You are on page 1of 81

caHYDRODYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF FLAPPING FOILS FOR THE

PROPULSION OF NEAR SURFACE UNDER WATER VEHICLES USING THE

PANEL METHOD

by

Julia Bustos

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of

The College of Engineering and Computer Science

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science

Florida Atlantic University

Boca Raton, Florida

May 2015
Copyright 2015 by Julia Bustos

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my thesis advisors Dr. M. Dhanak and Dr. P.

Ananthakrishnan for providing insight, guidance and profound knowledge of the subject

throughout my masters program and the completion of this thesis. I have been amazingly

fortunate to work with such great teachers and advisors. Thank you for having me as a

student, for your help on this project and on school related matters, for your endless

patience and for your always prompt answers to my various requests.

In addition, I would like to thank my thesis committee member Dr Oscar Curet for

his comments and valuable feedback on my research.

Also, I would like to thank the faculty and staff of the Department of Ocean and

Mechanical Engineering for providing a good environment in which to complete my

graduate studies. Thank you Barbara Steinberg for your everyday good communicative

humor!

Finally, I am very grateful to have such amazing family and friends from all

around the world. Your support and encouragement has helped achieve my goals.

iv
ABSTRACT

Author: Julia Bustos

Title: Hydrodynamic analysis of flapping foils for the propulsion of


shallow-water and near surface vehicles using the panel method

Institution: Florida Atlantic University

Thesis Advisors: Dr. P. Ananthakrishnan and Dr. M. Dhanak

Degree: Master of Science

Year: 2015

This thesis presents two-dimensional hydrodynamic analysis of flapping foils for

the propulsion of underwater vehicles using a source-vortex panel. Using a simulation

program developed in MatLab, the hydrodynamic forces (such as the lift and the drag) as

well as the propulsion thrust and efficiency are computed with this method. The

assumptions made in the analysis are that the flow around a hydrofoil is two-dimensional,

incompressible and inviscid. The analysis is first considered for the case of a deeply

submerged hydrofoil followed by the case where it is located in shallow water depth or

near the free surface. In the second case, the presence of the free surface and wave effects

are taken into account, specifically at high and low frequencies and small and large

amplitudes of flapping. The objective is to determine the thrust and efficiency of the

flapping foils under the influence of added effects of the free surface. Results show that

v
the free-surface can significantly affect the foil performance by increasing the efficiency

particularly at high frequencies.

vi
HYDRODYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF FLAPPING FOILS FOR THE PROPULSION

OF NEAR SURFACE UNDER WATER VEHICLES USING THE PANEL

METHOD

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... x

NOMENCLATURE .................................................................................................. xiii

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Hydrofoil .................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Flapping Foil Propulsion .......................................................................... 4

1.3 Panel Method............................................................................................ 6

1.4 Free Surface Effects ................................................................................. 8

1.5 Thesis Objectives .................................................................................... 9

1.6 Scope and Contribution of this Thesis .................................................. 10

2. FORMULATION OF THE POTENTIAL FLOW ................................................ 11

2.1 Problem Formulation.............................................................................. 11

2.2 Potential flow theory ............................................................................. 12

2.3 Eulers Integral (Unsteady Bernouillis Equation)................................. 13

2.4 Singularity Elements: Elementary Solutions to the Laplace Equation . 14

vii
2.5 Body Boundary Conditions .................................................................... 16

2.5.1 The Neumann Condition ............................................................. 16

2.5.2 The Kutta Jukowski Condition .................................................... 17

3. SOURCE VORTEX PANEL METHOD............................................................... 18

3.1 The Steady State Case ............................................................................ 18

3.1.1 Geometry ..................................................................................... 18

3.1.2 Calculation of the influence coefficients ..................................... 19

3.1.4 The Neumann condition .............................................................. 22

3.1.5 The Kutta Condition .................................................................... 23

3.2 The Unsteady Flow Case ....................................................................... 24

3.2.1 The kinematic velocity of the hydrofoil ...................................... 24

3.2.2 The Kelvin Condition .................................................................. 26

3.2.3 Velocity induced by the shed vortices ......................................... 27

3.2.4 The Neumann Condition ............................................................. 28

3.2.5 The Kutta-Joukowski condition .................................................. 29

3.2.6 Vortex convection in the wake .................................................... 30

3.2.9 Performance parameters .............................................................. 32

3.2.10 The time-stepped advance procedure ........................................ 33

4. RESULTS IN INFINITE FLUID .......................................................................... 35

4.1 Heaving Motion (transverse motion) ..................................................... 36

4.2 Pitching................................................................................................... 39

5. FREE SURFACE EFFECT ................................................................................... 43

viii
5.1 Boundary Conditions.............................................................................. 43

5.2 First Limiting Case: Small Frequency ................................................... 46

5.3 Second Limiting Case: Large Frequency ............................................... 47

5.4 Extension of the Code to Include Free Surface Effect ........................... 49

6. RESULTS WITH FREE SURFACE ..................................................................... 52

6.1 First Limiting Case: High Reduced Frequency ............................... 53

7. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 63

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................ 65

ix
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 - Principal characteristic terms of a foil. ........................................................... 2

Figure 2.1 AUV with flapping-foil propulsion in an infinite fluid. ............................... 12

Figure 2.2 Velocity induction from a source panel........................................................... 14

Figure 3.1- Coordinate Frames ......................................................................................... 19

Figure 3.2 - Illustration of a hydrofoil and principal dimensions. .................................... 25

Figure 4.1- Motion of the flapping foil with the wake pattern at t = 3T, ,
, St =0.3 and ............................................................................... 36

Figure 4.2- Results obtained by Tuncer and Platzer. ........................................................ 37

Figure 4.3- Time history of the lift coefficient at t = 3T, w*=1, Fn =0.32, St =0.1 and
=0.1, as obtained in the present work. ........................................................ 38

Figure 4.4- Time history of the drag coefficient and motion at t = 3T, w*=1, Fn =0.32, St
=0.1 and =0.1, as obtained in the present work .......................................... 38

Figure 4.5 - Motion of the flapping foil with the wake pattern at t = 3T, w*=1, Fn=0.1, St
=0.32 and =0.1 .......................................................................................... 40

Figure 4.6 - Time history of the thrust, torque and motion at t = 3T, w*=1, Fn=0.32, St
=0.3 and =0.1 ............................................................................................ 40

Figure 4.7 - Time history of the thrust, torque and motion at t = 3T, w*=1, Fn=0.1, St
=0.1 and =0.32 .......................................................................................... 41

Figure 4.8- Time history of the thrust, Torque and Motion at t = 3T, w*=1, Fn=0.1, St =1
and =0.03 .................................................................................................... 42

Figure 5.1 - AUV with flapping-foil propulsion near a free surface ................................ 43

Figure 5.2- Hydrofoil and its image above the free surface ............................................. 45

x
Figure 5.3 - Singularities and their images in the case of a small reduced frequency at low
Fn number ..................................................................................................... 46

Figure 5.4 - Motion of the hydrofoil and its image in case of a small reduced frequency 47

Figure 5.5 - Singularities and their images in the case of a high reduced frequency ....... 48

