for disk, the solid canopies

and the correlation in Eq. 5.7
72
A Comparison between the correlations and numerically computed

added mass of parachute canopies
73
5.27
5.30
1. C
Drawing views of Model 1
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
Hydrodynamic mass of symmetric bodies
4.1
A list of required parameters in the Model Builder
27
4.2
Normal mesh refinement parameters
43
4.3
A comparison of numerical and analytical solutions of hydrodynamic

mass coefficient
42
5.1
Different value of hydrodynamic mass coefficient for different size of cup 53
5.2
Maximum projected area, equivalent diameters and the calculated

hydrodynamic masses for each model
69
5.3
Hydrodynamic mass coefficient C, for parachute models
70
5.4
Performing of nonlinear regression on the first term on the right-side

of Eq. 5.6
71
5.5
Performing regression to find the value of parameter
72
1. A
The verification of hydrodynamic mass coefficient, Cn of circle
78
2. A
Verification of hydrodynamic coefficient of the classical cylinder

model
78
3. A
Verification of hydrodynamic mass coefficient of the sphere
79
4. A
Domain size effect on the hydrodynamic mass coefficient for disk
75
1. B
Hydrodynamic mass results of solid cylinder aligned to the flow
80
2. B
Spreadsheet of the regression solver to correlate data for hydrodynamic

mass of cup
82
1. C
A list of dimensions for Model 1
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
Hydrodynamic mass versus domain sizes for Model 1
83
2. D
83
3. D
84
4. D
Added mass versus domain sizes of Model 4
84
5. D
Added mass versus domain sizes of Model 5
84
6. D
Hydrodynamic mass versus domain size of Model 6
94
7. D
Added mass versus domain size for Model 7
95
8. D
Added mass versus domain size for Model 8
95
xi
NOMENCLATURE
Velocity vector
Velocity potential
Velocity component in x-direction

Velocity component in y-direction
Velocity component in z-direction
Dynamic force
Mass of the accelerated body
Hydrodynamic mass or the added mass
Numerically computed value of the added mass
Velocity of the accelerated body or the uniform stream velocity
Hydrodynamic mass coefficient
Numerically computed value of the hydrodynamic mass coefficient
Drag coefficient
Surface area of the body
Density of the fluid medium
Total Enclosed volume of the moving body
Enclosed volume of the body (volume of the cavity)
Relative velocity of the flow with respect to the accelerated body
Azimuthal angle
Velocity component in -direction
Velocity component in the radial direction
Relative velocity component in -direction
Relative velocity component in the radial direction
xii
Radius
Height of cylinder, cup, and parachute canopies
Thickness
Depth
Normal unit vector

Side length of the computational domain
Outer radius
Inner radius
Maximum projected area of parachute canopy
Equivalent diameter of the maximum projected area

Equivalent radius of the maximum projected area
xiii
ABSTRACT
Hydrodynamic Mass of Bluff Bodies with and without Cavity
by
Mohamed, Elgabaili
Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering

The hydrodynamic mass is virtual mass that can be added to the mass of moving body
through fluid medium to account for the resistant due to pressure gradient. In this
research, potential flow about bluff bodies with and without cavity was computed
numerically to obtain the hydrodynamic mass. All the geometries are idealized, rigid, and
nonporous and consist of cylinders and cups facing the flow and eight models of round
parachute canopies during inflation. The numerical solution was carried out using finite
element solver, COMSOL Multiphysics. In order to ensure the validity of the results, the
solver was first used to find the solution for certain classical geometries that have
analytical expressions for added mass. From the numerical results for the added mass of
the cylinders, cups, and parachute canopies, correlations were developed to show the
influence of various geometrical parameters.
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
is the mass of the object,
approximation,
and
(1.1)
is the added mass based on the potential flow
is the instantaneous velocity of the object,
is the drag coefficient
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
is used to define a scalar function whose
gradient provides the velocity field [3].
(2.1)
or in term of each component of velocity:
(2.2)
There is no rate of expansion in incompressible flow, thus the divergence of velocity

vector is equal to zero and this leads to velocity potential satisfying the Laplace equation
throughout the domain.
)
5
(2.3)
2.2. Concept of Hydrodynamic Mass

In potential flow, there are no unbalanced shear forces and vorticity is zero. When a
body is accelerated in potential flow, it will act as if it is more massive by an amount
called the hydrodynamic mass or the added mass. As the body moves, it will have to
accelerate the surrounding fluid in addition to its own mass. In other words, the
hydrodynamic mass is the mass of the fluid surrounding the body which will be
accelerated with the body due to the pressure force [4]. The hydrodynamic mass is one of
the key parameters in studying the fluid dynamics around submerged vehicles; its
significance affects the dynamic forces. Therefore, the consideration of the added mass
is very important when applying Newtons second law to obtain the dynamic forces
under potential flow consideration.
( )
Here, ( ) is the velocity of the accelerated body,
(2.4)
is the mass of the body and
is
the hydrodynamic mass [3].

