Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Two-Phase Flow Simulations, Analysis and Modeling in the Near Wake of a Transom Stern
Prof. D. K.-P. Yue (PI), Dr. K. Hendrickson (co-PI), Dr. G. Weymouth, Dr. S. Banerjee Massachusetts Institute of Technology Presented at ONR Ship Wavebreaking and Bubbly Wake Review Pasadena, CA This work is funded by ONR (N00014-01-1-0630) April 11-12, 2013 Dr. Patrick L. Purtell
Objectives
High resolution iLES simulations using validated conservative schemes of the near-field flow of a canonical stern to: Obtain extensive datasets for canonical transom stern bubbly wakes that incorporates both speed and geometry effects. Provide understanding of the flow properties of the mixedphase region in the near wake. Characterize the near-field air entrainment and cavity/bubble size distribution. Develop framework for analysis of incompressible highly variable-density turbulence (IHVDT) for RANS. Quantify modeling implications for VDT in the near-wake of the stern. Develop IHVDT closure models for RANS
Accomplishments
Developed a database of high resolution iLES simulations of a canonical stern over a range of speeds and geometries. Identified large scale flow features in mixed region
New jet flow structure New vortex structure with Strouhal frequency ~0.2 Quantified convective velocity of large scale coherent structures
Characterized the IHVDT in the wake. Developed isotropic and higher-order anisotropic closure models for turbulence mass fluxes (TMF) and Reynolds stresses.
FrD=2.38, B/D=1
FrD=2.38, B/D=1
Play
Jet structure on centerline after convergent corner wave collision Weak roller structure in leading edge of mixed region
mixed region
Play
Jet flow pattern acts as wake profile and sets up paired vortex pattern in mixed region Jet flow and paired vortex pattern also present in divergent breaking waves Mixed region flow structure
fD/U
fD/U
Average wake surface features scale with speed & geometry Convergent Corner Waves
Define: Angle in y-z plane of particle leaving bottom corner of stern Angle in x-y plane formed by convergent corner waves Location of convergent corner wave collision Collapse to ballistic scaling with speed and geometry for B/D >= 1
measured
<fbulk>
Strong air entrainment confined to narrow region in wake Location of breaking divergent waves identified Entrainment essentially constant in rooster tail
xc
xd
Initial peak surface entrainment rate collapses at xc Diverging breaking waves has larger Q
10/3
Fr=2.38
TMP must be modeled to obtain IHVDT closure <M1> collapses for different speeds and geometries with Fr and B/D scaling Peak in <M1> identifies the region of intense breaking near x~xB (xB<~xc) (and smaller secondary breaking downstream) Results <M2> and <M3> are similar with generally M1>M3> M2
xc
xr
xd
Isotropic
TI collapses with Fr and B/D scaling similar to TMF Generally TI and anisotropy peak at peak breaking location xB<xc Departure from isotropy can be better quantified by Lumley map of IHVDT invariants
2 component
Isotropic
isotropic
Breaking @ x~xB
<J> (also) collapses with Fr and B/D scaling Initial anisotropy is reduced by breaking at ~xB (and at secondary breaking downstream) Turbulence becomes increasingly isotropic (increasing <J> 1) with distance (x/D)/Fr IHVDT closure must capture varying anisotropy/isotropic characteristics along the wake
Comparison of TMF and Density Gradient Shows Limitation of Models Using (Only) Isotropic Eddy Diffusivity Closure
xc xr xd
(x/D)/Fr=0.71
(x/D)/Fr=1.60
(x/D)/Fr=2.80
(x/D)/Fr
(x/D)/Fr=0.71
(x/D)/Fr=1.60
(x/D)/Fr=2.80
Correlation between TMF and gradient diffusion are generally weak especially in more anisotropic regions TMF exhibits counter gradient behavior not captured by density gradients Similar features for other components (not shown)
(x/D)/Fr
For 3 Fr cases
Fr=2.38, B/D=1
xr
xd
DNS Data
(x/D)/Fr=0.71