Figure 5.6 - Motion of the hydrofoil and its image in case of a high reduced frequency . 49

Figure 5.7 - Influence of a source panel j and its image on the panel i ............................ 50

Figure 6.1 - Motion of the flapping foil with the wake pattern at t = 3T, no FS, w*=2,
Fn=0.125, St =0.3 and =0.057 .................................................................. 55

Figure 6.2 - Time history of the thrust, torque and motion at t = 3T, no FS, w*=2,
Fn=0.125, St =0.3 and =0.057 .................................................................. 55

Figure 6.3 - Motion of the flapping foil with the wake pattern at t = 1.5T, d=1, w*=2,
Fn=0.125, St =0.3 and =0.057 .................................................................. 56

Figure 6.4 - Time history of the thrust, torque and motion at t = 3T, d=1, w*=2,
Fn=0.125, St =0.3 and ==0.047 ................................................................ 56

Figure 6.5- Motion of the flapping foil with the wake pattern at t = 1.5T, d=0.2, w*=2,
Fn=0.125, St =0.3 and =0.057 .................................................................... 57

Figure 6.6 - Time history of the thrust, torque and motion at t = 3T, d=0.2, w*=2,
Fn=0.125, St =0.29 and =0.047 ................................................................ 57

Figure 6.7 - Motion of the flapping foil with the wake pattern at t = 2T, d=1, w*=3,
Fn=0.32, St =0.27 and =0.09 .................................................................... 58

Figure 6.8 - Time history of the thrust, torque and motion at t = 2T, d=1, w*=3, Fn=0.32,
St =0.27 and =0.09 .................................................................................... 58

gure 6.9 - Motion of the flapping foil with the wake pattern at t = 2T, d=0.3, w*=3,
Fn=0.32, St =0.27 and =0.09 .................................................................... 59

Figure 6.10 - Time history of the thrust, torque and motion at t = 2T, d=0.3, w*=3,
Fn=0.32, St =0.27 and =0.09 .................................................................. 59

Figure 6.11 - Motion of the flapping foil with the wake pattern at t = 3T, d=1, w*=10,
Fn=0.1, St =0.3and =0.009 ..................................................................... 60

xi
Figure 6.12 - Time history of the thrust, torque and motion at t = 3T, d=1, w*=10,
Fn=0.1, St =0.3 and =0.009 .................................................................... 60

Figure 6.13 - Motion of the flapping foil with the wake pattern at t = 3T, d=0.5, w*=10,
Fn=0.1, St =0.3and =0.009 ..................................................................... 61

Figure 6.14 - Time history of the thrust, torque and motion at t = 3T, d=0.5, w*=10,
Fn=0.1, St =0.3and =0.009 ..................................................................... 61

xii
NOMENCLATURE

c Chord length of the flapping foil

Depth of body submergence

Froude Number

g Acceleration of gravity

Water depth

Perimeter of the hydrofoil

Lift

M Moment

p Total pressure

Power

Torque

s Surface length parameter

Strouhal Number

t Time

xiii
Period of flapping motion

Thrust

U Fluid velocity

U Fluid velocity in X-direction

W Fluid velocity in Z -direction

x Coordinate in direction of free-stream

z Coordinate perpendicular to free-stream

Amplitude of heaving

Angle of attack

Vortex distribution

Total Circulation

Efficiency

Amplitude of pitching

Density

Unsteady frequency parameter

Source strength

Frequency of motion

xiv
Velocity potential

Phase difference between heaving and pitching

xv
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1 begins by an overview of the work done so far related to flapping-foil

propulsion and the panel method which is used in this project. The second part of this

chapter presents the objectives, scope and how this thesis is expected to contribute to the

studies.

1.1 Hydrofoil

The study of airfoil started in the late 1800s with the work of H.F Phillips (1884).

Since that time, many scientists have contributed to elaborate the theory of airfoil. An

airfoil is a streamlined body that produces an aerodynamic force, in particular normal to

the direction of motion called lift in addition to the component parallel to the direction of

motion called drag, when moved in a fluid. Foils designed to operate in the water are

called hydrofoils, which is the object of our study, in comparison to airfoils moving into

the air. Hydrofoil theories also take into account cavitation but it is not in the scope of

this thesis.

In the early 1900s, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA)

developed a systematic series of airfoils that are conventionally used in engineering

applications. Through hydrodynamics analysis and wind tunnel experiments, it was

possible to determine the characteristics of these airfoils including their lift and drag

1
properties. Thus, NACA was able to propose families of airfoils whose shapes are best

suited for specific purposes. These shapes of airfoils have also been used in the

hydrofoil theory with the main distinction between airfoil and hydrofoil theories being

inclusion of cavitation in the latter.

Figure 1.1 - Principal characteristic terms of a foil.

Researchers in the field of hydrodynamic have highlighted that hydrofoils can be

used as in an oscillatory motion as an efficient system of propulsion, as suggested by the

work of Anderson (1998), who considered heave and pitch motions of the foil. The

flapping foil propulsion is inspired by the observation of how fishes swim and, more

particularly, by the motion of their undulating fins. Nature offers the most efficient and

improved designs, after years of evolution. This flapping-foil propulsion, if not be

forthcoming for large ships in the near future, is well suited at present for small vehicles

such as Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs).

2
Many numerical methods of modeling flow past a two dimensional body have

been considered to determine the characteristics of a hydrofoil. One of them is the panel

method. The panel method is also called the singularity method since it is based on the

distribution of singularities (sources, vortices, doublets) along the surface of the

hydrofoil.

Among the first scientists to work on the panel method were Hess and Smith

(1966). They proposed a method that determines the velocity and thereby the coefficient

of pressure at all points of the surface of the foil as well as the lift coefficient . The

theory consists of dividing the hydrofoil in a finite number of panels. Sources and

vortices, i.e. the singularities, are distributed on every panel to model the flow. The flow

is considered to be an incompressible potential flow. By applying the boundary

conditions and the Kutta condition, one can find the strengths of these singularities and

thus the hydrodynamic characteristics. In the Hess and Smith method, the strength of the

source is constant for each panel, while the vortex strength can be assumed to be constant

on the whole airfoil. Since then, others methods have followed, notably the vortex panel

method using velocity potential formulation in1971 by Mavriplis and Stevens. The

difference with the Hess and Smith method is that the flow solution is determined by

distributing the vortices on the surface of the body in a uniform flow in the presence of a

rotational or circulatory flow. The distribution of vortices here varies from one panel to

another. Three other panel methods are well known, namely: vortex panel method using

the stream function formulation, panel methods with constant doublets using potential

formulation (Morino and Kuo) and the panel method with linear doublets using a

potential formulation (Moran). However, the method using both the distribution of

3
sources and vortex is found to be most suitable and straightforward for the analysis of

hydrofoils submerged in shallow water or near the free surface.