Traditionally, the hydrodynamic mass is written as
(2.5)
where
is the hydrodynamic mass coefficient,
is the density of the fluid and
is the
enclosed volume of the accelerated body.

The added mass coefficient depends on the geometry of the object and the direction of
movement [3]. For a few symmetric geometries, the added mass can be found
analytically and these values are available in literature [5-7]. Because analytical solutions
for non-symmetric shapes do not exist in general, experimental or numerical methods

have to be pursued.
2.3. Relative Kinetic Energy
Usually the hydrodynamic mass is calculated by neglecting the frictional forces (ideal
flow), and therefore the forces stem from pressure gradient in the stream. There are
several ways to find the hydrodynamic mass; one is to equate the total integral of relative
kinetic energy of the fluid surrounding the body with the kinetic energy associated with
the hydrodynamic mass [3]. An example of this approach is given below, starting with
the basic equation (2.6).
Here,
(2.6)
is the relative flow velocity with respect to
accelerated body,
the instantaneous velocity of the
is the mass element. The integral is taken over the entire fluid
volume extending to infinity.

The procedures for implementing this method are to find the velocity field from the
equations that govern the potential flow and then solve Eq. (2.6) for the added mass. In
potential flow, the velocity potential
satisfies the Laplace equation, as stated earlier in
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
in potential flow is derived below [3].
1- The Solution of the Laplace equation of a sphere with radius R with boundary
conditions
as
(
Here
on the sphere surface (
and
)
( )
is the azimuthal angle, and
) is [3]:
(2.8)
is the radial direction.
2- Taking the gradient of velocity potential gives the velocity components in

tangential and radial directions:
( )
( )
(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)
Hence the hydrodynamic mass for a sphere accelerated in potential flow is

(2.16)
Comparing Eq. (2.16) with Eq. (2.5) reveals that the hydrodynamic mass for a sphere is
equal to one-half of the mass of a sphere having a density equal to fluid density. Thus,
one can relate
with the hydrodynamic mass coefficient
, the volume of the
accelerated body and the fluid density. The hydrodynamic mass coefficients for simple
symmetric shapes calculated theoretically are presented in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 shows Hydrodynamic mass of symmetric bodies.

Shape
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
Along the disk

axis
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.
Figure 3.1. The organization of COMSOL Desktop
To specify the physics interface three steps has to be done as follow:

1- Specifying a space dimension: When COMSOL Desktop is launched, the first step
is to choose the type of space dimensions 2D or 3D. COMSOL offers a variety of
space dimensions ranging from 3D and 2D to 1D and 0D as show in Figure 3.2.
12
Figure 3.2. Screen capture showing COMSOL space dimensions.

2-Add Physics: Once the blue arrow at the top of Select Space Dimension bar is clicked
the Add Physics bar appears, replacing the Space bar.
Figure 3.3. Screen capture showing the COMSOL Multiphysics modules.

13
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.
Figure 3.4. A template of PDEs.

The core equation in this project is the velocity potential equation, which satisfies the
Laplace equation and there are many means to implement this PDE in COMSOL. One
direct and easy way is to pick the Laplace Equation node from the Classical PDE
template as shown in Figure 3.4. Another path is to choose the Coefficient Form or the
General Form from the PDE template, and then implementing the Laplace equation
14
become a matter of matching coefficients. For example, the Coefficient Form given in
COMSOL is:
(
In order to transform Eq. 3.1 to the Laplace equation set

coefficients (
(3.1)
, and all the other
) to zero. For more information regarding the physical
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
3.2.3. Creating the geometry

Creating the geometry can be achieved through the CAD tools in COMSOL or by one
of COMSOL product interfaces such as CAD Import Module, LiveLink for
AutoCAD , LiveLink for Creo Parametric , LiveLink for SolidWorks ,
LiveLink for Pro/ENGINEER and LiveLink for SpaceClaim. All these features allow
COMSOL to run an analysis for very complex shapes with high design quality. Right
clicking on the Geometry root node in the Model Builder template, the geometry toolbars
will appears with all the features and options as shown in Figure 3.5. In the present work,
the classical shapes will be modeled using solid modeling and boundary modeling in
COMSOL CAD tools interface. However, the parachute canopy geometries were
modeled and modified in SolidWorks, and then imported into COMSOL using CAD
Import Module feature.
Figure 3.5. COMSOL CAD tools.