(x/D)/Fr=0.71
(x/D)/Fr=0.71
y/D
(x/D)/Fr
DNS Data
Anisotropic model
(x/D)/Fr=0.71
(x/D)/Fr=0.71
(x/D)/Fr=0.71
y/D
Anisotropic closure model obtains salient features in TMF not captured by isotopic model Performance of anisotropic model is remarkably good for x>~xB Modeling errors are larger in mixed region away from centerline
Performance of Anisotropic vs Isotropic TMF Closure Models Importance of Incorporating Anisotropy Fr=2.38, B/D=1
xc
xr
xd
DNS Data
Isotropic model
(x/D)/Fr=1.60
(x/D)/Fr=1.60
(x/D)/Fr=1.60
(x/D)/Fr
DNS Data
Anisotropic model
(x/D)/Fr=1.60
(x/D)/Fr=1.60
(x/D)/Fr=1.60
Anisotropic closure model obtains salient features in TMF not captured by isotopic model Performance of anisotropic model is remarkably good for x>~xB Modeling errors are larger in mixed region away from centerline
xc
xr
xd
(x/D)/Fr=2.80
(x/D)/Fr=2.80
(x/D)/Fr=2.80
(x/D)/Fr
DNS Data
Anisotropic model
(x/D)/Fr=2.80
(x/D)/Fr=2.80
(x/D)/Fr=2.80
Anisotropic closure model obtains salient features in TMF not captured by isotopic model Performance of anisotropic model is remarkably good for x>~xB Modeling errors are larger in mixed region away from centerline
DNS Data
(x/D)/Fr=0.71
(x/D)/Fr=1.60
(x/D)/Fr=2.80
Isotropic model
(x/D)/Fr=0.71
(x/D)/Fr=1.60
(x/D)/Fr=2.80
Anisotropic model
(x/D)/Fr=0.71
(x/D)/Fr=1.60
(x/D)/Fr=2.80
Fr=2.38, B/D=1
Results for different geometries and speeds (not shown) also collapse with Fr and B/D scaling TKE production and dissipation peak near x~xB (and near secondary breaking downstream) but are not balanced due to increased transport Enhanced TKE transport in strong breaking region(s) suggests that gradient diffusion closure models will be inadequate
DNS Data
TKE model
(x/D)/Fr=0.71
(x/D)/Fr=0.71
(x/D)/Fr=0.71
DNS Data
TKE model
(x/D)/Fr=1.60
(x/D)/Fr=1.60
(x/D)/Fr=1.60
DNS Data
TKE model
(x/D)/Fr=2.80
(x/D)/Fr=2.80
(x/D)/Fr=2.80
Accomplishments
Developed a database of high resolution iLES simulations of a canonical stern over a range of speeds and geometries. Identified large scale flow features in mixed region
New jet flow structure New vortex structure with Strouhal frequency ~0.2 Quantified convective velocity of large scale coherent structures
Characterized the IHVDT in the wake. Developed isotropic and higher-order anisotropic closure models for turbulence mass fluxes (TMF) and Reynolds stresses.
Future Work
Develop high resolution DNS/iLES simulations for canonical air entraining turbulent flows. For different air entrainment scenarios/flow conditions:
Obtain characterizations, quantifications and models for air entrainment, and scaling with flow parameters Characterize the volume, sizes, locations of entrained air Extend Lagrangian method for tracking air entrainment to allow tracking of large numbers of small bubbles
Refine IHVDT closure modeling for turbulence mass fluxes (TMF) and Reynolds stresses
Further evaluation with different IHVDT canonical flows to understand dependency of model parameters A-posteriori validations
In addition to understanding the mixed region flow structure, we need to make sure the following is very clear in the summary:
X_c will tell you where the peak air entrainment is and we understand the scaling and limits of this finding (dry stern, waves collide before breaking) Q* tells you how much air is entrained at x_c and we have a basic (although not complete) understanding of this value
I.e. we have told them where and how much air is entrained within certain geometry conditions
Average vorticity field Frequency analysis Consistent for both diverging breaking waves and centerline
This slide is the outline slide for the big point.
DNS Data
(x/D)/Fr=0.71
(x/D)/Fr=1.60
(x/D)/Fr=2.80
Isotropic model
(x/D)/Fr
Model Error
Isotropic model
(x/D)/Fr=0.71
(x/D)/Fr=1.60
(x/D)/Fr=2.80
Anisotropic model
Anisotropic model
(x/D)/Fr
(x/D)/Fr=0.71
(x/D)/Fr=1.60
(x/D)/Fr=2.80