1.2 Flapping Foil Propulsion

Autonomous Unmanned Vehicles (AUVs) designed to survey the oceans contain

many sensors. For these sensors, to function properly, they need to be stable position

during the survey. The stability of the AUV is even harder to maintain for vehicles

operating in shallow water and near a free surface due to the presence of waves. To

improve the stability, one can consider selecting the shape of the body of the AUV

appropriately. Matthew Bradley, a previous student of Ananthakrishnan, worked on that

particular subject and wrote a thesis entitled Hydrodynamic of Underwater Bodies for

Efficient Station Keeping in shallow Waters with Surface Waves. Different shapes

would have influence on how the current and waves will interact with the body. Another

way is to consider the system of propulsion of the AUV. In the ocean, fish show strong

abilities for maneuvering or stabilizing thanks to their undulated fins. They are a source

of inspiration for the studies related to biomimetic propulsion. The undulating fin can be

modeled by a sine wave of varying amplitude, frequency and wavelength. From this

observation, the idea of flapping-foil as a system of propulsion has emerged. Lighthill

(1969) was among the first to propose this device as an alternative to screw propellers.

Rozhdestvensky and Ryzhov (2003) [1] studied the development of flapping foil

propulsor and its application to marine vehicles. Li, Zhu, and Lu (2012) [2] analyzed the

efficiency and thrust of the tail fins of fish. They closely investigated the behavior of the

caudal fin that acts like a flapping foil and the influence of the foil shape. By varying the

Strouhal number, which is a function of the frequency and amplitude of the flapping fin,

4
and the Reynolds number, they were able to determine the characteristics of thrust and

efficiency generated by a rectangular plate and a forked fin. Their analysis shows that the

thrust and efficiency generated by the forked fin is greater than that of the rectangular

plate at higher Reynolds number but there is no noticeable difference at low Reynolds

number. The above finding suggests that for example, efficient station keeping the

vehicle would not need a forked fin due to the low fluid velocity over the fin during

station keeping. It should be noted however that these studies do not include surface

effects.

Von Ellenrieder (2007) [3] has comprehensively studied the performance of

flapping foil systems. By experimental and theoretical analysis, he showed that flapping-

foil thrusters can achieve high level efficiency under optimum conditions. He highlighted

the fact that the selection of Strouhal number is important to optimize the efficiency of a

flapping-foil.

In the research of performance of flapping-foil propulsion, one can find the work

of Triantafyllou et al (2005) [4] which serves as a reference in numerous studies. The

kinematics of the foil was indicated to be a key factor affecting efficiency of the system,

and so oscillation frequency, pitch amplitude, heaving amplitude, phase angle between

the heave and pitch motions have to be correctly chosen. Also, they succeeded in

identifying the parametric range in which adequate efficiency and high thrust are both

achieved.

In a recent research Ananthakrishnan (2014) [5] examined the free-surface effect

on the propulsive charactersitics of flapping foil propulsion of near-surface underwater

5
vehicles. The research established necessary conditions for optimal performance (i.e,

high thrust and high efficiency) are Strouhal number in the range of 0.25 to 0.35 and the

wave unsteady parameter (where U is the forward speed of the vehicle, the

flapping frequency and g acceleration of gravity) in the supercritical regime (> 0.25) so

that the waves are propagating downstream. The research also showed that at sub-critical

frequencies, upstream propagating waves adds to the drag of the vehicle and do not

contribute to thrust. At all frequencies, the proximity to the free surface decreased the

thrust coefficient of the flapping foil. At supercritical frequencies, it was found that

efficiency was improved by the downstream propagating waves.

The present thesis complements above research and findings by examining two-

dimensional effects of a flapping foil in the free surface using computationally efficient

vortex and panel methods. Special focus is on determining foil performance at high and

low frequencies of oscillations near the free surface.

1.3 Panel Method

To solve a problem involving both lifting and thickness effects, a method with

vortex and source singularity distribution can be used to model the flow. This method is

known as the Panel Method, from the fact that the profile of the body is discretized using

panels. Several panel methods have been developed and the main difference between

them resides in the choice of singularities (source, vortex, doublet) employed. Among

the pioneers of this subject are Hess and Smith (1966) [6]. They used a mixed panel

method by coupling sources and vortices distributions on each panel of the profile. The

strengths of the singularities are determined by the boundary conditions. Once the

6
strengths are known, one can determine the velocity field and pressure distribution

around the body. Mavriplis (1971), developed a panel method using only vortex

distribution on the panels. Morino and Kuo (1974) [7] used the Green function theory and

doublets distribution. Masson and Paraschivoiu (1990) [8] compared the difference

between the various panel methods. In their experience, the original method of Hess is

the most complex in term of evaluation of the influence coefficients. The methods that

use one type of singularities (vortices or doublets) appear to be less costly in time of

calculation. However, after comparing five methods mixed or not, they arrived to the

conclusion that pretty much all the methods worked equally well. In the present work, the

mixed coupled method with source and vortex distributions will be applied to our

problem. There are two main reasons for this choice. Firstly, many works have been done

so that the results obtained without free surface effects can be validated. Secondly, for the

free surface problem, a mixed method is more adaptable and more efficient.

The panel method of Hess and Smith was originally developed for steady flow

solution. Many studies have been conducted to extend the technique to unsteady flow,

notably those of Katz and Plotkin (1991) [9] and Basu and Hancock (1978) [10]. In the

unsteady problem, the motion of the hydrofoil continuously shed vortices into the trailing

wake. This vortex shedding process has to take into consideration the influence of the

wake vortices on the flow over the hydrofoil which in turn alters the vortex shedding as

the hydrofoil moves in time. An iterative type of solution is therefore needed for this non-

linear problem. In the present work, for developing the MATLAB code to solve these

equation governing the panel method, the works done by Teng (1987)[11] and Melli

(2008) [12] are followed.

7
1.4 Free Surface Effects

Some surveys require that AUVs operate in shallow water or near the surface of

the water. Hence, the interactions with the free surface and the incident waves have to be

taken into consideration in studying the efficiency and the thrust of the system of

propulsion of the AUV. Recent works have been done concerning the effect of free

surface on flapping-foil propulsion. Bal (1997) [13] applied a potential based method on

an oscillating body moving beneath the free surface. The hydrofoil is modeled by

constant source distribution and constant doublet distribution on each panel and a

Dirichlet condition is used. The free surface condition is determined by the method of

images applicable in the limiting cases of large or small Froude numbers or frequencies

of oscillation. The effect of cavitation is neglected. He compared his results to those

existing in the literature to good agreement. Filippas and Belibassakis (2013) [14]

continued the work of Bal by including the effects of incident waves. They first

performed an analysis of a non-lifting body beneath a free surface and then extended the

method to a flapping foil in the presence of waves. Their works show that the free surface

effects cannot be neglected and that the thrust and efficiency of flapping foil thrusters are

affected by the presence of waves in an appropriate parameter range of frequency and

therefore wavelength and depth of submergence of the foil below the free surface.

Research of Ananthakrishnan (2014) showed that unsteady parameter must be

supercritical for then the momentum transfer of downstream radiating waves to improve

propulsive characteristics of flapping foils near the free surface.

With regard to studies on nonlinear wave modeling, Baker et al (1982) [15]

developed a boundary integral method based on dipoles and the equations were

8
established for the complex velocity potential and the dipole strength. The formulation

was tested for steady and unsteady two-dimensional problems including spilling and

plunging wave breaking. Chen (1990) [16] investigated the free surface effect problem by

using a vortex panel method around a cylinder partially or totally submerged which

followed the work of Vorus (1996) concerning the vortex sheet model.