16
COMSOL has extraordinary versatility in handling complicated designs with narrow

curved areas and sharp edges. These kinds of special tools and advanced features made it
possible for COMSOL to independently model the geometry and then run the analysis.
Moreover, in case the geometry is imported from Solidworks or other solid modeling
programs, COMSOL has the ability to remodel and repair any geometric errors
associated with the original imported model. It can be seen in the Geometry toolbar that
COMSOL offers solid modeling and boundary modeling, and both are used in our study
of hydrodynamic mass to build the geometries such as the cylinder, sphere, cup and the
computational domain. Boolean operation is applied to combine and form the final
domain. In every case, the geometry for the object and the surrounding medium were
combined together as one entity using the Difference feature in Boolean Operations. The
Difference feature will keep the interior boundaries between the object and the fluid
medium by subtracting the object from the flow medium we ensure that the equation of
interest (Laplace equation) is only implemented in the resultant volume which is only the
fluid volume without the solid object.
3.2.4. Boundary Conditions
Boundary conditions for potential flow differs from the ones for viscous flow; the
potential flow is inviscid flow and the no slip condition cannot be applied on the solid
surfaces since there is no shear stress acting against the flow on the surface. In an ideal
fluid, flow takes the shape of the body on the surface. Therefore, velocity component
normal to the surface is zero. This tendency for potential flow to smoothly follow the
shape of an object as shown in Figure 3.6 is the main effect for zero vorticity and the
ability to introduce the velocity potential.
17
Figure 3.6. Potential flow streamlines around a cylinder.

In order to solve the velocity potential equation (
), two kind of boundary
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 3.7. Inlet and outlet uniform-stream boundary conditions.

The rest of the boundaries will be subjected to zero velocity normal to boundaries at both
the body and domain surfaces as depicted in Figure 3.8 below.
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
Figure 3.9. Zero Flux setting window.

In this project, Source/flux boundary parameter in COMSOL is assigned to impose
uniform-stream conditions at both inlet and outlet of the domain. To bring these boundary
conditions into play, right click on the Laplace Equation root node in Model Builder. The
toolbar with various choices of conditions will appear and allow the choice of
Source/Flux. Immediately after clicking the Source/flux, the setting window for
Source/flux comes into view as exhibited in Figure 3.10. The boundary Flux/Source
was set equal to
(freestream velocity) at the inlet. Moreover, the Boundary
Absorption/Impedance Term was set equal to zero. The same thing is achieved at the
outlet boundary with positive sign for
) , where
velocity and it is previously defined in the Parameters window.
21
is the uniform stream
Figure 3.10. Source/Flux setting window.

After all the previous setting were applied, the computational domain became fully
defined and the next step was to generate the computational grid or mesh by subdividing
the computational domain into small cells. Then GMRES (Generalized Minimum
Residual) iterative method was selected with Incomplete LU factorization to perform the
iteration to find velocity potential for each Model.
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.
Figure 3.11. Mesh toolbar with varieties of elements and features.

Right clicking on the mesh root node, the mesh toolbars will shows up as depicted in
Figure 3.11. This toolbar will allow the choice of elements type. The determination of the
23
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.
Figure 3.12. mesh setting window.
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
Figure 3.13. Screen capture showing element size parameters.

The parameters shown above play major roles in determining the accuracy of the
solutions. Therefore different settings were applied to seek precise solutions. Finer
elements provide more accurate solutions. The maximum element growth rate specifies
the maximum rate at which the element can grow from an area with small elements to
another with larger elements. The value of the maximum element growth rate must be
greater or equal to one. For example, with a maximum element growth rate of 1.4, the
element size can grow by at most 40% from one element to another. Another significant
parameter is the Resolution of curvature; this value specifies the size of boundary
elements confined to curved areas. A smaller value of Resolution of curvature parameter
25
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.
4.1.1. Circle (2D Cylinder)

This model is the only 2D model in this project,. The flow direction is shown along the
streamlines in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1. Streamlines over the 2D cylinder.
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
Table 4.1 A list of required parameters in the Model Builder.
The computational domain sides length
as shown in Table 4.1 was the first
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 .
Figure 4.2. COMSOL flow model for 2D cylinder.
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.
4.1.2. 3D Cylinder Model

This model describes the potential flow over a cylinder in a direction normal to its axis.
Figure 4.3 shows the adapted geometry symbols.
Figure 4.3. Cylinder model.

Various flow and geometric parameters for this model are defined in the parameter
section as depicted in Figure 4.4. The radius is set to a constant value as shown below,
but the cylinder length is changed with domain size and set equal to domains side
dimension to make sure that the entire cylinder length is covered in every trial.
29
Figure 4.4. Parameters setting for the cylinder model.

Figure 4.5 shows the computational domain with the cylinder model inside a cubic
block with a sides length L, where L had been defined previously in the parameter
section under the global definition in the Model Builder template. The uniform
freestream velocity was set to be in the direction parallel to the x-axis and normal to the
cylinder axis as demonstrated in Figure 4.5. The same boundary conditions, previously
explained in details in chapter 3, were applied to this model to solve the Laplace
equation. The solution was computed for a variety of domain volumes. The discretization
of the computational domain was done with finer tetrahedral mesh elements. In order to
ensure consistency of the results, the model was operated for different domain sizes and
mesh element settings. The results are exhibited and discussed in details in section 4.2.
30
Figure 4.5. The cylinder Model in COMSOL.
4.1.3. Sphere Model

The reason behind modeling this geometry is for verification purposes since the
analytical solutions can be compared with the numerically computed results. Creating the
model in COMSOL was done using COMSOL CAD tools in the Geometry toolbar, a
sphere with radius R equal to 0.2 meter was created first, and then enveloped with a cubic
block to create the surrounding domain, and finally Difference Boolean operations was
applied to subtract the sphere from the block and keep the interior boundaries. Boundary
31
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.
Figure 4.6. COMSOL model for sphere in potential flow.
32
4.1.4. Disk Model

Developing this model stemmed from the need to develop correlation for the
hydrodynamic mass of a cylinder moving along its axis. A disk is essentially an infinitely
thin disk. The comparison between numerically calculated values for the hydrodynamic
mass of the disk with analytical values are explored and discussed in details in the
following section. Similar to the past models, different domain sizes were tried till
consistent results were obtained. The model consists of a disk with radius
thickness
and
enclosed by a cubic block of length . Difference function in
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
in the parameters section, where
cylinder. Schematic view of the disk is shown in Figure 4.7.
Figure 4.7. Schematic of the disk.
33
is the length of the
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.
Figure 4.8. COMSOL model of the disk.
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
as shown in Figure 4.9. To carry out the investigation of
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
is larger than 60 as shown in
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
Figure 4.10. Hydrodynamic mass coefficients for a 3D cylinder with different

values.
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
Figure 4.11. The effect of domain size on hydrodynamic mass coefficient of a

sphere.
37
For the disk the results approached a constant value at
which is considerably
small then the cylinder case.
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
4.2.2 Mesh Refinements

In this part a comparison between different mesh sizes was performed to investigate the
effect on the hydrodynamic mass coefficient. The investigation was done using the three
classical models cylinder, sphere and disk with the different mesh settings: extra fine,
finer, fine, normal, coarse, coarser, and extra coarse. The solutions were obtained at
ratio that gave consistent results for each model. Moreover, some element size parameters
were examined individually, using one of the classical models to see their influence on
the results for the hydrodynamic mass coefficient. The element size parameters are
explained in detail in Chapter 3 and shown in Figure 3.13. Numbers of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and
7 were chosen to represent the mesh types: extra fine, finer, fine, normal, coarse, coarser,
and extra coarse respectively on the horizontal axis in the Figures 4.13, 4.14 and 4.15
below.
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
All the results above indicate very good convergence of
at extra fine, finer, and fine
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.
Figure 4.16. Predefined normal element size parameters.
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
when the maximum growth
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
represents the analytical
and numerically computed hydrodynamic mass coefficients, respectively. The

numerically values were obtained under the following conditions: finer mesh size with
resolution of curvatures set equal to 0.3, resolution of narrow regions set equal to 0.8 and
maximum growth rate 1.2.
Table 4.3. A comparison of numerical and analytical solutions of hydrodynamic
mass coefficient.
Classical
Models
Circle
Cylinder
Flow Direction
Hydrodynamic mass
formula
Error %
1.0
1.0
1.001
1.001
0.1
0.1
Sphere
normal to circle axis

normal to cylinder
axis
Horizontal/ Vertical
0.5
0.26
Disk
Along the disk axis
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
To correlate the hydrodynamic mass with the cylinders geometric dimensions
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
m and a cylinder diameter
. At first, a very small