1.5 Thesis Objectives

The principal objective of this thesis is to determine the combined effect of wake

vortices and surface waves on the hydrodynamic performance of 2-D flapping foils for

near-surface underwater vehicles. To carry out this study, a numerical method using the

vortex and source panel method will be developed. The study would be divided into two

steps. The first one consists of determining the propulsive characteristics of a flapping-

foil in an unbounded fluid. Once this step is completed, we will proceed to determine the

hydrodynamic characteristics of a given hydrofoil near the surface water by taking into

account the free surface and wave effects. The obtained values will be compared to the

ones got by applying finite difference method based on boundary-fitted coordinates.

(Ananthakrishnan, 2014).

Several tasks and skills will be involved in order to achieve the objectives of this thesis:

Determination of hydrodynamic coefficients for a static hydrofoil in deep water

Determination of hydrodynamic coefficients for a flapping hydrofoil in deep

water

Determination of hydrodynamic coefficients for a flapping hydrofoil near the

water surface.

9
1.6 Scope and Contribution of this Thesis

As the flapping-foil propulsion has the potential to be used on small survey

vehicles which operate in shallow water of near surface, the effects of the free surface

and surface waves and their interactions with the wake of the body have to be considered

in order to determine the hydrodynamic performance of this system of propulsion.

As literature review suggests, numerous researches have been carried out on the

study of hydrofoil in deep water using the vortex-source panel method as a numerical

method to calculate the hydrodynamic coefficients which characterize a foil but not in

shallow water. The original contribution of the present thesis will be to study the

performance of flapping foils near the surface waves. This work aims to complement

previous work on the hydrodynamic performance of a flapping-foil near the free surface

using a finite difference method (Ananthakrishnan, 2014) in determining free-surface

effects on propulsive characteristics of flapping foils.

10
CHAPTER 2

FORMULATION OF THE POTENTIAL FLOW

In this chapter, we begin by introducing the problem and presenting the governing

equations used in the panel method. We also defined the boundaries and their equations.

2.1 Problem Formulation

As discussed in the previous chapter, the first part of this project involves

considering the problem of an underwater vehicle with flapping-foil propulsion

submerged in deep water. The study is carried out first in a steady flow (static foil) and

then in an unsteady flow (flapping foil).

As illustrated in Figure 2.1, we consider a 2D underwater vehicle of length ,

maximum width and fitted with flapping foil advancing with forward speed U (or

stationary in a uniform current of speed U in the opposite direction) and with as the

chord length. Let be the density of water and the acceleration of the gravity. In the

present work, the focus will be on determining the thrust and efficiency of the foil for a

range of parameters with flow assumed to be two dimensional.

11

U
D
c
D

Figure 2.1 AUV with flapping-foil propulsion in an infinite fluid.

2.2 Potential flow theory

Several assumptions are made concerning the flow field in which the method is

developed.

The flow is assumed to be an incompressible, and except for finite regions of vorticity, to

be given by a velocity potential. This means that:

- The flow is assumed to be insviscid, i.e. there is no viscosity effect. This

assumption leads us to an irrotational flow (since this is the viscous forces that

makes a flow rotational, except for finite regions of vorticity)

(2.1)

- The density of the fluid is constant. Thus, the flow is incompressible and so that

the continuity equation can be reduced to

(2.2)

- The flow is irrotational, this means that the velocity derives from a potential and

that

12
(2.3)

By substituting (2.3) in the equation of continuity for an incompressible fluid (2.2), one

can find the Laplace equation:

0 (2.4)

Since the equation is linear, we can superpose solutions.

2.3 Eulers Integral (Unsteady Bernouillis Equation)

Substituting and integrating one can obtain

the following Eulers integral which after solving the Laplace equation is used to

determine the pressure.

(2.5)

In the case of steady flow, the expression for the pressure coefficient is given by:

(2.6)

By using the Bernouillis equation and (2.3):

(2.7)

(2.8)

With ,

13
(2.9)

So that the coefficient of pressure becomes:

(2.10)

In the steady flow case =0

2.4 Singularity Elements: Elementary Solutions to the Laplace Equation

According to the principle of superposition, one can use fundamental solutions called

singularity solutions to model a particular flow governed by the Laplace equation. The

panel method described here follows the work proposed by Hess and Smith. The

singularity elements used are two dimensional constant strength sources, constant

strength vortex distribution and point vortex. The distributed elements are used on the

solid bodies, whereas the point vortices are used in the unsteady wake.

Constant strength source

Figure 2.2 Velocity induction from a source panel

14
For illustration, let us consider the source panel spanning coordinates on the x

axis, whose strength is located at of the panel.

The velocity induced at a point by a source distribution of strength per length

is given by:

(2.11)

(2.12)

(2.13)

Constant strength vortex

In a similar manner, the velocity induced at a point by a vortex of constant

strength is given by:

(2.14)

(2.15)

(2.16)

Point vortex

The velocity potential and velocity induced at a point due a vortex of strength is

given by:
15
(2.17)

(2.18)

(2.19)

Above singularities satisfy the Laplaces equation away from the singularities.

In case of flow about a foil, the velocity potential around the foil can be decomposed as

follows:

(2.20)

Potential of a uniform flow

Potential due to distribution of sources of strength per unit length (s)

Potential due to distribution of vortices of strength per unit length (s)

All potentials satisfying the Laplaces equation.

2.5 Body Boundary Conditions

2.5.1 The Neumann Condition

The body of the hydrofoil constitutes boundary condition for the flow. For impermeable

foil, the flow doesnt go through the surface of the hydrofoil, just slide along, in other

words:

(2.21)

16
(2.22)

where is the normal vector of the body surface and the gradient of potential is related to

the source and vortex strengths (disturbance flow). In infinite fluid flow, we can suppose

that perturbation induced by the foil will be negligible far away from this body and thus

as .

2.5.2 The Kutta Jukowski Condition

Application for the Kutta condition allows for viscosity effect for small angles of

attack, requiring that the velocity of the flow must remain finite and tangent to the foil at

the sharp trailing edge. This implies that the pressures on the upper and lower sides at the

trailing edge of a foil must be equal in order to make the flow leave the trailing edge

smoothly with finite velocity.

17
CHAPTER 3

SOURCE VORTEX PANEL METHOD

In this chapter, we begin by presenting the panel method in an unbounded fluid

for a stationary hydrofoil. Next, we extend the method to a moving foil, which we call the

unsteady state case. At the end of this chapter, the results found are presented and

compared to the ones obtained in past studies.

3.1 The Steady State Case

The Source Vortex Panel Method (SVPM) uses the principle of superposition of

singularity elements to model the flow around a stationary hydrofoil. The panel code

developed here follows the work proposed by Hess and Smith and consists by

distributing sources and vortex on the hydrofoil.

3.1.1 Geometry

The geometry is defined here by using an airfoil generator program which

calculates the foil coordinates. The coordinates are determined according to the NACA

offsets with chord length normalized to unity.

The first element is the lower trailing edge and the last one on the upper trailing

edge point. The points in between are distributed clockwise and monotonously. In total,

we have elements.