)(
) were
examined. Afterward, the
ratio was increased gradually in each run to reach a
maximum value in which
is equal to four times . All the results were obtained with
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
(the hydrodynamic mass coefficient) multiplied by the volume
of the cylinder as presented in Eq. 5.1. This approach is the same as that for the classical
cylinder. In the classical model
is equal to constant value of 1. On the other hand, the
numerical solution for the solid cylinder model showed that
varies with the cylinder
dimensions.
(5.1)
In contrast to the classical model,
values were not constant when cylinders dimensions
changed. However, through investigations of the results which are exhibited in Table
(1.B), the following relationship between
and
45
was found: for any value of
and
that produced the same value of
bounds
with
there is constant value of . This link which
led to the development of a correlation between
the numerical values of hydrodynamic mass

between
and
and
using
. Figure 5.2 depicts the resultant relation
for the solid cylinder on logarithmic scale.
100
(H/D)-0.927
C = 0.566
R = 0.9999
10
1
0.01
0.1
H/D
10
0.1
Figure 5.2. Curve fitting
to
The curve fitting in Figure 5.2 has a residual squared value of
.
for the
following curve fit:

( )
Hence, substituting
(5.2)
from Eq. 5.2 in Eq. 5.1 led to the following correlation:

(5.3)
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
. Through observations of the two curves in Figure 5.3, apparently
46
both curves are almost identical, despite the presence of small errors which dont exceed
3% in the worst case.
Added mass of aligned cylinder (kg)
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
in contrast to the Eq.5.3. Thus, for a disk of

the analytical solution is
results in
for a fluid density of
and thickness
whereas the correlation
. The added mass result obtained for
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.
Figure 5.4. Schematic views of cup.

48
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
5.2.1 Cup Results

In this section the streamlines and the velocity field were explored to observe the pattern
of the flow around the cup model and to develop better understanding of the added mass
that is accelerated by the cup movement. Three examples of the streamlines were taken
for a cup with different
are shown in Figs 5.6, 5.7, and 5.8.
Figure 5.6. Streamlines for a cup with
50

51
Figure 5.9 shows the distribution of velocity magnitude on the cup surfaces for
and the uniform freestream flow boundary condition of
at the inlet of the
computational domain. The inlet was chosen to be facing the open side of the cup and
perpendicular to the x axis.
Figure 5.9. Velocity distributions on cup surfaces.

In Figure 5.9 regions of high velocity are observed on edges facing the flow direction
which gives the impression of high flow acceleration close to these edges. Furthermore,
the flow inside the cup seems to have the tendency of having the cup velocity which in
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.
5.2.2. Hydrodynamic Mass Correlation for Cup

) is applied for the Cup
When the traditional form of hydrodynamic mass (

case, the results showed that
is not constant value when the enclosed volume
changing. Table 5.1 shows different values of
is
with different cups size. Hence, form of
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
first before going further. The
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
while keeping height and thickness values fixed
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
0.01 0.0355 0.013

0.01 0.091
0.07
0.01 0.088 0.065
0.01 0.435 0.078
0.01 0.785 0.393
0.01 0.016 0.0157
53
2.825
1.3
1.33
5.53
2
1.03
hydrodynamic mass of cup (kg)
10
0.1
0.01
0.1
1
Ro (meter)
Figure 5.10. Hydrodynamic mass of cup as a function of outer radius.

Another investigation was done on the length as shown in Figure 5.11 where the
hydrodynamic mass of cup was calculated for a variety of lengths ranging between
with keeping the outer radius and the thickness fixed at
and
respectively.
Added mass of cup (kg)
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.1
1
H (m)
Figure 5.11. Added mass of cup versus its length.
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
, respectively, and then
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
Figure 5.12.The influence of cups thickness on the added mass of cup.

The curve in Figure 5.12 gives clear indication that the added mass decreases when the
thickness of cup increases. The larger the thickness, the smaller the cavity inside the cup
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 , the cups hydrodynamic mass was found
numerically for different dimensions
values. Subsequently, these data were
organized into a spreadsheet as described in Table (2.B) Appendix B. Nonlinear

regression was preformed to estimate the values of
for
and
and . The best fit gives values
. Thus rewriting Eq. 5.4 with the values of
, and
gives the following correlations:

(
) (
(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
ratio. Figure 5.13 below
values. For
values ranging
the errors do not exceed 2%. An overall assessment of the
correlations accuracy yields the total squared residual of

56
for
. Equation 5.5 was further investigated in term of how the error is affected by
the thickness ratio
. Figure 5.14 shows small variance in error with the
values.
The error ranges between a minimum value equal of 0.57% and a maximum value equal
of 1.03 %. The effect of
ratio may be neglected since its variation results in small
errors in Eq. 5.5. Thus, the only restriction for using the correlation presented in Eq. 5.5
is the
ratio
Absolute values of Error %
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.
Absollute values of Erorr%
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
5.3. Parachute Canopies

In this section 8 models of round parachute canopies were built in Solidworks, and then
imported into COMSOL to find their hydrodynamic mass. Subsequently, added mass
values were correlated with certain geometric parameters.
5.3.1. Canopy Models
The eight models represent various stages of a parachute canopy during inflation. In the
experimental research conducted by Desabrais [9], the opening process of a flexible 30.5
cm constructed diameter canopy was conducted in a water tunnel to measure the velocity
field. Furthermore, digital photographs of the opening process were taken for during
various stages of inflation. Eight stages from these figures were deemed adequate to
represent the entire inflation process as shown in Figure 5.15. These shapes were utilized
to approximate the 8 solid models. The geometric aspects of each model are presented in
detail in Appendix C in which all the geometric dimensions are defined. Shape 1
represents the parachute model after initial release when the canopy is in the initial
sock shape. Shape 2 presents the canopy 1.5 second after release. Shape 3 represents
the canopy at 2.1 seconds after release. Shape 4 was captured at 2.5 second after the
initial release. Shape 5 is at the instant when maximum force is experienced. Shape 6
represents the canopy when the enclosed volume reaches a maximum value. Shape 7
represents the over-inflation stage. Shape 8 is from an image taken 4.2 seconds after
initial release and it represents the approximate steady state shape. The captured images
of these shapes can be seen in the Figure 5.15.
58
Shape 2
Shape 1
Shape 3
Shape 4
Shape 5
Shape 6
Shape 7
Shape 8
Figure 5.15: Canopy Shapes from [9]

59
5.3.2 Preparing Canopy Models in COMSOL

After the images in Figure 5.15 were created as solid models in Solidworks, the solid
models of the parachute canopy were imported into COMSOL. A cubic block of side
length
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
Similarly, freestream flow with uniform velocity
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.
Figure 5.17. The tetrahedral mesh elements for Model 8.

After discretizing the computational domain, iterative method described in chapter 3 was
used to solve the velocity potential.
61
5.3.3 Potential Flow Results for Parachute Models

Some features of the flow field of parachute canopies such as velocity potential and
velocity field are exhibited in this section. The results shown are for Model 1 and Model
8 since their shapes are quite different. Model 1 is after the initial release and Model 8
represents the fully inflated parachute. The comparison between velocity potential of two
cases are shown in Figs. 5.18 and 5.19.
Figure 5.18. Slices of velocity potential for Model 1.
62
Figure 5.19 Slices of velocity potential of Model 8
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 5.20. Streamlines on a y-z plane for Model 1.
Figure 5.21. Streamlines on a y-z plane for Model 8.

64
Figure 5.22. Distribution of the velocity component in the y-direction for Model 1.
Figure 5.23. Distribution of the velocity component in y-direction for Model 8.
65
.
Figure 5.24. Distribution of the velocity component in x-direction for Model 1.
Figure 5.25. Distribution of the velocity component in x-direction Model 8.
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
Figure 5.28. The maximum projected area of Model 5.
The computed hydrodynamic mass (
) of the eight models is presented in Table 5.2 in
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
in Eq. 2.5 was calculated by dividing the
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
Unlike the classical geometries,
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
value for the parachute models is not constant, and
as exhibited above varies for different models. Therefore, it seems inapplicable to

develop correlation for the hydrodynamic mass of parachute canopies based on the
traditional method of Eq. 2.5. However, different ways were pursued using the nonlinear
regression solver in Excel to find a good correlation that can tie the dimensions
to the values of the hydrodynamic mass (
).
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 ,
) were correlated using nonlinear regression to find the
and . The results are shown in Table 5.4
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
Substituting the values of ,
( )
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
from Table 5.4 leads to a correlation of
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 (
). Figure 5.29 shows comparison
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
Added mass (kg)
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.
Table 5.5. Performing regression to find the value of parameter

Model#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
( )
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
Substituting the value of
from Table 5.5 in Eq.5.6 leads to the correlation of
hydrodynamic mass of the parachute canopy during inflation as follows:

(5.8)
The accuracy of this correlation is investigated in Figure 5.30; the numerically computed
values are presented on the horizontal axis and the correlation added mass values are on
the vertical axis. Furthermore, the straight line in Figure 5.30 is plotted with slope equal
to 1 to measure the deviation in the added mass results.
Correlation added mass (kg)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Computed added mass (kg)
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
. Furthermore the correlation can include the disk
case and gives satisfying results.