18
All nodes are connected with line segments that constitute the N panels. On the

middle of each panel, a control point or node is placed. At each of these control points,

the boundary conditions are satisfied.

For formulation and determination of pressure (as to be explained later in the

thesis), we define three different coordinate frames:

- The Inertial Frame

- The Body Frame where the foil is at rest.

- The Panel Frame with the normal vector of each panel that points

away from the foil and the origin at the control point.

z n

t
x

Figure 3.1- Coordinate Frames

3.1.2 Calculation of the influence coefficients

The influence coefficients are defined as the velocity induced at a field point by a

singularity of unit strength placed anywhere in the flow field. Here, we will compute the

velocity induced at the ith control point by the uniform source and vortices distribution on

all the panels . The strength of the sources varies from panel to panel whereas the

19
vorticity strength remains the same on all the panels. The normal components of

velocities are essential to satisfy the normal condition while the tangential ones are

necessary for the Kutta condition.

Velocity induced by source

The velocity induced at a control point by the panel of source intensity and

length in the reference frame T of the panel j is given by:

(3.1)

(3.2)

If P belongs to the panel, then

(3.3)

(3.4)

The coordinates of P are previously transformed from global coordinates to panel

coordinates:

(3.5)

(3.6)

20
where is the angle between the panel system and global system and are

the coordinates of the mid-point of panel in the global system.

The velocities obtained have to be transformed from panel coordinates to global

coordinates:

(3.7)

(3.8)

We can sum up these induced velocities in two matrices of size :

and and established the following relations:

(3.9)

(3.10)

If we project these matrices on the normal and tangential vectors of panel , we get:

and .

Velocity induced by a vortex

The velocities induced by a vortex and source are identical except that the

velocity is rotated 90 clockwise. Therefore, the induced velocity from a constant

strength vortex distribution in panel frame is given by:

21
(3.11)

(3.12)

If P belongs to the panel, then

(3.13)

(3.14)

Similarly, we can sum up these induced velocities in two matrices of size

: and with

(3.15)

(3.16)

3.1.4 The Neumann condition

The Neumann condition must be fulfilled in each of the control point. Hence, we get a

system of N equations:

22
(3.17)

where is the flow velocity projected onto the normal vector of each panel.

3.1.5 The Kutta Condition

The Kutta condition implies that the total tangential velocity on the upper and lower side

of the foil should be identical in steady flow. Thus,

(3.18)

(3.19)

(3.20)

(3.21)

(3.22)

(3.23)

We finally get the following system of equations for source and vortex strengths:

23
(3.24)

(3.25)

With this linear system, one can solve for the source and vortex strengths and the velocity

distribution can be evaluated.

The steady solution doesnt contradict the Kelvin Condition, in viewing the steady state

solution as limit of unsteady start. The unsteady starting vortex corresponding to the

steady lift is convected very far downstream to reach steady state, such that the influence

of the starting vortex becomes negligible.

3.2 The Unsteady Flow Case

The unsteady case, as in flapping motion, involves a time dependency of the terms in the

governing equations through the boundary conditions.

3.2.1 The kinematic velocity of the hydrofoil

We consider that the hydrofoil is moving forward in an opposite steady flow of

velocity , oscillating harmonically with a heave motion and with a pitch motion

24
which is the instantaneous angle between the chord of the hydrofoil and the flow

velocity .

Figure 3.2 - Illustration of a hydrofoil and principal dimensions.

We can define the following kinematic equations:

(3.26)

(3.27)

where is the phase angle between the heave and pitch motions, the heave amplitude,

the pitch amplitude and the flapping angular frequency (in radians /s).

The instantaneous angle of attack is given by

(3.28)

where is the heave velocity.

The important parameters to consider here are the phase angle , which is set to 90

here, the heave amplitude and the Strouhal number . The Strouhal number indicates

how often vortices are created in the foil wake and how close they are to each other:

25
(3.29)

3.2.2 The Kelvin Condition

The Kelvins theorem states that in an ideal fluid flow the total circulation in a flow

domain cannot change in time. This implies that any change in bound vortices on the foil

is reflected in the wake of the foil:

(3.30)

That means that for a step time k, the circulation of the shed vortex is equal to:

(3.31)

where is the total circulation at step time k-1.

The above equation defines the vortex shedding process. This shed vorticity takes place

through a small line wake element attached to the trailing edge of the foil and may be

considered as an additional panel with index N+1. At every time step, a panel vortex with

uniform and constant vorticity is formed at the trailing edge and then convected as a

discrete vortex with the flow at the each time step.

The wake panel is defined by its length and its inclination with the x axis of the

body fixed coordinate frame.

The circulation of the wake panel is:

(3.32)

Thus, per Kelvin condition we find,

26
(3.33)

where is the perimeter of the hydrofoil.

Furthermore, according to the assumptions made by Basu (1978), one can define the

length and the inclination of the wake panel as:

(3.34)

(3.35)

where and are the velocity components of the wake panel in the inertial

coordinate frame.

The presence of the wake panel and the shed vortices influence the singularity

distributions on the body. Similarly, the wake panel and shed vortices are influenced by

the source and vorticity distributions of the hydrofoil together with the free-stream

velocity. This modifies the linear equations used for the steady state case to non-linear

ones and requires a coupled or an iterative solution method to determine the strengths of

singularity distributions.

3.2.3 Velocity induced by the shed vortices

As described previously, a panel wake is shed as a discrete vortex into the wake to satisfy

the Kelvin condition. The velocity induced by the shed vortex with coordinates

( ) and with circulation at field point in the initial frame is given by:

27
(3.36)

(3.37)

The normal velocity induced in the control points due to the shed vortex at time step

is . The tangential velocity induced in the control points due to the shed vortex

at time step is .

In the unsteady foil problem, there are unknowns corresponding source

strengths on the foil, one constant vortex strength on the foil and the vortex strength of

the wake panel. We use no-flux conditions on the N body panels, pressure continuity

across panel 1 and panel and the Kelvins theorem of D /Dt = 0 to determine the

unknowns.

3.2.4 The Neumann Condition

As the shed vortices and the wake panel induce velocity in control points, one have to

take them into account in the Neumann condition. Also, the kinematic velocity of the

moving body must be added to this condition.

That leads to

(3.37)

28
One can represent this equation in the index notation as

(3.38)

3.2.5 The Kutta-Joukowski condition

The unsteady Kutta condition states that the velocity difference due to the vortex sheet

should be equal to the difference in the tangential velocities at the upper and lower

trailing edge panels.

To determine the vortex strength on the foil, let us again consider the unsteady

Bernouillis equation:

(3.39)

With

(3.40)

we obtain,

(3.41)

The square of the fluid velocity can be obtained by summing the square of the tangent

velocity and the normal component of the bodys kinematic velocity:

(3.42)

Likewise,

29
(3.43)

And the tangent velocity at the control point is given by,

(3.44)

3.2.6 Vortex convection in the wake

The wake panel is now assumed to be transformed in a discrete vortex of strength

and its position at time will be:

(3.45)

(3.46)

At each time step, the discrete vortices formed previously are moving with the flow. The

velocity of the vortex at time step in the inertial frame is:

(3.47)

(3.48)

30
Their positions are updated for the next time step with the following equation:

(3.49)

(3.50)

3.2.7 Pressure computation

The pressure coefficient is described, as previously said by:

(3.51)

For unsteady case, we need to also evaluate the change of velocity potential in time.