In the cup model the observation of the results showed that the added mass of the cup
can be presented as a combination of the added mass of aligned cylinder and the portion
74
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
and for the last fully inflated model is equal
. This huge variation in hydrodynamic mass refers to the tremendous change
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
the hydrodynamic mass of parachute canopy. The hydrodynamic mass of a parachute

canopy during various stages of inflation may be written as the hydrodynamic mass of a
disk having the same area as the projected area of the canopy plus the mass of fluid
enclosed by the canopy.
Previous study on rigid spherical cup by Ibrahim (1965) had shown the effect of the
concavity parameter on the added mass. The possible suggested works in the future is to
combine Ibrahim (1965) analytical solutions with the work reported here to refine
solution that can give better presentation of hydrodynamic mass of the parachute canopy
models. Another suggestion is to develop solution that account for porosity of parachutes,
and cavities and wakes in flow. Moreover, prospective study could pursue solutions of
hydrodynamic mass for different shapes of parachutes such as rectangular parachutes, or
other design of parachutes such as the ones with hole at their apex. Furthermore the
results of this work can be utilized in future experimental works in flow about parachute
75
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
Table (1.A). The verification of hydrodynamic mass coefficient

L (domain length) (m) R (radius of circle) (m) domain area L/R
3
0.2
9
15
4
0.2
16
20
5
0.2
25
25
6
0.2
36
30
7
0.2
49
35
8
0.2
64
40
9
0.2
81
45
10
0.2
100
50
11
0.2
121
55
12
0.2
144
60
13
0.2
169
65
14
0.2
196
70
15
0.2
225
75
16
0.2
256
80
17
0.2
289
85
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
Table (2.A). The verification of hydrodynamic coefficient of the classical cylinder

model.
L (Domain length) (m) R (cylinder radius) (m)
1
0.2
2
0.2
3
0.2
4
0.2
5
0.2
6
0.2
7
0.2
8
0.2
10
0.2
12
0.2
14
0.2
16
0.2
18
0.2
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
Table (3.A) Domain verifications on the hydrodynamic mass coefficient of sphere

L (Domain length) (m) R (sphere radius) (m)
1
0.2
2
0.2
3
0.2
4
0.2
5
0.2
( ) 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
in Table (2.B) is defined as follow:

(
) (
Table (2.B) spreadsheet of the regression solver to correlate data for

hydrodynamic mass of cup
H(m)
Ro(m)
H/D
t (m)
0.02
0.2
0.05
0.01
0.022
0.2
0.055
0.01
0.024
0.2
0.06
0.01
0.026
0.2
0.065
0.01
0.028
0.2
0.07
0.01
0.036
0.2
0.09
0.01
0.044
0.2
0.11
0.01
0.052
0.2
0.13
0.01
0.06
0.2
0.15
0.01
0.068
0.2
0.17
0.01
0.076
0.2
0.19
0.01
0.084
0.2
0.21
0.01
0.092
0.2
0.23
0.01
0.1
0.2
0.25
0.01
0.12
0.2
0.3
0.01
0.14
0.2
0.35
0.01
0.16
0.2
0.4
0.01
0.18
0.2
0.45
0.01
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.01
0.22
0.2
0.55
0.01
0.24
0.2
0.6
0.01
0.26
0.2
0.65
0.01
0.28
0.2
0.7
0.01
0.3
0.2
0.75
0.01
0.32
0.2
0.8
0.01
0.34
0.2
0.85
0.01
0.36
0.2
0.9
0.01
0.38
0.2
0.95
0.01
0.4
0.2
1
0.01
0.44
0.2
1.1
0.01
0.48
0.2
1.2
0.01
0.52
0.2
1.3
0.01
0.56
0.2
1.4
0.01
0.6
0.2
1.5
0.01
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
Table (2.C). A list of dimensions of Model 2

Name
Value
symbol
86
Unit
Front view
Top view
Bottom view
Figure (3.C) Drawing of Model 3.
Table (3.C). A list of Model 3 dimensions.

Name
Value
2.724
87
symbol
Unit
Front view
Top view
Bottom view
Figure (4.C). Drawing of Model 4.

Name
Value
3.44
88
symbol
Unit
Front view
Top view
Bottom view
:
Name
Value
4.248
89
Symbol
Unit
Front view
Top view
Bottom view
Table (6.C). A list of dimensions for Model 6.