3.2.8 Forces acting on the motion of the body

By integrating the pressure over the body, one can found the overall force and moment

acting on the center of mass of the foil. Using Newtons laws, one can determined that

(3.52)

(3.53)

One can discretized the above equations by

(3.54)

(3.55)

31
Finally, the velocities found are given by

(3.56)

(3.57)

Since, these forces act on the motion of the foil, we have to adjust the position of the

hydrofoil before moving to the next time step.

(3.58)

(3.59)

3.2.9 Performance parameters

The aim of this study is to investigate the efficiency of flapping-foil propulsion. To do so,

several parameters are used.

We define first the thrust and lift coefficients per unit length as:

(3.60)

(3.61)

In the case of oscillating foil, the time-averaged (mean) thrust is determined as

(3.62)

where is the period of the motion of the hydrofoil.

32
The torque for a flapping foil is given as:

(3.63)

The mean (time averaged) power is given by

(3.64)

The efficiency of the propulsive mechanism is defined as:

(3.65)

3.2.10 The time-stepped advance procedure

The solution is advanced in time as illustrated in the flow chart on the next page.

33
tk = tk-1 + t

Update the geometry of the hydrofoil and velocity

Initial guess for wake panels length from


previous time step and inclination or update the
values from cycle

Compute the influence coefficients A, B, C

Obtain source distribution by Gaussian


elimination in terms of vorticity distribution

Invoke Kutta condition to solve for the vorticity


distribution

Source distribution can now be obtained

Update values for wake panels length and


inclination

No
Convergence of the
wake panel parameters?

Yes

Compute pressure and forces on the body

Advance discrete vortices positions and velocities

34
CHAPTER 4

RESULTS IN INFINITE FLUID

The profile used to validate the code is a NACA 0012 for the principal reason that a lot of

studies have been carried on this profile and many results are available. The results are

provided after 3 cycles and the last cycle is used to calculate the efficiency.

Results are obtained for a range of different keys parameters such as the Strouhal

Number, Froude Number and the amplitude and frequency of oscillation of the hydrofoil.

Also, the results corresponds to body stationary in an uniform current which is equivalent

to body translating in the opposite direction.

The variables are in a non-dimensional form with respect to and (even though g is

not a governing factor in the infinite fluid case. But to be consistent with the results in

the next chapter which includes free surface, where g is a factor and used for non-

dimensionalization, we chose to use the same set of variables for non-dimensionalization

here also).

The frequency can be non-dimensionalized:

(4.1)

We then use the Strouhal number:

35
(4.2)

where is the Froude Number

4.1 Heaving Motion (transverse motion)

We started to look at a pure heaving motion. The motion is described by the following

formula:

(4.3)

where is the amplitude of heaving and the oscillation frequency.

We run cases with different values for the amplitude and look at the efficiency obtained.

We compare our results with the work of Platzer and Tuncer Thrust generation due to

airfoil flapping.

The motion is described by .

Figure 4.1 - Motion of the flapping foil with the wake pattern at t = 3T, ,
, St =0.3 and

36
Figure 4.2 - Results obtained by Tuncer and Platzer.

They used 3 different methods of calculation, a Navier-Stokes solution (NS), an unsteady

potential flow solution (UPOT) and a combined Navier-Stokes / Potential Flow solution

(NSPOT).

37
2
Cl
1.5

0.5

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time (x/U)

Figure 4.3 - Time history of the lift coefficient at t = 3T, w*=1, Fn =0.32, St =0.1
and =0.1, as obtained in the present work.

0.15
Cd
Motion
0.1

0.05

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15

-0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time (x/U)

Figure 4.4 - Time history of the drag coefficient and motion at t = 3T, w*=1, Fn
=0.32, St =0.1 and =0.1, as obtained in the present work

38
Except the phase that differes from the two results, the amplitude of both drag and lift

coefficient are the same. So, a good correlation is obtained. The efficiency obtained by

performing the code is .

4.2 Pitching

We then look at a pure pitching motion. Once again, different cases are run and we

compute the following results.

The motion is described by

(4.4)

where is the amplitude of pitching and the oscillation frequency.

Case
1 1 0.1 0.3 43%
2 1 0.03 0.1 x
3 1 0.32 1 29%

The choice of the parameters were mainly focused on the range of the Strouhal number.

Results show that the best efficiency is obtained for for a Strouhal Number close to 0.3.

For a high Strouhal number ( ), high trhust is obtained but the efficiency is lower. On

the other hand, for a low Strouhal number ( ), there is only drag and no efficiency

can be computed.

39
Case 1

Figure 4.5 - Motion of the flapping foil with the wake pattern at t = 3T, w*=1, Fn=0.1, St =0.32 and
=0.1

6
Thrust
Motion
4 Torque

-2

-4

-6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time (x/U)
Figure 4.6 - Time history of the thrust, torque and motion at t = 3T, w*=1, Fn=0.32, St =0.3 and
=0.1

40
Case 2

0.15
Thrust
Motion
0.1
Torque

0.05

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15

-0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time (x/U)

Figure 4.7 - Time history of the thrust, torque and motion at t = 3T, w*=1, Fn=0.1, St =0.1 and =0.32

41
Case 3

5
Thrust
4 Motion
Torque
3

-1

-2

-3

-4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time (x/U)

Figure 4.8- Time history of the thrust, Torque and Motion at t = 3T, w*=1, Fn=0.1, St =1 and =0.03

42
CHAPTER 5

FREE SURFACE EFFECT

Having studied propulsive characteristics of a flapping foil in infinite fluid, we next

consider the flapping foil l located near the surface of the water.

U d h
D
c
D

Figure 5.1 - AUV with flapping-foil propulsion near a free surface

As for the problem in infinite fluid, we will look closer at the motion of the flapping foil

and the efficiency created by it, without considering the presence of the AUV.

5.1 Boundary Conditions

As considered in the infinite fluid case previously, for an incompressible fluid,

43
(5.1)

At the mean free surface position , the linearized dynamic condition is given by,

(5.2)

where is the surface elevation.

Along with the kinematic condition = , one can obtain the combined free surface

boundary condition as

(5.3)

The free surface adds a new boundary condition to the system of equation. Indeed, the

singularities present on the body and in the wake are influenced by the free surface effect

and vice versa. So, singularities are induced in such a way to satisfy the boundary

condition of free surface also.

For the linear time-harmonic case, the potential corresponding to flapping foil can be

written as . For the time harmonic case, the combined free-surface

condition becomes

(5.4)

44
(5.5)

Finally, we obtain,

(5.6)

In the limiting case of small frequency ( <0.1) and large frequency ( >10)

the above boundary condition can be simplified as given below.

In both cases, the solution can be obtained by introducing an image body above the free

surface. The motion of the image body together with the sign of the images source

strengths and vortex will depend on the case.

As seen on the following picture, the foil is underwater at a distance d from the free

surface, and the image body is located at a same distance d above the free surface.

Image Body

d
Free Surface

d
Body

Figure 5.2 - Hydrofoil and its image above the free surface

45
5.2 First Limiting Case: Small Frequency

As < 0.1, the above boundary condition can be

simplified to

(5.7)

This means that the surface behaves like a wall and its a symmetry condition. The effect

of the free surface can be included by distributing images sources of same strengths and

vortex of opposite strength above the free surface. The velocity induced on the body has

to be now determined for both of the actual and images singularities.

The following picture summarizes the above statement.

Image Source Image Vortex

Free Surface

Source Vortex

Figure 5.3 - Singularities and their images in the case


of a small reduced frequency at low Fn number

46
As its a symmetry condition, the motion of the image body is the same as the body itself.

The image wake panel, symbolized in black, has the same motion that the wake panel

itself.

Image Body

d
Free Surface

Body

Figure 5.4 - Motion of the hydrofoil and its image in


case of a small reduced frequency

5.3 Second Limiting Case: Large Frequency

As >10, the combined free-surface condition

becomes

(5.8)

which means that the surface behaves like an anti-symmetric plane. In this case, the effect

of the free surface can be included by distributing image sources of opposite strengths

47
and vortex of same strength above the free surface. The velocity induced on the body has

to be now determined for both of the actual and images singularities.

The following picture summarizes the above statement.

Image Source Image Vortex

Free Surface

Source Vortex

Figure 5.5 - Singularities and their images in the case


of a high reduced frequency

As its an anti-symmetry condition, the motion of the image body is opposite to the one

of the body. The image wake panel, symbolized in black, has also an opposite motion.

48
Image Body

d
Free Surface

Body

Figure 5.6 - Motion of the hydrofoil and its image in


case of a high reduced frequency

5.4 Extension of the Code to Include Free Surface Effect

We now have to take into account the Free Surface Boundary Condition into our

code. Some added equations have to be inputted. The main modification is in the process

of the calculation of the influence coefficients. The solution would result from these new

influence coefficients.

First, we have to create the image body. Its the exactly same body but translated

from a distance of over it. So then, the body is from a distance under the free

surface and the image body is from a distance above the free surface. Depending on the

considered limit case, the motion of the image body would be different. If we are looking

at the case of a small frequency, the image body would have exactly the same motion.

For large frequencies, the motion of the image body would the exact opposite of the one

of the body.

49
Once the image body is created, we can determinate the influence coefficients.

The image body has the same source strengths and vortex circulation as the body, only

their sign will change in accordance with the case. So, we still have unknown source

strengths , an unknown circulation of the body , and an unknown circulation of the

wake panel (in summary, unknowns). Only the distance will be changed

when looking at the influence of a panel and its image.

Collocation point

Figure 5.7 - Influence of a source panel j and its image on


the panel i

The normal velocity at the collocation point is now:

50
(5.9)

The same applies for the tangential velocity.

We added the influence from the image sources, image vortex, image wake panel

and image discrete vortices of the wake.

Finally, the forces and efficiency of the foil can be computed.

51
CHAPTER 6

RESULTS WITH FREE SURFACE

As a free surface has been introduced in the problem, a new non-dimensional

parameter need to be added. This parameter is called the unsteady frequency parameter

and is defined as

(6.1)

According to previous studies, two ranges can be determined:

- , this is the sub-critical range. Propagating waves are moving

upstream and downstream and the upstream propagating waves may

contribute to drag instead of thrust. This case is not therefore investigated.

- , this the super-critical range. Propagating waves are only moving

downstream, this is the preferred case as the downstream waves may

contribute to additional thrust. For the results, only values corresponding to

the super-critical range for are considered.

With regard to the Strouhal number, the cases will be run in the optimum range of

52
The depth of submergence of the vehicle now steps in the parameters governing the

problem. The nondimensional depth will have an effect as it determines the

proximity of the foil to the free surface.

If , where is the wavelength, the free surface effect can be considered

negligible as per the wave theory.

Also since the parameters are numerous, we take water to be deep ( ) with the

bottom boundary replaced by an open boundary .

Results are thus presented for high and low reduced frequency the angular amplitude

of flap motion , depth of body submergence , Froude number Strouhal number

, unsteady frequency parameter .

6.1 First Limiting Case: High Reduced Frequency

In this section we consider the case of pure pitching motion of the foil. The foil is

set to oscillation as . Results are obtained for a ranger of parameters as

listed in the table below.

Case d .
1 No FS 2 0.125 0.057 0.3 0.25 10%
2 1 2 0.125 0.057 0.3 0.25 23%
3 0.2 2 0.125 0.057 0.3 0.25 33%
4 1 3 0.32 0.09 0.27 0.96 13%
5 0.3 3 0.32 0.09 0.27 0.96 19%
6 1 10 0.1 0.009 0.3 1 9%
7 0.5 10 0.1 0.009 0.3 1 17%

The efficiencies found are low compared to past studies (e.g., Ananthakrishnan, 2014)

which may be due to incomplete modeling of the free surface here by which the free

53
surface is set to remain flat and perhaps because the present model is valid only in the

liming case of infinite frequency. However, the most important observation made here is

that the free surface does affect the propulsive characteristics of the flapping foil. In

Figures 6.1 to 6.6, results with and without free-surface effects on the flow structures and

thrust are compared. In Figures 6.1, 6.3 and 6.5 the flow structures with and without free

surface at two different depths or submergence are compared. The wake vortex structure

is almost symmetric about the centerline without the free surface; both positive and

negative vortex structures are of same intensity as to be expected. On the other hand, in

the presence of the free surface, the symmetry is lost and the (as one can observe in the

thrust curves of Figure 6.3, for example, the vortex wake not aligned along the centerline

of the foil. Such evolution of the vortex wake in the presence of the free surface can be

observed in the cases presented in subsequent Figures 6.7 to 6.14. The alignment of the

vortex structures determine if the wake is jet like, which creates thrust, or wake like due

to drag. The influence of the free surface on the evolution of the wake vortex structures

thus affect the thrust creating ability of the foil. Another interesting observation from the

results is that at high frequency of oscillation in the presence of free surface, the

generation of the second harmonic component of the thrust is suppressed (as one can

observe in the thrust curves of Figure. 6.2 which is without free surface and Figure 6.4

which is with the free surface. The present results point to the significance of the free

surface. Further improvement of the model is however necessary, including a more

complete modeling of the free surface, in order to determine the free-surface effects in a

more quantitatively accurate manner. The extension of the numerical model and possible

topics for future research in this area are discussed in the next chapter.