Name
Value
4.354
90
Symbol
Unit
Front view
Top view
Bottom view
Figure (7.C) Drawing of Model 7.

Name
Value
4.587
91
Symbol
Unit
Front view
Top view
Bottom view

Name
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
( ) Domain side length (m)

0.6334
10
12
15
18
20
22
24
26
( )
3.3662
3.3591
3.3558
3.3551
3.3539
3.3526
3.3526
3.3526
Table (2.D). Hydrodynamic mass versus domain sizes for Model 2.

( )
4.56588

2.244
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
50
55
60
93
( )
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
Table (3.D). Hydrodynamic mass versus domain sizes of Model 3.

( )
4.159
( )
2.7242

( )
2.594
10
143.1795
20
126.5762
30
125.3545
40
125
50
124.96
55
124.8
60
124.79
64
124.79
Table (4.D). Added mass versus domain sizes of Model 4.

( )
3.248
( )
3.43456
( ) Domain h side length (m)

( )
2.953
44
189.2059
50
189
55
189
60
189
Table (5.D). Added mass versus domain size of Model 5.

( )
3.194
( )
4.248

3.781
44
50
55
60
64
( )
277.7
277.47
277.35
277.2
277.2
Table (6.D). Hydrodynamic mass versus domain size of Model 6.

( )
2.434
( )
4.354

( )
3.979
44
268.23
50
268..15
55
268.0358
60
267.9
64
267.9
94
Table (7.D). Added mass versus domain size for Model 7.

( )
1.76227
( )
4.587

4.116
44
50
60
64
70
( )
296.89
296.58
296.398
296.34
296.34
Table (8.D). Added mass versus domain size for Model 8.

( )
3.276
( )
4.1

3.7295
44
50
55
60
64
70
95
( )
280.672
280.41
280.277
280.19
280.14
280.14

Virtual Mass Calculation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Virtual Mass Calculation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

HYRODYNAMIC MASS OF BLUFF BODIES

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

The thesis of Mohamed Elgabaili is approved:

Dr. Larry Caretto

Dr. Abhijit Mukherjee

Professor, Hamid Johari, Chair

California State University, Northridge

3. Numerical Method .................................................................................................................. 11

4.1.4. Disk Model.................................................................................................................... 32

6. Summary and Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 64

The organization of COMSOL Desktop

Screen capture showing COMSOL space dimensions

Screen capture showing the COMSOL Multiphysics modules

COMSOL CAD tools

Potential flow streamlines around a cylinder

Inlet and outlet uniform-stream boundary conditions

Computational domain boundaries with zero normal velocity condition

Zero Flux setting window

Source/Flux setting window

Mesh toolbar with varieties of elements and features

Mesh setting window

Screen capture showing element size parameters

Streamlines over the cylinder

COMSOL flow model for 2D cylinder

Parameters setting for the cylinder model

The cylinder Model in COMSOL

COMSOL model for sphere in potential flow

Schematic of the disk

COMSOL model of the disk

Hydrodynamic mass coefficients for a 3D cylinder with different

The effect of domain size on hydrodynamic mass coefficient of a sphere

The effect of domain size on hydrodynamic mass coefficient of a disk

The effect of mesh type on the hydrodynamic mass coefficient of the

Mesh refinements effect on the hydrodynamic mass coefficient of the

Mesh refinement effects on the hydrodynamic mass coefficient of the

Predefined normal element size parameters

Comparison of added mass values computed numerically with the

Schematic views of cup

Various dimension settings that were applied to a cup model

Streamlines for a cup with

Streamlines for a cup with

Streamlines for a cup with

Velocity distributions on cup surfaces

Hydrodynamic mass of cup as a function of outer radius

Added mass of cup versus its length

The influence of cups thickness on the added mass of cup

Prediction error of the correlation in Eq. 5.5 for various H/D.

ratio on the hydrodynamic mass coefficient of circle

Canopy Shapes from [9]

Free stream flow direction on computational domain of Model 8

The tetrahedral mesh elements for Model 8

Slices of velocity potential for Model 1

Slices of velocity potential for Model 8

Streamlines on a y-z plane for Model 1.

Streamlines on a y-z plane for Model 8.

Distribution of velocity component in the y-direction for Model 1

Distribution of the velocity component in y-direction for Model 8

Distribution of the velocity component in x-direction for Model 1

Distribution of the velocity component in x-direction for Model 8

Distribution of the relative kinetic energy on a cut plane at the opening

Distribution of the relative kinetic energy on a cut plane at the opening

The Maximum projected area of Model 5

Comparison between hydrodynamic mass for disk, the solid canopies