54
Case 1 (without free surface)

Figure 6.1 - Motion of the flapping foil with the wake pattern at t = 3T, no FS, w*=2, Fn=0.125, St
=0.3 and =0.057

Figure 6.2 - Time history of the thrust, torque and motion at t = 3T, no FS, w*=2, Fn=0.125, St =0.3
and =0.057

55
Case 2 (with free surface)

Figure 6.3 - Motion of the flapping foil with the wake pattern at t = 1.5T, d=1,
w*=2, Fn=0.125, St =0.3 and =0.057

Figure 6.4 - Time history of the thrust, torque and motion at t = 3T, d=1, w*=2,
Fn=0.125, St =0.3 and ==0.047

56
Case 3 (with free surface)

Figure 6.5- Motion of the flapping foil with the wake pattern at t = 1.5T, d=0.2, w*=2, Fn=0.125, St
=0.3 and =0.057

Figure 6.6 - Time history of the thrust, torque and motion at t = 3T, d=0.2, w*=2, Fn=0.125, St =0.29
and =0.047

57
Case 4 (with free surface)

Figure 6.7 - Motion of the flapping foil with the wake pattern at t = 2T, d=1, w*=3, Fn=0.32, St
=0.27 and =0.09

Figure 6.8 - Time history of the thrust, torque and motion at t = 2T, d=1, w*=3, Fn=0.32,
St =0.27 and =0.09

58
Case 5 (with free surface)

Figure 6.9 - Motion of the flapping foil with the wake pattern at t = 2T, d=0.3,
w*=3, Fn=0.32, St =0.27 and =0.09

Figure 6.10 - Time history of the thrust, torque and motion at t = 2T, d=0.3, w*=3,
Fn=0.32, St =0.27 and =0.09

59
Case 6 (with free surface)

Figure 6.11 - Motion of the flapping foil with the wake pattern at t = 3T, d=1, w*=10, Fn=0.1, St
=0.3and =0.009

Figure 6.12 - Time history of the thrust, torque and motion at t = 3T, d=1, w*=10, Fn=0.1, St =0.3 and
=0.009

60
Case 7 (with free surface)

Figure 6.13 - Motion of the flapping foil with the wake pattern at t = 3T, d=0.5, w*=10, Fn=0.1, St
=0.3and =0.009

Figure 6.14 - Time history of the thrust, torque and motion at t = 3T, d=0.5, w*=10, Fn=0.1, St
=0.3and =0.009

61
6.2 Second Limiting Case: Low Reduced Frequency

In order to perform the second case, one need to take a low reduced frequency ,

that is to say Thereof, we can choose the others parameters.

However, with , to obtain a good unsteady frequency parameter (

, the Froude Number has be at least equal to 2.5 and this places the case in a

supercritical flow.

Likewise, if we ignore the parameter and choose the Strouhal number to be

, this means that the amplitude of oscillation has to be

with . The code only works for small amplitude of oscillation and 40 deg is not

considered as a small amplitude.

With very low frequency needed for the algorithm to work in the limiting case,

one cannot achieve optimal range of Strouhal number and unsteady wave parameter.

Therefore, the algorithm is not used to study low frequency cases with free surface.

62
CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION

In this thesis, an efficient numerical algorithm based on source and vortex

distributions is developed to study the hydrodynamic performance of flapping foil

propulsion in unbounded fluid and in the presence of a free surface. The unbounded fluid

case results compare favorably with that given in earlier works, thus validating the

method and the numerical algorithm. High and low frequency oscillations near the free

surface is modeled through the method of images. Results confirm that free surface

effects can be significant even at low Froude number. At high frequencies, and low

Froude number, the results show that for Strouhal number in the range of 0.25 to 0.35 and

wave unsteady parameter larger than 0.25, the efficiency increases because of the

momentum transfer in the downstream propagating waves. Also, the free surface breaks

the symmetry of the foil motion resulting in higher harmonic frequency component of the

thrust less significant. The case of low frequency with free surface was not analyzed

because the parameters do not fall within optimal range of Strouhal number and wave

unsteady parameter for very low frequency unless the amplitude of oscillation is too large

for the assumptions made in the analysis to hold good. Our results show that effect of the

free surface is significant. But for the momentum transfer of waves to contribute to the

thrust, a model has to allow the generation of waves by the flapping foil. In the present

work, we let the free-surface to remain flat, in order to determine the image of the foil,

63
and do not consider the generation of waves. Further works that will allow the

generation of waves may shed more light on the effect of the free surface on the flapping

foil performance, as for example, found in recent works of Ananthakrishnan (2014).

As future work, one may extend the algorithm for all ranges of frequency and

Froude number, for example by combining the present algorithm with the vortex

algorithm for nonlinear free-surface flows (as developed in Baker, Meiron and Orszag,

1982) and then obtaining the results for all ranges of parameters. One can also

incorporate the presence of the vehicle hull to study the wake effects of the hull on the

propulsive performance of the flapping foil and vice versa. One may then pursue three

dimensional analysis with proper choice vortex filaments such as horseshoe vortices to

model the three-dimensional foil.

64
BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] Rozhdestvensky KV, Ryzhov VA, Aerohydrodynamics of Flapping-Wing


Propulsors, Prog Aerosp Sci, 2003. Vol. 39(8). 585633.

[2] Li, G., L. Zhu, X. Lu, Numerical Studies on Locomotion Performance of Fish-like
Tail Fins, Journal of Hydrodynamics, 2012. Vol. 24. 488-495.

[3] K.D von Ellenrieder, K. Paker, J. Soria, Fluid Mechanics of flapping wings,
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science,2008. Vol 32 1578-1589

[4] Schouveiler L, Hover FS, Triantafyllou MS, Performance of Flapping-Foil


Propulsion, Journal Fluids Struct, 2005. Vol. 20(7). 94959.

[5] P. Ananthakrishnan, Hydrodynamic Analysis of Flapping Foils for the Propulsion of


Shallow-Water and Near-Surface Underwater Vehicles, in Proceedings of 33rd
International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2014, San
Francisco, 2014.

[6] Hess J.L., Smith A.M.O., Calculation of Potential Flow about Arbitrary Bodies,
Progress in Aeronautic Sciences, 1966, Vol.8, 1-138

[7] Morino L, Kuo C.C, Subsonic Potential Aerodynamics For Complex Configurations
- A General Theory, AIAA Journal 1974. Vol. 12, 191-197

[8] Masson C., Paraschivoiu I., Description et Comparaison de Cinq Mthodes de


Panneaux en Deux Dimensions, 1990

[9] Katz J., Plotkin A., Low-Speed Aerodynamics from Wing Theory to Panel Methods,
Mc-Graw Hill, Inc. 1991.
[10] Basu BC, Hancock GJ, The Unsteady Motion of a Two-Dimensional Aerofoil in
Incompressible Inviscid Flow, J Fluid Mech 1978. Vol. 87(1), 15978.
[11] Teng NH., The Development of a Computer Code (U2DIIF) for The Numerical
Solution of Unsteady, Inviscid and Incompressible Flow over an Airfoil, 1987
[12] Melli J., A Hierarchy of Models for the Control of Fish-like Motion, PhD
Dissertation, Princeton University, 2008, 236p.

65
[13] Bal S., A Potential Based Panel Method for 2-D Hydrofoils, Ocean Engineering,
1999, Vol.26, 343-361
[14] Filippas E.S., Belibassakis K. A., Free Surface Effects on Hydrodynamic Analysis
of Flapping Foil Thruster in Waves, Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements ,
2014, Vol. 41, 47-59
[15] Baker G., Meiron D., Orszag S., Generalized Vortex Methods for Free-Surface
Flow Problems, Journal Fluid Mechanics, 1982. Vol. 123, 477-501
[16] Chen L., Application of a Vortex Method to Free Surface Flows, PhD Dissertation,
University of Michigan 1990, 169p.

66